icsme-workflow

ICSME Workflow

Use this as the project-management skill for an ICSME submission. Replace every date with the

current official timetable and work backwards from the EasyChair abstract cutoff — which

precedes the paper deadline. ICSME runs a single annual research round with **no journal-style

Major Revision**: a paper is accepted or rejected in one cycle, so front-load the evidence and plan

the author-response rebuttal, not a revise-and-resubmit.

ICSME is an IEEE conference with no standing editor-in-chief and no APC: proceedings go to IEEE

Xplore and the cost model is registration. Rotating leadership is the per-edition General and

Program Co-Chairs (ICSME 2026 committee roster 待核实 on the access date); re-check the

organizing-committee page rather than carrying names forward. ICSME 2026 is the 42nd edition in

Benevento, Italy (University of Sannio), 14-18 September 2026, co-located with SCAM and

VISSOFT.

Milestones

• Venue and track fit: confirm ICSME over ICSE/FSE/SANER/MSR and pick the track — research,

Journal-First, Registered Reports, RENE, NIER, tool-demo, or industry (icsme-topic-selection).

• Evidence lock: freeze research questions, subject systems and their change history, baselines,

statistics, threats, and the artifact contents.

• Abstract registration: submit real title, abstract, authors, and topics by the earlier

abstract deadline (ICSME 2026: 27 Feb 2026).

• Paper submission: upload the anonymized PDF and data-availability statement (ICSME 2026:

6 Mar 2026).

• Early-decision cut: at the response period's start, some papers are already Accept or Reject;

the rest are "Response Recommended" (ICSME 2026 early decisions: 3 May 2026).

• Author response: if invited, answer the PC's specific questions with existing evidence.
• Notification: final accept/reject (ICSME 2026: 29 May 2026); archive reviews and the response.
• Acceptance: prepare the IEEE Xplore camera-ready, submit to the ROSE-Festival artifact track

for IEEE badges, register, and present.

Backward plan from the paper deadline

| Weeks out (heuristic) | Maintenance/evolution milestone |

|---|---|

| 10+ | Research questions fixed; subject systems and their change-history window chosen |

| 8 | Mining / data collection complete; repository SHAs and extraction dates logged |

| 6 | Analysis done; effect sizes and tests computed; threats drafted alongside results |

| 4 | Full draft in IEEEtran conference format; artifact assembled and anonymized |

| 3 | Internal mock review by a maintenance-empiricist reader |

| 2 | Threats hardened, related-work delta sharpened, 10-page budget met |

| 1 | Anonymity sweep on PDF and artifact; data-availability statement final |

| 0 | Abstract registered by its earlier cutoff, then paper + artifact link on EasyChair |

These offsets are planning heuristics only — anchor every one to the current Important Dates page,

never to a previous cycle's calendar.

The single-round calendar reality

ICSME runs one annual research round; the author-response rebuttal is the only mid-cycle lever,

and there is no Major Revision to fall back on. Planning consequences:

• A rejected paper waits a full year at ICSME. Before idling, check whether a sibling

(SANER, ICSE, FSE) has a nearer deadline, or whether the work is better routed to TSE/EMSE and

returned later via the Journal-First track.

• A not-yet-finished study may fit Registered Reports (protocol reviewed first) rather than

being rushed into the research track and rejected on thin evidence.

• A replication or negative result has a dedicated home in RENE — do not force it into the

research track where novelty framing will hurt it.

Failure modes by stage

• Mining still running at week 4 forces last-minute analysis nobody has audited — the classic

soundness reject for an evolution study.

• Naming your own subject system or public corpus breaks double-anonymity when the artifact is

left to the final week.

• Skipping the mock review forfeits the one chance to hear "your baseline maintainer study is

confounded" from a friend instead of a reviewer.

• Treating the author response as a debate wastes the single rebuttal ICSME gives you; answer

the PC's specific questions with evidence, not argument.

Coordination notes

• Assign one owner for the data-availability / artifact and another for the anonymity sweep;

shared ownership is how both slip under double-anonymity.

• Archive the exact submitted PDF and artifact; the response period must quote the paper precisely

and stay anonymous.

• The ROSE-Festival artifact submission is a separate, post-acceptance deadline shared with SCAM

and VISSOFT — calendar it apart from the camera-ready.

Output format

[Current stage] idea / evidence / abstract / submitted / response period / accepted
[Track] research / journal-first / registered report / RENE / NIER / tool-demo / industry
[Next official deadline] <date and source, or unknown>
[Critical path] <three tasks that determine readiness>
[Risk register] <page budget / anonymity / evidence / threats / artifact / presentation>
[Owner map] <task -> person or role>