Ensuring the reproducibility of results is essential in experimental sciences. Unfortunately, as highlighted recently, a large proportion of research results are hardly, if not at all, reproducible, raising reasonable doubts on the research lead by scientists around the world.
To address this important issue, the ACM has introduced a new policy on result and artifact review and badging. The policy defines clearly the terminology to be used to assess results and artifacts but does not specify the review process.
The goal of the workshop is to craft recommendations on research results and artifacts review process for conferences and journals of the SIGCOMM interest group. To achieve this goal, the workshop is structured as a forum where presenters will discuss with attendees their experience in reviewing research results and artifacts.
To prepare the discussion authors are requested to submit discussions around papers published in the various ACM conference in 2016/2017, with experimental results and artifacts. Submitted papers to the workshop will provide an extended abstract with either feedback on the actual review of papers in these conferences or proposals of methods to review papers, from a results and artifact perspective. To emulate discussions before but also after the workshop, an open virtual forum is set in place to exchange ideas and experiences: http://reproducibility.lisp-lab.org
Topics of particular interest include, but are not limited to:
– Reviewing experience;
– Enabling environments and tools for reproducibility;
– Methods and tools to anonymize datasets;
– Testbeds for reproducible research;
– Platforms to share experimental results and artifacts.
The workshop will try to answer questions rose by the ACM such as:
– Should reviews occur before or after acceptance of a paper?
– How many reviewers should there be?
– Should the reviewers be anonymous, or should they be allowed to interact openly with the authors?
– How should artifacts be packaged for review?
– What specific metrics should be used to assess quality?
Submissions must be original unpublished work. Submitted papers must be at most three (3) pages long, including all figures, tables, references, and appendices in two-column 10pt ACM format. Papers must include authors names and affiliations for peer reviewing by the PC. Authors are invited to follow the terminology defined by the ACM Result and Artifact Review and Badging publication policy (https://www.acm.org/publications/policies/artifact-review-badging). Authors of accepted papers are expected to present their papers at the workshop. The outcomes of the workshop will be published in ACM Computer Communication Review (CCR).
To guarantee freedom to attend to everyone, remote attendance will be possible for the workshop.
Contact workshop co-chairs: email@example.com
o January 25, 2017: Opening of the discussion forum and submission system
o March 24, 2017: Paper submissions deadline
o April 28, 2017: Paper acceptance notification
o May 26, 2017: Camera ready due
o Olivier Bonaventure, Universitée catholique de Louvain, Belgium
o Luigi Iannone, Telecom ParisTech, France
o Damien Saucez, Inria, France
Technical Program Committee
o Amogh Dhamdhere, CAIDA
o Anja Feldmann, Technische Universität Berlin
o Bob Lantz, Stanford University
o Gwendal Simon, Telecom Bretagne
o Hamed Haddadi, Queen Mary University of London
o Joerg Ott, Technische Universität München
o Klaus Wehrle, RWTH Aachen University
o Marco Fiore, CNR – IEIIT
o Marco Mellia, Politecnico di Torino
o Matthias Wählisch, Freie Universität Berlin
o Mohamed Naoufal Mahfoudi, Inria
o Phillipa Gill, University of Massachusetts — Amherst
o Tom Henderson, University of Washington
o Tristan Henderson, University of St Andrews
o Yibo Zhu, Microsoft