RecSys Related Work

Use this to audit novelty and eligibility. Reopen the current Call for Contributions for dual-submission, anonymity, and prior-publication rules before advising authors.

Positioning checks

• Separate the recommendation contribution from generic ML improvement: a new ranking objective, user/item modeling idea, evaluation protocol, off-policy estimator, or empirical insight about deployed behavior.
• Cover the recommendation subfields your claim touches: collaborative filtering, sequential/ session models, off-policy/counterfactual evaluation, fairness/diversity/exposure, and — for any empirical claim — the reproducibility-critique line.
• Treat ACM Digital Library, journal, and formal conference proceedings as archival unless current rules say otherwise.
• Cite arXiv and prior-version work so double-blind review survives; do not point reviewers to identity-revealing pages.
• Explain overlap with any concurrent or prior version, and do not submit duplicate archival work.

Neighbor-venue coverage table

RecSys is a single-domain venue, but its neighbors publish recommendation-relevant work. A reviewer checks whether you cite the right neighbor, not just RecSys itself.

A bibliography that cites only RecSys papers tells a reviewer you may have missed the method that already solved this at a neighbor venue — a recognizable reject pattern that benchmark strength does not repair.

Positioning vignette

Imagine the paper proposes an exposure-corrected session ranker. Its nearest neighbors: a SIGIR neural ranker with no exposure correction, a KDD paper on sampled-metric bias, and a prior RecSys counterfactual-embedding paper. The novelty sentence should name all three contrasts — exposure handling where the SIGIR line ignored it, full-ranking evaluation answering the KDD critique, and a session-level objective where the prior RecSys work was static.

Concurrent-work judgment calls

• Independently concurrent arXiv work: cite neutrally, state the technical difference, avoid priority claims reviewers cannot verify.
• Your own prior version: verify its archival status against the current CFP and phrase the citation so double-blind review survives.
• When unsure whether a venue is archival, declare the overlap on the submission form rather than gambling on a chair's interpretation.

Output format

[Eligibility] clear / needs declaration / risky
[Closest subfields] <CF / sequential / off-policy / fairness / reproducibility>
[Nearest 3 works] <work -> distinction (with true venue)>
[Archival-overlap risk] <none / issues>
[Novelty sentence] <RecSys-ready recommendation contribution contrast>