Several conferences currently feature artifact evaluation tracks, to which authors can submit the data, proofs, or code of an accepted paper. In this survey, we are interested in your opinion on artifact evaluation.
Your responses will help to form a clearer picture on the expectations for artifacts in computer science research.
This survey should take approximately 20 minutes.
Thank you!
Ben Hermann (Universität Paderborn)
Janet Siegmund (Universität Passau)
Stefan Winter (Technische Universität Darmstadt)
There are 36 questions in this survey.
2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ICSE |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FSE |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ISSTA |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SAS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
VISSOFT |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OOPSLA |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ECOOP |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
POPL |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PLDI |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SLE |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PPoPP |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ICFP |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CGO |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MODELS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CAV |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TACAS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not helpful 1 |
2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Very helpful 10 |
|
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
In your words, what is the purpose of artifact evaluation?
In the following, we will ask questions on your experience as an artifact evaluation committee member or chair.
Many conferences differentiate between three types of artifact: code (e.g., an implementation of a prototype), proofs (e.g., for the coq proof assistant), and data (e.g., the results of a controlled experiment). In this survey, we also make this distinction, as requirements might differ between these categories.
What is your minimum expectation for the code portion of an artifact?
(e.g., code quality, documentation, packaging, size)
Do you think that the effort of artifact evaluation is justified?
What are the reasons why you have recommended to accept or reject an artifact?
Which reasons for the acceptance/rejection of your artifact do you recall?
Please indicate for each reason if you consider it justified or not.
None | 1-5 | 5-10 | 10-20 | 20-30 | > 30 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Please elaborate on the (un-)met expectations towards the code:
None | 1-5 | 5-10 | 10-20 | 20-30 | > 30 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Please elaborate on the (un-)met expectations towards the proofs:
None | 1-5 | 5-10 | 10-20 | 20-30 | > 30 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Please elaborate on the (un-)met expectations towards the data:
In your perception, has the quality of accepted artifacts improved compared to earlier years? Please elaborate.
What factors influence the quality of an artifact (e.g., the research group, the domain, the type of artifact)? Please elaborate.
Thank you for completing our survey!