--- name: icra-topic-selection description: Use when deciding whether a robotics project belongs at ICRA, choosing between a direct ICRA submission and the RA-L journal route with conference presentation, or re-routing to IROS, RSS, CoRL, T-RO, HRI, or CASE based on contribution type, evidence shape, and the embodiment test. --- # ICRA Topic Selection Route a robotics project before any formatting work begins. ICRA — the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, the flagship conference of the IEEE Robotics and Automation Society (RAS) — is the broadest and largest robotics deadline of the year, but "broad" does not mean "anything with a robot picture." This skill runs two decisions in order: (1) is the contribution ICRA-shaped at all, and (2) if yes, should it travel as a direct conference paper or as an RA-L journal paper carrying a conference-presentation option. ## The embodiment test Ask what breaks if the physical robot is deleted from the paper. - If the answer is "nothing — the method is really about images, language, or generic optimization," ICRA reviewers will say so. Route to a vision, ML, or optimization venue and cite robotics as an application. - If the answer is "the whole contribution — the method exists because of contact, dynamics, sensing noise, actuation limits, real-time constraints, or task resets," the project is in ICRA territory. - Middle cases (learning method evaluated only in simulation) can survive at ICRA, but the burden shifts to the experiments plan; see `icra-experiments` before committing. ## Fit by contribution type | Contribution type | ICRA fit | Stronger alternative to weigh | |---|---|---| | New manipulation / locomotion / navigation algorithm with hardware trials | Core | RSS if the algorithmic idea is the star | | Integrated robot system solving a hard task end to end | Core | IROS, field-robotics journals | | Robot-learning method, sim-heavy, some real transfer | Good | CoRL if learning is the entire story | | Control / estimation theory with robot validation | Good | T-RO or RA-L for longer proofs | | Dataset or benchmark for robot tasks | Good | RA-L, IJRR for archival datasets | | Human-robot interaction with a user study | Possible | HRI conference for study-centric work | | Factory / logistics automation, scheduling | Possible | CASE, T-ASE | | Perception with no downstream robot task | Weak | CVPR/ICCV, then a robotics follow-up | | Pure RL / optimization theory, no embodiment | Weak | NeurIPS, ICML, L4DC | ## Direct ICRA vs RA-L with conference presentation The RAS ecosystem offers two distinct roads to an ICRA podium, and choosing between them is a real strategic decision, not a formality: - **Direct ICRA submission.** One deadline per year (mid-September for a late-May/June conference), conference peer review, proceedings in IEEE Xplore, 6 pages plus up to 2 pages of references at submission in the 2026 cycle. - **RA-L (IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters).** Year-round submission, first decision targeted within about three months, revise-and-resubmit possible, 6 pages including references with up to 2 extra pages at USD 175 each. Accepted RA-L papers can be transferred, within the posted window and within 270 days of acceptance, for presentation at an upcoming RAS conference such as ICRA — a journal publication plus the same stage. Decide with these levers: 1. **Clock.** Missed September or the result matures in November? RA-L is the only road that still reaches the next ICRA stage. 2. **Revision tolerance.** RA-L allows a revision cycle; direct ICRA is accept-or-reject on one shot. Work with one fixable weakness favors RA-L. 3. **CV target.** Some fields and hiring committees weight the journal line (RA-L) differently from the conference line (ICRA proceedings). Check what the career context rewards; the presentation looks identical at the venue. 4. **Length.** Both cap near 6-8 pages, so length rarely decides; T-RO or IJRR is the route for genuinely long papers. 5. **Dual-submission trap.** The same manuscript must never sit in the ICRA conference pipeline and at RA-L simultaneously; that is a rejection offense in both systems. ## Quick routing script ```text Q1 Embodiment: does deleting the robot delete the contribution? no -> route to the parent field's venue; stop. Q2 Maturity: results solid by early September? no -> RA-L (rolling) or next IROS deadline (typically March). Q3 One clean contribution statable in 6 pages? no -> T-RO / IJRR long-form, or split the project. Q4 Is the star the algorithmic idea (RSS), the learning method (CoRL), the user study (HRI), or the factory floor (CASE)? yes -> weigh that sibling before defaulting to ICRA. Q5 Otherwise -> direct ICRA; record why in one sentence for the intro. ``` ## Lighter tracks at the same conference Not every result deserves — or needs — the full-paper gauntlet. The ICRA weeks also host workshops with their own paper calls, late-breaking/abstract-style contributions, competitions, and demo slots, each with separate winter/spring deadlines and lighter (often non-archival) review. Correct uses: - A promising-but-thin result: workshop now, full paper next September with the workshop feedback baked in. - A dataset or tool needing community exposure before the archival paper. - A negative or replication result that the main track rarely rewards but a topical workshop will discuss seriously. Check archival status per call: some workshop papers preclude later "new" submission of the same content, most do not — read the specific call's wording. ## Anti-patterns that waste a cycle - Submitting a workshop-depth demo as a full paper: ICRA has late-breaking, poster, and workshop tracks better suited to preliminary results — check the current year's calls. - Choosing ICRA purely for prestige when the reviewer pool for the subfield (e.g., soft robotics, surgical robotics) is deeper at a specialized venue. - Planning "we will add real-robot results during rebuttal" — the classic ICRA pipeline has no author-response phase to add them in (see `icra-review-process`), so the evidence must be complete at submission. - Ignoring that ICRA 2026 moved to double-anonymous review: a framing that leans on "our lab's famous platform" no longer helps and may leak identity. ## Output format ```text [Embodiment test] pass / borderline / fail — [Route] direct ICRA / RA-L + presentation option / sibling venue [Deadline reality] [Contribution type] algorithm / system / learning / theory / dataset / HRI / automation [Single biggest routing risk] [Verify before commitment] current CFP at the ICRA year-site + RA-L information-for-authors page ```