Lessons from applying the systematic literature review process within the software engineering domain
Lessons from applying the systematic literature review process within the software engineering domain
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.jss.2006.07.009
复制
发表时间：
2007-04-01
影响因子：
3.5
通讯作者：
Khalil, Mohamed
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Brereton, Pearl;Kitchenham, Barbara A.;Khalil, Mohamed
软件工程中越来越多的实证研究的结果是需要采用系统的方法来评估和汇总研究成果，以便为特定主题提供平衡和客观的研究证据摘要。本文报告的经验，应用这样一种方法，系统的文献综述的做法，在软件工程领域内的主题相关的已发表的研究。系统的文献综述过程进行了总结，一些正在进行的审查，作者和其他人的描述和一些经验教训的适用性，这种做法的软件engineering是extracted.The基本的系统的文献综述过程似乎适合软件工程和准备和验证的审查协议之前的审查活动是特别有价值的。本文强调了一些适应的过程，以适应软件工程的特定领域的特点是必要的，以及对当前的软件工程基础设施和实践的改进将提高其适用性的领域。特别是，软件工程索引数据库提供的基础设施支持不足。此外，摘要的质量很差;通常不可能仅从摘要的审查来判断研究的相关性。(c)2006年爱思唯尔公司All rights reserved.
A consequence of the growing number of empirical studies in software engineering is the need to adopt systematic approaches to assessing and aggregating research outcomes in order to provide a balanced and objective summary of research evidence for a particular topic. The paper reports experiences with applying one such approach, the practice of systematic literature review, to the published studies relevant to topics within the software engineering domain. The systematic literature review process is summarised, a number of reviews being undertaken by the authors and others are described and some lessons about the applicability of this practice to software engineering are extracted.The basic systematic literature review process seems appropriate to software engineering and the preparation and validation of a review protocol in advance of a review activity is especially valuable. The paper highlights areas where some adaptation of the process to accommodate the domain-specific characteristics of software engineering is needed as well as areas where improvements to current software engineering infrastructure and practices Would enhance its applicability. In particular, infrastructure support provided by software engineering indexing databases is inadequate. Also, the quality of abstracts is poor; it is usually not possible to judge the relevance of a study from a review of the abstract alone. (c) 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.