Conditions for Acceptance

We give below the criteria used to consider a paper for acceptance. These criteria are structured as a questionnaire or review form, which we borrow from Elsevier’s Artificial Intelligence Journal with minor adjustments. The questions therein provide a set of guidelines to interrogate submissions and determine whether they possess the qualities that demonstrate a level of achievement consistent with acceptance into the ICAPS conference. The form also provides a template for ACs to write their recommendations to the TCs and the Program Chairs. We hope the ACs find this useful to structure their thinking and expedite the process of writing meta-reviews.

Papers that receive more positive responses than negative responses in this form will be more likely to be accepted.

Questionnaire

The ACs are invited to copy and paste the structure below on their meta-reviews and add detailed comments to flesh out their answers.

Content

  1. Is the paper technically sound?

  2. Does it show sufficient applicability to the Topic tag chosen?

  3. Does it place new results in appropriate context with earlier work?

  4. Is the paper sufficiently novel? A paper is novel if the results, techniques or tools it describes were not previously published by other authors, and were not previously published by the same authors in any archival journal or conference.

  5. Is the paper complete? A paper is content complete for a conference if it includes crucial definitions, proofs and/or experimental data, identifies key connections with the existing literature, and provides a convincing discussion of the motivations and implications of the presented work. For position papers, only the last two aspects are essential.

  6. (Tools papers only) Has the artefact submitted satisfied achieved any of the EAPLS artefact badges? Were these achievements commensurate with the claims made by the authors in their submission?

  7. Does anything need to be added or deleted?

  8. Does the research reported in the paper require a statement of ethical and future impacts? If so, did the authors provide such a statement in the original submission or as part of their response to the reviewers?

  9. Are the results and discussion important enough to warrant publication in the proceedings and invite the authors to ICAPS 2025?

Form

  1. Does the abstract adequately reflect the contents?

  2. Are the closing remarks adequate?

  3. Does it contain adequate references to previous work?

  4. Does it explain clearly what was done that is new?

  5. Does it clearly indicate why this work is important?

  6. Is the English satisfactory?

  7. Is the presentation otherwise satisfactory?

  8. Are there an appropriate number of figures and examples?

  9. Do the figures and examples help clarify the concepts in the paper?