Software engineering research has experienced rapid growth in both output and participation over the past decades. Yet concerns persist about the field’s ability to accumulate, integrate, and reuse knowledge in ways that support long-term progress. To better understand how the community itself perceives these challenges, we analyze responses from the ICSE 2026 Future of Software Engineering pre-survey, which captures perspectives from 280 globally distributed and highly experienced researchers. Our analysis reveals a tension between increasing research productivity and the limited mechanisms available for synthesizing results, tracking evolving claims, and supporting cumulative understanding over time. Building on these observations, we diagnose four interrelated structural breakdowns: papers function as isolated knowledge units with claims embedded in prose; context and provenance are lost as knowledge moves through the publication pipeline; claims evolve without systematic tracking; and incentive structures favor novelty over consolidation. We argue that addressing these barriers requires rethinking the fundamental properties of research artifacts. We articulate four technology-agnostic principles for future research artifacts: structured and interpretable representations of claims and evidence; inspectable and provenance-aware documentation of methodological decisions; long-lived and reusable substrates that evolve beyond publication; and governance mechanisms that align individual incentives with collective knowledge-building goals. We discuss implications for research practice, publication norms, and community infrastructure, positioning FOSE as a venue for experimenting with alternative artifact designs that support cumulative scientific progress.

@inproceedings{abs-2604-16208,
  title = {From Papers to Progress: Rethinking Knowledge Accumulation in Software Engineering},
  author = {Jason Cusati and Chris Brown},
  booktitle = {ICSE},
  year = {2026},
  doi = {10.1145/3793657.3793888}
}