CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 45Software Engineering Techniques and PracticesInformation and Cyber SecurityWeb Application Security Vulnerabilities

DevSecOps Metrics

Open access
Prates, Luís, Faustino, João, Silva, Miguel, Pereira, Rúben·2019·Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing
DOI 10.1007/978-3-030-29608-7_7
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/978-3-030-29608-7_7

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The results were compared with four previous review papers and two newly published review papers to validate and complement findings.

    “Furthermore, we compared the results with four previous review papers (Myrbakken and Colomo-Palacios, 2017; Mohan and Othmane, 2016; Prates et al., 2019; Sanchez-Gordon and Colomo-Palacios, 2020) and two newly published review papers (Akbar et al., 2022; Rajapakse et al., 2022), which have been summarized on Tables 1 and 2 in Section 2 (the GLR by Mao et al. (2020) was abandoned as it totally used”

    From Identifying the primary dimensions of DevSecOps: A multi-vocal literature review (2024) · cites this paper as Prates et al., 2019

  • Three additional metrics (M07, 08, 19) were complemented from Prates et al. (2019) and were grouped into 'PC' and 'Technology' categories.

    “Three additional metrics (M07, 08, 19) were complemented from Prates et al. (2019) and were grouped into ''PC'' and ''Technology'' categories.”

    From Identifying the primary dimensions of DevSecOps: A multi-vocal literature review (2024) · cites this paper as Prates et al., 2019

  • The results were also identified mainly from GL work.

    “It is worth noting that Prates' MLR (Prates et al., 2019) is the only review work which involved DevSecOps metrics so far, and the results were also identified mainly from GL work.”

    From Identifying the primary dimensions of DevSecOps: A multi-vocal literature review (2024) · cites this paper as Prates et al., 2019

  • Two previous MLR studies (Prates et al., 2019; Myrbakken and Colomo-Palacios, 2017) were used to validate our 'Metrics' findings.

    “Two previous MLR studies (Prates et al., 2019; Myrbakken and Colomo-Palacios, 2017) were used to validate our ''Metrics'' findings.”

    From Identifying the primary dimensions of DevSecOps: A multi-vocal literature review (2024) · cites this paper as Prates et al., 2019

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Prates, L., Faustino, J., Silva, M., & Pereira, R.
Affiliations
Iscte – Instituto Universitário de Lisboa (PT)
Corresponding author
  • Prates, Luís
  • Pereira, Rúben
ORCID
Venue
Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published
2019
Pages
77-90
ISSN
  • 1865-1348 (ISSN-L)
  • 1865-1356
DOI
10.1007/978-3-030-29608-7_7
OpenAlex
W4243137961
Cited by
45
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 4
FWCI
3.14
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Lecture notes in business information processing (publishedVersion)
  • Repositório do ISCTE-IUL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information and Cyber Security
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Web Application Security Vulnerabilities
Keywords
DevSecOps, security metrics, DevOps, software development lifecycle, security practices, data breaches, compliance, performance measurement

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review