Author
O. Pearl Brereton
Bio: O. Pearl Brereton is an academic researcher from Keele University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Systematic review & Quality (business). The author has an hindex of 8, co-authored 10 publications receiving 3398 citations.
Papers
More filters
TL;DR: The series of cost estimation SLRs demonstrate the potential value of EBSE for synthesising evidence and making it available to practitioners and European researchers appear to be the leading exponents of systematic literature reviews.
Abstract: Background: In 2004 the concept of evidence-based software engineering (EBSE) was introduced at the ICSE04 conference. Aims: This study assesses the impact of systematic literature reviews (SLRs) which are the recommended EBSE method for aggregating evidence. Method: We used the standard systematic literature review method employing a manual search of 10 journals and 4 conference proceedings. Results: Of 20 relevant studies, eight addressed research trends rather than technique evaluation. Seven SLRs addressed cost estimation. The quality of SLRs was fair with only three scoring less than 2 out of 4. Conclusions: Currently, the topic areas covered by SLRs are limited. European researchers, particularly those at the Simula Laboratory appear to be the leading exponents of systematic literature reviews. The series of cost estimation SLRs demonstrate the potential value of EBSE for synthesising evidence and making it available to practitioners.
2,843 citations
TL;DR: SLRs appear to have gone past the stage of being used solely by innovators but cannot yet be considered a main stream software engineering research methodology, such as often failing to assess primary study quality.
Abstract: Context: In a previous study, we reported on a systematic literature review (SLR), based on a manual search of 13 journals and conferences undertaken in the period 1st January 2004 to 30th June 2007. Objective: The aim of this on-going research is to provide an annotated catalogue of SLRs available to software engineering researchers and practitioners. This study updates our previous study using a broad automated search. Method: We performed a broad automated search to find SLRs published in the time period 1st January 2004 to 30th June 2008. We contrast the number, quality and source of these SLRs with SLRs found in the original study. Results: Our broad search found an additional 35 SLRs corresponding to 33 unique studies. Of these papers, 17 appeared relevant to the undergraduate educational curriculum and 12 appeared of possible interest to practitioners. The number of SLRs being published is increasing. The quality of papers in conferences and workshops has improved as more researchers use SLR guidelines. Conclusion: SLRs appear to have gone past the stage of being used solely by innovators but cannot yet be considered a main stream software engineering research methodology. They are addressing a wide range of topics but still have limitations, such as often failing to assess primary study quality.
836 citations
TL;DR: Mapping studies can save time and effort for researchers and provide baselines to assist new research efforts, however, they must be of high quality in terms of completeness and rigour if they are to be a reliable basis for follow-on research.
Abstract: Context: We are strong advocates of evidence-based software engineering (EBSE) in general and systematic literature reviews (SLRs) in particular. We believe it is essential that the SLR methodology is used constructively to support software engineering research. Objective: This study aims to assess the value of mapping studies which are a form of SLR that aims to identify and categorise the available research on a broad software engineering topic. Method: We used a multi-case, participant-observer case study using five examples of studies that were based on preceding mapping studies. We also validated our results by contacting two other researchers who had undertaken studies based on preceding mapping studies and by assessing review comments related to our follow-on studies. Results: Our original case study identified 11 unique benefits that can accrue from basing research on a preceding mapping study of which only two were case specific. We also identified nine problems associated with using preceding mapping studies of which two were case specific. These results were consistent with the information obtained from the validation activities. We did not find an example of an independent research group making use of a mapping study produced by other researchers. Conclusion: Mapping studies can save time and effort for researchers and provide baselines to assist new research efforts. However, they must be of high quality in terms of completeness and rigour if they are to be a reliable basis for follow-on research.
532 citations
12 Apr 2010
TL;DR: Mapping studies can save time and effort for researchers and provide baselines to assist new research efforts, however, they must be of high quality in terms of completeness and rigour if they are to be a reliable basis for follow-on research.
Abstract: We are strong advocates of evidence-based software engineering (EBSE) in general and systematic literature reviews (SLRs) in particular. We believe it is essential that the SLR methodology is being used constructively to support software engineering research. Aim: This study aims to assess the value of mapping studies which are a form of SLR that aims to identify and categorise the available research on a specific topic. Methods: We use a multi-case, participant observer case study using five examples of studies that were based on preceding mapping studies. Results: We identified 13 unique benefits that can accrue from basing research on a preceding mapping study of which only 2 were case specific. We also identified 9 problems associated with using preceding mapping studies of which two were case specific. Conclusions: Mapping studies can save time and effort for researchers and provide baselines to assist new research efforts. However, they must be of high quality in terms of completeness and rigour if they are to be a reliable basis for follow-on research.
123 citations
TL;DR: A set of 12 'lessons' are derived that could help authors with reporting the outcomes of a systematic review in software engineering, including quality assessment, synthesis, and the procedures followed by the reviewers.
Abstract: Context Many of the systematic reviews published in software engineering are related to research or methodological issues and hence are unlikely to be of direct benefit to practitioners or teachers. Those that are relevant to practice and teaching need to be presented in a form that makes their findings usable with minimum interpretation. Objective We have examined a sample of the many systematic reviews that have been published over a period of six years, in order to assess how well these are reported and identify useful lessons about how this might be done. Method We undertook a tertiary study, performing a systematic review of systematic reviews. Our study found 178 systematic reviews published in a set of major software engineering journals over the period 2010–2015. Of these, 37 provided recommendations or conclusions of relevance to education and/or practice and we used the DARE criteria as well as other attributes related to the systematic review process to analyse how well they were reported. Results We have derived a set of 12 ‘lessons’ that could help authors with reporting the outcomes of a systematic review in software engineering. We also provide an associated checklist for use by journal and conference referees. Conclusion There are several areas where better reporting is needed, including quality assessment, synthesis, and the procedures followed by the reviewers. Researchers, practitioners, teachers and journal referees would all benefit from better reporting of systematic reviews, both for clarity and also for establishing the provenance of any findings.
68 citations
Cited by
More filters
13 May 2014
TL;DR: It is concluded that using snowballing, as a first search strategy, may very well be a good alternative to the use of database searches.
Abstract: Background: Systematic literature studies have become common in software engineering, and hence it is important to understand how to conduct them efficiently and reliably.Objective: This paper presents guidelines for conducting literature reviews using a snowballing approach, and they are illustrated and evaluated by replicating a published systematic literature review.Method: The guidelines are based on the experience from conducting several systematic literature reviews and experimenting with different approaches.Results: The guidelines for using snowballing as a way to search for relevant literature was successfully applied to a systematic literature review.Conclusions: It is concluded that using snowballing, as a first search strategy, may very well be a good alternative to the use of database searches.
2,279 citations
Book•
16 Jun 2012
TL;DR: The purpose of Experimentation in Software Engineering is to introduce students, teachers, researchers, and practitioners to empirical studies in software engineering, using controlled experiments, and provides indispensable information regarding empirical Studies in particular for experiments, but also for case studies, systematic literature reviews, and surveys.
Abstract: Like other sciences and engineering disciplines, software engineering requires a cycle of model building, experimentation, and learning. Experiments are valuable tools for all software engineers who are involved in evaluating and choosing between different methods, techniques, languages and tools. The purpose of Experimentation in Software Engineering is to introduce students, teachers, researchers, and practitioners to empirical studies in software engineering, using controlled experiments. The introduction to experimentation is provided through a process perspective, and the focus is on the steps that we have to go through to perform an experiment. The book is divided into three parts. The first part provides a background of theories and methods used in experimentation. Part II then devotes one chapter to each of the five experiment steps: scoping, planning, execution, analysis, and result presentation. Part III completes the presentation with two examples. Assignments and statistical material are provided in appendixes. Overall the book provides indispensable information regarding empirical studies in particular for experiments, but also for case studies, systematic literature reviews, and surveys. It is a revision of the authors book, which was published in 2000. In addition, substantial new material, e.g. concerning systematic literature reviews and case study research, is introduced. The book is self-contained and it is suitable as a course book in undergraduate or graduate studies where the need for empirical studies in software engineering is stressed. Exercises and assignments are included to combine the more theoretical material with practical aspects. Researchers will also benefit from the book, learning more about how to conduct empirical studies, and likewise practitioners may use it as a cookbook when evaluating new methods or techniques before implementing them in their organization.
2,079 citations
TL;DR: There was a need to provide an update of how to conduct systematic mapping studies and how the guidelines should be updated based on the lessons learned from the existing systematic maps and SLR guidelines.
Abstract: Context Systematic mapping studies are used to structure a research area, while systematic reviews are focused on gathering and synthesizing evidence. The most recent guidelines for systematic mapping are from 2008. Since that time, many suggestions have been made of how to improve systematic literature reviews (SLRs). There is a need to evaluate how researchers conduct the process of systematic mapping and identify how the guidelines should be updated based on the lessons learned from the existing systematic maps and SLR guidelines. Objective To identify how the systematic mapping process is conducted (including search, study selection, analysis and presentation of data, etc.); to identify improvement potentials in conducting the systematic mapping process and updating the guidelines accordingly. Method We conducted a systematic mapping study of systematic maps, considering some practices of systematic review guidelines as well (in particular in relation to defining the search and to conduct a quality assessment). Results In a large number of studies multiple guidelines are used and combined, which leads to different ways in conducting mapping studies. The reason for combining guidelines was that they differed in the recommendations given. Conclusion The most frequently followed guidelines are not sufficient alone. Hence, there was a need to provide an update of how to conduct systematic mapping studies. New guidelines have been proposed consolidating existing findings.
1,598 citations
TL;DR: This article presents a methodology for conducting a systematic literature review with many examples from IS research and references to guides with further helpful details, and provides detailed guidelines to writing a high-quality theory-mining review.
Abstract: This working paper has been thoroughly revised and superseded by two distinct articles. The first is a revised and peer-reviewed version of the original article: Okoli, Chitu (2015), A Guide to Conducting a Standalone Systematic Literature Review. Communications of the Association for Information Systems (37:43), November 2015, pp. 879-910. This article presents a methodology for conducting a systematic literature review with many examples from IS research and references to guides with further helpful details. The article is available from Google Scholar or from the author's website. The second extension article focuses on developing theory with literature reviews: Okoli, Chitu (2015), The View from Giants’ Shoulders: Developing Theory with Theory-Mining Systematic Literature Reviews. SSRN Working Paper Series, December 8, 2015. This article identifies theory-mining reviews, which are literature reviews that extract and synthesize theoretical concepts from the source primary studies. The article demonstrates by citation analysis that, in information systems research, this kind of literature review is more highly cited than other kinds of literature review. The article provides detailed guidelines to writing a high-quality theory-mining review.
1,274 citations
TL;DR: A typology of review types is developed and descriptive insight into the most common reviews found in top IS journals is provided to encourage researchers who start a review to use the typology to position their contribution.
964 citations