FSE Related Work
Use this to audit novelty and eligibility. FSE reviewers are close to the SE 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 dual-submission, anonymity, and prior-publication rules before
advising authors.
Positioning checks
- Separate the software-engineering novelty from the engineering effort. What is new: a
technique, an empirical finding, a validated measurement, a design, or an evidence regime nobody
had covered?
- Cover the SE lanes. FSE reviewers expect the flagship venues and the journals, not just the
papers nearest your method (see the table). A bibliography missing the obvious sibling work 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.
- Preserve heavy double-anonymity. Cite your own prior work in the third person and never link
reviewers to an identity-revealing preprint, repository, or homepage.
- Declare overlap with any prior conference/workshop version or concurrent submission; do not
re-submit archival work as new.
SE literature lanes
| Lane |
Typical venues |
What FSE reviewers check |
| General-SE flagships |
ICSE, ESEC/FSE |
Whether the nearest broad-SE technique/study is compared or distinguished |
| Automation & analysis |
ASE, ISSTA |
Whether tool-centric or testing/analysis predecessors are credited |
| Mining & evolution |
MSR, ICSME |
Whether prior empirical/mining work on your data is acknowledged |
| SE journals |
EMSE, TSE, TOSEM |
Whether deeper journal-length studies on the topic are engaged |
| Adjacent fields (when relevant) |
PL, HCI, ML venues |
Whether borrowed methods are cited to their real origin |
A bibliography that cites only your own subarea tells a reviewer the delta may be smaller than
claimed; one that reaches the sibling flagships and journals signals command of the field.
Delta-first positioning vignette
Suppose the paper proposes a flaky-test classifier and an accompanying study. Its nearest
neighbors: the foundational flaky-tests empirical study (characterization, no predictor), an ASE
tool that reruns tests to detect flakiness (dynamic, expensive), and a journal study on flaky-test
prevalence (scope, no method). The novelty sentence should name all three contrasts — prediction
where the study offered only characterization, a static filter where the tool required reruns, and
a technique where the journal offered only prevalence.
Concurrent and prior-version judgment calls
[Concurrent arXiv work] cite neutrally, state the technical difference, avoid unverifiable
priority claims; keep the citation double-anonymous
[Your workshop version] usually non-archival and citable, but confirm against the current CFP
wording and phrase so anonymity survives
[Prior short/NIER version] declare the overlap and state what the full paper adds beyond it
[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).
- A "new" study that re-reports a prior dataset's numbers without a new question.
- Citations exclusively to non-SE venues, signaling the paper may be a visitor rerouted without
reframing.
Output format
[Eligibility] clear / needs declaration / risky
[Lanes covered] <flagships / automation-analysis / mining-evolution / journals / adjacent>
[Nearest 3 works] <work -> one-line delta>
[Archival-overlap risk] <none / declare: what>
[Novelty sentence] <FSE-ready contribution contrast against the nearest prior work>
1---2name: fse-related-work3description: Use when positioning an ESEC/FSE submission against the software-engineering literature across ICSE, FSE, ASE, ISSTA, MSR, and the SE journals (EMSE, TSE, TOSEM), writing delta-first contrast rather than a citation catalog, keeping self-citations double-anonymous, and handling concurrent, preprint, and prior-version overlap.4---56# FSE Related Work78Use this to audit novelty and eligibility. FSE reviewers are close to the SE literature and expect9to see where your paper sits relative to the nearest prior work — stated as a **delta**, not a10list. Reopen the current call for dual-submission, anonymity, and prior-publication rules before11advising authors.1213## Positioning checks1415- **Separate the software-engineering novelty from the engineering effort.** What is new: a16 technique, an empirical finding, a validated measurement, a design, or an evidence regime nobody17 had covered?18- **Cover the SE lanes.** FSE reviewers expect the flagship venues and the journals, not just the19 papers nearest your method (see the table). A bibliography missing the obvious sibling work reads20 as unaware.21- **Write delta-first.** Each closely related paper gets one sentence naming what it did and one22 naming what you do differently — not a summary. Position, don't catalog.23- **Preserve heavy double-anonymity.** Cite your own prior work in the third person and never link24 reviewers to an identity-revealing preprint, repository, or homepage.25- **Declare overlap** with any prior conference/workshop version or concurrent submission; do not26 re-submit archival work as new.2728## SE literature lanes2930| Lane | Typical venues | What FSE reviewers check |31|---|---|---|32| General-SE flagships | ICSE, ESEC/FSE | Whether the nearest broad-SE technique/study is compared or distinguished |33| Automation & analysis | ASE, ISSTA | Whether tool-centric or testing/analysis predecessors are credited |34| Mining & evolution | MSR, ICSME | Whether prior empirical/mining work on your data is acknowledged |35| SE journals | EMSE, TSE, TOSEM | Whether deeper journal-length studies on the topic are engaged |36| Adjacent fields (when relevant) | PL, HCI, ML venues | Whether borrowed methods are cited to their real origin |3738A bibliography that cites only your own subarea tells a reviewer the delta may be smaller than39claimed; one that reaches the sibling flagships and journals signals command of the field.4041## Delta-first positioning vignette4243Suppose the paper proposes a flaky-test *classifier* and an accompanying study. Its nearest44neighbors: the foundational flaky-tests empirical study (characterization, no predictor), an ASE45tool that reruns tests to detect flakiness (dynamic, expensive), and a journal study on flaky-test46prevalence (scope, no method). The novelty sentence should name all three contrasts — prediction47where the study offered only characterization, a static filter where the tool required reruns, and48a technique where the journal offered only prevalence.4950## Concurrent and prior-version judgment calls5152```text53[Concurrent arXiv work] cite neutrally, state the technical difference, avoid unverifiable54 priority claims; keep the citation double-anonymous55[Your workshop version] usually non-archival and citable, but confirm against the current CFP56 wording and phrase so anonymity survives57[Prior short/NIER version] declare the overlap and state what the full paper adds beyond it58[Archival status unclear] declare the overlap in the submission form rather than guessing a59 chair's interpretation60```6162## Eligibility red flags6364- Substantial text overlap with a published paper by the same authors (self-plagiarism risk).65- A "new" study that re-reports a prior dataset's numbers without a new question.66- Citations exclusively to non-SE venues, signaling the paper may be a visitor rerouted without67 reframing.6869## Output format7071```text72[Eligibility] clear / needs declaration / risky73[Lanes covered] <flagships / automation-analysis / mining-evolution / journals / adjacent>74[Nearest 3 works] <work -> one-line delta>75[Archival-overlap risk] <none / declare: what>76[Novelty sentence] <FSE-ready contribution contrast against the nearest prior work>77```
brycewang-stanford