Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • 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
Guidelines for conducting systematic mapping studies in software engineering: An update
Blekinge Institute of Technology, Faculty of Computing, Department of Software Engineering.
Blekinge Institute of Technology, Faculty of Computing, Department of Software Engineering.
Blekinge Institute of Technology, Faculty of Computing, Department of Software Engineering.
2015 (English)In: Information and Software Technology, ISSN 0950-5849, E-ISSN 1873-6025, Vol. 64, 1-18 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Context Systematic mapping studies are used to structure a research area, while systematic reviews are focused on gathering and synthesizing evidence. The most recent guidelines for systematic mapping are from 2008. Since that time, many suggestions have been made of how to improve systematic literature reviews (SLRs). There is a need to evaluate how researchers conduct the process of systematic mapping and identify how the guidelines should be updated based on the lessons learned from the existing systematic maps and SLR guidelines. Objective To identify how the systematic mapping process is conducted (including search, study selection, analysis and presentation of data, etc.); to identify improvement potentials in conducting the systematic mapping process and updating the guidelines accordingly. Method We conducted a systematic mapping study of systematic maps, considering some practices of systematic review guidelines as well (in particular in relation to defining the search and to conduct a quality assessment). Results In a large number of studies multiple guidelines are used and combined, which leads to different ways in conducting mapping studies. The reason for combining guidelines was that they differed in the recommendations given. Conclusion The most frequently followed guidelines are not sufficient alone. Hence, there was a need to provide an update of how to conduct systematic mapping studies. New guidelines have been proposed consolidating existing findings. © 2015 Elsevier B.V.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Elsevier, 2015. Vol. 64, 1-18 p.
Keyword [en]
Mapping; Software engineering, Guidelines; Mapping studies; Quality assessment; Systematic literature review; Systematic mapping; Systematic mapping studies; Systematic maps; Systematic Review, Search engines
National Category
Software Engineering
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:bth-723DOI: 10.1016/j.infsof.2015.03.007ISI: 000355365100001Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-84929464206OAI: oai:DiVA.org:bth-723DiVA: diva2:815606
Available from: 2015-06-01 Created: 2015-05-28 Last updated: 2017-03-10Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Petersen, KaiVakkalanka, SairamKuzniarz, Ludwik
By organisation
Department of Software Engineering
In the same journal
Information and Software Technology
Software Engineering

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

Altmetric score

Total: 805 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • 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