Engineering Impacts of Anonymous Author Code Review: A Field Experiment

Murphy-Hill, Emerson; Dicker, Jillian; Hodges, Margaret Morrow; Egelman, Carolyn D.; Jaspan, Ciera; Cheng, Lan; Kammer, Elizabeth; Holtz, Ben; Jorde, Matt; Knight, Andrea; Green, Collin

doi:10.1109/tse.2021.3061527

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Discussion1

Impact Of Software Development Processes Patch Characteristi...1

Citation Types

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Year Published

2022

2023

Publication Types

Select...

Article2

Relationship

Self Cite1

Independent1

Authors

Journals

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our initiatives to this end are wideranging, from bias-busting training c to anonymous author code review. 10 We look forward to seeing whether such initiatives will foster more equitable treatment of different groups of engineers in the workplace.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The pushback effects of race, ethnicity, gender, and age in code review

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The pushback effects of race, ethnicity, gender, and age in code review

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The study found that developers from countries with low human development face rejection the most. From the perspective of bias, a study [182] investigated the benefits of anonymous code reviews. The results indicate that while anonymity reduces bias, it is sometimes possible to identify the reviewer, and there are some Modern Code Reviews-Survey of Literature and Practice 107:29 practical disadvantages such as not being able to discuss with the reviewer.…”

Section: Impact Of Software Development Processes Patch Characteristi...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Modern Code Reviews—Survey of Literature and Practice

Badampudi

Unterkalmsteiner

Britto

2023

ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Modern Code Review (MCR) is a lightweight alternative to traditional code inspections. While secondary studies on MCR exist; it is unknown whether the research community has targeted themes that practitioners consider important. Objectives: The objectives are to provide an overview of MCR research, analyze the practitioners’ opinions on the importance of MCR research, investigate the alignment between research and practice, and propose future MCR research avenues. Method: We conducted a systematic mapping study to survey state-of-the-art until and including 2021, employed the Q-Methodology to analyze the practitioners’ perception of the relevance of MCR research, and analyzed the primary studies’ research impact. Results: We analyzed 244 primary studies, resulting in five themes. As a result of the 1300 survey data points, we found that the respondents are positive about research investigating the impact of MCR on product quality and MCR process properties. In contrast, they are negative about human factor- and support systems-related research. Conclusion: These results indicate a misalignment between the state-of-the-art and the themes deemed important by most survey respondents. Researchers should focus on solutions that can improve the state of MCR practice. We provide an MCR research agenda, which can potentially increase the impact of MCR research.

show abstract

Engineering Impacts of Anonymous Author Code Review: A Field Experiment

Cited by 2 publications

References 38 publications

The pushback effects of race, ethnicity, gender, and age in code review

The pushback effects of race, ethnicity, gender, and age in code review

Modern Code Reviews—Survey of Literature and Practice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About