Cited by 4Software Engineering ResearchSoftware Engineering Techniques and PracticesOpen Source Software Innovations

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Code Review Comprehension: Reviewing Strategies Seen Through Code Comprehension Theories

Open access
Gonçalves, Pavlína Wurzel, Rani, Pooja, Storey, Margaret-Anne, Spinellis, Diomidis, Bacchelli, Alberto·2025·2025 IEEE/ACM 33rd International Conference on Program Comprehension (ICPC)

Abstract

Despite the popularity and importance of modern code review, the understanding of the cognitive processes that enable reviewers to analyze code and provide meaningful feedback is lacking. To address this gap, we observed and interviewed ten experienced reviewers while they performed 25 code reviews from their review queue. Since comprehending code changes is essential to perform code review and the primary challenge for reviewers, we focused our analysis on this cognitive process. Using Letovsky's model of code comprehension, we performed a theorydriven thematic analysis to investigate how reviewers apply code comprehension to navigate changes and provide feedback. Our findings confirm that code comprehension is fundamental to code review. We extend Letovsky's model to propose the Code Review Comprehension Model and demonstrate that code review, like code comprehension, relies on opportunistic strategies. These strategies typically begin with a context-building phase, followed by code inspection involving code reading, testing, and discussion management. To interpret and evaluate the proposed change, reviewers construct a mental model of the change as an extension of their understanding of the overall software system and contrast mental representations of expected and ideal solutions against the actual implementation. Based on our findings, we discuss how review tools and practices can better support reviewers in employing their strategies and in forming understanding. Data and material: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14748996

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/icpc66645.2025.00068

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 50

  1. 10.1109/TSE.2021.3129889 · DOI
  2. 10.1109/ICSE.2013.6606617 · DOI · Paper page
  3. 10.1007/s12144-013-9203-4 · DOI
  4. 10.1007/s10664-021-10072-8 · DOI
  5. 10.1145/2950290.2950323 · DOI
  6. 10.1109/ICSME.2017.28 · DOI
  7. 10.1016/0020-7373(92)90051-L · DOI
  8. 10.1191/1478088706qp0630a · DOI
  9. 10.1145/3510003.3511560 · DOI
  10. 10.1016/S0020-7373(77)80039-4 · DOI · Paper page
  11. 10.1145/1240624.1240714 · DOI
  12. 10.1109/MS.2003.1241366 · DOI
  13. 10.1147/sj.282.0294 · DOI
  14. Creswell, 2015, Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research
  15. 10.1016/j.jss.2021.110951 · DOI
  16. 10.1080/0305569900160305 · DOI
  17. 10.1016/S0164-1212(99)00138-7 · DOI
  18. 10.1147/sj.382.0258 · DOI
  19. 10.1109/ICSE.2017.24 · DOI
  20. 10.1145/3540250.3549177 · DOI
  21. 10.1007/s10664-022-10123-8 · DOI
  22. 10.1145/2568225.2568260 · DOI · Paper page
  23. 10.1016/j.infsof.2023.107300 · DOI
  24. 10.1177/1049732316665344 · DOI · Paper page
  25. Hodges, 2019, Six rules for good git hygiene
  26. Jeffries, 1982, A comparison of the debugging behavior of expert and novice programmers, 10, 1
  27. 10.1145/3287324.3287371 · DOI
  28. 10.1145/2884781.2884840 · DOI · Paper page
  29. 10.1007/s10664-020-09810-1 · DOI
  30. 10.1109/TSE.2010.111 · DOI · Paper page
  31. 10.1016/0164-1212(87)90032-X · DOI
  32. 10.1109/MS.2017.265100500 · DOI
  33. 10.1109/VL/HCC53370.2022.9833117 · DOI
  34. Oram, 2010, Making software: What really works, and why we believe it
  35. 10.1145/3274404 · DOI
  36. 10.1145/3328778.3366939 · DOI
  37. 10.1109/WPC.2002.1021348 · DOI
  38. Sadowski, 2018, Modern code review: a case study at Google, 181, 10.1145/3183519.3183525 · DOI
  39. 10.1109/AIBThings63359.2024.10863720 · DOI
  40. 10.1145/2168556.2168642 · DOI
  41. 10.1109/TSE.1984.5010283 · DOI
  42. 10.1109/ICSE.2019.00110 · DOI
  43. 10.1109/ICSME58944.2024.00044 · DOI
  44. 10.1016/S0164-1212(98)10055-9 · DOI
  45. 10.1145/1117309.1117357 · DOI
  46. 10.1109/WPC.1993.263903 · DOI
  47. 10.1109/2.402076 · DOI
  48. Winograd, 1997, The challenge of humancentered design, Human-centered systems: information, interactivity, and intelligence
  49. 10.1145/3579471 · DOI
  50. Goncalves, 2025, Replication package for ‘code review comprehension: Reviewing strategies seen through code comprehension theories’

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Gonçalves, P. W., Rani, P., Storey, M.-A., Spinellis, D., & Bacchelli, A.
Affiliations
  • University of Zurich (CH)
  • University of Victoria (CA)
  • Athens University of Economics and Business (GR)
Venue
2025 IEEE/ACM 33rd International Conference on Program Comprehension (ICPC)
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2025-04-27
Pages
589-601
OpenAlex
W4411360040
Cited by
4
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 4
FWCI
4.79
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IEEE International Conference on Program Comprehension (ICPC) (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
Swiss National Science Foundation (200021_197227,200021M_205146)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Open Source Software Innovations
Keywords
code review, program comprehension, opportunistic strategy, mental models, software inspection, review tools

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