Frequently Asked Questions

Submissions

Q. Is there an EMSE template on Overleaf?

Yes, there is a general template file for Springer’s SVJour3 Latex that you can start from. You can find it here: Overleaf SVJour3 General Template. For detailed submission instructions be sure to always go to the official EMSE submission instruction page; while the Overleaf template might not be up-to-date the one linked from our Springer site always will be.

Q. Does EMSE have a definition of Conflict of Interest (CoI) that I should consider if proposing reviewers for my paper?

Our submission guidelines have detailed information about this: Conflicts of Interest / Competing Interests but is more focused on the actual work/submission rather than for proposing reviewers etc. General Springer guidelines is more applicable for proposing reviewers (scroll to bottom of page): Ethical responsibilities of authors We think that the ACM Conflict of Interest policy is a good one that should be considered, in general, in the SE community: Conflict of Interest Policy for ACM Publications

Q: Does EMSE accept submissions and, potentially, publish secondary studies such as systematic literature reviews (SLRs) or systematic mapping (sysmap) studies?

EMSE occasionally publishes secondary studies, but the expectations are high. A review that merely summarizes the current state of the field or outlines trends is unlikely to be accepted. We look for more —- specifically, a deeper analysis that synthesizes findings into a model, framework, or other meaningful contribution that advances the research community’s understanding.

If similar SLRs or SysMap studies already exist, authors must provide a strong justification for conducting a new one. It’s not enough to update previous work; the study must offer significant new insights. Without this added value, the review won’t meet EMSE’s standards.

Additionally, EMSE generally does not consider tertiary studies, such as a SLR of SLRs, as relevant. These studies tend to focus less on the primary research they depend on and more on scientometric or bibliometric analyses, which are better suited for venues specializing in those fields.

If you believe your study meets our high standards, keep in mind that this is the Empirical Software Engineering journal. Your analysis or synthesis is less likely to be in scope if it doesn’t involve or analyse empirical aspects of the primary studies under review.

While meeting these criteria can be demanding, we do not rule out such studies entirely. If your work provides fresh perspectives and substantial contributions, we welcome the opportunity to consider it.