The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Research artifacts in secondary studies: A systematic mapping in software engineering
Abstract
Context: Systematic reviews (SRs) summarize state-of-the-art evidence in science, including software engineering (SE). Objective: Our objective is to evaluate how SRs report research artifacts and to provide a comprehensive list of these artifacts. Method: We examined 537 secondary studies published between 2013 and 2023 to analyze the availability and reporting of research artifacts. Results: Our findings indicate that only 31.5% of the reviewed studies include research artifacts. Encouragingly, the situation is gradually improving, as our regression analysis shows a significant increase in the availability of research artifacts over time. However, in 2023, just 62.0% of secondary studies provide a research artifact while an even lower percentage, 30.4% use a permanent repository with a digital object identifier (DOI) for storage. Conclusion: To enhance transparency and reproducibility in SE research, we advocate for the mandatory publication of research artifacts in secondary studies.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship
Wilkinson, M. D., Dumontier, M., Aalbersberg, I. J., Appleton, G., Axton, M., Baak, A., Blomberg, N., Boiten, J.-W., da Silva Santos, L. B., Bourne, P. E., et al. (2016) · Scientific Data · doi:10.1038/sdata.2016.18 · Cited by 18,423 · cited 1×
“These issues are promoted in open science [3], open data [4], and in the principles of Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable (FAIR) data endorsed in Nature in 2016 [5].”
Guidelines for conducting systematic mapping studies in software engineering: An update
Petersen, K., Vakkalanka, S., & Kuzniarz, L. (2015) · Information and Software Technology · doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2015.03.007 · Cited by 2,669
Marshall, I. J., & Wallace, B. C. (2019) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-019-1074-9 · Cited by 638
Contemporary Empirical Methods in Software Engineering
Felderer, M., & Travassos, G. (2020) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-32489-6 · Cited by 57
Publish or perish, but do not forget your software artifacts
Heumüller, R., Nielebock, S., Krüger, J., & Ortmeier, F. (2020) · Empirical Software Engineering · doi:10.1007/s10664-020-09851-6 · Cited by 43
Felizardo, K. R., Lima, M. H. T. D. F., Deizepe, A., Conte, T. U., & Steinmacher, I. (2024) · Proceedings of the ... ACM-IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement/International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement · doi:10.1145/3674805.3686666 · Cited by 38
Cruz, M., Bernárdez, B., Durán, A., Galindo, J. Á., & Ruiz–Cortés, A. (2019) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2019.2952191 · Cited by 28
On the need to update systematic literature reviews
Nepomuceno, V., & Soares, S. (2019) · Information and Software Technology · doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2019.01.005 · Cited by 21
Runeson, P., Söderberg, E., & Höst, M. (2024) · doi:10.1145/3643664.3648206 · Cited by 6
Metadata
- Authors
- Huotala, A., Kuutila, M., & Mäntylä, M.
- Venue
- Information and Software Technology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2025-11
- Volume
- 187
- Pages
- 107830
- ISSN
- 0950-5849
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 10
- Language
- en
- Licence
- www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
- www.elsevier.com/legal/tdmrep-license (tdm)
- creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (vor)
- Funders
- Research Council of Finland (358471)
- Dalhousie University
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.
