issta-artifact-evaluationUse when packaging an ISSTA tool, benchmark, and results for the artifact-evaluation track, covering the ACM badges (Artifacts Available via Zenodo, Evaluated Functional and Reusable, Results Reproduced), the anonymous review-time copy, containerization, a runnable entry point, and what ISSTA artifa
issta-author-responseUse when drafting an ISSTA author response for the rebuttal window or planning a Major-Revision resubmission, covering evidence-anchored replies, the Accept/Major-Revision/Reject outcome model, converting reviewer asks into a revision ledger, anonymity in the response, and the difference between a r
issta-camera-readyUse when preparing an accepted ISSTA paper for the ACM Digital Library camera-ready, covering de-anonymization, the final ACM sigconf layout without the review/anonymous options, ACM rights forms and DOI, metadata and CCS concepts, the artifact DOI and badge display, registration, and the in-person
issta-experimentsUse when designing or auditing ISSTA experiments, covering real subject programs and benchmarks like Defects4J, fair tool-baseline configuration, bug-finding and coverage metrics, non-parametric comparison with effect sizes, equal-budget protocols, repeated runs, and matching evidence to the claim b
issta-related-workUse when positioning an ISSTA submission against the testing and analysis literature, covering the sibling venues (ICSE, FSE, ASE, ICST, PLDI, CAV), delta-first framing against the nearest technique, double-anonymous self-citation, distinguishing the closest tool baseline, and avoiding the venue-con
issta-reproducibilityUse when strengthening ISSTA reproducibility and verifiability evidence, covering pinned subject programs and benchmark versions, random seeds and timeout budgets, non-determinism disclosure for fuzzing and analysis, claim-to-evidence traceability, tool availability statements, and keeping the artif
issta-review-processUse when explaining or planning around ISSTA peer review, covering double-anonymous reviewing, at least three PC reviews, the Accept/Major-Revision/Reject outcome model, the phase-two major-revision resubmission, the named evaluation criteria, how the decision is actually synthesized, and how earlie
issta-submissionUse when auditing an ISSTA submission for HotCRP readiness, the 18-page (excluding references) limit, ACM sigconf plus review and anonymous formatting, double-anonymous integrity, the January deadline, artifact intent, track choice among research/experience/replicability, and desk-reject triggers be
issta-supplementaryUse when deciding what lives in the ISSTA 18-page body versus the artifact and any appendix, covering the no-unlimited-appendix reality, what reviewers will and will not open, splitting a testing/analysis paper between body and package, anonymity of supplementary material, and keeping decision-criti
issta-topic-selectionUse when deciding whether a project is a strong ISSTA fit versus ICSE, FSE, ASE, ICST, PLDI/CAV, or an SE journal, identifying whether the contribution is a testing/analysis technique, characterizing its evaluation shape, and sharpening the framing before writing begins.
issta-workflowUse when planning an ISSTA project timeline from venue fit through the January research-paper deadline, the March author response, the April first decision, the May Major-Revision sprint, the June final decision, artifact evaluation, and the October symposium, with backward-planning offsets for a te
issta-writing-styleUse when revising an ISSTA paper for a clear testing/analysis contribution, covering the threat-model-then-technique structure, the evaluation contract, a threats-to-validity section that is not boilerplate, claims scoped to the subjects tested, double-anonymous phrasing, and 18-page ACM sigconf dis