Planned maintenance
A system upgrade is planned for 10/12-2024, at 12:00-13:00. During this time DiVA will be unavailable.
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
When to update systematic literature reviews in software engineering
Blekinge Institute of Technology, Faculty of Computing, Department of Software Engineering. Blekinge Institute of Technology, Faculty of Computing, Department of Computer Science.ORCID iD: 0000-0003-0449-5322
Blekinge Institute of Technology, Faculty of Computing, Department of Software Engineering.ORCID iD: 0000-0003-0460-5253
Federal Technological University of Paraná, BRA.
Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro (PUC-Rio), BRA.
2020 (English)In: Journal of Systems and Software, ISSN 0164-1212, E-ISSN 1873-1228, Vol. 167, article id 110607Article in journal (Refereed) 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 Many of these SLRs are now potentially outdated, and there are no systematic proposals on when to update SLRs in SE.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

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Elsevier Inc. , 2020. Vol. 167, article id 110607
Keywords [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
National Category
Software Engineering
Identifiers
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
Note

open access

Available from: 2020-05-29 Created: 2020-05-29 Last updated: 2023-12-04Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textScopushttps://arxiv.org/abs/2004.06183

Authority records

Mendes, EmiliaWohlin, Claes

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Mendes, EmiliaWohlin, Claes
By organisation
Department of Software EngineeringDepartment of Computer Science
In the same journal
Journal of Systems and Software
Software Engineering

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 189 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf