issta-workflow

ISSTA Workflow

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

current official timetable and work backward from the HotCRP deadline — ISSTA's calendar, and even

its number of deadlines, changes between editions.

ISSTA is a conference, not a journal: it has no standing editor-in-chief and no article-processing

charge. The rotating leadership is the per-edition General Chair and Program Chairs, appointed by

ACM SIGSOFT and turning over each year, and the cost model is registration, not APCs — proceedings

appear in the ACM Digital Library. Re-check the current organization page rather than carrying a

name forward.

Milestones (2026 shape — verify the current cycle)

• Venue fit: confirm the contribution is genuinely testing-and-analysis, not a broader SE result.
• Evidence lock: freeze the technique's scope, the subjects and benchmark versions, the

baselines, and the artifact plan.

• Submission deadline (Jan 29, 2026): HotCRP record complete, 18-page anonymous sigconf PDF

uploaded, subjects pinned.

• Author response (Mar 24-26, 2026): rebuttal anchored in submitted evidence.
• First decision (Apr 16, 2026): Accept, Major Revision, or Reject.
• Major-Revision deadline (May 21, 2026): revised paper plus a ledger walking every reviewer

comment.

• Final decision (Jun 25, 2026): terminal outcome for revised papers.
• Artifact evaluation: package for the ACM badges and the Zenodo deposit (separate track/dates).
• Camera-ready and symposium (Oakland, Oct 3-9, 2026): ACM DL package, registration, in-person

presentation.

Backward plan from the paper deadline

| Weeks out (heuristic) | Testing/analysis milestone |

|---|---|

| 10+ | Technique implemented; scope and threat model fixed |

| 8 | Subjects and benchmark versions pinned; baselines configured at equal budget |

| 6 | Full evaluation runs complete with repeated runs and seeds logged |

| 4 | Statistics done (non-parametric test + effect size); tables generated from logs |

| 3 | Draft in ACM sigconf; threats-to-validity section written, not stubbed |

| 2 | Internal mock review by a testing-literate reader; artifact smoke-tested |

| 1 | Anonymity sweep; HotCRP record; artifact staging anonymized |

| 0 | 18-page PDF on HotCRP; confirm the abstract matches |

These offsets are planning heuristics only — anchor each to the current official timetable, never to

a previous cycle's calendar or deadline count.

Failure modes by stage

• Treating Major Revision as a soft reject: teams that coast after April lose the June decision they

could have won by walking the reviewers' ledger.

• Deferring the artifact to after acceptance: the badge and Zenodo work is real engineering, and a

tool that only ran on the authors' cluster earns nothing.

• Leaving sigconf reflow to the final week: two-column code listings and full-width tables overflow

late.

• Picking private subjects over an established benchmark: an evaluation that cannot be compared to

prior work invites an external-validity reject that no rebuttal fixes.

Coordination notes

• Assign one owner for the artifact and Zenodo deposit and another for the anonymity sweep; shared

ownership is how both slip.

• Archive the exact submitted PDF and artifact, because response and Major-Revision replies must

quote them precisely.

Output format

[Current stage] idea / evaluation / writing / submission / response / major-revision / accepted
[Next official deadline] <date and source, or unknown>
[Critical path] <three tasks that determine readiness>
[Risk register] <page/anonymity/evaluation/baseline/artifact/presentation>
[Owner map] <task -> person or role>