ISSTA 2015 Artifact Evaluation
ISSTA 2015 will allow authors of accepted research papers to submit artifacts along with their papers. An artifact can be any kind of content related to a paper, e.g., detailed experimental data, complete experimental setup, test suites, or tools. Submitting an artifact is optional.
Two members of the Artifact Evaluation Committee (AEC) will review an artifact with respect to the following criteria (if applicable):
- How easy is it to use the provided artifact? (Easy to reuse)
- Does the artifact help to reproduce the results from the paper? (Consistent)
- What is the percentage of the results that can be reproduced? (Complete)
- Does the artifact describe and demonstrate how to apply the presented method to a new input? (Well documented)
Accepted artifacts will get an official badge of approval, which can be shown in the proceedings and in presentations. It will be up to the authors whether they make the results of the evaluation process public or not.
We encourage authors to make accepted artifacts available online!
|Submission Deadline||April 17, 2015 (Friday)|
|Notification||May 22th, 2015 (Friday)|
Submission will by via EasyChair: https://easychair.org/conferences/?conf=dsissta15
We expect the authors to submit only a link to a single file containing all the information needed to evaluate the submitted artifact (see the following section). The artifact evaluation chairs will download the artifact and distribute it to the reviewers (in order to hide the identity of the reviewers from the authors). The authors should additionally make an effort not to learn the identity of the reviewers, e.g., through logging.
High quality packaging of an artifact is as important as the quality of the artifact itself. Please keep in mind that the committee members will have limited time to review each artifact. We have some requirements for the artifact submission that will expedite the review process.
- Please submit a single zip archive, containing a README text file with instructions, the paper, and the artifact itself. Additionally, you may submit a video with a demo and/or instructions. The name of the file should be <paper #>.zip.
- We provide a template for the README file. Fill it out without modifying the lines starting with "#".
- In case you want to submit a running setup of your tool, please provide an installation script to simplify the reviewing process.
- If obtaining all the results takes significant amount of time, please also include a script to reproduce only subset of the results.
Previous Artifact Evaluations
ISSTA is not the first venue to offer an artifact evaluation process but continues a recent trend in Software Engineering conferences (cf. FSE 2011, ECOOP 2013, and OOPSLA 2013). The motivation for such an extension of the submission and review process is twofold.
- Submitting artifacts (e.g., tools or detailed experimental results) allows for a more thorough assessment of the claims made in a paper.
- Publishing artifacts (e.g., test suites or an executable experimental setup) makes it easier for other researchers to reproduce results from a paper or to compare their own techniques with the one presented in a paper.
Previous artifact evaluation committees have put some thought into how to introduce artifact evaluation without scaring potential authors from submissions. Detailed accounts can be found here and here. We generally follow these considerations and hope that the authors will submit their results for the evaluation.
Artifact Evaluation Chairs
Artifact Evaluation Committee
Baishakhi Ray, UC Davis, USA
Dacong Yan, Google, USA
Ding Li, University of Southern California, USA
Filip Niksic, Max Planck Institute for Software Systems, Germany
Genaína Nunes Rodrigues, University of Brasilia, Brazil
Heila-Marie van der Merwe, Stellenbosch University, South Africa
Jon Bell, Columbia University, USA
Marcel Bohme, Saarland University, Germany
Meixian Chen, University of Lugano, Switzerland
Petr Hosek, Imperial College London, UK
Pranav Garg, UIUC, USA
Rongxin Wu, Hong Kong University Science and Technology, Hong Kong
Shabnam Mirshokraie, University of British Columbia, Canada
Shin Hong, KAIST, South Korea
Xi Ge, North Carolina State University, USA
Yulei Sui, The University of New South Wales, Australia