Related papers: Towards A Sustainable Future for Peer Review in So…
Context: Pre-publication peer review of scientific articles is considered a key element of the research process in software engineering, yet it is often perceived as not to work fully well. Objective: We aim at understanding the perceptions…
Peer review is a key activity intended to preserve the quality and integrity of scientific publications. However, in practice it is far from perfect. We aim at understanding how reviewers, including those who have won awards for reviewing,…
Background: Research software is crucial for enabling research discoveries and supporting data analysis, simulation, and interpretation across domains. However, evolving requirements, complex inputs, and legacy dependencies hinder the…
One of the virtues of peer review is that it provides a self-regulating selection mechanism for scientific work, papers and projects. Peer review as a selection mechanism is hard to evaluate in terms of its efficiency. Serious efforts to…
Peer review is a multi-stage process involving reviews, rebuttals, meta-reviews, final decisions, and subsequent manuscript revisions. Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have motivated methods that assist or automate different…
The software engineering research community faces a systemic crisis: peer review is failing under growing submissions, misaligned incentives, and reviewer fatigue. Community surveys reveal that researchers perceive the process as "broken."…
The profile of research software engineering has been greatly enhanced by developments at institutions around the world to form groups and communities that can support effective, sustainable development of research software. We observe,…
Background: Research software is software developed by and/or used by researchers, across a wide variety of domains, to perform their research. Because of the complexity of research software, developers cannot conduct exhaustive testing. As…
The software engineering research community is productive, yet it faces a constellation of challenges: swamped review processes, metric-driven incentives, distorted publication practices, and increasing pressures from AI, scale, and…
In computer science, conferences and journals conduct peer review in order to decide what to publish. Many have pointed out the inherent weaknesses in peer review, including those of bias, quality, and accountability. Many have suggested…
Background. Software Engineering (SE) researchers extensively perform experiments with human subjects. Well-defined samples are required to ensure external validity. Samples are selected \textit{purposely} or by \textit{convenience},…
Podcasts have become an increasingly popular medium for knowledge sharing within the software engineering (SE) community, offering insights into industry developments and the perspectives of professionals with different backgrounds. As this…
Background: One of the most important current challenges of Software Engineering (SE) research is to provide relevant evidence to practice. In health related fields, Rapid Reviews (RRs) have shown to be an effective method to achieve that…
Scholarly journals rely on peer review to identify the science most worthy of publication. Yet finding willing and qualified reviewers to evaluate manuscripts has become an increasingly challenging task, possibly even threatening the…
Peer review is a laborious, yet essential, part of academic publishing with crucial impact on the scientific endeavor. The current lack of incentives and transparency harms the credibility of this process. Researchers are neither rewarded…
Peer review remains the central quality-control mechanism of science, yet its ability to fulfill this role is increasingly strained. Empirical studies document serious shortcomings: long publication delays, escalating reviewer burden…
Software engineers are responsible for developing, maintaining, and innovating software. To hire software engineers, organizations employ a tech hiring pipeline. This process typically consists of a series of steps to evaluate the extent to…
Peer review in software engineering research operates under tight time constraints, while generative AI has substantially reduced the human effort required to produce polished research narratives. Reviewer attention is often spent on…
Empirical Standards are natural-language models of a scientific community's expectations for a specific kind of study (e.g. a questionnaire survey). The ACM SIGSOFT Paper and Peer Review Quality Initiative generated empirical standards for…
The academic peer review system is under increasing pressure due to a growing volume of submissions and a limited pool of available reviewers, resulting in delayed decisions and an uneven distribution of reviewing responsibilities. Building…