Use when positioning an ICASSP submission across the signal-processing literature — IEEE SPS journals (TSP, TASLP, SPL, TIP and siblings), sibling conferences (Interspeech, ICIP, EUSIPCO, WASPAA), and ML venues, citing normally under single-blind review, and sharpening the technical delta against the nearest current-cycle work in four pages.
Scanned 9/5/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill icassp-related-work --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Icassp Related Work?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/brycewang-stanford-icassp-related-work)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: icassp-related-work
description: Use when positioning an ICASSP submission across the signal-processing literature — IEEE SPS journals (TSP, TASLP, SPL, TIP and siblings), sibling conferences (Interspeech, ICIP, EUSIPCO, WASPAA), and ML venues, citing normally under single-blind review, and sharpening the technical delta against the nearest current-cycle work in four pages.
---
# ICASSP Related Work
Use this to audit novelty and positioning. ICASSP is single-blind, so you **cite normally** — no
anonymized references, no hiding your own prior work. Reopen the current call only for
dual-submission and prior-publication rules. The four-page limit makes related work a
precision instrument, not a survey.
## Positioning checks
- Separate the **signal-processing novelty** (a new estimator, transform, representation,
objective, architecture, or resource) from an engineering improvement.
- Compare against both the **IEEE SPS journal** literature and the **conference** literature; a
reviewer from the relevant technical committee knows both.
- Position against the **nearest current-cycle work**, not a five-year-old baseline; ICASSP
reviewers work in the subfield and notice a stale comparison immediately.
- Because review is single-blind, cite your own prior work in normal first person and make the
incremental delta explicit rather than obscuring it.
## Literature lanes table
| Lane | Typical venues | What ICASSP reviewers check |
|---|---|---|
| SPS journals | IEEE TSP, TASLP, SPL, TIP, TIFS, TMM, TCI, TSIPN, JSTSP, OJSP | Whether the closest journal result is acknowledged and the delta stated |
| ICASSP + IEEE conferences | prior ICASSP, ICIP, ICME, SLT, ASRU | Whether the nearest conference method is compared or distinguished |
| Speech/audio siblings | Interspeech, WASPAA, EUSIPCO, DCASE | Whether a paper mis-attributed to ICASSP actually lives here |
| ML venues | NeurIPS, ICML, ICLR, AAAI | Whether generic-ML priors are credited without claiming their generality |
A bibliography that cites only ML venues and no SPS journals tells a committee reviewer the paper
may be rediscovering a known signal-processing result — a recognizable weakness that benchmark
strength does not repair.
## The sibling-venue attribution trap
Signal-processing landmarks are scattered across venues, and misattributing one is a credibility
hit. Common confusions to check before citing:
- Papers you *think* are ICASSP that are actually **Interspeech** (much of the speech-synthesis
and self-supervised-speech canon) or **journal** papers (TASLP separation work).
- **ICIP** for image results and **EUSIPCO/WASPAA** for European and audio-workshop results.
- Verify each cited venue against dblp (`conf/icassp/`, `journals/`) rather than trusting memory;
see [`../../resources/exemplars/library.md`](../../resources/exemplars/library.md) for the
guard list.
## Positioning vignette
Suppose the paper proposes a low-complexity beamformer for a hearing device. Its nearest neighbors:
a TASLP paper with higher complexity, a prior ICASSP paper with a similar structure but no latency
budget, and an ML paper with a black-box network. The novelty sentence should name all three
contrasts — lower complexity than the journal method, an explicit latency budget the prior ICASSP
work lacked, and interpretability the black-box model lacked — in one or two sentences, because
four pages cannot afford a paragraph per contrast.
## Concurrent-work judgment
- Independently concurrent arXiv work: cite neutrally, state the technical difference, and avoid
priority claims a reviewer cannot verify.
- Your own workshop or prior-conference version: cite it in first person and state exactly what
this paper adds, since single-blind review does not require hiding it.
- If a venue's archival status is unclear for dual-submission purposes, declare the overlap rather
than gambling on an organizer's interpretation.
## Output format
```text
[Novelty type] estimator / transform / representation / objective / architecture / resource
[Nearest 3 works] <work -> venue (verified) -> technical delta>
[Lane coverage] SPS journals / ICASSP+conf / siblings / ML — gaps?
[Attribution risk] <any venue to re-verify on dblp>
[Novelty sentence] <one ICASSP-ready contribution contrast>
```
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!