Files
logseq/assets/icse2023-review-223r931_1665137352658_0.txt
2025-06-05 22:07:12 +02:00

151 lines
5.6 KiB
Plaintext
Raw Permalink Blame History

This file contains ambiguous Unicode characters
This file contains Unicode characters that might be confused with other characters. If you think that this is intentional, you can safely ignore this warning. Use the Escape button to reveal them.
==+== 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 papers key
==-== strengths.
==-== Markdown styling and LaTeX math supported.
==*== Weaknesses
==-== Please provide a short bullet-point list of the papers 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 papers contributions
==-== and/or innovations address its research questions and are
==-== supported by rigorous application of appropriate research methods.
==-== * **Significance:** The extent to which the papers 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 papers claimed contributions.
==-== * **Presentation:** The extent to which the papers 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