edbt-related-work

EDBT Related Work

Use this to audit novelty and eligibility. EDBT reviewers are close to the data-management literature and expect to see where your paper sits relative to the nearest prior work — stated as a delta, not a list. Reopen the current call for the resubmission-ban wording, the blind policy, and dual-submission rules before advising authors.

Positioning checks

• Separate the database contribution from the engineering effort. What is new: a mechanism, a scalable algorithm, an empirical/benchmarking finding, an abstraction, or an evaluation regime nobody had covered?
• Cover the data-management lanes. EDBT reviewers expect the flagship venues and the journals, not just the papers nearest your method (see the table). A bibliography missing the obvious SIGMOD or VLDB predecessor 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.
• Mind the EDBT/ICDT boundary. If you cite theory results, cite them to ICDT (or the theory literature) correctly; do not blur a co-located theory paper into an EDBT systems lineage, and do not claim a theory contribution your systems paper does not make.
• Declare overlap with any prior workshop/short version or concurrent submission; do not re-submit archival work as new.

Data-management literature lanes

A bibliography that cites only your own subarea tells a reviewer the delta may be smaller than claimed; one that reaches the flagships and journals signals command of the field.

Delta-first positioning vignette

Suppose the paper proposes an adaptive skew-handling operator for distributed joins. Its nearest neighbors: a flagship paper on static skew-aware partitioning (plan-time, no runtime adaptation), a journal study characterizing skew prevalence in real workloads (measurement, no operator), and a streaming system with dynamic repartitioning (different setting, full-reshuffle cost). The novelty sentence should name all three contrasts — runtime adaptation where the flagship was plan-time, a mechanism where the journal offered only characterization, and selective re-splitting where the streaming system reshuffled everything.

The 12-month resubmission ban and prior-version calls

[EDBT resubmission ban]   work rejected/withdrawn from an EDBT track cannot return to any EDBT
                          track in the SAME paper format for 12 months; confirm status before
                          citing/relying on the earlier version
[Concurrent arXiv work]   cite neutrally, state the technical difference; if the cycle is
                          double-blind, keep the citation anonymous
[Your workshop/short ver] usually citable, but declare the overlap and state what the full paper
                          adds; confirm against the current CFP
[Prior demo/vision]       an EDBT demo or Vision paper on the idea is not the full paper; declare
                          it and state the delta
[Archival status unclear]  declare the overlap in the submission form rather than guessing a
                          chair's interpretation

Eligibility red flags

• Substantial text overlap with a published paper by the same authors (self-plagiarism risk).
• Re-reporting a prior system's numbers without a new mechanism, workload, or question.
• Work still inside the 12-month EDBT same-format resubmission cooldown.
• Citations exclusively to non-DB venues, signaling the paper may be a visitor rerouted without reframing — naturalize the framing for a database audience first.

Output format

[Eligibility] clear / needs declaration / risky (resubmission ban?)
[Lanes covered] <systems flagships / theory / specialized / journals / adjacent>
[Nearest 3 works] <work -> one-line delta>
[EDBT/ICDT boundary] <theory cited to its real origin? yes/no>
[Archival-overlap risk] <none / declare: what>
[Novelty sentence] <EDBT-ready contribution contrast against the nearest prior work>