This article proposes a classification system and evaluation criteria for papers in requirements engineering (RE). The authors argue that different types of RE papers should be evaluated using different criteria. They note that current evaluation criteria in RE journals are inconsistent and that this can lead to unfair paper evaluations. The authors propose a classification system based on the engineering cycle, which includes six activities: problem investigation, solution design, solution validation, solution selection, solution implementation, and implementation evaluation. Each activity corresponds to a different type of paper. For example, papers that describe new techniques should be evaluated based on their technical contribution, while papers that report on empirical studies should be evaluated based on their methodology and results. The authors also propose that papers that describe conceptual frameworks should be evaluated based on their originality and relevance to RE problems. The authors suggest that the classification system should be used to guide the evaluation of papers in RE conferences. They also argue that the classification system should be used to improve the quality of RE research. The authors conclude that the classification system and evaluation criteria should be used to ensure that papers are evaluated fairly and that the quality of RE research is improved.This article proposes a classification system and evaluation criteria for papers in requirements engineering (RE). The authors argue that different types of RE papers should be evaluated using different criteria. They note that current evaluation criteria in RE journals are inconsistent and that this can lead to unfair paper evaluations. The authors propose a classification system based on the engineering cycle, which includes six activities: problem investigation, solution design, solution validation, solution selection, solution implementation, and implementation evaluation. Each activity corresponds to a different type of paper. For example, papers that describe new techniques should be evaluated based on their technical contribution, while papers that report on empirical studies should be evaluated based on their methodology and results. The authors also propose that papers that describe conceptual frameworks should be evaluated based on their originality and relevance to RE problems. The authors suggest that the classification system should be used to guide the evaluation of papers in RE conferences. They also argue that the classification system should be used to improve the quality of RE research. The authors conclude that the classification system and evaluation criteria should be used to ensure that papers are evaluated fairly and that the quality of RE research is improved.