On the need to update systematic literature reviews

Nepomuceno, Vilmar; Soares, Sérgio

doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2019.01.005

Cited by 18 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Further investigations can be carried out to assess plagiarism issues in SLRs. A Nepomuceno and Soares [13] maintenance (update) should be done in the search for new SLR updates to strengthen the findings of our work. Another point to be studied is, due to a vast diversity of plagiarism tools in literature, the impact of these tools on SLR plagiarism assessments.…”

Section: Rq2: How Can Plagiarism Issues Be Avoided During Slrs Maintesupporting

confidence: 58%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Avoiding Plagiarism in Systematic Literature Reviews

Nepomuceno

Soares

2020

Proceedings of the 14th ACM / IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM)

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The number of Systematic Literature Reviews published in Software Engineering has been increasing in recent years. Due to this fact, one point not addressed is the possibility of plagiarism when dealing with SLRs, especially when dealing with SLR maintenance (update) activities. Aims: To identify what researchers understand by SLR plagiarism, whether the process of maintaining these SLRs can increase the chances of committing plagiarism, and how this misconduct can be avoided. Method: During a previous survey about SLR maintenance, we asked questions about SLR plagiarism issues and also a semi-structured interviews was performed to obtain responses from experts conducting SLRs on possible SLR maintenance plagiarism issues. Also, a comparison between SLR updates and their original works was made, through a plagiarism tool, looking for possible plagiarism situations. Results: The general concern, in the survey and semi-structured interviews, is with study proper citation and what was published by others. We understand, therefore, plagiarism in SLR is not different from other areas of research. However, we have specific situations for the SLR maintenance process that lead us to present a set of good practices to avoid plagiarism. When comparing SLRs updates with their originals, possible plagiarism situations were identified, mainly in the method section, which was expected due to its reuse. Conclusions: Although we do not need a specific plagiarism definition for SLRs when we think in SLR maintenance (update), we understand there is a higher possibility of committing plagiarism without proper care, as identified in the comparisons made between SLRs updates and their original versions. CCS CONCEPTS • General and reference → Empirical studies.

show abstract

Section: Rq2: How Can Plagiarism Issues Be Avoided During Slrs Maintesupporting

confidence: 58%

“…To present an overview of what could happen in SLRs maintenance, a comparison was made between retrieved studies from a systematic mapping [13] on SLRs updates and their original studies. We use a plagiarism verification tool (CopySpider 1 ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Avoiding Plagiarism in Systematic Literature Reviews

Nepomuceno

Soares

2020

Proceedings of the 14th ACM / IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM)

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While updates of SLRs are very common in other fields, few have been found in software engineering to date [33]. Da Silva et al [34] analyzed the quality, coverage of topics and potential impact of published SLRs as regards software engineering.…”

Section: The Need For An Updatementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The authors of [38], [39] concluded that snowballing is a suitable technique by which to perform SLR updates. The use of this kind of tools to support updates, along with the collaboration between the members who participated in the previous study team, can facilitate the update process itself [33]. Both points had already been raised in [38], in which the inclusion of information about the previous study and the reuse of the protocol from the previous study were also considered as important when conducting an update.…”

Section: The Need For An Updatementioning

confidence: 99%

An Update on Effort Estimation in Agile Software Development: A Systematic Literature Review

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Software developers require effective effort estimation models to facilitate project planning. Although Usman et al. systematically reviewed and synthesized the effort estimation models and practices for Agile Software Development (ASD) in 2014, new evidence may provide new perspectives for researchers and practitioners. This paper presents a systematic literature review that updates the Usman et al. study from 2014 to 2020 by analyzing the data extracted from 73 new papers. This analysis allowed us to identify six agile methods: Scrum, Xtreme Programming and four others, in all of which expert-based estimation methods continue to play an important role. This is particularly the case of Planning Poker, which is very closely related to the most frequently used size metric (story points) and the way in which software requirements are specified in ASD. There is also a remarkable trend toward studying techniques based on the intensive use of data. In this respect, although most of the data originate from single-company datasets, there is a significant increase in the use of cross-company data. With regard to cost factors, we applied the thematic analysis method. The use of team and project factors appears to be more frequent than the consideration of more technical factors, in accordance with agile principles. Finally, although accuracy is still a challenge, we identified that improvements have been made. On the one hand, an increasing number of papers showed acceptable accuracy values, although many continued to report inadequate results. On the other, almost 29% of the papers that reported the accuracy metric used reflected aspects concerning the validation of the models and 18% reported the effect size when comparing models.

show abstract

“…Besides that, we have considered the most recent guidelines to conduct systematic literature reviews 20‐24 . Specifically, we followed the guidelines in 4,25,26 to plan and conduct a second‐generation systematic study.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Risks and risk mitigation in global software development: An update

Barros-Justo

Benitti

Molléri

2021

J Software Evolu Process

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context: Interest in global software development (GSD) has led to the publication of numerous studies. Over time, these studies should be updated to verify if their findings and conclusions remain valid. Objective: To update a tertiary study, published in 2014, focused on investigating risks and risk mitigation advice in the context of GSD. Method: We conducted a systematic literature study based on forward snowballing, out of which we identified and selected 25 unique studies. Results: We extracted: (a) 118 risks (75 of which already identified in the original work), and (b) 167 mitigation advice (44 of which were identified in the original work). Out of 43 new risks identified, just 10 are specific to GSD settings; the others are risks of the software process described in the context of GSD. The evidence supporting these risks and mitigation were extracted from 619 and 389 primary sources, respectively. Given the amount of evidence found, we have reported only those with higher empirical support. The raw data is available online as complementary material. Conclusions: Interest in GSD, its potential risks, and mitigation strategies, remains high. This update has allowed increasing the level of empirical support provided by the findings of the original work.

show abstract

On the need to update systematic literature reviews

Cited by 18 publications

References 4 publications

Avoiding Plagiarism in Systematic Literature Reviews

Avoiding Plagiarism in Systematic Literature Reviews

An Update on Effort Estimation in Agile Software Development: A Systematic Literature Review

Risks and risk mitigation in global software development: An update

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About