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.
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 |
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.
[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>