icsme-related-work
GitHub用于指导IEEE ICSME投稿的相关工作撰写。强调以差异对比而非罗列方式定位研究，覆盖维护、演化及SE期刊文献。确保匿名性，声明重叠内容，并遵循双盲评审与重复研究规范，以提升新颖性与合规性。
Trigger Scenarios
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill icsme-related-work -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "icsme-related-work",
"description": "Use when positioning an IEEE ICSME submission against the software-maintenance and evolution literature across ICSME, SANER, MSR, ICPC, SCAM, ICSE\/FSE, and the SE journals (TSE, EMSE), writing delta-first contrast rather than a citation catalog, keeping self-citations double-anonymous, and handling replication overlap and prior-version eligibility."
}
ICSME Related Work
Use this to audit novelty and eligibility. ICSME reviewers are close to the maintenance/evolution literature and expect to see where your paper sits relative to the nearest prior work — stated as a delta, not a list. Because the venue values replication (the RENE track) and rewards honest re-examination, "we redo prior work" is a legitimate contribution when framed as one — but it must engage the original explicitly. Reopen the current call for dual-submission, anonymity, and prior-publication rules before advising.
Positioning checks
- Separate the maintenance/evolution novelty from the engineering effort. What is new: a technique, an empirical finding about how software ages, a validated measurement of debt or comprehension, a recovered model, or an evidence regime nobody had covered?
- Cover the maintenance lanes. ICSME reviewers expect the evolution venues and journals, not just the papers nearest your method (see the table). A bibliography missing the obvious sibling work reads as unaware of the community.
- Write delta-first. Each closely related paper gets one sentence naming what it did and one naming what you do differently — not a summary. Position, don't catalog.
- Preserve double-anonymity. Cite your own prior maintenance studies in the third person and never link reviewers to an identity-revealing preprint, repository, or homepage.
- Declare overlap with any prior workshop/short version or a replicated original; for a RENE submission, name the exact study you reproduce.
Maintenance literature lanes
| Lane | Typical venues | What ICSME reviewers check |
|---|---|---|
| Maintenance & evolution core | ICSME, SANER, ICSM (historical) | Whether the nearest evolution technique/study is compared or distinguished |
| Mining software repositories | MSR | Whether prior mining work on your data/phenomenon is acknowledged |
| Comprehension & source analysis | ICPC, SCAM | Whether comprehension or analysis predecessors are credited |
| General-SE flagships | ICSE, ESEC/FSE | Whether the broad-SE technique/study you build on is engaged |
| SE journals | TSE, EMSE | Whether deeper journal-length maintenance studies are engaged |
A bibliography that cites only your own subarea tells a reviewer the delta may be smaller than claimed; one that reaches the evolution siblings and journals signals command of the field.
Delta-first positioning vignette
Suppose the paper proposes a predictor of technical-debt hotspots plus a study. Its nearest neighbors: a foundational empirical study characterizing debt accumulation (no predictor), an MSR tool that mines debt-related commits (detection, not prediction), and a TSE study on debt repayment economics (scope, no method). The novelty sentence should name all three contrasts — prediction where the study offered characterization, forward-looking where the tool was retrospective, and a technique where the journal offered only economics.
Replication and prior-version judgment calls
[RENE replication] name the exact original study; state what you kept identical and what you
extended (new datasets, new systems); frame reproducibility as the contribution
[Concurrent arXiv work] cite neutrally, state the technical difference, avoid priority claims;
keep the citation double-anonymous
[Your workshop/SANER version] usually citable, but confirm against the current CFP and phrase so
anonymity survives; state what the full paper adds
[Prior short/NIER version] declare the overlap and state what the full study adds beyond it
[Archival status unclear] declare the overlap in the submission form rather than guessing
Eligibility red flags
- Substantial text overlap with a published paper by the same authors (self-plagiarism risk).
- A "new" study that re-reports a prior corpus's numbers without a new maintenance question — unless submitted to RENE and framed honestly as replication.
- Citations exclusively to non-maintenance venues, signaling a paper rerouted here without reframing.
Output format
[Eligibility] clear / needs declaration / risky
[Lanes covered] <maintenance-core / mining / comprehension-analysis / flagships / journals>
[Nearest 3 works] <work -> one-line delta>
[Replication framing] <n/a | RENE: original study named + what was extended>
[Novelty sentence] <ICSME-ready contribution contrast against the nearest prior work>
Version History
- 9f86f09 Current 2026-07-19 15:59
