A study into the practice of reporting software engineering experiments
Abstract It has been argued that reporting software engineering experiments in a standardized way helps researchers find relevant information, understand how experiments were conducted and assess the validity of their results. Various guidelines have been proposed specifically for software engineeri...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Revoredo, Kate [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
| Erschienen: |
2021 |
|---|
| Schlagwörter: |
|---|
| Anmerkung: |
© The Author(s) 2021 |
|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
Enthalten in: Empirical software engineering - Springer US, 1996, 26(2021), 6 vom: 18. Aug. |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:26 ; year:2021 ; number:6 ; day:18 ; month:08 |
| Links: |
|---|
| DOI / URN: |
10.1007/s10664-021-10007-3 |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
OLC2077301953 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | OLC2077301953 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20230505143154.0 | ||
| 007 | tu | ||
| 008 | 221220s2021 xx ||||| 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1007/s10664-021-10007-3 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)OLC2077301953 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-He213)s10664-021-10007-3-p | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 082 | 0 | 4 | |a 004 |q VZ |
| 100 | 1 | |a Revoredo, Kate |e verfasserin |0 (orcid)0000-0001-8914-9132 |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a A study into the practice of reporting software engineering experiments |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2021 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen |b n |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Band |b nc |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a © The Author(s) 2021 | ||
| 520 | |a Abstract It has been argued that reporting software engineering experiments in a standardized way helps researchers find relevant information, understand how experiments were conducted and assess the validity of their results. Various guidelines have been proposed specifically for software engineering experiments. The benefits of such guidelines have often been emphasized, but the actual uptake and practice of reporting have not yet been investigated since the introduction of many of the more recent guidelines. In this research, we utilize a mixed-method study design including sequence analysis techniques for evaluating to which extent papers follow such guidelines. Our study focuses on the four most prominent software engineering journals and the time period from 2000 to 2020. Our results show that many experimental papers miss information suggested by guidelines, that no de facto standard sequence for reporting exists, and that many papers do not cite any guidelines. We discuss these findings and implications for the discipline of experimental software engineering focusing on the review process and the potential to refine and extend guidelines, among others, to account for theory explicitly. | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Guideline for software engineering experiments | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Controlled experiments | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Process mining | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Method mining | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Djurica, Djordje |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Mendling, Jan |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Empirical software engineering |d Springer US, 1996 |g 26(2021), 6 vom: 18. Aug. |w (DE-627)235946516 |w (DE-600)1401304-6 |w (DE-576)102432406 |x 1382-3256 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:26 |g year:2021 |g number:6 |g day:18 |g month:08 |
| 856 | 4 | 1 | |u https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-021-10007-3 |z lizenzpflichtig |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_OLC | ||
| 912 | |a SSG-OLC-MAT | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 26 |j 2021 |e 6 |b 18 |c 08 | ||
| author_variant |
k r kr d d dd j m jm |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
article:13823256:2021----::suynohpatcorprigotaeni |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2021 |
| publishDate |
2021 |
| allfields |
10.1007/s10664-021-10007-3 doi (DE-627)OLC2077301953 (DE-He213)s10664-021-10007-3-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 004 VZ Revoredo, Kate verfasserin (orcid)0000-0001-8914-9132 aut A study into the practice of reporting software engineering experiments 2021 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2021 Abstract It has been argued that reporting software engineering experiments in a standardized way helps researchers find relevant information, understand how experiments were conducted and assess the validity of their results. Various guidelines have been proposed specifically for software engineering experiments. The benefits of such guidelines have often been emphasized, but the actual uptake and practice of reporting have not yet been investigated since the introduction of many of the more recent guidelines. In this research, we utilize a mixed-method study design including sequence analysis techniques for evaluating to which extent papers follow such guidelines. Our study focuses on the four most prominent software engineering journals and the time period from 2000 to 2020. Our results show that many experimental papers miss information suggested by guidelines, that no de facto standard sequence for reporting exists, and that many papers do not cite any guidelines. We discuss these findings and implications for the discipline of experimental software engineering focusing on the review process and the potential to refine and extend guidelines, among others, to account for theory explicitly. Guideline for software engineering experiments Controlled experiments Process mining Method mining Djurica, Djordje aut Mendling, Jan aut Enthalten in Empirical software engineering Springer US, 1996 26(2021), 6 vom: 18. Aug. (DE-627)235946516 (DE-600)1401304-6 (DE-576)102432406 1382-3256 nnns volume:26 year:2021 number:6 day:18 month:08 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-021-10007-3 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-MAT AR 26 2021 6 18 08 |
| spelling |
10.1007/s10664-021-10007-3 doi (DE-627)OLC2077301953 (DE-He213)s10664-021-10007-3-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 004 VZ Revoredo, Kate verfasserin (orcid)0000-0001-8914-9132 aut A study into the practice of reporting software engineering experiments 2021 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2021 Abstract It has been argued that reporting software engineering experiments in a standardized way helps researchers find relevant information, understand how experiments were conducted and assess the validity of their results. Various guidelines have been proposed specifically for software engineering experiments. The benefits of such guidelines have often been emphasized, but the actual uptake and practice of reporting have not yet been investigated since the introduction of many of the more recent guidelines. In this research, we utilize a mixed-method study design including sequence analysis techniques for evaluating to which extent papers follow such guidelines. Our study focuses on the four most prominent software engineering journals and the time period from 2000 to 2020. Our results show that many experimental papers miss information suggested by guidelines, that no de facto standard sequence for reporting exists, and that many papers do not cite any guidelines. We discuss these findings and implications for the discipline of experimental software engineering focusing on the review process and the potential to refine and extend guidelines, among others, to account for theory explicitly. Guideline for software engineering experiments Controlled experiments Process mining Method mining Djurica, Djordje aut Mendling, Jan aut Enthalten in Empirical software engineering Springer US, 1996 26(2021), 6 vom: 18. Aug. (DE-627)235946516 (DE-600)1401304-6 (DE-576)102432406 1382-3256 nnns volume:26 year:2021 number:6 day:18 month:08 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-021-10007-3 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-MAT AR 26 2021 6 18 08 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
10.1007/s10664-021-10007-3 doi (DE-627)OLC2077301953 (DE-He213)s10664-021-10007-3-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 004 VZ Revoredo, Kate verfasserin (orcid)0000-0001-8914-9132 aut A study into the practice of reporting software engineering experiments 2021 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2021 Abstract It has been argued that reporting software engineering experiments in a standardized way helps researchers find relevant information, understand how experiments were conducted and assess the validity of their results. Various guidelines have been proposed specifically for software engineering experiments. The benefits of such guidelines have often been emphasized, but the actual uptake and practice of reporting have not yet been investigated since the introduction of many of the more recent guidelines. In this research, we utilize a mixed-method study design including sequence analysis techniques for evaluating to which extent papers follow such guidelines. Our study focuses on the four most prominent software engineering journals and the time period from 2000 to 2020. Our results show that many experimental papers miss information suggested by guidelines, that no de facto standard sequence for reporting exists, and that many papers do not cite any guidelines. We discuss these findings and implications for the discipline of experimental software engineering focusing on the review process and the potential to refine and extend guidelines, among others, to account for theory explicitly. Guideline for software engineering experiments Controlled experiments Process mining Method mining Djurica, Djordje aut Mendling, Jan aut Enthalten in Empirical software engineering Springer US, 1996 26(2021), 6 vom: 18. Aug. (DE-627)235946516 (DE-600)1401304-6 (DE-576)102432406 1382-3256 nnns volume:26 year:2021 number:6 day:18 month:08 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-021-10007-3 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-MAT AR 26 2021 6 18 08 |
| allfieldsGer |
10.1007/s10664-021-10007-3 doi (DE-627)OLC2077301953 (DE-He213)s10664-021-10007-3-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 004 VZ Revoredo, Kate verfasserin (orcid)0000-0001-8914-9132 aut A study into the practice of reporting software engineering experiments 2021 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2021 Abstract It has been argued that reporting software engineering experiments in a standardized way helps researchers find relevant information, understand how experiments were conducted and assess the validity of their results. Various guidelines have been proposed specifically for software engineering experiments. The benefits of such guidelines have often been emphasized, but the actual uptake and practice of reporting have not yet been investigated since the introduction of many of the more recent guidelines. In this research, we utilize a mixed-method study design including sequence analysis techniques for evaluating to which extent papers follow such guidelines. Our study focuses on the four most prominent software engineering journals and the time period from 2000 to 2020. Our results show that many experimental papers miss information suggested by guidelines, that no de facto standard sequence for reporting exists, and that many papers do not cite any guidelines. We discuss these findings and implications for the discipline of experimental software engineering focusing on the review process and the potential to refine and extend guidelines, among others, to account for theory explicitly. Guideline for software engineering experiments Controlled experiments Process mining Method mining Djurica, Djordje aut Mendling, Jan aut Enthalten in Empirical software engineering Springer US, 1996 26(2021), 6 vom: 18. Aug. (DE-627)235946516 (DE-600)1401304-6 (DE-576)102432406 1382-3256 nnns volume:26 year:2021 number:6 day:18 month:08 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-021-10007-3 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-MAT AR 26 2021 6 18 08 |
| allfieldsSound |
10.1007/s10664-021-10007-3 doi (DE-627)OLC2077301953 (DE-He213)s10664-021-10007-3-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 004 VZ Revoredo, Kate verfasserin (orcid)0000-0001-8914-9132 aut A study into the practice of reporting software engineering experiments 2021 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2021 Abstract It has been argued that reporting software engineering experiments in a standardized way helps researchers find relevant information, understand how experiments were conducted and assess the validity of their results. Various guidelines have been proposed specifically for software engineering experiments. The benefits of such guidelines have often been emphasized, but the actual uptake and practice of reporting have not yet been investigated since the introduction of many of the more recent guidelines. In this research, we utilize a mixed-method study design including sequence analysis techniques for evaluating to which extent papers follow such guidelines. Our study focuses on the four most prominent software engineering journals and the time period from 2000 to 2020. Our results show that many experimental papers miss information suggested by guidelines, that no de facto standard sequence for reporting exists, and that many papers do not cite any guidelines. We discuss these findings and implications for the discipline of experimental software engineering focusing on the review process and the potential to refine and extend guidelines, among others, to account for theory explicitly. Guideline for software engineering experiments Controlled experiments Process mining Method mining Djurica, Djordje aut Mendling, Jan aut Enthalten in Empirical software engineering Springer US, 1996 26(2021), 6 vom: 18. Aug. (DE-627)235946516 (DE-600)1401304-6 (DE-576)102432406 1382-3256 nnns volume:26 year:2021 number:6 day:18 month:08 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-021-10007-3 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-MAT AR 26 2021 6 18 08 |
| language |
English |
| source |
Enthalten in Empirical software engineering 26(2021), 6 vom: 18. Aug. volume:26 year:2021 number:6 day:18 month:08 |
| sourceStr |
Enthalten in Empirical software engineering 26(2021), 6 vom: 18. Aug. volume:26 year:2021 number:6 day:18 month:08 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
Guideline for software engineering experiments Controlled experiments Process mining Method mining |
| dewey-raw |
004 |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
false |
| container_title |
Empirical software engineering |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Revoredo, Kate @@aut@@ Djurica, Djordje @@aut@@ Mendling, Jan @@aut@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2021-08-18T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
235946516 |
| dewey-sort |
14 |
| id |
OLC2077301953 |
| language_de |
englisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">OLC2077301953</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230505143154.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">tu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">221220s2021 xx ||||| 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1007/s10664-021-10007-3</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)OLC2077301953</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-He213)s10664-021-10007-3-p</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">004</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Revoredo, Kate</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="0">(orcid)0000-0001-8914-9132</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">A study into the practice of reporting software engineering experiments</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2021</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen</subfield><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Band</subfield><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© The Author(s) 2021</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Abstract It has been argued that reporting software engineering experiments in a standardized way helps researchers find relevant information, understand how experiments were conducted and assess the validity of their results. Various guidelines have been proposed specifically for software engineering experiments. The benefits of such guidelines have often been emphasized, but the actual uptake and practice of reporting have not yet been investigated since the introduction of many of the more recent guidelines. In this research, we utilize a mixed-method study design including sequence analysis techniques for evaluating to which extent papers follow such guidelines. Our study focuses on the four most prominent software engineering journals and the time period from 2000 to 2020. Our results show that many experimental papers miss information suggested by guidelines, that no de facto standard sequence for reporting exists, and that many papers do not cite any guidelines. We discuss these findings and implications for the discipline of experimental software engineering focusing on the review process and the potential to refine and extend guidelines, among others, to account for theory explicitly.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Guideline for software engineering experiments</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Controlled experiments</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Process mining</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Method mining</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Djurica, Djordje</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Mendling, Jan</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Empirical software engineering</subfield><subfield code="d">Springer US, 1996</subfield><subfield code="g">26(2021), 6 vom: 18. Aug.</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)235946516</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)1401304-6</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-576)102432406</subfield><subfield code="x">1382-3256</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:26</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2021</subfield><subfield code="g">number:6</subfield><subfield code="g">day:18</subfield><subfield code="g">month:08</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="1"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-021-10007-3</subfield><subfield code="z">lizenzpflichtig</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_OLC</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-MAT</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">26</subfield><subfield code="j">2021</subfield><subfield code="e">6</subfield><subfield code="b">18</subfield><subfield code="c">08</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| author |
Revoredo, Kate |
| spellingShingle |
Revoredo, Kate ddc 004 misc Guideline for software engineering experiments misc Controlled experiments misc Process mining misc Method mining A study into the practice of reporting software engineering experiments |
| authorStr |
Revoredo, Kate |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)235946516 |
| format |
Article |
| dewey-ones |
004 - Data processing & computer science |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut aut aut |
| collection |
OLC |
| remote_str |
false |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| issn |
1382-3256 |
| topic_title |
004 VZ A study into the practice of reporting software engineering experiments Guideline for software engineering experiments Controlled experiments Process mining Method mining |
| topic |
ddc 004 misc Guideline for software engineering experiments misc Controlled experiments misc Process mining misc Method mining |
| topic_unstemmed |
ddc 004 misc Guideline for software engineering experiments misc Controlled experiments misc Process mining misc Method mining |
| topic_browse |
ddc 004 misc Guideline for software engineering experiments misc Controlled experiments misc Process mining misc Method mining |
| format_facet |
Aufsätze Gedruckte Aufsätze |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
nc |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
Empirical software engineering |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
235946516 |
| dewey-tens |
000 - Computer science, knowledge & systems |
| hierarchy_top_title |
Empirical software engineering |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
false |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)235946516 (DE-600)1401304-6 (DE-576)102432406 |
| title |
A study into the practice of reporting software engineering experiments |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)OLC2077301953 (DE-He213)s10664-021-10007-3-p |
| title_full |
A study into the practice of reporting software engineering experiments |
| author_sort |
Revoredo, Kate |
| journal |
Empirical software engineering |
| journalStr |
Empirical software engineering |
| lang_code |
eng |
| isOA_bool |
false |
| dewey-hundreds |
000 - Computer science, information & general works |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2021 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
txt |
| author_browse |
Revoredo, Kate Djurica, Djordje Mendling, Jan |
| container_volume |
26 |
| class |
004 VZ |
| format_se |
Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
Revoredo, Kate |
| doi_str_mv |
10.1007/s10664-021-10007-3 |
| normlink |
(ORCID)0000-0001-8914-9132 |
| normlink_prefix_str_mv |
(orcid)0000-0001-8914-9132 |
| dewey-full |
004 |
| title_sort |
a study into the practice of reporting software engineering experiments |
| title_auth |
A study into the practice of reporting software engineering experiments |
| abstract |
Abstract It has been argued that reporting software engineering experiments in a standardized way helps researchers find relevant information, understand how experiments were conducted and assess the validity of their results. Various guidelines have been proposed specifically for software engineering experiments. The benefits of such guidelines have often been emphasized, but the actual uptake and practice of reporting have not yet been investigated since the introduction of many of the more recent guidelines. In this research, we utilize a mixed-method study design including sequence analysis techniques for evaluating to which extent papers follow such guidelines. Our study focuses on the four most prominent software engineering journals and the time period from 2000 to 2020. Our results show that many experimental papers miss information suggested by guidelines, that no de facto standard sequence for reporting exists, and that many papers do not cite any guidelines. We discuss these findings and implications for the discipline of experimental software engineering focusing on the review process and the potential to refine and extend guidelines, among others, to account for theory explicitly. © The Author(s) 2021 |
| abstractGer |
Abstract It has been argued that reporting software engineering experiments in a standardized way helps researchers find relevant information, understand how experiments were conducted and assess the validity of their results. Various guidelines have been proposed specifically for software engineering experiments. The benefits of such guidelines have often been emphasized, but the actual uptake and practice of reporting have not yet been investigated since the introduction of many of the more recent guidelines. In this research, we utilize a mixed-method study design including sequence analysis techniques for evaluating to which extent papers follow such guidelines. Our study focuses on the four most prominent software engineering journals and the time period from 2000 to 2020. Our results show that many experimental papers miss information suggested by guidelines, that no de facto standard sequence for reporting exists, and that many papers do not cite any guidelines. We discuss these findings and implications for the discipline of experimental software engineering focusing on the review process and the potential to refine and extend guidelines, among others, to account for theory explicitly. © The Author(s) 2021 |
| abstract_unstemmed |
Abstract It has been argued that reporting software engineering experiments in a standardized way helps researchers find relevant information, understand how experiments were conducted and assess the validity of their results. Various guidelines have been proposed specifically for software engineering experiments. The benefits of such guidelines have often been emphasized, but the actual uptake and practice of reporting have not yet been investigated since the introduction of many of the more recent guidelines. In this research, we utilize a mixed-method study design including sequence analysis techniques for evaluating to which extent papers follow such guidelines. Our study focuses on the four most prominent software engineering journals and the time period from 2000 to 2020. Our results show that many experimental papers miss information suggested by guidelines, that no de facto standard sequence for reporting exists, and that many papers do not cite any guidelines. We discuss these findings and implications for the discipline of experimental software engineering focusing on the review process and the potential to refine and extend guidelines, among others, to account for theory explicitly. © The Author(s) 2021 |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-MAT |
| container_issue |
6 |
| title_short |
A study into the practice of reporting software engineering experiments |
| url |
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-021-10007-3 |
| remote_bool |
false |
| author2 |
Djurica, Djordje Mendling, Jan |
| author2Str |
Djurica, Djordje Mendling, Jan |
| ppnlink |
235946516 |
| mediatype_str_mv |
n |
| isOA_txt |
false |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| doi_str |
10.1007/s10664-021-10007-3 |
| up_date |
2024-07-03T14:49:58.583Z |
| _version_ |
1803569802601562112 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">OLC2077301953</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230505143154.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">tu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">221220s2021 xx ||||| 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1007/s10664-021-10007-3</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)OLC2077301953</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-He213)s10664-021-10007-3-p</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">004</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Revoredo, Kate</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="0">(orcid)0000-0001-8914-9132</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">A study into the practice of reporting software engineering experiments</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2021</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen</subfield><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Band</subfield><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© The Author(s) 2021</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Abstract It has been argued that reporting software engineering experiments in a standardized way helps researchers find relevant information, understand how experiments were conducted and assess the validity of their results. Various guidelines have been proposed specifically for software engineering experiments. The benefits of such guidelines have often been emphasized, but the actual uptake and practice of reporting have not yet been investigated since the introduction of many of the more recent guidelines. In this research, we utilize a mixed-method study design including sequence analysis techniques for evaluating to which extent papers follow such guidelines. Our study focuses on the four most prominent software engineering journals and the time period from 2000 to 2020. Our results show that many experimental papers miss information suggested by guidelines, that no de facto standard sequence for reporting exists, and that many papers do not cite any guidelines. We discuss these findings and implications for the discipline of experimental software engineering focusing on the review process and the potential to refine and extend guidelines, among others, to account for theory explicitly.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Guideline for software engineering experiments</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Controlled experiments</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Process mining</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Method mining</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Djurica, Djordje</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Mendling, Jan</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Empirical software engineering</subfield><subfield code="d">Springer US, 1996</subfield><subfield code="g">26(2021), 6 vom: 18. Aug.</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)235946516</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)1401304-6</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-576)102432406</subfield><subfield code="x">1382-3256</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:26</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2021</subfield><subfield code="g">number:6</subfield><subfield code="g">day:18</subfield><subfield code="g">month:08</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="1"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-021-10007-3</subfield><subfield code="z">lizenzpflichtig</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_OLC</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-MAT</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">26</subfield><subfield code="j">2021</subfield><subfield code="e">6</subfield><subfield code="b">18</subfield><subfield code="c">08</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.4005814 |