FSE Related Work

Use this to audit novelty and eligibility. FSE reviewers are close to the SE literature and expect to see where your paper sits relative to the nearest prior work — stated as a delta, not a list. Reopen the current call for dual-submission, anonymity, and prior-publication rules before advising authors.

Positioning checks

• Separate the software-engineering novelty from the engineering effort. What is new: a technique, an empirical finding, a validated measurement, a design, or an evidence regime nobody had covered?
• Cover the SE lanes. FSE reviewers expect the flagship venues and the journals, not just the papers nearest your method (see the table). A bibliography missing the obvious sibling work reads as unaware.
• 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 heavy double-anonymity. Cite your own prior work in the third person and never link reviewers to an identity-revealing preprint, repository, or homepage.
• Declare overlap with any prior conference/workshop version or concurrent submission; do not re-submit archival work as new.

SE literature lanes

A bibliography that cites only your own subarea tells a reviewer the delta may be smaller than claimed; one that reaches the sibling flagships and journals signals command of the field.

Delta-first positioning vignette

Suppose the paper proposes a flaky-test classifier and an accompanying study. Its nearest neighbors: the foundational flaky-tests empirical study (characterization, no predictor), an ASE tool that reruns tests to detect flakiness (dynamic, expensive), and a journal study on flaky-test prevalence (scope, no method). The novelty sentence should name all three contrasts — prediction where the study offered only characterization, a static filter where the tool required reruns, and a technique where the journal offered only prevalence.

Concurrent and prior-version judgment calls

[Concurrent arXiv work]   cite neutrally, state the technical difference, avoid unverifiable
                          priority claims; keep the citation double-anonymous
[Your workshop version]   usually non-archival and citable, but confirm against the current CFP
                          wording and phrase so anonymity survives
[Prior short/NIER version] declare the overlap and state what the full paper adds beyond it
[Archival status unclear]  declare the overlap in the submission form rather than guessing a
                          chair's interpretation

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 dataset's numbers without a new question.
• Citations exclusively to non-SE venues, signaling the paper may be a visitor rerouted without reframing.

Output format

[Eligibility] clear / needs declaration / risky
[Lanes covered] <flagships / automation-analysis / mining-evolution / journals / adjacent>
[Nearest 3 works] <work -> one-line delta>
[Archival-overlap risk] <none / declare: what>
[Novelty sentence] <FSE-ready contribution contrast against the nearest prior work>