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
- Freeze the technique's scope and threat model; reviewers grade claims against the scope you set.
- Regenerate every results table from logged runs so the PDF and the artifact cannot diverge.
- Pin subjects and benchmark versions (Defects4J revision, subject SHAs) in the paper and artifact.
- Run the anonymity sweep: PDF metadata,
\author block, acknowledgements, repository owner strings.
- 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>
