Hi Timo, I can review the paper 14. Best, Sandro Obtener Outlook para Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg> ________________________________ From: Timo Kehrer &lt;timo.kehrer(a)unibe.ch&gt; Sent: Monday, May 5, 2025 8:36:23 AM To: seg-staff(a)list.inf.unibe.ch &lt;seg-staff(a)list.inf.unibe.ch&gt; Subject: [SEG-staff] Fwd: SPLC2025 submission assignment Dear all, If anybody is interested to do a review for SPLC 2025, these are the two papers I got (PDFs attached): (14) On the Effect of Feature Reduction on Energy Consumption: An Exploratory Study (17) Feedback analysis in software product line forked developments (14) might be interesting for all those woring on energy measurement / reduction, while (17) might be related to VariantSync. Either way, if you want to do a review, please let me know (deadline for reviews is May 22) Best, Timo -------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht -------- Betreff: SPLC2025 submission assignment Datum: Thu, 1 May 2025 15:15:56 +0200 Von: SPLC2025 <splc2025@easychair.org><mailto:splc2025@easychair.org> An: Timo Kehrer <timo.kehrer@inf.unibe.ch><mailto:timo.kehrer@inf.unibe.ch> [Sie erhalten nicht häufig E-Mails von splc2025@easychair.org<mailto:splc2025@easychair.org>. Weitere Informationen, warum dies wichtig ist, finden Sie unter https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] Dear Timo, Thank you again for agreeing to serve on the PC for SPLC 2025. We received 41 complete submissions, from which we desk-rejected 2 due to being out of scope, 2 were witdrawn by authors, one was moved to the industrial track as per authors request and 1 did not ended in a full submission. This led to 33 papers to review. Each PC member has been assigned no more than 3 papers. The assignment respects as much as possible the bidding of PC members. However, some of you may have received papers for which you didn’t bid, especially if you did not enter a high enough number of bids. Please find instructions on the review process below. Please check your assignment and let us know right away and no later than this week if you have an undeclared conflict with any of the papers assigned to you or any other problem that may have escaped our scrutiny. The deadline for reviews is: *** Thursday, May 22, 2025 (23:59, AoE) *** Please remember that our schedule is very tight and the discussion starts immediately afterward (May 22 to 29), so timely reviews are important. Please let us know now if you foresee problems. Please consider the following when writing your review: 1) When reviewing, take into account the submission guidelines at https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2F2025.splc.… Specifically, please explicitly address all five reviewing criteria (originality, importance, soundness, transparency, presentation quality) in your review. You may find that the scientific contribution of some papers is not sufficient for the Research track. Please consider in these cases whether the papers can be relevant for the Industry track. If relevant, we will transfer those papers to the Industry track chairs for a quick review/assessment. In the review form, we are also asked for your opinion on the best paper candidates. ** Also remember that we aim at accepting papers, so try to have constructive reviews ** 2) Please use the following structure for your reviews: First, give a brief (one-paragraph) summary of the paper. Second, list the main strong points and weak points of the paper as bulleted lists. Third, explain the overall assessment of the paper, explicitly addressing all five reviewing criteria (originality, importance, soundness, transparency, presentation quality). Finally, include more detailed comments and improvement opportunities as you see fit. 3) All submissions, reviews, and online discussions must be treated confidentially. You have been invited to serve on the PC because of your expertise in the field and it is expected that you take full responsibility for your reviews. You may seek confidential technical advice from non-conflicted colleagues with suitable expertise. In case graduate students assist in reviewing, please discuss and revise the reviews with them and always assign scores by yourself. 4) Provide professional and constructive reviews. Every paper has issues and it is often much easier to find reasons to reject submissions than to accept them. We ask you not to focus exclusively on the negative but also highlight the positive aspects. Of course, when reviewing, take into account the high-quality standards of SPLC, but be open to questions such as “What is interesting and novel about the work?” and “How does the paper advance the field?” 5) In case you detect issues of plagiarism, we would appreciate being notified about this by private email. Plagiarism is a serious infringement of scientific integrity but also a strong accusation that should not be communicated on review forms accessible to colleagues, unless double-checked. The papers assigned to you for review are listed below. Thanks again for contributing to the SPLC 2025 review process! Best regards, Sandra and José SPLC 2025 research track chairs ---------------------- Submission Guidelines The research track is open to submissions in two categories: - Full papers describing original results of conceptual, theoretical, empirical, or experimental research. The papers in this category must rely on theoretical or empirical evaluation. - Short papers describing emerging ideas or outstanding challenges along with possible approaches for resolving them. The page limit is 10 pages of content (+ 2 pages for references) for full papers and 5 pages of content (+ 2 pages for references) for short papers. Each submission will be carefully reviewed by at least three members of the research track program committee. Submissions will be evaluated on the basis of the following criteria: - Originality (including an appropriate comparison to related work) - The importance of contribution (including potential applicability of the results to practice/industry) - Soundness (including appropriate evidence for the main claims, typically from a quantitative and/or qualitative evaluation) - Transparency (methodological steps are described in sufficient detail, artifacts are made available, or a justification is included as to why they are not made available) - Presentation quality --------------------------------------------- (14) On the Effect of Feature Reduction on Energy Consumption: An Exploratory Study (17) Feedback analysis in software product line forked developments