Accountability in Code Review: The Role of Intrinsic Drivers and the Impact of LLMs
Open accessAbstract
Accountability is an innate part of social systems. It maintains stability and ensures positive pressure on individuals’ decision-making. As actors in a social system, software developers are accountable to their team and organization for their decisions. However, the drivers of accountability and how it changes behavior in software development are less understood. In this study, we look at how the social aspects of code review affect software engineers’ sense of accountability for code quality. Since Software Engineering (SE) is increasingly involving Large Language Models (LLM) assistance, we also evaluate the impact on accountability when introducing LLM-assisted code reviews. We carried out a two-phased sequential qualitative study ( \(\textbf{interviews}\rightarrow\textbf{focus groups}\) ). In Phase I (16 interviews), we sought to investigate the intrinsic drivers of software engineers influencing their sense of accountability for code quality, relying on self-reported claims. In Phase II, we tested these traits in a more natural setting by simulating traditional peer-led reviews with focus groups and then LLM-assisted review sessions. We found that there are four key intrinsic drivers of accountability for code quality: personal standards , professional integrity , pride in code quality , and maintaining one’s reputation . In a traditional peer-led review, we observed a transition from individual to collective accountability when code reviews are initiated. We also found that the introduction of LLM-assisted reviews disrupts this accountability process, challenging the reciprocity of accountability taking place in peer-led evaluations, i.e., one cannot be accountable to an LLM. Our findings imply that the introduction of AI into SE must preserve social integrity and collective accountability mechanisms.
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
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.
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?
Concerns regarding hallucinations, bias, overconfidence and accountability remain substantial.
“However, concerns regarding hallucinations, bias, overconfidence and accountability remain substantial (Vasu et al. 2025;Alami et al. 2025;Doskaliuk et al. 2025;Seghier 2025).”
From Who Reviews the Reviewer? A Multi‐Agent LLM Architecture With Meta‐Review Synthesis for Editorial Peer Review (2026) · cites this paper as Alami et al. 2025
Section 5.3 (pp. 31–32) reports substantial concerns about trust and accountability in LLM-assisted code review: participants said an LLM could not be held accountable and sometimes lacked the code context needed for applicable feedback. The passages do not substantiate the separate concerns about hallucinations, bias, or overconfidence. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredAI integration disrupts traditional accountability structures because reviewers cannot establish reciprocal responsibility with automated systems.
“Research examining LLM-assisted code reviews found that AI integration disrupts traditional accountability structures because reviewers cannot establish reciprocal responsibility with automated systems (Alami et al. 2025).”
From Who Reviews the Reviewer? A Multi‐Agent LLM Architecture With Meta‐Review Synthesis for Editorial Peer Review (2026) · cites this paper as Alami et al. 2025
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 · Cited by 82,194 · see citing works
Behavioral Study of obedience.
Milgram, S. (1963) · The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0040525 · Cited by 4,918 · see citing works
Measurement of social-evaluative anxiety.
Watson, D., & Friend, R. (1969) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0027806 · Cited by 3,467 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 114
- [1][1] AdamAlami, Marisa Leavitt Cohn, and Andrzej Wąsowski. 2019. Why does code review work for open source software communities?. In 2019 IEEE/ACM 41st International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE) . IEEE, 1073-1083. -
- [3][3] Adam Alami and Oliver Krancher. 2022. How Scrum adds value to achieving software quality? Empirical Software Engineering 27, 7 (2022), 165. -
- [2][2] Adam Alami and Neil Ernst. 2024. Understanding the building blocks of accountability in software engineering. In Proceedings of the 2024 IEEE/ACM 17th International Conference on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering . 153-163. -
- [4][4] Adam Alami and Andrzej Wąsowski. 2019. Affiliated participation in open source communities. In 2019 ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM) . IEEE, 1-11. -
- [6][6] Adam Alami, Mansooreh Zahedi, and Oliver Krancher. 2024. The role of psychological safety in promoting software quality in agile teams. Empirical Software Engineering 29, 5 (2024), 119. -
- [5][5] Adam Alami, Mansooreh Zahedi, and Neil Ernst. 2024. Are You a Real Software Engineer? Best Practices in Online Recruitment for Software Engineering Studies. The 1st International Workshop on Methodological Issues with Empirical Studies in Software Engineering (WSESE 2024) (2024). -
- [7][7] Khaldoun M Aldiabat and Carole-Lynne Le Navenec. 2018. Data saturation: The mysterious step in grounded theory methodology. The qualitative report 23, 1 (2018), 245-261. -
- [9][9] Solomon E Asch. 2016. Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgments. In Organizational influence processes . Routledge, 295-303. -
- [8][8] Tammy D Allen, Lillian T Eby, Mark L Poteet, Elizabeth Lentz, and Lizzette Lima. 2004. Career benefits associated with mentoring for protégés: A meta-analysis. Journal of applied psychology 89, 1 (2004), 127. -
- [10][10] Alberto Bacchelli and Christian Bird. 2013. Expectations, outcomes, and challenges of modern code review. In 2013 35th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE) . IEEE, 712-721. -
- [12][12] Sebastian Baltes and Paul Ralph. 2022. Sampling in software engineering research: A critical review and guidelines. Empirical Software Engineering 27, 4 (2022), 94. -
- [11][11] Deepika Badampudi, Michael Unterkalmsteiner, and Ricardo Britto. 2023. Modern Code Reviews-Survey of Literature and Practice. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 32, 4 (May 2023), 1-61. https://doi.org/10. 1145/3585004 -
- [13][13] Albert Bandura et al. 1986. Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ 1986, 23-28 (1986), 2. -
- [15][15] Tobias Baum, Kurt Schneider, and Alberto Bacchelli. 2017. On the optimal order of reading source code changes for review. In 2017 IEEE international conference on software maintenance and evolution (ICSME) . IEEE, 329-340. -
- [14][14] Albert Bandura and Richard H Walters. 1977. Social learning theory . Vol. 1. Englewood cliffs Prentice Hall. -
- [16][16] Tobias Baum, Kurt Schneider, and Alberto Bacchelli. 2019. Associating working memory capacity and code change ordering with code review performance. Empirical Software Engineering 24 (2019), 1762-1798. -
- [18][18] Andrew Begel and Nachiappan Nagappan. 2008. Pair programming: what's in it for me?. In Proceedings of the Second ACM-IEEE international symposium on Empirical software engineering and measurement . 120-128. -
- [17][17] Gordon Baxter and Ian Sommerville. 2011. Socio-technical systems: From design methods to systems engineering. Interacting with computers 23, 1 (2011), 4-17. -
- [19][19] Christian Bird, Nachiappan Nagappan, Brendan Murphy, Harald Gall, and Premkumar Devanbu. 2011. Don't touch my code! Examining the effects of ownership on software quality. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM SIGSOFT symposium and the 13th European conference on Foundations of software engineering . 4-14. -
- [21][21] Mark Bolino, David Long, and William Turnley. 2016. Impression management in organizations: Critical questions, answers, and areas for future research. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior 3, 1 (2016), 377-406. -
- [20][20] Linda Birt, Suzanne Scott, Debbie Cavers, Christine Campbell, and Fiona Walter. 2016. Member checking: a tool to enhance trustworthiness or merely a nod to validation? Qualitative health research 26, 13 (2016), 1802-1811. -
- [22][22] Amiangshu Bosu and Jeffrey C Carver. 2013. Impact of peer code review on peer impression formation: A survey. In 2013 ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement . IEEE, 133-142. -
- [24][24] Amiangshu Bosu, Michaela Greiler, and Christian Bird. 2015. Characteristics of useful code reviews: An empirical study at microsoft. In 2015 IEEE/ACM 12th Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories . IEEE, 146-156. -
- [23][23] Amiangshu Bosu, Jeffrey C Carver, Christian Bird, Jonathan Orbeck, and Christopher Chockley. 2016. Process aspects and social dynamics of contemporary code review: Insights from open source development and industrial practice at Microsoft. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 43, 1 (2016), 56-75. -
- [25][25] Glenn A Bowen. 2008. Naturalistic inquiry and the saturation concept: a research note. Qualitative research 8, 1 (2008), 137-152. -
- [26][26] David Byrne. 2002. Complexity theory and the social sciences: An introduction . Routledge. -
- [27][27] Judy Cameron and W David Pierce. 1994. Reinforcement, reward, and intrinsic motivation: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational research 64, 3 (1994), 363-423. -
- [29][29] John M Carroll. 2003. Making use: scenario-based design of human-computer interactions . MIT press. -
- [28][28] Robyn P Cant and Simon J Cooper. 2010. Simulation-based learning in nurse education: systematic review. Journal of advanced nursing 66, 1 (2010), 3-15. -
- [30][30] Jesse J Chandler and Gabriele Paolacci. 2017. Lie for a dime: When most prescreening responses are honest but most study participants are impostors. Social Psychological and Personality Science 8, 5 (2017), 500-508. -
- [31][31] Robert B Cialdini and Noah J Goldstein. 2004. Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 55, 1 (2004), 591-621. -
- [33][33] Atacílio Cunha, Tayana Conte, and Bruno Gadelha. 2021. Code Review is just reviewing code? A qualitative study with practitioners in industry. In Proceedings of the XXXV Brazilian Symposium on Software Engineering . 269-274. -
- [35][35] Barthélémy Dagenais and Martin P Robillard. 2011. Recommending adaptive changes for framework evolution. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM) 20, 4 (2011), 1-35. -
- [34][34] Bill Curtis, Herb Krasner, and Neil Iscoe. 1988. A field study of the software design process for large systems. Commun. ACM 31, 11 (1988), 1268-1287. -
- [36][36] Nicole Davila and Ingrid Nunes. 2021. A systematic literature review and taxonomy of modern code review. Journal of Systems and Software 177 (2021), 110951. -
- [38][38] David De Cremer and Constantine Sedikides. 2008. Reputational implications of procedural fairness for personal and relational self-esteem. Basic and Applied Social Psychology 30, 1 (2008), 66-75. -
- [37][37] David De Cremer and Müriel Barker. 2003. Accountability and cooperation in social dilemmas: The influence of others' reputational concerns. Current Psychology 22, 2 (2003), 155-163. -
- [39][39] David De Cremer, Mark Snyder, and Siegfried Dewitte. 2001. 'The less I trust, the less I contribute (or not)?' The effects of trust, accountability and self-monitoring in social dilemmas. European Journal of Social Psychology 31, 1 (2001), 93-107. -
- [41][41] Erik W de Kwaadsteniet, Eric van Dijk, Arjaan Wit, David De Cremer, and Mark de Rooij. 2007. Justifying decisions in social dilemmas: Justification pressures and tacit coordination under environmental uncertainty. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 33, 12 (2007), 1648-1660. -
- [40][40] David De Cremer and Eric Van Dijk. 2009. Paying for sanctions in social dilemmas: The effects of endowment asymmetry and accountability. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 109, 1 (2009), 45-55. -
- [42][42] Edward L Deci and Richard M Ryan. 2000. The" what" and" why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the selfdetermination of behavior. Psychological inquiry 11, 4 (2000), 227-268. -
- [44][44] Carolyn D. Egelman, Emerson Murphy-Hill, Elizabeth Kammer, Margaret Morrow Hodges, Collin Green, Ciera Jaspan, and James Lin. 2020. Predicting developers' negative feelings about code review. In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE 42nd International Conference on Software Engineering . ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3377811.3380414 - · DOI
- [43][43] Tom DeMarco and Tim Lister. 2013. Peopleware: productive projects and teams . Addison-Wesley. -
- [45][45] Angela Fan, Beliz Gokkaya, Mark Harman, Mitya Lyubarskiy, Shubho Sengupta, Shin Yoo, and Jie M Zhang. 2023. Large language models for software engineering: Survey and open problems. In 2023 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Software Engineering: Future of Software Engineering (ICSE-FoSE) . IEEE, 31-53. -
- [47][47] Timothy J Fogarty and Mark W Dirsmith. 2001. Organizational socialization as instrument and symbol: An extended institutional theory perspective. Human Resource Development Quarterly 12, 3 (2001), 247-266. -
- [46][46] Ayelet Fishbach and Kaitlin Woolley. 2022. The structure of intrinsic motivation. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior 9 (2022), 339-363. -
- [48][48] Robert Folger and Russell Cropanzano. 2001. Fairness theory: Justice as accountability. Advances in organizational justice 1, 1-55 (2001), 12. -
- [50][50] Catherine Twomey Fosnot. 2013. Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice . Teachers College Press. -
- [49][49] Nicole Forsgren and Mik Kersten. 2018. DevOps metrics. Commun. ACM 61, 4 (March 2018), 44-48. https: //doi.org/10.1145/3159169 - · DOI
- [51][51] Dwight D Frink, Angela T Hall, Alexa A Perryman, Annette L Ranft, Wayne A Hochwarter, Gerald R Ferris, and M Todd Royle. 2008. Meso-level theory of accountability in organizations. In Research in personnel and human resources management . Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 177-245. -
- [53][53] Dwight D Frink and Richard J Klimoski. 2004. Advancing accountability theory and practice: Introduction to the human resource management review special edition. Human resource management review 14, 1 (2004), 1-17. -
- [54][54] Adrian Furnham. 1986. Response bias, social desirability and dissimulation. Personality and individual differences 7, 3 (1986), 385-400. -
- [55][55] David M Gaba. 2004. The future vision of simulation in health care. BMJ quality & safety 13, suppl 1 (2004), i2-i10. -
- [57][57] Daniel M German, Gregorio Robles, Germán Poo-Caamaño, Xin Yang, Hajimu Iida, and Katsuro Inoue. 2018. 'Was my contribution fairly reviewed?' a framework to study the perception of fairness in modern code reviews. In Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Software Engineering . 523-534. -
- [56][56] Michele J Gelfand, Beng-Chong Lim, and Jana L Raver. 2004. Culture and accountability in organizations: Variations in forms of social control across cultures. Human Resource management review 14, 1 (2004), 135-160. -
- [58][58] Michaela Greiler, Kim Herzig, and Jacek Czerwonka. 2015. Code ownership and software quality: A replication study. In 2015 IEEE/ACM 12th Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories . IEEE, 2-12. -
- [60][60] Angela T Hall, Fred R Blass, Gerald R Ferris, and Randy Massengale. 2004. Leader reputation and accountability in organizations: Implications for dysfunctional leader behavior. The Leadership Quarterly 15, 4 (2004), 515-536. -
- [59][59] Greg Guest, Arwen Bunce, and Laura Johnson. 2006. How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field methods 18, 1 (2006), 59-82. -
- [61][61] Angela T Hall, Dwight D Frink, and M Ronald Buckley. 2017. An accountability account: A review and synthesis of the theoretical and empirical research on felt accountability. Journal of Organizational Behavior 38, 2 (2017), 204-224. -
- [62][62] Angela T Hall, Dwight D Frink, Gerald R Ferris, Wayne A Hochwarter, Charles J Kacmar, and Michael G Bowen. 2003. Accountability in human resources management. New directions in human resource management 29 (2003), 63. 9. Historical Social Research/Historische Sozialforschung -
- [65][65] Juanita Johnson-Bailey and Ronald M Cervero. 2004. Mentoring in black and white: the intricacies of cross-cultural mentoring. Mentoring & tutoring: Partnership in learning 12, 1 (2004), 7-21. -
- [64][64] Pamela R Jeffries. 2005. A framework for designing, implementing, and evaluating: Simulations used as teaching strategies in nursing. Nursing education perspectives 26, 2 (2005), 96-103. -
- [66][66] Severin Kacianka and Alexander Pretschner. 2021. Designing accountable systems. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency . 424-437. -
- [68][68] Maryon F King and Gordon C Bruner. 2000. Social desirability bias: A neglected aspect of validity testing. Psychology & Marketing 17, 2 (2000), 79-103. -
- [67][67] Daniel Katz and Robert L Kahn. 1978. The social psychology of organizations . Vol. 2. wiley New York. -
- [69][69] David Kipnis. 1972. Does power corrupt? Journal of personality and social psychology 24, 1 (1972), 33. -
- [71][71] Avraham N Kluger and Angelo DeNisi. 1996. The effects of feedback interventions on performance: a historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological bulletin 119, 2 (1996), 254. -
- [70][70] Norihito Kitagawa, Hideaki Hata, Akinori Ihara, Kiminao Kogiso, and Kenichi Matsumoto. 2016. Code review participation: game theoretical modeling of reviewers in gerrit datasets. In Proceedings of the 9th International Workshop on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering . 64-67. -
- [72][72] Nancy L Kocovski and Norman S Endler. 2000. Social anxiety, self-regulation, and fear of negative evaluation. European Journal of Personality 14, 4 (2000), 347-358. -
- [73][73] Jyrki Kontio, Johanna Bragge, and Laura Lehtola. 2008. The Focus Group Method as an Empirical Tool in Software Engineering . Springer London, 93-116. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84800-044-5\_4 - · DOI
- [75][75] Diane Larsen-Freeman. 2013. Complexity theory. In The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition . Routledge, 73-87. -
- [77][77] Jennifer S Lerner and Philip E Tetlock. 1999. Accounting for the effects of accountability. Psychological bulletin 125, 2 (1999), 255. -
- [76][76] Mark R Leary. 2019. Self-presentation: Impression management and interpersonal behavior . Routledge. -
- [78][78] Zhiyu Li, Shuai Lu, Daya Guo, Nan Duan, Shailesh Jannu, Grant Jenks, Deep Majumder, Jared Green, Alexey Svyatkovskiy, Shengyu Fu, et al. 2022. Automating code review activities by large-scale pre-training. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering . 1035-1047. -
- [80][80] Junyi Lu, Lei Yu, Xiaojia Li, Li Yang, and Chun Zuo. 2023. LLaMA-Reviewer: Advancing code review automation with large language models through parameter-efficient fine-tuning. In 2023 IEEE 34th International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering (ISSRE) . IEEE, 647-658. -
- [79][79] Manuel London and James W Smither. 2002. Feedback orientation, feedback culture, and the longitudinal performance management process. Human resource management review 12, 1 (2002), 81-100. -
- [81][81] Thomas W Malone, Daniela Rus, and Robert Laubacher. 2020. Artificial intelligence and the future of work. A report prepared by MIT Task Force on the work of the future, Research Brief 17 (2020), 1-39. -
- [82][82] Shane McIntosh, Yasutaka Kamei, Bram Adams, and Ahmed E Hassan. 2016. An empirical study of the impact of modern code review practices on software quality. Empirical Software Engineering 21 (2016), 2146-2189. -
- [83][83] Andrew Meneely, Alberto C Rodriguez Tejeda, Brian Spates, Shannon Trudeau, Danielle Neuberger, Katherine Whitlock, Christopher Ketant, and Kayla Davis. 2014. An empirical investigation of socio-technical code review metrics and security vulnerabilities. In Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on Social Software Engineering . 37-44. -
- [84][84] Neal P Mero, Rebecca M Guidice, and Amy L Brownlee. 2007. Accountability in a performance appraisal context: The effect of audience and form of accounting on rater response and behavior. Journal of Management 33, 2 (2007), 223-252. -
- [88][88] Tobias O. Nyumba, Kerrie Wilson, Christina J Derrick, and Nibedita Mukherjee. 2018. The use of focus group discussion methodology: Insights from two decades of application in conservation. Methods in Ecology and evolution 9, 1 (2018), 20-32. -
- [87][87] Janice M Morse. 2004. Theoretical saturation. Encyclopedia of social science research methods 3 (2004), 1122-3. -
- [89][89] William Odom, John Zimmerman, Scott Davidoff, Jodi Forlizzi, Anind K Dey, and Min Kyung Lee. 2012. A fieldwork of the future with user enactments. In Proceedings of the Designing Interactive Systems Conference . 338-347. -
- [91][91] Prahar Pandya and Saurabh Tiwari. 2022. Corms: a github and gerrit based hybrid code reviewer recommendation approach for modern code review. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM joint European software engineering conference and symposium on the foundations of software engineering . 546-557. -
- [90][90] The Joint Task Force on Computing Curricula. 2024. . Technical Report Version 2024-01-18. ACM. https://csed.acm. org/cs2023-report-with-feedback/ -
- [93][93] Amaryll Perlesz and Jo Lindsay. 2003. Methodological triangulation in researching families: Making sense of dissonant data. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 6, 1 (2003), 25-40. -
- [95][95] Belle Rose Ragins and Kathy E Kram. 2007. The handbook of mentoring at work: Theory, research, and practice . Sage Publications. -
- [97][97] Peter C Rigby and Christian Bird. 2013. Convergent contemporary software peer review practices. In Proceedings of the 2013 9th joint meeting on foundations of software engineering . 202-212. -
- [96][96] Johnmarshall Reeve. 1998. Autonomy support as an interpersonal motivating style: Is it teachable? Contemporary educational psychology 23, 3 (1998), 312-330. -
- [98][98] Barbara Romzek, Kelly LeRoux, Jocelyn Johnston, Robin J Kempf, and Jaclyn Schede Piatak. 2014. Informal accountability in multisector service delivery collaborations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 24, 4 (2014), 813-842. -
- [100][100] Nicole Ruggiano and Tam E Perry. 2019. Conducting secondary analysis of qualitative data: Should we, can we, and how? Qualitative Social Work 18, 1 (2019), 81-97. -
- [99][99] Barbara S Romzek, Kelly LeRoux, and Jeannette M Blackmar. 2012. A preliminary theory of informal accountability among network organizational actors. Public administration review 72, 3 (2012), 442-453. -
- [101][101] Richard M Ryan and Jessica A Solky. 1996. What is supportive about social support? On the psychological needs for autonomy and relatedness. In Handbook of social support and the family . Springer, 249-267. -
- [103][103] Eduardo Salas, Nancy J Cooke, and Michael A Rosen. 2008. On teams, teamwork, and team performance: Discoveries and developments. Human factors 50, 3 (2008), 540-547. -
- [102][102] Caitlin Sadowski, Emma Söderberg, Luke Church, Michal Sipko, and Alberto Bacchelli. 2018. Modern code review: a case study at google. In Proceedings of the 40th international conference on software engineering: Software engineering in practice . 181-190. -
- [106][106] Shu-Ting Shi, Ming Li, David Lo, Ferdian Thung, and Xuan Huo. 2019. Automatic code review by learning the revision of source code. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , Vol. 33. 4910-4917. -
- [105][105] Barry R Schlenker, Thomas W Britt, John Pennington, Rodolfo Murphy, and Kevin Doherty. 1994. The triangle model of responsibility. Psychological review 101, 4 (1994), 632. -
- [107][107] Sujin Shin, Jin-Hwa Park, and Jung-Hee Kim. 2015. Effectiveness of patient simulation in nursing education: metaanalysis. Nurse education today 35, 1 (2015), 176-182. -
- [108][108] Arthur A Stone, Christine A Bachrach, Jared B Jobe, Howard S Kurtzman, and Virginia S Cain. 1999. The science of self-report: Implications for research and practice . Psychology Press. -
- [110][110] Alexey Svyatkovskiy, Shao Kun Deng, Shengyu Fu, and Neel Sundaresan. 2020. Intellicode compose: Code generation using transformer. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM joint meeting on European software engineering conference and symposium on the foundations of software engineering . 1433-1443. -
- [109][109] Margaret-Anne Storey, Neil A. Ernst, Courtney Williams, and Eirini Kalliamvakou. 2020. The who, what, how of software engineering research: a socio-technical framework. Empirical Software Engineering 25, 5 (Aug. 2020), 4097-4129. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-020-09858-z - · DOI
- [113][113] Patanamon Thongtanunam and Chakkrit Tantithamthavorn. 2024. Code Ownership: The Principles, Differences, and Their Associations with Software Quality. In 2024 IEEE 35th International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering (ISSRE) . IEEE, 379-390. -
- [112][112] Philip E Tetlock. 1992. The impact of accountability on judgment and choice: Toward a social contingency model. In Advances in experimental social psychology . Vol. 25. Elsevier, 331-376. -
- [114][114] Roger Tourangeau and Ting Yan. 2007. Sensitive questions in surveys. Psychological bulletin 133, 5 (2007), 859. -
- [116][116] Guido Van Rossum, Fred L Drake, et al. 1995. Python reference manual . Vol. 111. Centrum voor Wiskunde en Informatica Amsterdam. -
- [115][115] TomRTyler. 1999. Why people cooperate with organizations: An identity-based perspective. Research in organizational behavior 21 (1999), 201-246. -
- [117][117] Bogdan Vasilescu, Yue Yu, Huaimin Wang, Premkumar Devanbu, and Vladimir Filkov. 2015. Quality and productivity outcomes relating to continuous integration in GitHub. In Proceedings of the 2015 10th joint meeting on foundations of software engineering . 805-816. -
- [118][118] A Vaswani and et al. 2017. Attention is all you need. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (2017). -
- [120][120] Daniel M Wegner. 1987. Transactive memory: A contemporary analysis of the group mind. In Theories of group behavior . Springer, 185-208. -
- [122][122] Pavlina Wurzel Gonçalves, GÃijl Çalikli, and Alberto Bacchelli. 2022. Interpersonal Conflicts During Code Review: Developers' Experience and Practices. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 6 (March 2022), 1-33. https://doi.org/10.1145/3512945 - · DOI
- [121][121] Mairieli Wessel, Ahmad Abdellatif, Igor Wiese, Tayana Conte, Emad Shihab, Marco A. Gerosa, and Igor Steinmacher. 2022. Bots for pull requests: the good, the bad, and the promising. In Proceedings of the 44th International Conference on Software Engineering . ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3510003.3512765 - · DOI
- [123][123] Philip T Yanos and Kim Hopper. 2008. On 'false, collusive objectification': Becoming attuned to self-censorship, performance and interviewer biases in qualitative interviewing. International journal of social research methodology 11, 3 (2008), 229-237. -
- [125][125] Lubna Mahmoud Abu Zohair. 2018. The Future of Software Engineering by 2050s: Will AI Replace Software Engineers? International Journal of Information Technology 2, 3 (2018), 1-13. -
- [124][124] Kelly L Zellars, Wayne A Hochwarter, Stephen E Lanivich, Pamela L Perrewé, and Gerald R Ferris. 2011. Accountability for others, perceived resources, and well being: Convergent restricted non-linear results in two samples. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 84, 1 (2011), 95-115. Received 20 February 2024; revised 12 March 2025; accepted 5 June 2025
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Ali, Ș., Oprea, S., & Bâra, A. (2026) · Systems Research and Behavioral Science · doi:10.1002/sres.70163
Plausible Is Not Enough: Trust and Evidence in AI-Authored Pull Request Review
Rahman, M. S., Alam, K., Roy, B., & Roy, C. K. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2610.21144
- Authors
- Alami, A., Jensen, V., & Ernst, N.
- Affiliations
- University of Southern Denmark (DK)
- Aarhus University (DK)
- University of Victoria (CA)
- Venue
- ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology
- Published
- 2025-10-04
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 1-44
- ISSN
- 1049-331X (ISSN-L)
- 1557-7392
- OpenAlex
- W4408028155
- Cited by
- 11
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 10 · 2025: 1
- FWCI
- 11.44
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- University of Southern Denmark Research Portal (University of Southern Denmark) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- Aalborg University
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Open Source Software Innovations
- Keywords
- code review, accountability, large language models, code quality, professional integrity, personal standards, reputation, collective accountability, peer review, social integrity, artificial intelligence in software development
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