FSE Review Process

Model the pipeline before interpreting any single review. FSE's process is journal-style: papers are PACMSE articles, and Major Revision is a first-class decision, not a soft rejection. The most consequential mental shift for authors arriving from a plain accept/reject conference is that a Major Revision is a genuine revise-and-resubmit round with the same reviewers, closer to a journal R&R than to a rebuttal.

Process model

• Submission and review run on HotCRP with heavy double-anonymity: identities are hidden through all reviewing and discussion, and any Major Revision response must itself be anonymous.
• Each paper is read by at least three program-committee members (FSE 2027 call), who weigh the significance of the SE contribution, soundness of the method, quality and honesty of the empirical evidence, threats-to-validity reasoning, clarity, and open-science support.
• First decisions fall into Accept, Major Revision, or Reject. A Major Revision is re-reviewed — generally by the original reviewers — against the revision and its response letter.
• Accepted papers publish in PACMSE, so final metadata, camera-ready compliance, and artifact follow-through matter as much as the initial verdict.

Reading a decision against the categories

Decision	What it means	Author move
Accept	Contribution and evidence hold; minor polish only	Camera-ready + artifact; do not reopen scope
Major Revision	Repairable gaps: missing analysis, unclear construct, a needed baseline	Treat as an R&R: make or explicitly decline every request, evidenced
Reject	Structural: wrong population, no credible baseline, thin contribution	Reframe or reroute (ICSE/ASE/ISSTA or a journal), do not lightly resubmit unchanged

The strategic reading: write the initial submission so that whatever is weakest is revisable in a revision round (an analysis you can add, a threat you can bound) rather than structural (a study design you cannot redo in weeks). The process is built to reward repairable papers.

How FSE differs from its siblings

• vs. ICSE: ICSE has run its own cycle structure (a two-cycle model in some years, single in others) with an Accept/Major-Revision/Reject flavor too, but on the IEEE side. FSE's identity is the PACMSE journal framing and the SIGSOFT open-science defaults. Never assume the two share a calendar or template.
• vs. ISSTA: ISSTA has used multi-round reviewing within a cycle; FSE's revise-and-resubmit is a decision-driven round (you revise because you were told to), not a scheduled second read of every paper.
• vs. the FSE 2024 dual-deadline year: FSE once let a Major Revision resubmit to a later deadline within the same review year. Recent calls advertise a single annual deadline with the revision round inside it — confirm the current cadence rather than carrying either forward.

Who reads you

Expect three SE-empiricist reviewers. They look for the threats-to-validity section, check whether claims outrun evidence, ask whether subjects and baselines are real and fair, and often open the artifact. Because FSE spans techniques, empirical studies, and human factors, a paper is usually matched to reviewers from its own subarea — vague method descriptions get caught, not skimmed.

Where author leverage actually exists

[Before submission]  topic tags -> reviewer pool           (largest lever)
[Initial reviews]    factual corrections, targeted evidence, clarifying misreadings
[Major Revision]     the strongest lever: a tracked-change revision + point-by-point,
                     anonymous response letter re-read by the same reviewers
[After reject]       no appeal; reroute to a sibling flagship or an SE journal

A response moves borderline papers when it corrects a factual misreading or supplies a number a reviewer said was missing; it does not move papers when it argues taste. In a Major Revision, silent omissions — a requested change neither made nor explicitly declined with a reason — are what turn the second read into a rejection.

Reading a review packet

Weight reviews before answering. A review that cites your section numbers, tables, and threats was read closely and will be read closely again in the revision round — its author is your likely advocate if the response holds. A review that discusses only novelty has left soundness and verifiability to the others; answer each reviewer on the axis they raised. Reviewers often end with an explicit question list; the revision is scored heavily on whether each question got a direct, evidenced answer.

Misreadings to avoid

• Treating Major Revision as a guaranteed accept — the second read is real; budget the revision window like a deadline.
• Treating the response as a debate — the PC discussion decides; your text is evidence for an advocate, not a closing argument.
• Assuming unanimity is required — a champion with answers to the other reviews can carry a paper through the discussion.
• Projecting last year's cadence — deadline count and revision timing are decided per edition.

Output format

[Process stage] pre-submission / awaiting reviews / major revision / final / accepted
[Decision category] accept / major revision / reject, with the criterion driving it
[Criterion map] each review point -> significance | soundness | evidence | threats | clarity | open-science
[Leverage plan] the next-stage action that can actually change the outcome
[Forbidden moves] identity leak (incl. in the response letter) / unsupported new claims