Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 743

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A systematic mapping study on technical debt and its management

Open access
Li, Zengyang, Avgeriou, Paris, Liang, Peng·2015·Journal of Systems and Software
DOI 10.1016/j.jss.2014.12.027
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Context Technical debt (TD) is a metaphor reflecting technical compromises that can yield short-term benefit but may hurt the long-term health of a software system. Objective This work aims at collecting studies on TD and TD management (TDM), and making a classification and thematic analysis on these studies, to obtain a comprehensive understanding on the TD concept and an overview on the current state of research on TDM. Method A systematic mapping study was performed to identify and analyze research on TD and its management, covering publications between 1992 and 2013. Results Ninety-four studies were finally selected. TD was classified into 10 types, 8 TDM activities were identified, and 29 tools for TDM were collected. Conclusions The term “debt” has been used in different ways by different people, which leads to ambiguous interpretation of the term. Code-related TD and its management have gained the most attention. There is a need for more empirical studies with high-quality evidence on the whole TDM process and on the application of specific TDM approaches in industrial settings. Moreover, dedicated TDM tools are needed for managing various types of TD in the whole TDM process.

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.jss.2014.12.027

Cites

8 of 8 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

Show all 8 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Li, Z., Avgeriou, P., & Liang, P.
Venue
Journal of Systems and Software
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-03
Volume
101
Pages
193-220
ISSN
0164-1212 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.jss.2014.12.027
OpenAlex
W2028836139
Cited by
743
References
8
FWCI
99.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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.