ROSE2-ICSE 2019 : The Second ROSE Festival, ICSE 2019 Recognizing and Rewarding Open Science in Software Engineering
Call For Papers
Call for Presentations
The Second ROSE Festival, ICSE 2019
Recognizing and Rewarding Open Science in Software Engineering
Due Mar 1, 2019.
Co-located with ICSE 2019
- Robert Feldt, Chalmers Institute of Technology, Sweden
- Tim Menzies, NC State University, USA
- Thomas Zimmermann, Microsoft Research, USA
The ROSE festival is a world-wide salute to replication and
reproducibility in SE (for a definition of these terms, see the
end of this CFP).
Our aim is to create a venue where researchers can receive public
credit for facilitating and participating in open science in SE
(specifically, in creating replicated and reproduced results).
ROSE is needed since most current conferences only evaluate
research artifacts generated by that venue’s accepted papers.
This makes it difficult for research papers to earn credit for
replication and reproduction by other researchers (since no other
team of researchers has yet to see this new result).
Enter ROSE. ROSE is a 90 minute session comprising lightning
talks by researchers presenting replicated and reproduced
results, followed by a panel discussing issues of replication in
software engineering. Presentations can be about any prior SE
publication (and is not restricted just to results from ICSE’19).
Note that ROSE is a non-archival forum. Material presented at
ROSE may also be submitted to other forums.
There will be a follow-on special issue at the EMSE journal,
HOW TO SUBMIT
Submit your proposal to
Submissions to ROSE are an abstract (1page pdf, max) for a
proposed lightning talk (2-5 mins). Each talk must be about two
- A prior SE publication (Paper1) which has been
- Substantive evidence that that parts of Paper1 has been
replicated/reproduced. This evidence must be substantive e.g.
a recent research SE paper (Paper2) or a
url link to an as yet unpublished pre-print
Note that Paper1 and Paper2 can come from any SE venue (ideally,
peer-reviewed but if otherwise, reviewers will assess the paper
on a case-by-case basis).
We also welcome methodological (meta) papers that help promote,
facilitate or increase understanding about open science,
replication and reproduction of software engineering research.
To facilitate easy reviewing, authors are encouraged to following
the following format for their abstract:
- TITLE: “A [ Partial] (Replication|Reproduction) of XYZ”. Please
add the term “partial” to your title if only some of the original
work could be replicated/reproduced.
- WHO: name the original authors (and paper) and the authors that
performed the replication/reproduction.
- WHAT: describe the “thing” being replicated/reproduced;
- WHY: clearly state why that “thing” is interesting/important;
- HOW: say how it was done first
- WHERE: describe the replication/reproduction. If the
replication/reproduction was only partial, then explain what
parts could be achieved or had to be missed.
- DISCUSSION: What aspects of this thing made it easier/harder to
replicate/reproduce. What are the lessons learned from this work
that would enable more replication/reproduction in the future for
other kinds of tasks or other kinds of research.
Naturally, meta papers might need a different structure so if you
are planning to do a meta talk please contact the chairs.
2 PC members will review each abstract, possibly reaching out to
the authors of the original Paper1. Abstracts will be ranked as
If pc members do not find sufficient substantive evidence for
replication/reproduction, the abstract will be rejected.
Any abstract that is overly critical of prior work, it will be
The remaining abstracts will be sorted according to (a)
interestingness and (b) correctness.
The top 10 abstracts (or more, if there is time), will be invited
to give lightning talks.
(*) Our goal is to foster a positive environment that supports
and rewards researchers for conducting replications and
reproductions. To that end, we require that all ROSE abstracts
and presentations pay due respect to the work they are
reproducing/replicating. Criticisms of prior work is acceptable
only as part of a balanced and substantive discussion of prior
ROSE adopts the ACM artifact badging conventions. ROSE seeks
replicated and reproduced results defined as per
**IMPORTANT POINT:** Replication is more than just "they
downloaded by scripts and ran exaxtly those". There must be
something changed in the replication work (but perhaps that
change is not very large).
- Neil Ernst, University of Victoria
- Thomas Zimmermann, Microsoft
- Chakkrit Tantithamthavorn, Monash University
- Robert Feldt, Blekinge Institute of Technology
- Leandro Minku, University of Birmingham
- Martin Monperrus, University of Lille & INRIA
- Daniel Graziotin, University of Stuttgart
- Sira Vegas, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid