Cited by 7Open Source Software InnovationsSoftware Engineering Techniques and PracticesSoftware Engineering Research

Applying a Systematic Literature Review and Content Analysis Method to Analyse Open Source Developers’ Forking Motivation Interpretation, Categories and Consequences

Open access
Chua, Bee Bee, Zhang, Ying·2020·Australasian Journal of Information Systems

Abstract

In open source (OS) environments, forking is a powerful social collaborative technique that creates a social coding community and increases code visibility but it has not been adopted by OS software (OSS) developers. This paper investigates OS forking divergence using contextual frameworks (systematic literature review and content analysis) to analyse OSS developer forking motivation, interpretation, categorisation and consequences. We identified five theoretical forking patterns: 1) forking can revive original project health; 2) few effective frameworks exist to describe project-to-project developer migration; 3) there is a literature on social forking community behaviour; 4) poor guidance is a threat to forking; and 5) most research uses mixed methods. We introduce guidelines for OSS communities to reduce organisational barriers to developer motivation and highlight the important of understanding developer forking. The challenge remains to analyse forking and sustainability from a social community perspective, particularly how programming language, file repositories and developer interest can predict forking motivation and behaviour for both novice OSS developers or experienced developers who want to improve forking performance.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3127/ajis.v24i0.1714

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • Many popular open source projects are controlled by vendors, and in changing economic settings, those vendors are often under pressure from investors to deliver strong returns on their investments.

    “Many popular open source projects are controlled by vendors, and in changing economic settings, those vendors are often under pressure from investors to deliver strong returns on their investments (Chua 2017;Chua and Zhang 2020;Sokiyna and Sharma 2024).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chua, B. B., & Zhang, Y.
Affiliations
University of Technology Sydney (AU)
Venue
Australasian Journal of Information Systems
Published
2020-06-16
Volume
24
ISSN
  • 1039-7841 (ISSN-L)
  • 1449-8618
OpenAlex
W3035933893
Cited by
7
References
1
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 2
FWCI
0.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • AJIS. Australasian journal of information systems/AJIS. Australian journal of information systems/Australian journal of information systems (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Journal of the Association for Information Systems (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • UTS ePRESS (University of Technology Sydney) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Open Source Software Innovations
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
Keywords
open source software, forking, developer motivation, open source communities, project sustainability, novice programmers, developer guidance

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