This skill guides authors on positioning manuscripts for the IEEE RO-MAN conference. It helps assess suitability, reframes content from general CS styles, and structures the narrative around core human-robot communication, social behavior, and interaction design. Use it for strategic venue selection and improving submission quality for human-robot interaction research.
IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN)
Conference positioning
IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN) is a top computer-science conference venue for robot-human communication, social behavior, assistive robotics, interaction design, and evaluation. It rewards a robot-interaction paper where communication behavior and human evidence are central. Treat this skill as a fit / venue-selection / re-framing tool for conference submission strategy, not as a substitute for the current year's CFP, author kit, ethics policy, or submission portal.
Because CS conferences change deadlines, templates, page limits, review workflow, artifact rules, AI-use policy, and rebuttal formats every cycle, always verify the live official instructions before making a submission-ready recommendation. Start from the official source anchor recorded for this venue in ../../resources/conference-roster.md and ../../resources/official-source-map.md.
When to trigger
The author names RO-MAN / IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication as the target venue.
A manuscript in robot-human communication needs a conference-fit read before being formatted or submitted.
The paper must be re-framed from journal style or arXiv style into a selective CS conference narrative.
The author needs an evidence-gap, anonymity, artifact, rebuttal, or re-routing diagnosis for this venue.
Scope & topic fit
Core fit: robot-human communication, social behavior, assistive robotics, interaction design, and evaluation.
Best submissions make a precise contribution type visible: algorithm, theorem, system, dataset, benchmark, empirical finding, design artifact, tool, or socio-technical analysis.
The paper should explain why the result matters to RO-MAN's reviewers, not just why it is interesting to the authors' lab or product context.
Position related work against the most recent conference-cycle papers in this venue and its closest siblings; stale comparisons are a common early-review weakness.
If the contribution is interdisciplinary, state which part is CS research and which part is domain evidence.
Venue-specific calibration
Reviewer lens: Treat RO-MAN as a human-robot communication venue whose reviewers expect the scope and evidence to match its own community. Do not submit a generic CS paper until the introduction names the exact subcommunity, contribution type, and proof or empirical standard.
Contribution hook to foreground: the venue-specific contribution bar.
Scope vocabulary to use naturally in the abstract and introduction: robot-human communication, social behavior, assistive robotics, interaction design, and evaluation.
Official anchor domain: www.ieee-ras.org. Quote annual rules only after opening that source and the current-year CFP/author kit.
Close-neighbor routing guardrail
Use this profile only when the manuscript's central contribution is genuinely in human-robot
communication and the author can say why RO-MAN reviewers are the primary audience, not
merely a convenient deadline.
Closest roster neighbors to compare before final routing: robotics-science-and-systems
(RSS), acm-ieee-international-conference-on-human-robot-interaction (HRI), ieee- international-conference-on-automation-science-and-engineering (CASE), international- symposium-on-robotics-research (ISRR). Break ties by contribution type, evidence shape,
reviewer community, and the current official CFP from www.ieee-ras.org.
What distinguishes this venue from its closest siblings
What RO-MAN is. The IEEE symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication — social and cognitive human–robot interaction, dialogue, trust, and interaction studies.
vs CASE. CASE is industrial automation science & engineering — an entirely different audience; route interaction studies here, automation-systems work there.
vs ACM/IEEE HRI. HRI is the other major HRI venue; differentiate by community and cycle, and send pure perception/control to ICRA/IROS.
RO-MAN-specific routing detail
Prefer RO-MAN when the contribution depends on human-robot communication, social signals, dialogue, trust calibration, assistive interaction, user study design, or interaction behavior.
Route manufacturing/logistics automation and scheduling systems to CASE; route general robotics control/perception to ICRA/IROS/RSS when human interaction is not central.
RO-MAN evidence should include participant protocol, interaction measures, robot behavior, communication failure cases, and ethical handling of human-subject context.
Method & evidence bar
Report hardware, simulation, environment, task distribution, reset procedure, and failure cases; embodied evidence must be inspectable.
Compare against meaningful robot-learning, planning, or control baselines under matched assumptions.
Separate simulation gains from real-world transfer and quantify reliability, not only best-case success.
For RO-MAN, the evidence must support the venue-specific signature: a robot-interaction paper where communication behavior and human evidence are central.
Include limitations, negative results, compute/resource reporting, data provenance, and ethics details when they affect the claim.
Structure & house style
Lead with the robot task and system constraint before the algorithmic component.
Use video or supplementary material only as allowed by the current anonymous-review policy.
Use the current official template exactly; do not guess page limits, font sizes, supplement rules, anonymity exceptions, or camera-ready requirements from old cycles.
The introduction should answer: problem, why now, what is new, why this venue, and what evidence proves the claim.
Put the strongest result in the main paper, not only in the appendix or supplement; reviewers should not have to reconstruct the contribution.
Re-check the current cycle's CFP, author kit, submission system, abstract/paper deadlines, page limits, supplementary-material rules, anonymity policy, dual-submission policy, ethics policy, AI-use policy, artifact/code/data expectations, rebuttal/author-response format, and camera-ready requirements.
Confirm the review workflow and portal: OpenReview / CMT / HotCRP / PCS / START or society portal, as specified for the current cycle.
Check whether accepted papers require in-person presentation, separate registration, artifact badges, proceedings copyright, or post-acceptance release forms.
If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions win.
Pre-submission self-check
One sentence states why this manuscript belongs at RO-MAN, using the venue's scope rather than generic "top conference" language.
The claim is calibrated to the evidence: no broader than the datasets, proofs, systems, user studies, deployments, or threat model support.
Related work includes the nearest current-cycle human-robot communication papers and explains the technical delta.
The paper satisfies the current official template, anonymity, ethics, artifact, and rebuttal requirements.
The main paper is self-contained enough for reviewers to evaluate novelty and correctness without hunting through external links.
Common desk-reject triggers
Simulation-only evidence for a claim about real robots.
No clear task distribution, few trials, or missing failure analysis.
A learning curve without robot-specific insight or system integration.
Formatting, anonymity, dual-submission, external-link, or supplement violations under the current-year policy.
A contribution framed for a neighboring field while giving RO-MAN reviewers too little technical or empirical substance.
Re-routing decision
If the paper misses RO-MAN's bar, compare against ieee-international-conference-on-robotics-and-automation / ieee-rsj-international-conference-on-intelligent-robots-and-systems / robotics-science-and-systems / conference-on-robot-learning. Re-route based on contribution type, not prestige: theory to a theory venue, systems to a systems venue, application-heavy work to a domain venue, and early ideas to workshops or shorter tracks when the official CFP supports them.
Output format
[Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason)
[Target] IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN)
[Contribution type] algorithm / theory / system / dataset / benchmark / empirical / design / security / other
[Main evidence gap] <single most important missing proof, experiment, study, artifact, or policy check>
[Official items to re-check] CFP / author kit / deadline / format / anonymity / ethics / AI-use / artifact / rebuttal / camera-ready
[Top rejection risk] <venue-specific risk>
[Re-route suggestion] <better-matched conference or journal if not a fit>
