By name: ijcai-related-work description: Use when positioning an IJCAI or IJCAI-ECAI submission against archival AI literature, arXiv preprints, workshop papers, prior rejected versions, dual-submission rules, shortened prior versions, and resubmission-information requirements.
IJCAI Related Work
Use this to audit novelty, prior work, and submission eligibility. Reopen the current CFP and submissions FAQ because resubmission and dual-submission rules are policy-sensitive.
Positioning checks
- Distinguish non-archival workshop or poster versions from formally published proceedings with DOI, ISBN, or ISSN.
- If the paper was rejected by another peer-reviewed conference in the last 12 months, prepare the required anonymized rejected version and reviews; the response cover letter may be optional depending on current rules.
- Cite author preprints and prior work in third person. A non-anonymous arXiv version may be allowed, but the IJCAI submission itself must remain anonymous.
- Do not submit a paper that is under review, accepted, or published at another formal archival venue during the IJCAI review period.
- If a substantially shorter extended abstract, poster, or position paper exists, declare it when current rules require and explain the new technical content.
- Make the related-work section decision-useful: closest competing claims, why they are insufficient, and exactly what is new here.
Positioning across IJCAI's breadth
Because IJCAI spans symbolic AI, search, planning, KR, constraint reasoning, multi-agent, game theory, ML, NLP, and vision, the closest prior work may live in a different subcommunity than the authors'. A reviewer from that adjacent area will know the literature you skipped.
| Prior-work source | Eligibility/anonymity handling | Positioning duty |
|---|---|---|
| Archival proceedings (DOI/ISBN/ISSN) | Cite normally; counts as published | Distinguish your claim from it |
| Non-archival workshop/poster | Usually citable, not a dual-submission bar | Declare if a shorter prior version |
| Author arXiv preprint | Non-anonymous arXiv may be allowed; submission stays anonymous | Cite in third person |
| Recent rejected version (≤12 months) | Prepare anonymized rejected version and reviews | Disclose per current rules |
| Concurrent archival submission | Not permitted during the review period | Resolve before upload |
Worked vignette: a search paper missing an adjacent baseline
A bidirectional-search paper cites only recent search venues and omits a closely related planning-community result. An IJCAI planning reviewer flags the gap as a novelty threat. Fix: add the planning result to the closest-works set, state precisely why it does not subsume the new bound, and write a one-sentence novelty contrast a non-search reviewer can verify. If the paper is a shortened version of a prior workshop poster, declare that and describe the added technical content.
Reviewer pushback and the venue-specific fix
- "Missed obvious prior art." Search the adjacent subfield, not just your home venue, since IJCAI reviewers cross subcommunities.
- "Looks like double submission." Confirm no concurrent archival submission and prepare the resubmission package if a recent rejection exists.
- "Related work is a list, not an argument." Convert it to closest claims, why insufficient, and what is new.
Output format
[Eligibility] clear / needs declaration / risky
[Closest works] <3-5 items and distinction>
[Resubmission package] <needed/not needed/unknown>
[Dual-submission risk] <none/issues>
[Novelty sentence] <IJCAI-ready contribution contrast>