Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 60

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 125 of the 125 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The role and value of replication in empirical software engineering results

Shepperd, Martin, Ajienka, Nemitari, Counsell, Steve·2018·Information and Software Technology
DOI 10.1016/j.infsof.2018.01.006
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Abstract Context Concerns have been raised from many quarters regarding the reliability of empirical research findings and this includes software engineering. Replication has been proposed as an important means of increasing confidence. Objective We aim to better understand the value of replication studies, the level of confirmation between replication and original studies, what confirmation means in a statistical sense and what factors modify this relationship. Method We perform a systematic review to identify relevant replication experimental studies in the areas of (i) software project effort prediction and (ii) pair programming. Where sufficient details are provided we compute prediction intervals. Results Our review locates 28 unique articles that describe replications of 35 original studies that address 75 research questions. Of these 10 are external, 15 internal and 3 internal-same-article replications. The odds ratio of internal to external (conducted by independent researchers) replications of obtaining a ‘confirmatory’ result is 8.64. We also found incomplete reporting hampered our ability to extract estimates of effect sizes. Where we are able to compute replication prediction intervals these were surprisingly large. Conclusion We show that there is substantial evidence to suggest that current approaches to empirical replications are highly problematic. There is a consensus that replications are important, but there is a need for better reporting of both original and replicated studies. Given the low power and incomplete reporting of many original studies, it can be unclear the extent to which a replication is confirmatory and to what extent it yields additional knowledge to the software engineering community. We recommend attention is switched from replication research to meta-analysis.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.infsof.2018.01.006

Cites

125 of 125 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 60

Metadata

Authors
Shepperd, M., Ajienka, N., & Counsell, S.
Venue
Information and Software Technology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-07
Volume
99
Pages
120-132
ISSN
0950-5849
DOI
10.1016/j.infsof.2018.01.006
Cited by
60
References
125
Language
en
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Funders
EPSRC (EP/P025196/1)

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.