Registered Reports Track ECSA 2026

Call For Registered Reports

ECSA 2026 introduces a Registered Reports (RR) Track to encourage researchers to submit their research plans for peer review and acceptance before the results are known. This model promotes transparency, reduces publication bias, and supports rigorous, hypothesis-driven research. The RR track of ECSA2026 has two goals:

1. To prevent HARKing (hypothesizing after the results are known) for empirical studies.
2. To provide early feedback to authors in their initial study design.

For papers submitted to the RR track, methods and proposed analyses are reviewed prior to execution. Pre-registered studies follow a two-stage process:

Stage 1. A report is submitted that describes the planned study. The submitted report is evaluated by the reviewers of the RR track of ECSA2026. Authors of accepted pre-registered studies will be given the opportunity to present their work at ECSA.

Stage 2. Once a report has passed Stage 1, the study will be conducted, and actual data collection and analysis take place. The results may also be negative! The full paper is submitted for review to EMSE.

Paper Types

The RR track of ECSA2026 supports two types of papers:

• Confirmatory: The researcher has a fixed hypothesis (or several fixed hypotheses), and the objective of the study is to determine whether the hypothesis is supported by the facts/data.

Example of a completed confirmatory study: Inozemtseva, L., & Holmes, R. (2014, May). Coverage is not strongly correlated with test suite effectiveness. In Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Software Engineering (pp. 435-445).

• Exploratory: The researcher does not have a hypothesis (or has one that may change during the study). Often, the objective is to understand what is observed and answer questions such as why, how, what, who, or when. This category also includes registrations where the researcher has an initial proposed solution for an automated approach (e.g., a new deep-learning defect prediction approach) that serves as a starting point for exploration.

Examples of completed exploratory studies:

Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers will evaluate RR track submissions based on:

• The importance of the research question(s)
• The logic, rationale, and plausibility of the proposed hypotheses
• The soundness and feasibility of the methodology and analysis pipeline (including statistical power analysis where appropriate).

For confirmatory studies:

• Whether the clarity and degree of methodological detail are sufficient to exactly replicate the proposed experimental procedures and analysis pipeline
• Whether authors have pre-specified sufficient outcome-neutral tests (including positive controls and quality checks).

For exploratory studies (if applicable):

• Description of the dataset that forms the base for exploration.

Outcome Types

The outcome of the RR review is one of the following:

• In-Principle Acceptance (IPA): The reviewers agree that the study is relevant, the outcome (whether confirming or rejecting the hypothesis) is of interest to the community, the protocol for data collection is sound, and the analysis methods are adequate. The authors can engage in the actual study for the next stage.

If the protocol is adhered to, the study is published. Since this is a journal submission, revisions may be necessary. Reviewers will evaluate whether the accepted protocol was followed or deviations were justified.

• Continuity Acceptance (CA): The reviewers agree that the study is relevant, and the (initial) methods appear appropriate. However, for exploratory studies, implementation details and post-experiment analyses may require follow-up checks. Reviewers from Stage 1 will try to review Stage 2 submissions. Four (4) PC members will review Stage 1, and three (3) will review Stage 2.

• Rejection: The reviewers do not agree on the relevance of the study or are not convinced that the study design is sufficiently mature. Authors receive comments to improve the study design before starting it.

Important Note

• For ECSA2026 only confirmatory studies are granted an IPA.
• Exploratory studies in software engineering often cannot be adequately assessed until after completion.
• Negative results are welcome, but papers must go beyond simply stating “we tried and failed.”
• Instead, they should analyze why the results are negative and what that means for further studies.
• For any authorship changes between Stage 1 and Stage 2, authors must complete a “Change of Authorship Request Form.” The EMSE Editors-in-Chief and RR track chairs may deny author changes.
• Authors must document all deviations (if any) in a section of the paper.
• RR reports will not be published in the ECSA2026 proceedings.

Submission

All contributions need to be written in English, must be original, not published, accepted, or submitted for publication elsewhere. If accepted, each contribution needs to be presented by one of the authors who is registered at the conference.

All contributions must be formatted according to the Springer LNCS style. Contributions need to be submitted in PDF format via EasyChair to the ECSA 2026 Registered Report Track. Please select the “Registered Report Track” in EasyChair for your submission and click “Continue”.

Timeline for ECSA2026 RR Track

• May 01, 2026: Initial report submission (max 12 pages + 1 page references).
• May 30.05, 2026: PC members provide reviews.
• June 13, 2026: Authors submit a response letter (max 8 pages) + revised report (max 12 pages + 1 page references). The response letter should address reviewer comments. The response letter does not need to follow Conference template.
• July 04, 2026: Notification of Stage 1 outcome (IPA, CA, or rejection).
• August 04, 2026: Accepted RR reports must be submitted to arXiv.

All dates are 23:59h AoE (Anywhere on Earth).