-------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht --------
Dear colleague,
Thank you again for serving on the FSE 2026 program committee!
After desk rejects and withdrawals, we received 925 submissions to
review.
You are selected as a Rapid Response Reliable Reviewer (RRRR).
Thank you for indicating your preference in the acceptance form!
For this reason, you are receiving a reduced review load (12
submissions) in exchange for 0 to 3 additional reviews before the
rebuttal period. As RRRR, you will help mitigate the impact of
missing or low-expertise reviews.
Your review assignment is now available on HotCRP. Please start
reviewing now.
Site:
https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ffse2026.hotcrp.com%2F&data=05%7C02%7Ctimo.kehrer%40unibe.ch%7Cc6872d580cf44554151608ddf9238208%7Cd400387a212f43eaac7f77aa12d7977e%7C1%7C0%7C638940653097215486%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ROZOYfzkAklxd0xHPEhyiM%2B%2F4DDJ4QU7Bj1cNGZFgOk%3D&reserved=0
Your reviews:
https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ffse2026.hotcrp.com%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dre%3Ame&data=05%7C02%7Ctimo.kehrer%40unibe.ch%7Cc6872d580cf44554151608ddf9238208%7Cd400387a212f43eaac7f77aa12d7977e%7C1%7C0%7C638940653097237056%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=3XaQcsS94gLH0oRMssDH%2B9SyW6bg7ZxaArIjDxVUB8A%3D&reserved=0
TO DO NOW: Please download your assignment as soon as possible. We
have checked papers for formatting, scope, and double-blind
violations. If you notice any other issues or violations,
including a clearly missed conflict of interest, please email the
designated paper administrator immediately. The paper
administrators are indicated in each paper's tags: #julia for
Julia Lawall
julia.lawall@inria.fr, #christoph for Christoph
Treude
ctreude@smu.edu.sg, and #darko for Darko Marinov
marinov@illinois.edu. Darko is handling submissions for which both
PC chairs are in conflict.
DOUBLE-BLIND: Please do NOT try to actively identify the authors.
In particular, please: (1) do not attempt to mine identities from
Git logs, (2) do not click on DOI links that some authors have
included in ACM references on the first page, (3) do not
deliberately check document properties, and (4) do not perform
detective work. Please note that we thoroughly checked all the
papers for double-blind violations, but we cannot guarantee that
we spotted every single violation. Hence, if you spot any such
violations, we would greatly appreciate it if you contact the PC
chairs as soon as possible, before even submitting your review for
that paper.
REVIEW PROCESS AND DEADLINES: You can review papers from your list
in any order you prefer. Please do not wait until the 50% deadline
and start reviewing right away. To maximize the soundness and
quality of our review process, we will be actively monitoring the
quality of the reviews as they come in and will let you know if we
spot any reviews that need additional clarifications, details or
revisions.
PC members are expected to complete
****** half of their reviews by Friday, October 17, 2025, AoE
*******
PC members are expected to complete
****** all of your reviews by Thursday, November 13, 2025, AoE
******
Please do *not* be late, because it creates hardship for your
fellow PC members and the entire reviewing process. It is
imperative that you complete your reviews on time so that we can
proceed with the following author response and discussion phases.
Please submit your reviews as soon as possible; you should not
bunch up reviews offline to upload in one go, but upload them as
soon as they become available. You can always update them until
the deadline. Having reviews early on will really help us with the
reviewing process. If you do anticipate any problems
with submitting your reviews on time, you should let us know as
soon as possible and not wait until the deadline.
REVIEW SCORES: We will be scoring the papers as follows:
1. Reject
2. Weak reject
3. Weak accept
4. Accept
5. Award quality
If you believe that a paper should be accepted and presented at
the conference, please assign a score of 4 or 5. If you believe a
paper should be considered for an ACM SIGSOFT Distinguished Paper
award, please assign it a score of 5.
Please feel free to assign high scores even if you don't have high
expertise; there is a separate scoring mechanism for reviewer
expertise. We expect to see some papers with diverse opinions, and
your score is simply a starting point for the online discussion.
Please focus on *constructive criticism* and provide *strengths
and weaknesses* with evidence to defend those points.
REVIEWING CRITERIA:
Originality/Novelty: The extent to which the contributions are
sufficiently original with respect to the state-of-the-art
Importance of contribution: The extent to which the paper's
contributions can impact the field of software engineering, and if
needed, under which assumptions
Soundness: The extent to which the paper's contributions and/or
innovations address its research questions and are supported by
rigorous application of appropriate research methods
Evaluation (if relevant): The paper's claimed contributions are
supported by empirical evidence
Quality of presentation: The quality of writing, including clear
descriptions, adequate use of the English language, absence of
major ambiguity, clearly readable figures and tables, and
adherence to the formatting instructions provided.
Appropriate comparison to related work: The extent to which the
submission adequately reviews the prior literature.
SUBREVIEWING: You have been invited to serve on the FSE 2026
program committee because of *your* expertise in the field, and it
is expected that each PC member performs and takes full
responsibility for their reviews; reviews cannot be simply
"outsourced". If you would like to consult with colleagues with
suitable expertise, you must ask the PC chairs to check for
conflicts of interest in advance and acknowledge the colleague's
contribution on the review form. If you want to train your Ph.D.
students in reviewing and critical thinking, you are welcome to
have them write reviews that you then discuss with them, revise,
and score by yourself. Nevertheless, please be aware that reviews
cannot be delegated; it is still very much your review that we
want for each paper.
USE OF LLM: The content of reviews is expected to be produced
exclusively by you and cannot be generated by LLMs. We also
discourage the use of LLMs to improve the English and readability
of reviews, because your queries to the LLM might be stored into
the LLM server and later used to train a new version of the LLM,
which may eventually leak your review if properly prompted.
We greatly appreciate your efforts to write insightful and helpful
reviews for all papers. Many thanks for your service on behalf of
the FSE 2026 conference!
Julia and Christoph
FSE 2026 Program Co-chairs