The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Evidence-based software engineering for practitioners
Abstract
Software managers and practitioners often must make decisions about what technologies to employ on their projects. They might be aware of problems with their current development practices (for example, production bottlenecks or numerous defect reports from customers) and want to resolve them. Or, they might have read about a new technology and want to take advantage of its promised benefits. However, practitioners can have difficulty making informed decisions about whether to adopt a new technology because there's little objective evidence to confirm its suitability, limits, qualities, costs, and inherent risks. This can lead to poor decisions about technology adoption. Software engineers might make incorrect decisions about adopting new techniques it they don't consider scientific evidence about the techniques' efficacy. They should consider using procedures similar to ones developed for evidence-based medicine. Software companies are often under pressure to adopt immature technologies because of market and management pressures. We suggest that practitioners consider evidence-based software engineering as a mechanism to support and improve their technology adoption decisions.
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
(2004) · doi:10.5555/998675.999432 · Cited by 656
Self-citationProblems in the “Evidence” of “Evidence-Based Medicine”
Feinstein, A. R., & Horwitz, R. I. (1997) · The American Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1016/s0002-9343(97)00244-1 · Cited by 653
Cited by
Systematic Literature Reviews in Software Engineering—A Systematic Literature Review
Kitchenham, B., Pearl Brereton, O., Budgen, D., Turner, M., Bailey, J., & Linkman, S. (2009) · Information and Software Technology · doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2008.09.009 · Cited by 4,537
Self-citationEmpirical studies of agile software development: A systematic review
Dybå, T., & Dingsøyr, T. (2008) · Information and Software Technology · doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2008.01.006 · Cited by 2,668
Brereton, P., Kitchenham, B. A., Budgen, D., Turner, M., & Khalil, M. (2007) · Journal of Systems and Software · doi:10.1016/j.jss.2006.07.009 · Cited by 2,394
Self-citationSystematic literature reviews in software engineering – A tertiary study
Kitchenham, B., Pretorius, R., Budgen, D., Pearl Brereton, O., Turner, M., Niazi, M., & Linkman, S. (2010) · Information and Software Technology · doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2010.03.006 · Cited by 1,230
“Whether the study positioned itself explicitly as an EBSE study by citing any of the EBSE papers [2,1] or the SLR guidelines [7,8].”
BackgroundMethodSelf-citationA systematic review of systematic review process research in software engineering
Kitchenham, B., & Brereton, P. (2013) · Information and Software Technology · doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2013.07.010 · Cited by 1,094
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Dyba, T., Kitchenham, B. A., & Jorgensen, M.
- Venue
- IEEE Software
- Published
- 2005-01
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 58-65
- ISSN
- 0740-7459 (ISSN-L)
- 1937-4194
- OpenAlex
- W2162411541
- Cited by
- 463
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 44.49
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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.
