Cited by 56Software Engineering Techniques and PracticesMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsSoftware Engineering Research

Tools to support systematic reviews in software engineering: a feature analysis

Marshall, Christopher, Brereton, Pearl, Kitchenham, Barbara·2014·Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering

Abstract

Background The labour intensive and error prone nature of the systematic review process has led to the development and use of a range of tools to provide automated support.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/2601248.2601270

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • Many SLR tools have undergone significant development and advancements in the last few years.

    “Comparing our results with the previous studies in the literature (Marshall et al. 2014; Van der Mierden et al. 2019; Harrison et al. 2020; Cowie et al. 2022), we observed that many SLR tools have undergone significant development and advancements in the last few years.”

    From Artificial intelligence for literature reviews: opportunities and challenges (2024) · cites this paper as Marshall et al. 2014

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Marshall, C., Brereton, P., & Kitchenham, B.
Affiliations
  • Keele University (GB)
  • Keele University, Staffordshire UK
Venue
Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering
Publisher
ACM
Published
2014-05-13
Pages
1-10
OpenAlex
W2043634247
Cited by
56
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 1
FWCI
2.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering (EASE) (publishedVersion)
Funders
Keele University
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
Keywords
systematic reviews, software engineering, review tools, automated support, literature searching, software quality

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