iros-related-work
GitHub用于审核IROS投稿的系统性贡献定位、新颖性及合规性。涵盖与ICRA/RSS等会议及期刊的对比，确保双盲评审下的匿名引用规范，处理并发工作重叠，并验证是否符合双重提交与先前发表规则。
Trigger Scenarios
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill iros-related-work -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "iros-related-work",
"description": "Use when positioning an IROS submission against robotics-systems literature across ICRA, IROS, RSS, CoRL, RA-L, and T-RO, covering the lanes embodied-systems reviewers check, concurrent arXiv work, prior-version overlap, IEEE Xplore archival status, and keeping self-citations anonymous under the double-anonymous cycle."
}
IROS Related Work
Use this to audit novelty and eligibility. Reopen the current CFP for dual-submission, anonymity, and prior-publication rules before advising authors. At IROS the question a reviewer asks is not only "is this new?" but "does the paper know the nearest systems it resembles and say what it does differently?"
Positioning checks
- Separate a systems contribution from a component tweak: a new integration, a new capability under a constraint, a new reliability level, or a deployment insight — not merely a swapped module.
- Cover the robotics-systems lanes, not just the one nearest your method; a manipulation paper still owes the perception and planning neighbors it builds on.
- Treat IEEE Xplore proceedings, RA-L, and T-RO as archival; position against them honestly rather than around them.
- Cite arXiv and prior workshop versions so double-anonymous review survives — never point a reviewer to an identity-revealing page or repository.
- Explain overlap with any prior or concurrent version of your own work, and do not submit duplicate archival material.
The lanes robotics reviewers check
| Lane | Typical sources | What IROS reviewers check |
|---|---|---|
| Conference systems | ICRA, prior IROS, RSS, CoRL | Whether the nearest deployed system is compared or explicitly distinguished |
| Robotics journals | RA-L, T-RO, T-ASE, IJRR, Autonomous Robots | Whether mature, revised results are acknowledged, not dodged |
| Perception/learning | CVPR/ICCV, NeurIPS/ICML when a component derives from them | Whether a borrowed component is credited and evaluated in the robotics setting |
| Field/application | Domain venues (field robotics, medical, aerial) | Whether deployment realities and prior fielded systems are cited |
A bibliography citing only your own subfield tells a reviewer the paper may be re-deriving a neighboring system's idea — a recognizable IROS weakness no amount of demo polish repairs.
Concurrent-work judgment calls
- Independently concurrent arXiv work: cite neutrally, state the technical difference, and avoid priority claims a reviewer cannot verify.
- Your own workshop version: usually non-archival and citable, but verify against the current CFP and phrase the citation so anonymity holds.
- When unsure whether a venue counts as archival for dual-submission, declare the overlap in the submission form rather than gambling on an editor's read.
Positioning vignette
Imagine the paper presents a lidar-inertial state estimator that runs on an embedded computer. Its nearest neighbors: a prior IROS lidar-odometry system it extends, an RA-L fusion method with a heavier compute footprint, and a CVPR learned-odometry component it borrows a front end from. The novelty sentence should name all three contrasts — tighter fusion than the IROS predecessor, a smaller compute budget than the RA-L method, and the learned front end credited and re-evaluated on real field data.
Novelty sentence template:
"Unlike <nearest system> which <limitation>, our system <capability>
under <embodiment constraint>, evidenced by <embodied result>."
Output format
[Eligibility] clear / needs declaration / risky
[Closest lanes] <conference/journal/perception/field>
[Nearest 3 systems] <system -> distinction>
[Archival-overlap risk] <none/issues>
[Novelty sentence] <IROS-ready systems contrast>
Version History
- 9f86f09 Current 2026-07-19 16:05
