Endre søk
RefereraExporteraLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Referera
Referensformat
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Annet format
Fler format
Språk
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Annet språk
Fler språk
Utmatningsformat
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
When to update systematic literature reviews in software engineering
Blekinge Tekniska Högskola, Fakulteten för datavetenskaper, Institutionen för programvaruteknik. Blekinge Tekniska Högskola, Fakulteten för datavetenskaper, Institutionen för datavetenskap.ORCID-id: 0000-0003-0449-5322
Blekinge Tekniska Högskola, Fakulteten för datavetenskaper, Institutionen för programvaruteknik.ORCID-id: 0000-0003-0460-5253
Federal Technological University of Paraná, BRA.
Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro (PUC-Rio), BRA.
2020 (engelsk)Inngår i: Journal of Systems and Software, ISSN 0164-1212, E-ISSN 1873-1228, Vol. 167, artikkel-id 110607Artikkel i tidsskrift (Fagfellevurdert) Published
Abstract [en]

[Context] Systematic Literature Reviews (SLRs) have been adopted by the Software Engineering (SE) community for approximately 15 years to provide meaningful summaries of evidence on several topics. Many of these SLRs are now potentially outdated, and there are no systematic proposals on when to update SLRs in SE. [Objective] The goal of this paper is to provide recommendations on when to update SLRs in SE. [Method] We evaluated, using a three-step approach, a third-party decision framework (3PDF) employed in other fields, to decide whether SLRs need updating. First, we conducted a literature review of SLR updates in SE and contacted the authors to obtain their feedback relating to the usefulness of the 3PDF within the context of SLR updates in SE. Second, we used these authors’ feedback to see whether the framework needed any adaptation; none was suggested. Third, we applied the 3PDF to the SLR updates identified in our literature review. [Results] The 3PDF showed that 14 of the 20 SLRs did not need updating. This supports the use of a decision support mechanism (such as the 3PDF) to help the SE community decide when to update SLRs. [Conclusions] We put forward that the 3PDF should be adopted by the SE community to keep relevant evidence up to date and to avoid wasting effort with unnecessary updates. © 2020

sted, utgiver, år, opplag, sider
Elsevier Inc. , 2020. Vol. 167, artikkel-id 110607
Emneord [en]
Software engineering, Systematic literature review update, Systematic literature reviews, Decision support systems, Decision framework, Decision supports, Literature reviews, Systematic literature review, Third parties, Three-step approach
HSV kategori
Identifikatorer
URN: urn:nbn:se:bth-19525DOI: 10.1016/j.jss.2020.110607ISI: 000540166800007Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-85084732557OAI: oai:DiVA.org:bth-19525DiVA, id: diva2:1433141
Merknad

open access

Tilgjengelig fra: 2020-05-29 Laget: 2020-05-29 Sist oppdatert: 2023-12-04bibliografisk kontrollert

Open Access i DiVA

Fulltekst mangler i DiVA

Andre lenker

Forlagets fulltekstScopushttps://arxiv.org/abs/2004.06183

Person

Mendes, EmiliaWohlin, Claes

Søk i DiVA

Av forfatter/redaktør
Mendes, EmiliaWohlin, Claes
Av organisasjonen
I samme tidsskrift
Journal of Systems and Software

Søk utenfor DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric

doi
urn-nbn
Totalt: 154 treff
RefereraExporteraLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Referera
Referensformat
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Annet format
Fler format
Språk
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Annet språk
Fler språk
Utmatningsformat
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf