Cited by 85Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsOptics and Image AnalysisSoftware Engineering Techniques and Practices

On using grey literature and google scholar in systematic literature reviews in software engineering

Open access
Yasin, Affan, Fatima, Rubia, Wen, Lijie, Afzal, Wasif, Azhar, Muhammad, Torkar, Richard·2020·IEEE Access

Abstract

Context: The inclusion of grey literature (GL) is important to remove publication bias while gathering available evidence regarding a certain topic. The number of systematic literature reviews (SLRs) in Software Engineering (SE) is increasing but we do not know about the extent of GL usage in these SLRs. Moreover, Google Scholar is rapidly becoming a search engine of choice for many researchers but the extent to which it can find the primary studies is not known. Objective: This tertiary study is an attempt to i) measure the usage of GL in SLRs in SE. Furthermore this study proposes strategies for categorizing GL and a quality checklist to use for GL in future SLRs; ii) explore if it is feasible to use only Google Scholar for finding scholarly articles for academic research. Method: We have conducted a systematic mapping study to measure the extent of GL usage in SE SLRs as well as to measure the feasibility of finding primary studies using Google Scholar. Results and conclusions: a) Grey Literature: 76.09% SLRs (105 out of 138) in SE have included one or more GL studies as primary studies. Among total primary studies across all SLRs (6307), 582 are classified as GL, making the frequency of GL citing as 9.23%. The intensity of GL use indicate that each SLR contains 5 primary studies on average (total intensity of GL use being 5.54). The ranking of GL tells us that conference papers are the most used form 43.3% followed by technical reports 28.52%. Universities, research institutes, labs and scientific societies together make up 67.7% of GL used, indicating that these are useful sources for searching GL. We additionally propose strategies for categorizing GL and criteria for evaluating GL quality, which can become a basis for more detailed guidelines for including GL in future SLRs. b) Google Scholar Results: The results show that Google Scholar was able to retrieve 96% of primary studies of these SLRs. Most of the primary studies that were not found using Google Scholar were from grey sources.

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 · 10.1109/access.2020.2971712

Cites

162 of 162 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. A. Mandavilli, ''Trial by Twitter,'' Nature, vol. 469, no. 1, pp. 286-287, 2011.
  2. O. Osayande and C. O. Ukpebor, ''Grey literature acquisition and man- agement: Challenges in academic libraries in Africa,'' Grey Literature Acquisition Manage., Challenges Acad. Libraries Africa, 2012, pp. 1-13.
  3. P. De Castro and S. Salinetti, ''Quality of grey literature in the open access era: Privilege and responsibility,'' Publishing Res. Quart., vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 4-12, Mar. 2004.
  4. B. Kitchenham, P. Brereton, M. Turner, M. Niazi, S. Linkman, R. Pretorius, and D. Budgen, ''The impact of limited search procedures for systematic literature reviews-A participant-observer case study,'' in Proc. 3rd Int. Symp. Empirical Softw. Eng. Meas. Lake Buena Vista, FL, USA: IEEE Computer Society, Oct. 2009, pp. 336-345, doi: 10.1109/esem.2009.5314238. · DOI
  5. Y. A. Khan, M. O. Elish, and M. El-Attar, ''A systematic review on the impact of CK metrics on the functional correctness of object-oriented classes,'' in Proc. 12th Int. Conf., Comput. Sci. Appl. (ICCSA) (Lec- ture Notes in Computer Science), vol. 7336.
  6. D. Wahyudin, R. Ramler, and S. Biffl, ''A framework for defect prediction in specific software project contexts,'' in Proc. Softw. Eng. Techn.-3rd IFIP TC 2 Central East Eur. Conf. CEE-SET, Brno, Czech Republic, vol. 4980, in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Z.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Yasin, A., Fatima, R., Wen, L., Afzal, W., Azhar, M., & Torkar, R.
Affiliations
  • Blekinge Institute of Technology (SE)
  • Tsinghua University (CN)
  • Mälardalen University (SE)
  • Shenzhen University (CN)
  • University of Gothenburg (SE)
Venue
IEEE Access
Published
2020
Volume
8
Pages
36226-36243
ISSN
2169-3536 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3004454911
Cited by
85
References
162
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 5
FWCI
2.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IEEE Access (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • DiVA (Blekinge Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme (871319)
  • Knowledge Foundation (20160139 (TestMine))
  • National Basic Research Program of China (2019YFB1704003)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Optics and Image Analysis
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
Keywords
grey literature, Google Scholar, systematic reviews, software engineering, publication bias, search engine effectiveness, conference papers

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