The State of Open Science in Software Engineering Research: A Case Study of ICSE Artifacts

TL;DR

This study evaluates the executability and reproducibility of 100 ICSE research artifacts, revealing significant challenges and a gap between artifact sharing and practical usability, and proposes guidelines to improve open science practices.

Contribution

It provides a comprehensive empirical assessment of artifact executability and reproducibility in SE research, highlighting key challenges and offering actionable improvement guidelines.

Findings

Only 40% of artifacts were fully executable.

35% of executable artifacts reproduced original results.

Most artifacts required moderate to high effort to execute.

Abstract

Replication packages are crucial for enabling transparency, validation, and reuse in software engineering (SE) research. While artifact sharing is now a standard practice and even expected at premier SE venues such as ICSE, the practical usability of these replication packages remain underexplored. In particular, there is a marked lack of studies that comprehensively examine the executability and reproducibility of replication packages in SE research. In this paper, we aim to fill this gap by evaluating 100 replication packages published in ICSE proceedings over the past decade (2015 - 2024). We assess the (1) executability of the replication packages, (2) efforts and modifications required to execute them, (3) challenges that prevent executability, and (4) reproducibility of the original findings for those that are executable. We spent approximately 650 person-hours in total to execute the artifacts and reproduce the study findings. Our analysis shows that only 40 of the 100 evaluated artifacts were fully executable. Among these, 32.5% ran without any modification. However, even executable artifacts required varying levels of effort: 17.5% required low effort, while 82.5% required moderate to high effort to execute successfully. We identified five common types of modifications and 13 challenges that lead to execution failure, encompassing environmental, documentation, and structural issues. Among the executable artifacts, only 35% (14 out of 40) reproduced the original results. These findings highlight a notable gap between artifact availability, executability, and reproducibility. Our study proposes three actionable guidelines to improve the preparation, documentation, and review of research artifacts, thereby strengthening the rigor and sustainability of open science practices in SE research.