CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 18Software Engineering ResearchSoftware Engineering Techniques and PracticesOpen Source Software Innovations

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

U Owns the Code That Changes and How Marginal Owners Resolve Issues Slower in Low-Quality Source Code

Open access
Borg, Markus, Tornhill, Adam, Mones, Enys·2023·Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering
DOI 10.1145/3593434.3593480
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

[Context] Accurate time estimation is a critical aspect of predictable software engineering. Previous work shows that low source code quality increases the uncertainty in issue resolution times. [Objective] Our goal is to evaluate how developers’ project experience and file ownership are related to issue resolution times. [Method] We mine 40 proprietary software repositories and conduct an observational study. Using CodeScene, we measure source code quality and active development time connected to Jira issues. [Results] Most source code changes are made by either a marginal or dominant code owner. Also, most changes to low-quality source code are made by developers with low levels of ownership. In low-quality source code, marginal owners need 45% more time for small changes, and 93% more time for large changes. [Conclusions] Collective code ownership is a popular target, but industry practice results in many dominant and marginal owners. Marginal owners are particularly hampered when working with low-quality source code, which leads to productivity losses. In codebases plagued by technical debt, newly onboarded developers will require more time to complete tasks.

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 · 10.1145/3593434.3593480

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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?

  • CodeHealth correlates with slower onboarding.

    “as well as slower onboarding (Borg et al. 2023).”

    From Echoes of AI: Investigating the downstream effects of AI assistants on software maintainability (2026) · cites this paper as Borg et al. 2023

    Section 5.3 finds that marginal owners resolve issues more slowly in low-quality code and says this might mean project onboarding requires additional time. It does not measure onboarding or establish a direct correlation between Code Health and onboarding speed. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 51

  1. 10.1109/ESEM.2011.47 · DOI
  2. 10.3390/s21072329 · DOI
  3. 10.1016/j.jss.2021.111093 · DOI
  4. 10.1145/3194164.3194175 · DOI
  5. 10.1109/ICSE.2009.5070530 · DOI
  6. 10.1002/bltj.2218 · DOI
  7. 10.1109/TSE.2021.3113558 · DOI
  8. Robert Baggen, José Pedro Correia, Katrin Schill, and Joost Visser. 2012. Standardized Code Quality Benchmarking for Improving Software Maintainability. Software Quality Journal2 (2012), 287–307.
  9. 10.1109/RESER.2013.14 · DOI
  10. 10.1145/3236024.3236061 · DOI
  11. 10.1016/j.jss.2019.06.004 · DOI
  12. Christian Bird, Nachi Nagappan, Brendan Murphy, Harald Gall, and Premkumar Devanbu. 2011. Don’t Touch My Code! Examining the Effects of Ownership on Software Quality. In Proc. of the the 8th Joint Meeting of the European Software Engineering Conference and the Symposium on The Foundations of Software Engineering.
  13. 10.1016/0164-1212(83)90003-1 · DOI
  14. 10.1109/CSMR.2013.18 · DOI
  15. Frederick Brooks. 1995. The Mythical Man-Month: Essays On Software Engineering. Pearson Education.
  16. 10.1109/32.268921 · DOI
  17. 10.1145/2601248.2601283 · DOI
  18. 10.1016/j.infsof.2015.01.013 · DOI
  19. 10.1145/2512207 · DOI
  20. 10.1145/3084226.3084242 · DOI
  21. 10.1109/MSR.2015.8 · DOI
  22. 10.1007/s10664-010-9145-5 · DOI
  23. International Organization for Standardization. 2021. Information Technology - Software Measurement - Software Quality Measurement - Automated Source Code Quality Measures. Technical Report ISO/IEC 5055:2021. International Organization for Standardization.
  24. 10.1109/TSE.2007.256943 · DOI
  25. 10.1016/j.infsof.2022.106964 · DOI
  26. Marian Jureczko and Lech Madeyski. 2015. Cross-Project Defect Prediction with Respect to Code Ownership Model: An Empirical Study. e-Informatica Software Engineering Journal 9, 1 (2015).
  27. 10.1145/2884781.2884840 · DOI · Paper page
  28. Narendra Kurapati, Venkata Sarath Chandra Manyam, and Kai Petersen. 2012. Agile Software Development Practice Adoption Survey. In Agile Processes in Software Engineering and Extreme Programming(Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing), Claes Wohlin (Ed.). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 16–30.
  29. 10.5555/2820518.2820567 · DOI
  30. 10.1016/j.jss.2020.110610 · DOI
  31. 10.1007/s10664-018-9647-0 · DOI
  32. Manish Motwani, Sandhya Sankaranarayanan, Rene Just, and Yuriy Brun. 2018. Do Automated Program Repair Techniques Repair Hard and Important Bugs?Empirical Software Engineering 23, 5 (2018), 2901–2947.
  33. J.C. Munson and S.G. Elbaum. 1998. Code Churn: A Measure for Estimating the Impact of Code Change. In Proc. of the International Conference on Software Maintenance. 24–31.
  34. 10.1016/j.jss.2014.11.015 · DOI
  35. 10.1145/1062455.1062514 · DOI · Paper page
  36. 10.1145/1368088.1368160 · DOI
  37. 10.1016/j.jss.2017.03.044 · DOI
  38. 10.1145/1868328.1868357 · DOI
  39. 10.1145/1985793.1985860 · DOI
  40. 10.1109/TSE.2021.3070559 · DOI
  41. 10.1109/Agile.2015.21 · DOI
  42. Rodrigo Reboucas de Almeida, Christoph Treude, and Uira Kulesza. 2019. Tracy: A Business-Driven Technical Debt Prioritization Framework. In Proc. of the 35th International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution. 181–185.
  43. 10.1109/ESEM.2009.5314233 · DOI
  44. 10.1016/j.infsof.2018.05.010 · DOI
  45. 10.1145/2372251.2372275 · DOI
  46. 10.1145/2915970.2916002 · DOI
  47. 10.1080/17517575.2020.1824017 · DOI
  48. 10.1145/1869542.1869560 · DOI
  49. 10.1145/3544902.3546238 · DOI
  50. 10.1145/3524843.3528091 · DOI
  51. C. Wohlin, P. Runeson, M. Höst, M. Ohlsson, B. Regnell, and A. Wesslén. 2012. Experimentation in Software Engineering: A Practical Guide. Springer.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Borg, M., Tornhill, A., & Mones, E.
Affiliations
  • Lund University (SE)
  • CodeScene, Sweden
ORCID
Venue
Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering
Publisher
ACM
Published
2023-06-14
Pages
368-377
DOI
10.1145/3593434.3593480
OpenAlex
W4380568682
Cited by
18
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 6
FWCI
3.46
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.acm.org/publications/policies/copyright_policy#Background (vor)
Locations
  • International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering (EASE) (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • Lund University Publications (Lund University) (submittedVersion)
  • Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
  • Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
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 ownership, issue resolution time, code quality, technical debt, developer productivity, proprietary software, developer onboarding, time estimation

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