Issta submission

ISSTA Submission

Use this for an ISSTA research-paper submission audit. Reopen the current Research Papers call, the important-dates page, the ACM sigconf template, and the HotCRP site before giving deadline-ready advice — ISSTA's submission model changes between editions and is the first thing to re-verify.

Submission audit

• Confirm the target is the ISSTA research track, not a co-located workshop, the Doctoral Symposium, or a sibling venue. ISSTA 2026 also invited Experience Papers and Replicability Studies — pick the track that matches the contribution's evidence, not its topic alone.
• Build the HotCRP record early: title, abstract, authors, conflicts, and topic tags. Register the paper before the deadline even if the PDF is still moving; a late HotCRP creation cannot be undone.
• Apply the ACM sigconf template with the review (line numbers) and anonymous options. Do not shrink margins, fonts, or spacing to fit — format tampering is a named desk-reject trigger.
• Fit the 18-page limit that excludes references only. In 2026 every section, figure, table, and appendix counted against the 18; there is no separate unlimited appendix, so decision-critical content lives in the body or in the artifact, not in overflow pages.
• Enforce double-anonymous review: no author names or affiliations, third-person self-citations, anonymized or withheld repository links, and no identifying PDF metadata.
• Decide the artifact plan now. The artifact-evaluation track is separate and later, but the paper should already promise what it will archive, and the review-time copy must be anonymous.

Blocking risks

• Late HotCRP registration or PDF upload against the phase-one deadline.
• Over the 18-page limit, or sigconf format modified.
• Identity leak in text, self-citation phrasing, repository link, or PDF metadata.
• Wrong track (a replicability study filed as a research paper, or vice versa).
• Evaluation too thin to survive the soundness and evaluation criteria — a review-stage loss even when nothing is technically desk-rejectable.

Desk-reject and triage table

Trigger	Severity at ISSTA	Repair window
Over 18 pages (excluding references)	Desk reject	None after the deadline
sigconf format tampering	Desk reject	None
Author identity leak in PDF or metadata	Desk reject	None
Missing review/anonymous options	Chair flag	Only before the deadline
Evaluation without real subjects or a baseline	Review-stage loss	Fixable only before submission

Final-week sequence for a testing/analysis paper

1. Freeze the technique's scope and threat model; reviewers grade claims against the scope you set.
2. Regenerate every results table from logged runs so the PDF and the artifact cannot diverge.
3. Pin subjects and benchmark versions (Defects4J revision, subject SHAs) in the paper and artifact.
4. Run the anonymity sweep: PDF metadata, \author block, acknowledgements, repository owner strings.
5. Confirm the HotCRP abstract matches the PDF abstract and the topic tags match the reviewer pool.

Format anchors

• ISSTA uses ACM sigconf, a two-column layout; wide code listings, algorithm blocks, and multi-column result tables overflow easily, so compress or use full-width spans early rather than on deadline night.
• The 18-page figure describes the 2026 cycle; older editions used 10 pages plus 2 for references. Treat every number as provisional and reopen the current call before relying on it.

Output format

[ISSTA readiness] Ready / Needs fixes / Not ready
[Track] research / experience / replicability
[Blocking checks] <HotCRP/page/format/anonymity/artifact-intent>
[Evaluation risk] <one soundness or evaluation gap>
[Desk-reject risk] <one issue>
[Fix order] <ordered fixes before the phase-one deadline>