commit.

2025-06-05 10:18:13 +02:00
parent 9b881bf058
commit b2116c22df
6304 changed files with 464 additions and 708461 deletions
@@ -1,150 +0,0 @@
-==+== ICSE 2023 Review Form
-==-== DO NOT CHANGE LINES THAT START WITH "==+==" OR "==*==".
-==-== For further guidance, or to upload this file when you are done, go to:
-==-== https://icse2023.hotcrp.com/offline
-
-==+== =====================================================================
-==+== Begin Review #223
-==+== Reviewer: Davide Di Ruscio <davide.diruscio@univaq.it>
-
-==+== Paper #223
-==-== Title: Qualitative Clustering of Software Repositories Based on
-==-==        Software Metrics
-
-==+== Review Readiness
-==-== Enter "Ready" if the review is ready for others to see:
-
-Ready
-
-==*== Overall merit
-==-==    Please rate the overall quality of the manuscript. If you use (1)
-==-==    Reject or (4) Accept, then you are ready to argue against or in
-==-==    favor. Use (5) Strong accept if you want to nominate this as a
-==-==    distinguished paper
-==-== Choices:
-==-==    1. Reject
-==-==    2. Weak reject
-==-==    3. Weak accept
-==-==    4. Accept
-==-==    5. Strong accept (award quality)
-==-== Enter the number of your choice:
-
-(Your choice here)
-
-==*== Reviewer expertise
-==-== Choices:
-==-==    X. I am an expert on this topic (know the related work well)
-==-==    Y. I am knowledgeable on this topic
-==-==    Z. I am an informed outsider
-==-== Enter the letter of your choice:
-
-(Your choice here)
-
-==*== Paper summary
-==-==    Please briefly summarize the paper in your own words, explaining
-==-==    to the authors how you understood the paper.
-==-== Markdown styling and LaTeX math supported.
-
-
-
-==*== Strengths
-==-==    Please provide a short bullet-point list of the paper’s key
-==-==    strengths.
-==-== Markdown styling and LaTeX math supported.
-
-
-
-==*== Weaknesses
-==-==    Please provide a short bullet-point list of the paper’s key
-==-==    weaknesses.
-==-== Markdown styling and LaTeX math supported.
-
-
-
-==*== Artifacts assessment
-==-==    You have been designated as artifact checker for this paper.
-==-==    Please access the artifacts (if available) and briefly provide
-==-==    your assessment.
-==-==    You can complement the information provided here with further
-==-==    comments under **Comments for authors** when discussing the paper
-==-==    along the **Verifiability and Transparency** criterion.
-==-== Choices:
-==-==    1. The artifacts are unavailable while the authors declared their
-==-==       availability
-==-==    2. The artifacts do not contain what is declared in the submission
-==-==       form and in the paper
-==-==    3. The artifacts partially contain what is declared in the
-==-==       submission form and in the paper
-==-==    4. The artifacts are in line with what is declared in the
-==-==       submission form and in the paper
-==-==    5. Does not apply, the authors explained why artifacts were not
-==-==       provided
-==-== Enter the number of your choice:
-
-(Your choice here)
-
-==*== Comments for authors
-==-==    Please provide constructive feedback to the authors for justifying
-==-==    your score. Please consider the following five criteria, as listed
-==-==    in the ICSE 2023 Call for Papers and detailed in the ICSE 2023
-==-==    Reviewer Guidelines, notably Section 6 "Reviewing".
-==-==    
-==-==    *  **Soundness:** The extent to which the paper’s contributions
-==-==    and/or innovations address its research questions and are
-==-==    supported by rigorous application of appropriate research methods.
-==-==    * **Significance:** The extent to which the paper’s contributions
-==-==    can impact the field of software engineering, and under which
-==-==    assumptions (if any)
-==-==    * **Novelty:** The extent to which the contributions are
-==-==    sufficiently original with respect to the state-of-the-art
-==-==    * **Verifiability and Transparency:** The extent to which the
-==-==    paper includes sufficient information to understand how an
-==-==    innovation works; to understand how data was obtained, analyzed,
-==-==    and interpreted; and how the paper supports independent
-==-==    verification or replication of the paper’s claimed contributions.
-==-==    *  **Presentation:** The extent to which the paper’s quality of
-==-==    writing meets the high standards of ICSE, including clear
-==-==    descriptions, as well as adequate use of the English language,
-==-==    absence of major ambiguity, clearly readable figures and tables,
-==-==    and adherence to the formatting instructions.
-==-==    
-==-==    Feel free to structure your review along these criteria.
-==-== Markdown styling and LaTeX math supported.
-
-
-
-==*== Question for authors
-==-==    Please provide specific questions that *could affect your
-==-==    accept/reject decision or help support the paper*. If you have no
-==-==    such questions, please leave the form blank.
-==-==    Please number your questions: 1., 2., 3., ... starting with the
-==-==    most critical questions. Remember that the authors have limited
-==-==    space and must respond to all reviewers.
-==-== Markdown styling and LaTeX math supported.
-
-
-
-==*== Comments on authors' response
-==-==    After the authors provide their response, please provide your
-==-==    comments on the authors' response, e.g.,
-==-==    
-==-==    * which questions have been satisfactorily answered by the
-==-==    authors; and
-==-==    * which questions have not been satisfactorily answered by the
-==-==    authors (and why not)
-==-== Markdown styling and LaTeX math supported.
-
-
-
-==*== Comments for PC
-==-== (hidden from authors)
-==-==    Please use this field to convey any message to other reviewers or
-==-==    chairs, if you do not want it to be seen by the authors.
-==-==    If you update the review, please state here what changes you made.
-==-== Markdown styling and LaTeX math supported.
-
-
-
-==+== Scratchpad (for unsaved private notes)
-
-==+== End Review