Supporting the Evolution of Research in Software Ecosystems: Reviewing the Empirical Literature

Manikas, Konstantinos

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-40515-5_5

Cited by 10 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 67 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There are several documents with detailed information that is not in this paper (e.g., the set of all papers containing search terms, author measures, list of terms, etc.) ondary studies that presented a review on SECOs: Barbosa and ; their updated work Barbosa et al (2013); Manikas and Hansen (2013); their expanded work Manikas (2016a); Axelsson and Skoglund (2016) and Manikas (2016b). Afterwards, we analyzed all of the selected papers from these studies and found a new study by Hanssen and Dyba (2012), which is a kind of secondary study about theorizing in the SECO research literature.…”

Section: Identification Of the Need For A Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Therefore, there were seven secondary studies finally selected: Barbosa and Alves (2011); Hanssen and Dybå (2012); Barbosa et al (2013); Manikas and Hansen (2013); their expanded work Manikas (2016a); Axelsson and Skoglund (2016) and Manikas (2016b). It is worth noting that none of these works was conducted specifically on OSSECOs.…”

Section: Identification Of the Need For A Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is worth noting that none of these works was conducted specifically on OSSECOs. Instead, all papers focus on SECOs in general except Manikas (2016b) that focuses on proprietary SECOs.…”

Section: Identification Of the Need For A Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…19). In particular, the difference between OSSECOs and just SECOs is made explicit by Manikas' literature review itself Manikas (2016b), where is stated that "one of the most common differentiation of ecosystem types is the separation between ecosystems that are driven or supported by free and open source software (FOSS) and ecosystems that are driven or supported by proprietary software".…”

Section: The Osseco Definitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition, it allows co-evolve the OSSECO community with its associated project [R29]. On the other hand, proprietary SECOs limit access to proprietary information, such as source code Manikas (2016b).…”

Section: The Osseco Definitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Open source software ecosystems: A Systematic mapping

Franco-Bedoya

Ameller

Costal

et al. 2017

Information and Software Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context: Open source software (OSS) and software ecosystems (SECOs) are two consolidated research areas in software engineering. OSS influences the way organizations develop, acquire, use and commercialize software. SECOs have emerged as a paradigm to understand dynamics and heterogeneity in collaborative software development. For this reason, SECOs appear as a valid instrument to analyze OSS systems. However, there are few studies that blend both topics together.Objective: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the current state of the art in OSS ecosystems (OSSECOs) research, specifically: (a) what the most relevant definitions related to OSSECOs are; (b) what the particularities of this type of SECO are; and (c) how the knowledge about OSSECO is represented.Method: We conducted a systematic mapping following recommended practices. We applied automatic and manual searches on different sources and used a rigorous method to elicit the keywords from the research questions and selection criteria to retrieve the final papers. As a result, 82 papers were selected and evaluated. Threats to validity were identified and mitigated whenever possible.Results: The analysis allowed us to answer the research questions. Most notably, we did the following: (a) identified 64 terms related to the OSSECO and arranged them into a taxonomy; (b) built a genealogical tree to understand the genesis of the OSSECO term from related definitions; (c) analyzed the available definitions of SECO in the context of OSS; and (d) classified the existing modelling and analysis techniques of OSSECOs.Conclusion: As a summary of the systematic mapping, we conclude that existing research on several topics related to OSSECOs is still scarce (e.g., modelling and analysis techniques, quality models, standard definitions, etc.). This situation calls for further investigation efforts on how organizations and OSS communities actually understand OSSECOs.

show abstract

Section: Identification Of the Need For A Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Identification Of the Need For A Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is worth noting that none of these works was conducted specifically on OSSECOs. Instead, all papers focus on SECOs in general except Manikas (2016b) that focuses on proprietary SECOs.…”

Section: Identification Of the Need For A Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Osseco Definitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Osseco Definitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations