Most software engineering research involves the development of a prototype, a proof of concept, or a measurement apparatus. Together with the data collected in the research process, they are collectively referred to as research artifacts and are subject to artifact evaluation (AE) at scientific conferences. Since its initiation in the SE community at ESEC/FSE 2011, both the goals and the process of AE have evolved and today expectations towards AE are strongly linked with reproducible research results and reusable tools that other researchers can build their work on. However, to date little evidence has been provided that artifacts which have passed AE actually live up to these high expectations, i.e., to which degree AE processes contribute to AE's goals and whether the overhead they impose is justified.

We aim to fill this gap by providing an in-depth analysis of research artifacts from a decade of software engineering (SE) and programming languages (PL) conferences, based on which we reflect on the goals and mechanisms of AE in our community. In summary, our analyses (1) suggest that articles with artifacts do not generally have better visibility in the community, (2) provide evidence how evaluated and not evaluated artifacts differ with respect to different quality criteria, and (3) highlight opportunities for further improving AE processes.