Auto saved by Logseq

2025-06-02 17:15:13 +02:00
commit d9ea3d552d
6279 changed files with 711145 additions and 0 deletions
@@ -0,0 +1,150 @@
+==+== 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