bug_fixing_

[minkull]

https://github.com/researchart/rose6icse/tree/master/submissions/replicated/bugfixing

Replicated study: Predicting bug-fixing time: A replication study using an open source software project (link) Shirin Akbarinasaji* Bora Caglayan Ayşe Başar corresponding author, GitHub ID: @ShirinAkbari;

Original paper: Predicting Bug-Fixing Time: An Empirical Study of Commercial Software Projects (link) Hongyu Zhang, Liang Gong, Steve Versteeg, Jue Wang, Zeqi Shen, and Janine Radford

applying for replicated

[artifact-review]

The author apply for "Replicated" badge.

• Avalable: The data from original paper comes from private software project that is not publicly available. In the replicating study, in constrast, the authors collected data for an open source system (Mozilla Firefox) from public issue tracking system (Bugzilla). In addition, the reviewer could not find the Firefox dataset from the paper, therefore, we have to reject the "Available" badge"

• Replicated: As the presiquisite "Available" criteria could not be verified, we would have to reject the "Replicated" badge as well. Even though the Firefox data is publicly published, it is difficult to justify if the results from original paper have been successfully replicated given the fact that the authors used different dataset

Decision: Rejected

[unknown-user1234]

I am having a problem in reviewing this artifact. The github repository "https://github.com/researchart/rose6icse/tree/master/submissions/replicated/bug_fixing_" does not contain the software artifacts. Could someone please show me the correct repository?

[timm]

@unknown-user1234 so, as of know, like @artifact-review , you would gave to reject "replicated" since the material is not "available"?

[unknown-user1234]

Thank you @timm !!

I misread the @artifact-review comment.

As the material is not available (which is a constraint for the replicated badge), I recommend to reject the replicated badge to this artifact submission.

Decision: Reject

[artifact-review]

@unknown-user1234 @timm The repo URL misses an underscore at the end due to GitHub markdown's url auto-correction. The correct repo is located here if you would like to checkout the repo.

[timm]

I can see that this paper does a "replication" w.r.t. the standards of say, EMSE.

but not to the standards required by the ACM badges.

this is a quandary. Will discuss with @minkull

[timm]

Our CFP says

"For Replicated and Reproduced Badges For “replicated” and “reproduced” badges, authors will need to offer appropriate documentation that their artifacts have reached that stage."

so that imples replicated has to need available

can the material to support this artifact?

otherwise, no badge

[minkull]

Many thanks all for your inputs.

No badge awaded.