Skills Productivity FSE Academic Submission Workflow

FSE Academic Submission Workflow

v20260724
fse-workflow
This comprehensive guide provides a backward-planning workflow for submitting an Empirical Software Engineering (SE) paper to FSE. It manages the entire academic publication lifecycle, from initial venue confirmation and evidence lock to submission, major revision, and final presentation. It outlines critical milestones, deadlines, and potential failure modes to ensure a structured and successful academic publishing process.
Get Skill
223 downloads
Overview

FSE Workflow

Use this as the project-management skill for an FSE submission. Replace every date with the current official timetable and work backwards from the HotCRP registration cutoff — which precedes the paper deadline. FSE publishes in PACMSE, so plan for a possible Major Revision round inside the review year, not just an accept/reject.

FSE is a conference whose papers are journal articles: it has no standing editor-in-chief and no article-processing charge. Rotating leadership is the per-edition General and Program/Review Co-Chairs (FSE 2026 General Chairs: Shin Hwei Tan and Foutse Khomh, verified 2026-07-09), and the cost model is registration, not APCs — PACMSE is open access. Chairs rotate yearly; re-check the organizing-committee page rather than carrying a name forward.

Milestones

  • Venue fit: confirm FSE over ICSE/ASE/ISSTA and confirm the paper is ready this cycle (fse-topic-selection).
  • Evidence lock: freeze research questions, subject systems, baselines, statistics, threats, and the artifact contents.
  • Registration: submit real title, abstract, authors, topics, and conflicts by the earlier registration deadline (FSE 2026: 4 Sep 2025).
  • Submission: upload the anonymized PDF and Data Availability statement (FSE 2026: 11 Sep 2025; FSE 2027: 2 Oct 2026).
  • Reviews: triage each comment by criterion (significance, soundness, evidence, threats, clarity, open-science).
  • Major Revision (if issued): execute a tracked-change revision plus an anonymous, point-by- point response, re-read by the original reviewers.
  • Decision: archive reviews, response, and every submitted version.
  • Acceptance: prepare the PACMSE camera-ready, pursue ACM artifact badges on the artifact track's own deadline, register, and present.

Backward plan from the submission deadline

Weeks out (heuristic) Empirical-SE milestone
10+ Research questions fixed; subject systems and baselines chosen
8 Data collection / experiments complete; provenance and seeds logged
6 Analysis done; effect sizes and tests computed; threats drafted alongside results
4 Full draft in the ACM template; artifact assembled and anonymized
3 Internal mock review by an SE-empiricist reader
2 Threats hardened, related-work delta sharpened, page budget met
1 Anonymity sweep on PDF and artifact; Data Availability statement final
0 Registration by its earlier cutoff, then paper + artifact link on HotCRP

These offsets are planning heuristics only — anchor every one to the current Important Dates page, never to a previous cycle's calendar.

Cycle-hopping: the honest calendar reality

FSE runs (currently) a single annual research deadline. As of 2026-07-09, FSE 2026 is in progress in Montreal, so the live next target is FSE 2027 (Shenzhen; deadline 2 Oct 2026). Two planning consequences:

  • A Major Revision that cannot be finished in the window may, depending on the year's rules, be resubmittable to the next FSE cycle rather than lost — but this is exactly the kind of policy that changes per edition, so verify it before relying on it.
  • Missing the annual deadline costs roughly a year at FSE; a sibling flagship (ICSE/ASE/ISSTA) or an SE journal may have a nearer date — factor that into routing rather than idling.

Failure modes by stage

  • Evidence still moving at week 4 forces last-minute analysis nobody has audited — the classic soundness reject in the making.
  • Leaving the anonymized artifact to the final week is how a data-availability link or a lab-named tool leaks identity under heavy anonymity.
  • Skipping the mock review forfeits the one chance to hear "your baseline is unfair" from a friend instead of a reviewer.
  • Treating a Major Revision as a formality and under-budgeting the revision window turns a winnable R&R into a reject.

Coordination notes

  • Assign one owner for the Data Availability / artifact and another for the anonymity sweep; shared ownership is how both slip.
  • Archive the exact submitted PDF, artifact, and (later) response letter — the revision round must quote them precisely and stay anonymous.

Output format

[Current stage] idea / evidence / writing / registration / submitted / major revision / accepted
[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>
Info
Category Productivity
Name fse-workflow
Version v20260724
Size 4.87KB
Updated At 2026-07-28
Language