# Icsme Related Work > Use when positioning an IEEE ICSME submission against the software-maintenance and evolution literature across ICSME, SANER, MSR, ICPC, SCAM, ICSE/FSE, and the SE journals (TSE, EMSE), writing delta-first contrast rather than a citation catalog, keeping self-citations double-anonymous, and handling replication overlap and prior-version eligibility. - Skill: `thedixitjain/icsme-related-work` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds add thedixitjain/icsme-related-work` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/thedixitjain/icsme-related-work/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Marketing & Growth - Author: thedixitjain (https://skillmd.com/u/thedixitjain) - Updated: 2026-09-08 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/thedixitjain/icsme-related-work --- # ICSME Related Work Use this to audit novelty and eligibility. ICSME reviewers are close to the maintenance/evolution literature and expect to see where your paper sits relative to the nearest prior work — stated as a **delta**, not a list. Because the venue values replication (the RENE track) and rewards honest re-examination, "we redo prior work" is a legitimate contribution *when framed as one* — but it must engage the original explicitly. Reopen the current call for dual-submission, anonymity, and prior-publication rules before advising. ## Positioning checks - **Separate the maintenance/evolution novelty from the engineering effort.** What is new: a technique, an empirical finding about how software ages, a validated measurement of debt or comprehension, a recovered model, or an evidence regime nobody had covered? - **Cover the maintenance lanes.** ICSME reviewers expect the evolution venues and journals, not just the papers nearest your method (see the table). A bibliography missing the obvious sibling work reads as unaware of the community. - **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 double-anonymity.** Cite your own prior maintenance studies in the third person and never link reviewers to an identity-revealing preprint, repository, or homepage. - **Declare overlap** with any prior workshop/short version or a replicated original; for a RENE submission, name the exact study you reproduce. ## Maintenance literature lanes | Lane | Typical venues | What ICSME reviewers check | |---|---|---| | Maintenance & evolution core | ICSME, SANER, ICSM (historical) | Whether the nearest evolution technique/study is compared or distinguished | | Mining software repositories | MSR | Whether prior mining work on your data/phenomenon is acknowledged | | Comprehension & source analysis | ICPC, SCAM | Whether comprehension or analysis predecessors are credited | | General-SE flagships | ICSE, ESEC/FSE | Whether the broad-SE technique/study you build on is engaged | | SE journals | TSE, EMSE | Whether deeper journal-length maintenance studies are engaged | A bibliography that cites only your own subarea tells a reviewer the delta may be smaller than claimed; one that reaches the evolution siblings and journals signals command of the field. ## Delta-first positioning vignette Suppose the paper proposes a *predictor* of technical-debt hotspots plus a study. Its nearest neighbors: a foundational empirical study characterizing debt accumulation (no predictor), an MSR tool that mines debt-related commits (detection, not prediction), and a TSE study on debt repayment economics (scope, no method). The novelty sentence should name all three contrasts — prediction where the study offered characterization, forward-looking where the tool was retrospective, and a technique where the journal offered only economics. ## Replication and prior-version judgment calls ```text [RENE replication] name the exact original study; state what you kept identical and what you extended (new datasets, new systems); frame reproducibility as the contribution [Concurrent arXiv work] cite neutrally, state the technical difference, avoid priority claims; keep the citation double-anonymous [Your workshop/SANER version] usually citable, but confirm against the current CFP and phrase so anonymity survives; state what the full paper adds [Prior short/NIER version] declare the overlap and state what the full study adds beyond it [Archival status unclear] declare the overlap in the submission form rather than guessing ``` ## 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 corpus's numbers without a new maintenance question — unless submitted to RENE and framed honestly as replication. - Citations exclusively to non-maintenance venues, signaling a paper rerouted here without reframing. ## Output format ```text [Eligibility] clear / needs declaration / risky [Lanes covered] [Nearest 3 works] one-line delta> [Replication framing] [Novelty sentence] ``` --- **Source:** [`brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills`](https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) → `ICSME-Skills/skills/icsme-related-work/SKILL.md`