ipsn-related-work
GitHub指导如何针对IPSN等会议撰写相关工作，强调以差异对比而非罗列方式定位论文。涵盖区分系统与信号处理创新、覆盖双领域文献、遵守双盲评审及声明版本重叠等规范，确保新颖性审计合规。
Trigger Scenarios
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill ipsn-related-work -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "ipsn-related-work",
"description": "Use when positioning an IPSN-lineage submission against the sensor-networks and information-processing literature (IPSN, SenSys, MobiCom, MobiSys, INFOCOM, and signal-processing venues), writing delta-first contrast rather than a citation catalog, keeping self-citations double-blind, and handling concurrent, preprint, and prior-version overlap."
}
IPSN Related Work
Use this to audit novelty and eligibility. IPSN reviewers span two literatures — the sensor-systems world (IPSN/SenSys/MobiCom/MobiSys/INFOCOM) and the information-processing/signal-processing world — and they expect to see where your paper sits relative to the nearest prior work, stated as a delta, not a list. Because IPSN merged into SenSys, reopen the current successor call for dual-submission, anonymity, and prior-publication rules before advising.
Positioning checks
- Separate the sensing/information-processing novelty from the engineering effort. What is new: a new estimator, a new platform, a new measurement, a new deployment regime, or an on-device method nobody had made fit?
- Cover both lanes. An IP-track paper still owes the systems lane (has a sensor system done this end-to-end?) and the theory lane (is there an estimation/SP result you must cite?). A SPOTS paper owes the platform and tools lineage. A bibliography missing the obvious sibling work reads as unaware.
- Write delta-first. Each closely related paper gets one sentence naming what it did and one naming what you do differently — not a summary. Position, don't catalog.
- Preserve double-blind. Cite your own prior work in the third person; never link reviewers to an identity-revealing preprint, firmware repo, dataset DOI, or homepage.
- Declare overlap with any prior workshop/short version or concurrent submission; do not re-submit archival work as new.
Sensing/IP literature lanes
| Lane | Typical venues | What IPSN reviewers check |
|---|---|---|
| Sensor systems flagships | IPSN, SenSys | Whether the nearest end-to-end sensing system is compared or distinguished |
| Mobile/ubiquitous sensing | MobiCom, MobiSys, UbiComp | Whether mobile/wearable predecessors of your modality are credited |
| Networking / measurement | INFOCOM, NSDI | Whether protocol/throughput/measurement predecessors are engaged |
| Information processing / SP | IEEE TSP, ICASSP, SP journals | Whether the estimation/signal-processing result you build on is cited to its origin |
| CPS-IoT Week neighbors | RTAS, ICCPS, HSCC | Whether timing/control/CPS work you border is acknowledged when relevant |
A bibliography that cites only your own subarea tells a reviewer the delta may be smaller than claimed; one that reaches both the systems flagships and the signal-processing origin signals command of the field.
Delta-first positioning vignette
Suppose the paper proposes an on-device acoustic-event detector with an energy budget. Its nearest neighbors: a SenSys system that detects the same event but wakes the main processor often (systems, energy-costly), an ICASSP model with high offline accuracy but no on-device story (SP, not deployed), and an IPSN localization-style cascade idea (related mechanism, different task). The novelty sentence should name all three contrasts — an energy-bounded cascade where the systems work spent power freely, an on-device realization where the SP work stayed offline, and a new task where the cascade idea was applied elsewhere.
Concurrent and prior-version judgment calls
[Concurrent arXiv work] cite neutrally, state the technical difference, avoid unverifiable
priority claims; keep the citation double-blind
[Your workshop version] often non-archival and citable, but confirm against the current CFP and
phrase so anonymity survives
[Prior poster/demo] declare the overlap and state what the full paper adds beyond it
[Dataset re-use] if you reuse a public dataset, cite it and state what is new; a re-report
of old numbers with no new question is not a contribution
Eligibility red flags
- Substantial text/result overlap with a published paper by the same authors (self-plagiarism risk).
- A "new" deployment that re-reports a prior dataset's numbers without a new sensing question.
- Citations exclusively to pure-ML or pure-networking venues, signaling a visitor rerouted without reframing to the sensing/information-processing contribution.
Output format
[Eligibility] clear / needs declaration / risky
[Lanes covered] <sensor-systems / mobile-sensing / networking / signal-processing / CPS-neighbors>
[Nearest 3 works] <work -> one-line delta>
[Archival-overlap risk] <none / declare: what>
[Novelty sentence] <IPSN-ready contribution contrast against the nearest prior work, both lanes>
Version History
- 9f86f09 Current 2026-07-19 16:04
