IISWC-2022

November 6 – November 8, 2022

 Austin, Texas, USA


ARTIFACT EVALUATION 

For IISWC 2022, we are providing an artifact evaluation process for authors of accepted papers. Due to the abbreviated time period between notification of acceptance and the camera-ready deadline, we are focusing exclusively on artifact availability. Authors that meet the artifact availability criteria are welcome to expand on additional aspects of their artifacts (e.g., installation or configuration guidance) in an appendix section, but the committee will not evaluate beyond the criteria for availability.
For those papers that pass the artifact evaluation process, they will receive a badge that will appear on the final version of the published paper. These papers can also include a two page artifact appendix section (see Submission Process below).

Important Dates

Decision Notification : September 2, 2022

Artifact Submission : September 16, 2022 (11:59 EDT)

Artifact Notification :   September 30, 2022

Artifact Notification

The authors will submit their paper with a two page appendix following the format in the provided template. The template will contain at least the following sections:


In addition, the artifacts must be made available to the committee for evaluation. Given that we are only evaluating for artifact availability, the artifacts must be made available on a public archival repository (see Evaluation Criteria below).
Please submit the updated paper to our submission site before the deadline on September 16, 2022.

Evaluation Criteria

For the artifact availability badge, we are following the criteria from here. A paper will meet the artifact availability criteria if all artifacts related to the paper (e.g., the code and data used to generate figures, the tools described in the paper, etc.) are made publicly available on an archival repository site such as Zenodo, FigShare, or Dryad. IISWC does not mandate the use of above repositories. However, publisher repositories, institutional repositories, or open commercial repositories are acceptable only if they have a declared plan to enable permanent accessibility! Please note that public code repositories (ex`.g., GitHub, GitLab, etc.) and personal websites are not acceptable as they don’t provide permanent accessibility. See the review criteria for artifact availability for more guidance.

Artifact Evaluation Committee

Artifact Evaluation Co-Chairs

Tony Nowatzki, University of California Los Angeles

Yuhao Zhu, University of Rochester


Committee Members

Chris Kjellqvist, Duke

Christopher Liu, UCLA

Dylan Kupsh, UCLA

Salekh Parkhati, UCLA

Tiancheng Xu, Rice

Yiming Gan, University of Rochester

Yu Feng, University of Rochester

Zishen Wan, Georgia Tech

Sponsored by:

              



Images used on this page are under CC0 / Public Domain License