The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The impact of code review coverage and code review participation on software quality: a case study of the qt, VTK, and ITK projects
Abstract
Software code review, i.e., the practice of having third-party team members critique changes to a software system, is a well-established best practice in both open source and proprietary software domains. Prior work has shown that the formal code inspections of the past tend to improve the quality of software delivered by students and small teams. However, the formal code inspection process mandates strict review criteria (e.g., in-person meetings and reviewer checklists) to ensure a base level of review quality, while the modern, lightweight code reviewing process does not. Although recent work explores the modern code review process qualitatively, little research quantitatively explores the relationship between properties of the modern code review process and software quality. Hence, in this paper, we study the relationship between software quality and: (1) code review coverage, i.e., the proportion of changes that have been code reviewed, and (2) code review participation, i.e., the degree of reviewer involvement in the code review process. Through a case study of the Qt, VTK, and ITK projects, we find that both code review coverage and participation share a significant link with software quality. Low code review coverage and participation are estimated to produce components with up to two and five additional post-release defects respectively. Our results empirically confirm the intuition that poorly reviewed code has a negative impact on software quality in large systems using modern reviewing tools.
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
A new look at the statistical model identification
Akaike, H. (1974) · IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control · doi:10.1109/tac.1974.1100705 · Cited by 51,879
Use of relative code churn measures to predict system defect density
Nagappan, N., & Ball, T. (2005) · Proceedings of the 27th international conference on Software engineering - ICSE '05 · doi:10.1145/1062455.1062514 · Cited by 775
(2013) · doi:10.5555/2486788.2486882 · Cited by 437
Cited by
fMRIPrep: A robust preprocessing pipeline for functional MRI
Esteban, O., Markiewicz, C. J., Blair, R. W., Moodie, C. A., Isik, A. I., Erramuzpe, A., Kent, J. D., Goncalves, M., DuPre, E., Snyder, M., et al. (2019) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/s41592-018-0235-4 · Cited by 3,905
An empirical study of the impact of modern code review practices on software quality
McIntosh, S., Kamei, Y., Adams, B., & Hassan, A. E. (2016) · Empirical Software Engineering · doi:10.1007/s10664-015-9381-9 · Cited by 332
Self-citationAn Empirical Study of Model-Agnostic Techniques for Defect Prediction Models
Jiarpakdee, J., Tantithamthavorn, C. K., Dam, H. K., & Grundy, J. (2022) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/tse.2020.2982385 · Cited by 148
(2018) · doi:10.1145/3274404 · Cited by 122
Code Review Automation: Strengths and Weaknesses of the State of the Art
Tufano, R., Dabić, O., Mastropaolo, A., Ciniselli, M., & Bavota, G. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/tse.2023.3348172 · Cited by 48
Metadata
- Authors
- McIntosh, S., Kamei, Y., Adams, B., & Hassan, A. E.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 11th Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2014-05-31
- Pages
- 192-201
- OpenAlex
- W2108769867
- Cited by
- 348
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 29.64
- Type
- conference paper
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The impact of code review coverage and code review participation on software quality: a case study of the qt, VTK, and ITK projects. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1145/2597073.2597076
- The paper
- McIntosh, S., Kamei, Y., Adams, B., & Hassan, A. E. (2014). The impact of code review coverage and code review participation on software quality: a case study of the qt, VTK, and ITK projects. Proceedings of the 11th Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories. https://doi.org/10.1145/2597073.2597076
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.
