CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 30

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Software Engineering for Internet of Things: The Practitioners' Perspective

Fahmideh, Mahdi, Ahmad, Aakash, Behnaz, Ali, Grundy, John, Susilo, Willy·2022·IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
DOI 10.1109/tse.2021.3070692
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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 · 10.1109/tse.2021.3070692

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig.1 Research method
Fig.1 Research methodCC-BY · From the PDF
Fig. 3 PRISMA flow through the different steps of a systematic review
Fig. 3 PRISMA flow through the different steps of a systematic reviewCC-BY · From the PDF
Image 3
CC-BY · From the PDF
Fig. 5 Geographical distribution of participants
Fig. 5 Geographical distribution of participantsCC-BY · From the PDF
Fig. 6 a) Distribution of (a) participants' industry sectors and b) years of experience in IoT
Fig. 6 a) Distribution of (a) participants' industry sectors and b) years of experience in IoTCC-BY · From the PDF
Fig. 7 Conceptual development process framework for developing IoT based systems
Fig. 7 Conceptual development process framework for developing IoT based systemsCC-BY · From the PDF
Fig.8 Tasks in design phase
Fig.8 Tasks in design phaseCC-BY · From the PDF
Fig.9 Sub-tasks related to platform architecture design task
Fig.9 Sub-tasks related to platform architecture design taskCC-BY · From the PDF
Image 9
CC-BY · From the PDF
Image 10
CC-BY · From the PDF
Image 11
CC-BY · From the PDF
Image 12
CC-BY · From the PDF
Image 13
CC-BY · From the PDF

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

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.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 45

  1. 10.1007/s10796-014-9492-7 · DOI
  2. 10.1109/COMST.2015.2444095 · DOI · Paper page
  3. 10.1016/j.comnet.2010.05.010 · DOI · Paper page
  4. 10.1109/MS.2017.28 · DOI
  5. 10.1016/j.is.2019.06.005 · DOI
  6. 10.1109/TSE.2011.26 · DOI
  7. Avison, 2003, Information Systems Development: Methodologies, Techniques And Tools
  8. 10.1007/978-3-658-19938-8_4 · DOI
  9. 10.1145/1629607.1629613 · DOI · Paper page
  10. 10.1109/SMC.2015.231 · DOI
  11. 10.1109/WF-IoT.2016.7845459 · DOI
  12. 10.1109/FiCloud.2018.00039 · DOI
  13. Zambonelli, Towards a discipline of IoT-oriented software engineering, 1
  14. 10.1145/253228.253440 · DOI
  15. 10.1109/FMEC.2018.8364039 · DOI
  16. 10.1080/0960085X.2018.1524417 · DOI
  17. 10.1007/s10664-019-09708-7 · DOI
  18. 10.1109/TSE.2017.2754374 · DOI · Paper page
  19. 10.1109/IC2E.2018.00062 · DOI
  20. Savaglio, A Methodology for the development of autonomic and cognitive Internet of Things ecosystems, 317
  21. Fahmideh, 2017, Challenges in migrating legacy software systems to the cloud — an empirical study, Inf. Syst., 67, 100, 10.1016/j.is.2017.03.008 · DOI
  22. 10.17705/1jais.00433 · DOI
  23. 10.1109/MS.2016.20 · DOI · Paper page
  24. 10.17705/1CAIS.03412 · DOI
  25. 10.1016/j.infsof.2008.09.009 · DOI · Paper page
  26. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.006 · DOI · Paper page
  27. Pressman, 2005, Software Engineering: A Practitioners Approach
  28. 10.1109/TSE.2009.34 · DOI
  29. 10.1007/978-3-642-16373-9_16 · DOI
  30. 10.1080/07421222.1993.11518001 · DOI · Paper page
  31. Patton, 1990, Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods
  32. 10.1073/pnas.42.1.43 · DOI
  33. 10.1016/j.infsof.2016.07.006 · DOI
  34. Harmsen, Situational method engineering for information system project approaches, 169
  35. 10.1007/978-3-642-41467-1 · DOI
  36. 10.1016/j.infsof.2011.12.009 · DOI
  37. Preissle, 1984, Ethnography And Qualitative Design In Educational Research
  38. Miles, 1994, Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook
  39. 10.1016/j.comcom.2011.11.003 · DOI
  40. 10.1109/CloudCom.2014.65 · DOI
  41. 10.1109/IOT.2012.6402318 · DOI
  42. 10.1109/ICSAW.2017.63 · DOI
  43. 10.1016/j.comnet.2014.02.010 · DOI
  44. 10.1109/ISSNIP.2015.7106946 · DOI
  45. 10.1109/MS.2017.1 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

  • Practitioners’ expectations on log anomaly detection

    Ma, X., Li, Y., Keung, J., Yu, X., Zou, H., Yang, Z., Sarro, F., & Barr, E. T. (2025) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/tse.2025.3586700 · Cited by 21

    “Therefore, in accordance with previous research methodologies [19], we utilized purposive sampling and manually screened professional profiles worldwide and purposely selected practitioners who had been involved in the log-related analysis processes of software systems.”

See all 30

Metadata

Authors
Fahmideh, M., Ahmad, A., Behnaz, A., Grundy, J., & Susilo, W.
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
Publisher
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
Published
2022-08-01
Volume
48
Issue
8
Pages
2857-2878
ISSN
  • 0098-5589
  • 1939-3520
  • 2326-3881
DOI
10.1109/tse.2021.3070692
Cited by
30
References
4
Licence
Funders
ARC Laureate Fellowship (FL190100035)

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