Cited by 183Software Engineering ResearchSoftware Engineering Techniques and PracticesOpen Source Software Innovations

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Code review quality: how developers see it

Kononenko, Oleksii, Baysal, Olga, Godfrey, Michael W.·2016·Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Software Engineering

Abstract

In a large, long-lived project, an effective code review process is key to ensuring the long-term quality of the code base. In this work, we study code review practices of a large, open source project, and we investigate how the developers themselves perceive code review quality. We present a qualitative study that summarizes the results from a survey of 88 Mozilla core developers. The results provide developer insights into how they define review quality, what factors contribute to how they evaluate submitted code, and what challenges they face when performing review tasks. We found that the review quality is primarily associated with the thoroughness of the feedback, the reviewer's familiarity with the code, and the perceived quality of the code itself. Also, we found that while different factors are perceived to contribute to the review quality, reviewers often find it difficult to keep their technical skills up-to-date, manage personal priorities, and mitigate context switching.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/2884781.2884840

Cites

Statistics

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

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 27

  1. Amant K., 2005, Information Science Pub.
  2. 10.1145/1134285.1134457 · DOI
  3. 10.1145/1134285.1134336 · DOI
  4. 10.5555/2486788.2486882 · DOI
  5. 10.1145/2635868.2635887 · DOI
  6. 10.1109/WCRE.2012.54 · DOI
  7. 10.1109/WCRE.2013.6671287 · DOI
  8. 10.1145/2568225.2568233 · DOI
  9. 10.1147/sj.153.0182 · DOI
  10. 10.1145/2568225.2568260 · DOI · Paper page
  11. 10.5555/2818754.2818800 · DOI
  12. 10.1109/MS.2008.100 · DOI
  13. 10.1145/1370750.1370786 · DOI
  14. 10.5555/2487085.2487111 · DOI
  15. 10.1109/TSE.2009.27 · DOI
  16. 10.1109/ICSM.2015.7332457 · DOI
  17. 10.1145/2441776.2441792 · DOI
  18. Miles M., 1994, Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook
  19. 10.1145/567793.567795 · DOI · Paper page
  20. 10.1145/581339.581401 · DOI
  21. Policy Code-Review, 2015, August
  22. 10.1145/2491411.2491444 · DOI
  23. 10.1145/1985793.1985867 · DOI
  24. 10.1145/2568225.2568315 · DOI
  25. 10.1109/MSR.2007.13 · DOI
  26. 10.1145/1370750.1370767 · DOI
  27. Wiki M., 2015, August

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Kononenko, O., Baysal, O., & Godfrey, M. W.
Affiliations
  • University of Waterloo (CA)
  • Carleton University (CA)
Venue
Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Software Engineering
Publisher
ACM
Published
2016-05-14
Pages
1028-1038
ISSN
0270-5257 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2348249338
Cited by
183
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 34 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 1
FWCI
12.17
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
ACM/IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering: Companion Proceedings (ICSE-Companion) (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Open Source Software Innovations
Keywords
code review, review quality, developer perceptions, open source software, Mozilla, reviewer workload, context switching, large-scale software projects

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