| name | icsme-workflow |
| description | Use when planning an IEEE ICSME project timeline from venue and track choice through abstract registration, paper submission, the early-decision cut and author-response rebuttal, notification, IEEE Xplore camera-ready, the ROSE-Festival artifact evaluation, and presentation, with backward-planning offsets for a maintenance/evolution paper and honest handling of the single-annual-round calendar. |
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>
