大平/査読結果/SSE2013
をテンプレートにして作成
[
トップ
] [
新規
|
一覧
|
検索
|
最終更新
|
ヘルプ
]
開始行:
[[大平/査読結果]]
*SSE 2013 notification for paper 8 [#a9b9940d]
Dear Masao,
Thank you for your submission to SSE'13 workshop at ESEC/...
A new perspective on the socialness in bug triaging: A ca...
was accepted as a SHORT PAPER for our workshop. Congratul...
Each submitted paper was reviewed by at least three membe...
Please revise your paper according to the reviewers' comm...
- You cannot exceed 4 pages for your paper.
- The deadline is July 1, 2013
- You will be contacted by the publisher soon with an aut...
Please note: At least one author of your paper must be re...
A detailed workshop agenda will be available within the n...
Best regards,
The SSE’13 Organizers
**REVIEW 1 [#lccad244]
OVERALL EVALUATION: 1 (weak accept)
REVIEWER'S CONFIDENCE: 5 (expert)
***REVIEW [#f405ebc4]
The paper presents a new perspective to bug triaging by s...
However, the paper could be improved with respect to the ...
- The authors need to explicitly define “social relations...
- The authors need to include a new section on “Study des...
- The authors need to discuss whether the new perspective...
- The authors need to discuss concrete practices and tool...
**REVIEW 2 [#q494c77a]
OVERALL EVALUATION: -1 (weak reject)
REVIEWER'S CONFIDENCE: 4 (high)
***REVIEW [#n6bb947b]
This paper tries to add a new perspective to bug triaging...
The authors want to find out, if such a social relationsh...
The paper is overall quite well written as far as languag...
However, my biggest concerns are fundamental doubts regar...
1. I cannot agree with what the authors call "social rela...
2. As answers to their RQs, the authors make two statemen...
3. The authors do not explain from where they get the tim...
3a. It might be that a specific assignor is typically con...
3b. Why do the authors use medians, why not means? It mig...
4. The preparation steps used to filter the bugs are uncl...
5. The external validity of the study is not given, as on...
There are also other points which the authors should cons...
-What do the authors think about bug priority, which is t...
-How do these studies relate to hierarchies or groups (su...
-On an individual level, what is the difference between t...
-How does the social structure between developers in open...
-The discussion section 4.1 is unclear to me.
-The paper includes several unsubstantiated claims, such ...
If the authors stick with this study, I would really reco...
In any case, the authors should think about the term "soc...
**REVIEW3 [#t5d340d4]
OVERALL EVALUATION: 1 (weak accept)
REVIEWER'S CONFIDENCE: 4 (high)***REVIEW
***REVIEW [#w56c2075]
The authors ask some interesting questions about the impa...
They provide a nice review of the related work and emphas...
The case study (Eclipse platform) is appropriate for an e...
Some areas for improvement are as follows:
- The motivation was not so compelling to me at first bec...
- RQ1 was not clearly defined especially in terms of how ...
- Surely some fixers (and assigners) focus on certain par...
- Why not use consistent labelling for Fixers and Assigno...
- Section 4.1 doesn't really discuss productivity vs. eff...
- I really think you should consider the contents and pro...
- Why just consider top five fixers? Can't the analysis b...
- What about the impact of managers from IBM (or power ov...
Writing issues:
- The paper is quite repetitive in places
- The English needs improvement, lots of typos and Englis...
**REVIEW4 [#ze6281fc]
OVERALL EVALUATION: -1 (weak reject)
REVIEWER'S CONFIDENCE: 4 (high)
***REVIEW [#u667ea1d]
The idea behind this paper is intriguing and I wonder why...
The three main findings reported at the end of the introd...
Dont you have to take into account the type of bug in ord...
The paper would benefit from some checking regarding Engl...
終了行:
[[大平/査読結果]]
*SSE 2013 notification for paper 8 [#a9b9940d]
Dear Masao,
Thank you for your submission to SSE'13 workshop at ESEC/...
A new perspective on the socialness in bug triaging: A ca...
was accepted as a SHORT PAPER for our workshop. Congratul...
Each submitted paper was reviewed by at least three membe...
Please revise your paper according to the reviewers' comm...
- You cannot exceed 4 pages for your paper.
- The deadline is July 1, 2013
- You will be contacted by the publisher soon with an aut...
Please note: At least one author of your paper must be re...
A detailed workshop agenda will be available within the n...
Best regards,
The SSE’13 Organizers
**REVIEW 1 [#lccad244]
OVERALL EVALUATION: 1 (weak accept)
REVIEWER'S CONFIDENCE: 5 (expert)
***REVIEW [#f405ebc4]
The paper presents a new perspective to bug triaging by s...
However, the paper could be improved with respect to the ...
- The authors need to explicitly define “social relations...
- The authors need to include a new section on “Study des...
- The authors need to discuss whether the new perspective...
- The authors need to discuss concrete practices and tool...
**REVIEW 2 [#q494c77a]
OVERALL EVALUATION: -1 (weak reject)
REVIEWER'S CONFIDENCE: 4 (high)
***REVIEW [#n6bb947b]
This paper tries to add a new perspective to bug triaging...
The authors want to find out, if such a social relationsh...
The paper is overall quite well written as far as languag...
However, my biggest concerns are fundamental doubts regar...
1. I cannot agree with what the authors call "social rela...
2. As answers to their RQs, the authors make two statemen...
3. The authors do not explain from where they get the tim...
3a. It might be that a specific assignor is typically con...
3b. Why do the authors use medians, why not means? It mig...
4. The preparation steps used to filter the bugs are uncl...
5. The external validity of the study is not given, as on...
There are also other points which the authors should cons...
-What do the authors think about bug priority, which is t...
-How do these studies relate to hierarchies or groups (su...
-On an individual level, what is the difference between t...
-How does the social structure between developers in open...
-The discussion section 4.1 is unclear to me.
-The paper includes several unsubstantiated claims, such ...
If the authors stick with this study, I would really reco...
In any case, the authors should think about the term "soc...
**REVIEW3 [#t5d340d4]
OVERALL EVALUATION: 1 (weak accept)
REVIEWER'S CONFIDENCE: 4 (high)***REVIEW
***REVIEW [#w56c2075]
The authors ask some interesting questions about the impa...
They provide a nice review of the related work and emphas...
The case study (Eclipse platform) is appropriate for an e...
Some areas for improvement are as follows:
- The motivation was not so compelling to me at first bec...
- RQ1 was not clearly defined especially in terms of how ...
- Surely some fixers (and assigners) focus on certain par...
- Why not use consistent labelling for Fixers and Assigno...
- Section 4.1 doesn't really discuss productivity vs. eff...
- I really think you should consider the contents and pro...
- Why just consider top five fixers? Can't the analysis b...
- What about the impact of managers from IBM (or power ov...
Writing issues:
- The paper is quite repetitive in places
- The English needs improvement, lots of typos and Englis...
**REVIEW4 [#ze6281fc]
OVERALL EVALUATION: -1 (weak reject)
REVIEWER'S CONFIDENCE: 4 (high)
***REVIEW [#u667ea1d]
The idea behind this paper is intriguing and I wonder why...
The three main findings reported at the end of the introd...
Dont you have to take into account the type of bug in ord...
The paper would benefit from some checking regarding Engl...
ページ名:
![[PukiWiki]](image/wadanyan.png "[PukiWiki]")
