The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A survey of controlled experiments in software engineering
Open accessAbstract
The classical method for identifying cause-effect relationships is to conduct controlled experiments. This paper reports upon the present state of how controlled experiments in software engineering are conducted and the extent to which relevant information is reported. Among the 5,453 scientific articles published in 12 leading software engineering journals and conferences in the decade from 1993 to 2002, 103 articles (1.9 percent) reported controlled experiments in which individuals or teams performed one or more software engineering tasks. This survey quantitatively characterizes the topics of the experiments and their subjects (number of subjects, students versus professionals, recruitment, and rewards for participation), tasks (type of task, duration, and type and size of application) and environments (location, development tools). Furthermore, the survey reports on how internal and external validity is addressed and the extent to which experiments are replicated. The gathered data reflects the relevance of software engineering experiments to industrial practice and the scientific maturity of software engineering research.
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
Confounding and Collapsibility in Causal Inference
Greenland, S., Pearl, J., & Robins, J. M. (1999) · Statistical Science · doi:10.1214/ss/1009211805 · Cited by 933 · cited 1×
“For further discussions (including formal definitions) of concepts of confounding, see [21].”
Background
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
Guidelines for conducting and reporting case study research in software engineering
Runeson, P., & Höst, M. (2009) · Empirical Software Engineering · doi:10.1007/s10664-008-9102-8 · Cited by 3,862
Systematic Mapping Studies in Software Engineering
Petersen, K., Feldt, R., Mujtaba, S., & Mattsson, M. (2008) · Electronic Workshops in Computing · doi:10.14236/ewic/ease2008.8 · Cited by 3,239
“Therefore, one review study (Sjøberg et al. 2005) applied the classification scheme proposed by Glass et al (Glass et al.”
InfluentialEmpirical 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
Systematic 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
A 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
Applying Systematic Reviews to Diverse Study Types: An Experience Report
Dyba, T., Dingsoyr, T., & Hanssen, G. K. (2007) · First International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM 2007) · doi:10.1109/esem.2007.59 · Cited by 391
Are Students Representatives of Professionals in Software Engineering Experiments?
Salman, I., Misirli, A. T., & Juristo, N. (2015) · 2015 IEEE/ACM 37th IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/icse.2015.82 · Cited by 304
Toward Credible Evaluation of Anomaly-Based Intrusion-Detection Methods
Tavallaee, M., Stakhanova, N., & Ghorbani, A. A. (2010) · IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C (Applications and Reviews) · doi:10.1109/tsmcc.2010.2048428 · Cited by 280
(2015) · doi:10.1007/s10664-013-9279-3 · Cited by 273
The effectiveness of pair programming: A meta-analysis
Hannay, J. E., Dybå, T., Arisholm, E., & Sjøberg, D. I. K. (2009) · Information and Software Technology · doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2009.02.001 · Cited by 268
Self-citationThe ABC of Software Engineering Research
Stol, K.-J., & Fitzgerald, B. (2018) · ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology · doi:10.1145/3241743 · Cited by 245
Using grounded theory to study the experience of software development
Adolph, S., Hall, W., & Kruchten, P. (2011) · Empirical Software Engineering · doi:10.1007/s10664-010-9152-6 · Cited by 235
Developing search strategies for detecting relevant experiments
Dieste, O., Grimán, A., & Juristo, N. (2009) · Empirical Software Engineering · doi:10.1007/s10664-008-9091-7 · Cited by 200
Systematic literature reviews in software engineering
Wohlin, C., & Prikladnicki, R. (2013) · Information and Software Technology · doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2013.02.002 · Cited by 120
Binkley, D., Davis, M., Lawrie, D., & Morrell, C. (2009) · 2009 IEEE 17th International Conference on Program Comprehension · doi:10.1109/icpc.2009.5090039 · Cited by 115
Reconciling perspectives: A grounded theory of how people manage the process of software development
Adolph, S., Kruchten, P., & Hall, W. (2012) · Journal of Systems and Software · doi:10.1016/j.jss.2012.01.059 · Cited by 103
Methodological Principles for Reproducible Performance Evaluation in Cloud Computing
Papadopoulos, A. V., Versluis, L., Bauer, A., Herbst, N., Kistowski, J. V., Ali-Eldin, A., Abad, C. L., Amaral, J. N., Tuma, P., & Iosup, A. (2021) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/tse.2019.2927908 · Cited by 93
Past and future of software architectural decisions – A systematic mapping study
Tofan, D., Galster, M., Avgeriou, P., & Schuitema, W. (2014) · Information and Software Technology · doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2014.03.009 · Cited by 77
Reference-based search strategies in systematic reviews
Skoglund, M., & Runeson, P. (2009) · Electronic Workshops in Computing · doi:10.14236/ewic/ease2009.4 · Cited by 71
(2007) · doi:10.1049/iet-sen:20060052 · Cited by 67
A study on the prevalence of human values in software engineering publications, 2015 -- 2018
Perera, H., Hussain, W., Whittle, J., Nurwidyantoro, A., Mougouei, D., Shams, R. A., & Oliver, G. (2020) · Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE 42nd International Conference on Software Engineering · doi:10.1145/3377811.3380393 · Cited by 63
The role and value of replication in empirical software engineering results
Shepperd, M., Ajienka, N., & Counsell, S. (2018) · Information and Software Technology · doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2018.01.006 · Cited by 60
Tosun, A., Dieste, O., Fucci, D., Vegas, S., Turhan, B., Erdogmus, H., Santos, A., Oivo, M., Toro, K., Jarvinen, J., et al. (2017) · Empirical Software Engineering · doi:10.1007/s10664-016-9490-0 · Cited by 50
Privacy-Preservation Techniques for IoT Devices: A Systematic Mapping Study
Torre, D., Chennamaneni, A., & Rodriguez, A. (2023) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2023.3245524 · Cited by 35
Metadata
- Authors
- Sjoeberg, D. I. K., Hannay, J. E., Hansen, O., Kampenes, V. B., Karahasanovic, A., Liborg, N.-K., & Rekdal, A. C.
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
- Published
- 2005-09
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 733-753
- ISSN
- 0098-5589 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2111199933
- Cited by
- 682
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 116.05
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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.
