Call for Artifacts

CCGrid 2026 will award three IEEE reproducibility badges to papers accepted to the main Research Tracks: Open Research Objects (ORO), Reusable/Research Objects Reviewed (ROR), and Results Reproduced (ROR-R). More information about each of these badges is available below. Authors may optionally request the badge(s) for their accepted paper by submitting relevant artifact(s) and a 2-page artifact description. If their submission is successfully reviewed, they will be awarded the badge(s). The badges will appear as part of the paper in the conference proceedings.

We suggest permanent repositories for archival that promote findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable (FAIR) principles such as Zenodo, Dryad or figshare to deposit your artifacts.

Hosting your software and/or data on GitHub or GitLab is not sufficient. You must additionally assign your artifact a persistent identifier using Zenodo, figshare, etc.

Open Research Objects (ORO)

This badge signals that author-created digital objects used in the research (including data and code) are permanently archived in a public repository that assigns a global identifier, guarantees persistence, and are made available via standard open licenses that maximize artifact availability.

• This is akin to author-supplied supplemental materials, shared under a standard public license such as an Open Science Initiative (OSI)-approved license for software or a Creative Commons license or public domain dedication for data and other materials.
• This definition corresponds to the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) “Artifacts Available” badge and the combined Center for Open Science (COS) “Open Data” and “Open Materials” badges (pertaining to digital objects).
• The artifact evaluation committee and the authors are responsible for determining what objects are “relevant” to a research publication.
• For software artifacts, there should be sufficient documentation for the reviewer to understand the software’s core functionality under review.
• For data artifacts, there must be adequate documentation, including context, description, how it was sourced, and how it is used in the paper.
• The metadata about the object should be made available for physical objects relevant to the research.

Review of both software and data will include the following criteria:

• Availability: Is the data/software permanently archived in a public repository that assigns a global identifier and guarantees persistence?
• License: Is the data/software available via standard open licenses that maximize artifact availability?
• Authorship: Does the authorship associated with the archived artifact appear reasonable and complete?

Reusable/Research Objects Reviewed (ROR)

This badge signals that all relevant author-created digital objects used in the research (including data and software) were reviewed according to the following criteria.

• A publication awarded the ROR badge must also be awarded the ORO badge.
• This badge corresponds to the previously used IEEE “Code Reviewed” badge.

A review of a software artifact will include the following criteria, which must be satisfied in the artifact:

• Documentation: There should be sufficient documentation for the reviewer to understand the core functionality of the software under review, including a statement of need/function, installation instructions, examples of usage, and API documentation.
• Functionality: Reviewers are expected to install the software they are reviewing and verify its core functionality.
• Testing: Minimally, that the software includes documented manual steps that can be followed to objectively check the expected functionality of the software (e.g., a sample input file to assert behavior); and ideally, that it includes an automated test suite hooked up to continuous integration (GitHub Actions, Circle CI, or similar).

A review of a data artifact will include the following criteria, which must be satisfied in the artifact:

• Documentation: Any dataset used in the paper must be adequately documented, including context, description, how it was sourced, and how it is used in the paper.
• Functionality: The documentation should be sufficient to promote reusability of the data beyond just the current paper. In the case of proprietary data formats, there should be associated code to access the data elements programmatically.

Results Reproduced (ROR-R)

This badge is awarded when evaluators have successfully reproduced the key computational results of the paper using the author-created research objects, methods, code, and conditions of analysis. The goal is not to recreate the exact results, especially when they are hardware-dependent, but rather to reproduce the behavior and validate the central claims of the research as follows:

• Reproduce Behavior: The focus is on replicating the functional behavior of the results rather than achieving bit-wise reproducibility. This is crucial for hardware-dependent outcomes. Whenever possible, reproduction will be attempted on the same hardware used in the original research. If the original hardware is unavailable, the evaluators will collaborate with the authors to reproduce equivalent behavior on available hardware. For instance, verifying whether one algorithm is significantly faster than another or if a specific parameter has a positive or negative effect on system behavior.
• Reproduce Central Results and Claims: The Artifact Description/Artifact Evaluation (AD/AE) committee will identify the core results and claims of the paper. These central elements will be the focus of the reproduction effort. The badge will be assigned based on the committee’s ability to reproduce the behavior of these central results.

The following additional criteria must be met for the ROR-R badge:

• The research must have already qualified for the Reusable/Research Objects Reviewed (ROR) badge.
• Complete adherence to the reproducibility definition by the National Academies of Sciences Engineering Medicine: “Reproducibility means obtaining consistent results using the same input data, computational steps, methods, code, and conditions of analysis.”
• Authors must assist in the reproduction process by providing all necessary materials and clarifications.

The ROR-R badge process will involve:

• Submission of a detailed reproduction plan along with the research objects by the authors.
• An independent attempt to reproduce the results by the evaluators.
• Collaboration with the authors to resolve any discrepancies and to validate the behavior of the results.
• Final verification of reproduced results by the AD/AE committee.

The ROR-R badge will appear next to the ROR badge in the conference proceedings, signifying that the paper has achieved this high standard of computational reproducibility.

Artifact Preparation and Submission Process

Authors seeking one or both of these badges must submit a 2-page artifact description document that includes a brief description of the artifacts and any needed details for them to be reviewed as part of the CCGrid 2026 artifact review process and then used by future readers.

For software: a link to the artifact and a description that includes language, compilation and run environment (tools, pre-built binaries, hardware), input dataset (if available), expected output and metrics, estimated time of all the compilation and run steps, etc.

For data: a link to the artifact, and a description as mentioned in the review criteria above. Make connections between the specific artifact(s) and their role and context within relevant parts of the accepted paper. You must also explicitly reference and cite your artifacts in this document, including a persistent identifier to it (e.g., DOI from Zenodo, figshare) and, for software, optionally a link to a URL where it is being developed and maintained (e.g., GitHub). Given the 2-page limit, you should include key details in the description document and more exhaustive steps in the persistent artifact link. You should format this document using the IEEE 2-column conference proceedings template. If artifacts are successfully evaluated, the authors will be allowed to add an updated 2-page version of their artifact description as an Appendix to the camera-ready paper. The review of the artifacts will follow a single-blinded process.

The artifact badging process will occur between author notifications and the Camera-Ready paper submission deadline ():

We are planning to have a midpoint check-in with authors to catch early mistakes that are easily fixable (missing files, missing import etc).

Note: Artifacts should be able to run on commodity workstations/laptops for the evaluation. In case the artifact is tightly coupled to a specific class of system or requires more than a generic workstation to be meaningfully evaluated (e.g., an HPC cluster, cloud resources, specialized accelerators, etc.), authors should provide access to such an evaluation environment that the artifact reviewers can use. This pre-requisite should be clear in the Artifact submission and the EasyChair abstract. The relevant credentials to the specialized resource may be shared by email with the Artifact Evaluation Committee Chairs to be passed onto the reviewers anonymously. If you require further guidance, please get in touch with the Artifact Evaluation Committee Chairs before the submission deadline.

Chairs and Contacts

• Loïc Pottier, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, USA (pottier1@llnl.gov)
• Tainã Coleman, San Diego Supercomputer Center, USA
• Vincenzo De Maio, TU Wien, Austria
• Alessandro Papadopoulos, Mälardalen University, Sweden