4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

Lessons from applying the systematic literature review process within the software engineering domain

Journal

JOURNAL OF SYSTEMS AND SOFTWARE
Volume 80, Issue 4, Pages 571-583

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jss.2006.07.009

Keywords

systematic literature review; empirical software engineering

Funding

  1. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/C51839X/1] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

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.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available