brycewang-stanford ICSME Review Process
Model the pipeline before interpreting any single review. ICSME's process is conference-style and single-round: papers are reviewed once, double-anonymously, and the outcome is accept or reject — there is no journal-style Major Revision. The distinctive mechanism authors must plan for is the early-decision cut: before the rebuttal even opens, the strongest and weakest papers are already decided, and only the middle is asked to respond.
Process model
- Submission and review run on EasyChair with double-anonymity: author identities are hidden from reviewers throughout.
- Each paper is read by multiple program-committee members who weigh the significance of the maintenance/evolution contribution, soundness of method, quality and honesty of the empirical evidence (mined data, subject systems, statistics), threats-to-validity reasoning, clarity, and open-science support.
- At the start of the author-response period the PC issues an early decision:
- Accept — reviewers agree the paper is publishable as is; no response requested.
- Reject — reviewers judge the paper too deficient for a response to change; no response requested.
- Response Recommended — the paper is in contention; authors may answer the PC's specific questions.
- After responses and PC discussion, a final accept/reject is issued. Accepted papers publish in IEEE Xplore.
Reading your early decision
| Early decision | What it means | Author move |
|---|---|---|
| Accept | Contribution and evidence hold; polish only | Camera-ready + ROSE artifact; do not reopen scope |
| Response Recommended | Genuinely in contention; specific PC questions decide it | Answer each question with existing evidence; correct misreadings |
| Reject (early) | Structural: wrong scope, no credible baseline, thin/confounded study | Reroute (SANER/SCAM/journal) or rebuild; do not resubmit unchanged |
The strategic reading: because there is no revision round, write the initial submission so the evidence is already complete. An ICSME reviewer cannot ask you to add an analysis and wait — they either believe the paper now or they do not. The rebuttal moves papers by resolving a specific doubt, not by promising future work.
How ICSME differs from its siblings
- vs. ESEC/FSE: FSE papers are PACMSE journal articles with a real Major Revision revise-and-resubmit round. ICSME has no such round — it is single-shot with an early-decision cut and a rebuttal. Never plan an ICSME submission as if a revision will rescue thin evidence.
- vs. ICSE: ICSE is the general-SE flagship on a larger stage with its own (sometimes multi-cycle) structure. ICSME is the maintenance/evolution-focused venue; a paper accepted at either would differ in framing, not just calendar.
- vs. MSR/SCAM: its co-located siblings review mining-for-its-own-sake and source-analysis machinery; ICSME reviewers ask what the maintenance payoff is.
Who reads you
Expect maintenance and evolution empiricists. They check whether subject systems are real and evolving, whether the mined corpus is provenance-pinned, whether baselines are fair, whether the threats-to-validity section argues rather than recites, and they often open the artifact. Because ICSME spans techniques, empirical studies, comprehension, and replication, a paper is matched to reviewers from its own subarea — vague method descriptions get caught, not skimmed.
Where author leverage actually exists
[Before submission] topic tags + subject-system realism -> reviewer pool & credibility (largest lever)
[Early-decision cut] nothing to do once issued; it reflects the submitted paper alone
[Response Recommended] the single rebuttal: answer the PC's exact questions with existing evidence
[After reject] no appeal; reroute to a sibling, a journal, or Registered Reports next cycle
A response moves borderline papers when it corrects a factual misreading or supplies a number a reviewer said was missing and that already exists in the artifact; it does not move papers when it argues taste or promises new experiments. Silence on a PC question the response was invited to answer is read as inability to answer it.
Reading a review packet
Weight reviews before answering. A review that cites your section numbers, tables, and threats was read closely; its author is your likely advocate if the response holds. Because there is no second read, the PC discussion is where the decision is actually made — write the response as evidence for that discussion, addressed to the specific questions the PC flagged.
Misreadings to avoid
- Expecting a revision round — there is none; the paper is judged as submitted.
- Treating "Response Recommended" as bad news — it means you are in contention and the rebuttal matters; an early Accept or Reject is the terminal signal.
- Treating the response as a debate — the PC discussion decides; answer questions, do not argue.
- Projecting last year's cadence — the early-decision cut and response format are decided per edition; confirm they are offered this cycle.
Output format
[Process stage] pre-submission / awaiting early decision / response period / final / accepted
[Decision category] early accept / response recommended / early reject / final accept / final reject
[Criterion map] each review point -> significance | soundness | evidence | threats | clarity | open-science
[Leverage plan] the response-period answer that can actually change the outcome
[Forbidden moves] identity leak / promising new experiments as if they were done