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>