The Experts below are selected from a list of 243 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

David Budgen - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • using mapping studies as the basis for further research a Participant Observer case study
    Information & Software Technology, 2011
    Co-Authors: Barbara Kitchenham, David Budgen, Pearl O Brereton
    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.

  • Refining the systematic literature review process—two Participant-Observer case studies
    Empirical Software Engineering, 2010
    Co-Authors: Barbara A. Kitchenham, Pearl Brereton, Mark Turner, Stephen Linkman, Rialette Pretorius, Mahmood K. Niazi, David Budgen
    Abstract:

    Systematic literature reviews (SLRs) are a major tool for supporting evidence-based software engineering. Adapting the procedures involved in such a review to meet the needs of software engineering and its literature remains an ongoing process. As part of this process of refinement, we undertook two case studies which aimed 1) to compare the use of targeted manual searches with broad automated searches and 2) to compare different methods of reaching a consensus on quality. For Case 1, we compared a tertiary study of systematic literature reviews published between January 1, 2004 and June 30, 2007 which used a manual search of selected journals and conferences and a replication of that study based on a broad automated search. We found that broad automated searches find more studies than manual restricted searches, but they may be of poor quality. Researchers undertaking SLRs may be justified in using targeted manual searches if they intend to omit low quality papers, or they are assessing research trends in research methodologies. For Case 2, we analyzed the process used to evaluate the quality of SLRs. We conclude that if quality evaluation of primary studies is a critical component of a specific SLR, assessments should be based on three independent evaluators incorporating at least two rounds of discussion.

  • refining the systematic literature review process two Participant Observer case studies
    Empirical Software Engineering, 2010
    Co-Authors: Barbara Kitchenham, Pearl Brereton, Mark Turner, Mahmood Niazi, Stephen Linkman, Rialette Pretorius, David Budgen
    Abstract:

    Systematic literature reviews (SLRs) are a major tool for supporting evidence-based software engineering. Adapting the procedures involved in such a review to meet the needs of software engineering and its literature remains an ongoing process. As part of this process of refinement, we undertook two case studies which aimed 1) to compare the use of targeted manual searches with broad automated searches and 2) to compare different methods of reaching a consensus on quality. For Case 1, we compared a tertiary study of systematic literature reviews published between January 1, 2004 and June 30, 2007 which used a manual search of selected journals and conferences and a replication of that study based on a broad automated search. We found that broad automated searches find more studies than manual restricted searches, but they may be of poor quality. Researchers undertaking SLRs may be justified in using targeted manual searches if they intend to omit low quality papers, or they are assessing research trends in research methodologies. For Case 2, we analyzed the process used to evaluate the quality of SLRs. We conclude that if quality evaluation of primary studies is a critical component of a specific SLR, assessments should be based on three independent evaluators incorporating at least two rounds of discussion.

  • the impact of limited search procedures for systematic literature reviews a Participant Observer case study
    Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, 2009
    Co-Authors: Barbara Kitchenham, Pearl Brereton, Mark Turner, Mahmood Niazi, Stephen Linkman, Rialette Pretorius, David Budgen
    Abstract:

    This study aims to compare the use of targeted manual searches with broad automated searches, and to assess the importance of grey literature and breadth of search on the outcomes of SLRs. We used a Participant-Observer multi-case embedded case study. Our two cases were a tertiary study of systematic literature reviews published between January 2004 and June 2007 based on a manual search of selected journals and conferences and a replication of that study based on a broad automated search. Broad searches find more papers than restricted searches, but the papers may be of poor quality. Researchers undertaking SLRs may be justified in using targeted manual searches if they intend to omit low quality papers; if publication bias is not an issue; or if they are assessing research trends in research methodologies.

  • ESEM - The impact of limited search procedures for systematic literature reviews — A Participant-Observer case study
    2009 3rd International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, 2009
    Co-Authors: Barbara Kitchenham, Pearl Brereton, Mark Turner, Mahmood Niazi, Stephen Linkman, Rialette Pretorius, David Budgen
    Abstract:

    This study aims to compare the use of targeted manual searches with broad automated searches, and to assess the importance of grey literature and breadth of search on the outcomes of SLRs. We used a Participant-Observer multi-case embedded case study. Our two cases were a tertiary study of systematic literature reviews published between January 2004 and June 2007 based on a manual search of selected journals and conferences and a replication of that study based on a broad automated search. Broad searches find more papers than restricted searches, but the papers may be of poor quality. Researchers undertaking SLRs may be justified in using targeted manual searches if they intend to omit low quality papers; if publication bias is not an issue; or if they are assessing research trends in research methodologies.

Barbara Kitchenham - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • using mapping studies as the basis for further research a Participant Observer case study
    Information & Software Technology, 2011
    Co-Authors: Barbara Kitchenham, David Budgen, Pearl O Brereton
    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.

  • refining the systematic literature review process two Participant Observer case studies
    Empirical Software Engineering, 2010
    Co-Authors: Barbara Kitchenham, Pearl Brereton, Mark Turner, Mahmood Niazi, Stephen Linkman, Rialette Pretorius, David Budgen
    Abstract:

    Systematic literature reviews (SLRs) are a major tool for supporting evidence-based software engineering. Adapting the procedures involved in such a review to meet the needs of software engineering and its literature remains an ongoing process. As part of this process of refinement, we undertook two case studies which aimed 1) to compare the use of targeted manual searches with broad automated searches and 2) to compare different methods of reaching a consensus on quality. For Case 1, we compared a tertiary study of systematic literature reviews published between January 1, 2004 and June 30, 2007 which used a manual search of selected journals and conferences and a replication of that study based on a broad automated search. We found that broad automated searches find more studies than manual restricted searches, but they may be of poor quality. Researchers undertaking SLRs may be justified in using targeted manual searches if they intend to omit low quality papers, or they are assessing research trends in research methodologies. For Case 2, we analyzed the process used to evaluate the quality of SLRs. We conclude that if quality evaluation of primary studies is a critical component of a specific SLR, assessments should be based on three independent evaluators incorporating at least two rounds of discussion.

  • the impact of limited search procedures for systematic literature reviews a Participant Observer case study
    Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, 2009
    Co-Authors: Barbara Kitchenham, Pearl Brereton, Mark Turner, Mahmood Niazi, Stephen Linkman, Rialette Pretorius, David Budgen
    Abstract:

    This study aims to compare the use of targeted manual searches with broad automated searches, and to assess the importance of grey literature and breadth of search on the outcomes of SLRs. We used a Participant-Observer multi-case embedded case study. Our two cases were a tertiary study of systematic literature reviews published between January 2004 and June 2007 based on a manual search of selected journals and conferences and a replication of that study based on a broad automated search. Broad searches find more papers than restricted searches, but the papers may be of poor quality. Researchers undertaking SLRs may be justified in using targeted manual searches if they intend to omit low quality papers; if publication bias is not an issue; or if they are assessing research trends in research methodologies.

  • ESEM - The impact of limited search procedures for systematic literature reviews — A Participant-Observer case study
    2009 3rd International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, 2009
    Co-Authors: Barbara Kitchenham, Pearl Brereton, Mark Turner, Mahmood Niazi, Stephen Linkman, Rialette Pretorius, David Budgen
    Abstract:

    This study aims to compare the use of targeted manual searches with broad automated searches, and to assess the importance of grey literature and breadth of search on the outcomes of SLRs. We used a Participant-Observer multi-case embedded case study. Our two cases were a tertiary study of systematic literature reviews published between January 2004 and June 2007 based on a manual search of selected journals and conferences and a replication of that study based on a broad automated search. Broad searches find more papers than restricted searches, but the papers may be of poor quality. Researchers undertaking SLRs may be justified in using targeted manual searches if they intend to omit low quality papers; if publication bias is not an issue; or if they are assessing research trends in research methodologies.

  • an evaluation of quality checklist proposals a Participant Observer case study
    Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering, 2009
    Co-Authors: Barbara Kitchenham, Pearl O Brereton, David Budgen, Zhi Li
    Abstract:

    Background: A recent set of guidelines for software engineering systematic literature reviews (SLRs) includes a list of quality criteria obtained from the literature. The guidelines suggest that the list can be used to construct a tailored set of questions to evaluate the quality of primary studies. Aim: This paper aims to evaluate whether the list of quality criteria help researchers construct tailored quality checklists. Method: We undertook a Participant-Observer case study to investigate the list of quality criteria. The "case" in this study was the planning stage of a systematic literature review on unit testing. Results: The checklists in our SLR guidelines do not provide sufficient help with the construction of a quality checklist for a specific SLR either for novices or for experienced researchers. However, the checklists are reasonably complete and lead to the use of a common terminology for quality questions selected for a specific systematic literature review. Conclusions: The guidelines document should be amended to include a much shorter generic checklist. Researchers might find it useful to adopt a team-based process for quality checklist construction and provide suggestions for answering quality checklist questions.

Rialette Pretorius - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Refining the systematic literature review process—two Participant-Observer case studies
    Empirical Software Engineering, 2010
    Co-Authors: Barbara A. Kitchenham, Pearl Brereton, Mark Turner, Stephen Linkman, Rialette Pretorius, Mahmood K. Niazi, David Budgen
    Abstract:

    Systematic literature reviews (SLRs) are a major tool for supporting evidence-based software engineering. Adapting the procedures involved in such a review to meet the needs of software engineering and its literature remains an ongoing process. As part of this process of refinement, we undertook two case studies which aimed 1) to compare the use of targeted manual searches with broad automated searches and 2) to compare different methods of reaching a consensus on quality. For Case 1, we compared a tertiary study of systematic literature reviews published between January 1, 2004 and June 30, 2007 which used a manual search of selected journals and conferences and a replication of that study based on a broad automated search. We found that broad automated searches find more studies than manual restricted searches, but they may be of poor quality. Researchers undertaking SLRs may be justified in using targeted manual searches if they intend to omit low quality papers, or they are assessing research trends in research methodologies. For Case 2, we analyzed the process used to evaluate the quality of SLRs. We conclude that if quality evaluation of primary studies is a critical component of a specific SLR, assessments should be based on three independent evaluators incorporating at least two rounds of discussion.

  • refining the systematic literature review process two Participant Observer case studies
    Empirical Software Engineering, 2010
    Co-Authors: Barbara Kitchenham, Pearl Brereton, Mark Turner, Mahmood Niazi, Stephen Linkman, Rialette Pretorius, David Budgen
    Abstract:

    Systematic literature reviews (SLRs) are a major tool for supporting evidence-based software engineering. Adapting the procedures involved in such a review to meet the needs of software engineering and its literature remains an ongoing process. As part of this process of refinement, we undertook two case studies which aimed 1) to compare the use of targeted manual searches with broad automated searches and 2) to compare different methods of reaching a consensus on quality. For Case 1, we compared a tertiary study of systematic literature reviews published between January 1, 2004 and June 30, 2007 which used a manual search of selected journals and conferences and a replication of that study based on a broad automated search. We found that broad automated searches find more studies than manual restricted searches, but they may be of poor quality. Researchers undertaking SLRs may be justified in using targeted manual searches if they intend to omit low quality papers, or they are assessing research trends in research methodologies. For Case 2, we analyzed the process used to evaluate the quality of SLRs. We conclude that if quality evaluation of primary studies is a critical component of a specific SLR, assessments should be based on three independent evaluators incorporating at least two rounds of discussion.

  • the impact of limited search procedures for systematic literature reviews a Participant Observer case study
    Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, 2009
    Co-Authors: Barbara Kitchenham, Pearl Brereton, Mark Turner, Mahmood Niazi, Stephen Linkman, Rialette Pretorius, David Budgen
    Abstract:

    This study aims to compare the use of targeted manual searches with broad automated searches, and to assess the importance of grey literature and breadth of search on the outcomes of SLRs. We used a Participant-Observer multi-case embedded case study. Our two cases were a tertiary study of systematic literature reviews published between January 2004 and June 2007 based on a manual search of selected journals and conferences and a replication of that study based on a broad automated search. Broad searches find more papers than restricted searches, but the papers may be of poor quality. Researchers undertaking SLRs may be justified in using targeted manual searches if they intend to omit low quality papers; if publication bias is not an issue; or if they are assessing research trends in research methodologies.

  • ESEM - The impact of limited search procedures for systematic literature reviews — A Participant-Observer case study
    2009 3rd International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, 2009
    Co-Authors: Barbara Kitchenham, Pearl Brereton, Mark Turner, Mahmood Niazi, Stephen Linkman, Rialette Pretorius, David Budgen
    Abstract:

    This study aims to compare the use of targeted manual searches with broad automated searches, and to assess the importance of grey literature and breadth of search on the outcomes of SLRs. We used a Participant-Observer multi-case embedded case study. Our two cases were a tertiary study of systematic literature reviews published between January 2004 and June 2007 based on a manual search of selected journals and conferences and a replication of that study based on a broad automated search. Broad searches find more papers than restricted searches, but the papers may be of poor quality. Researchers undertaking SLRs may be justified in using targeted manual searches if they intend to omit low quality papers; if publication bias is not an issue; or if they are assessing research trends in research methodologies.

  • The impact of limited search procedures for systematic literature reviews — A Participant-Observer case study
    2009 3rd International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, 2009
    Co-Authors: Barbara Kitchenham, Pearl Brereton, Mark Turner, Mahmood Niazi, Stephen Linkman, Rialette Pretorius, David Budgen
    Abstract:

    This study aims to compare the use of targeted manual searches with broad automated searches, and to assess the importance of grey literature and breadth of search on the outcomes of SLRs. We used a Participant-Observer multi-case embedded case study. Our two cases were a tertiary study of systematic literature reviews published between January 2004 and June 2007 based on a manual search of selected journals and conferences and a replication of that study based on a broad automated search. Broad searches find more papers than restricted searches, but the papers may be of poor quality. Researchers undertaking SLRs may be justified in using targeted manual searches if they intend to omit low quality papers; if publication bias is not an issue; or if they are assessing research trends in research methodologies.

Stephen Linkman - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Refining the systematic literature review process—two Participant-Observer case studies
    Empirical Software Engineering, 2010
    Co-Authors: Barbara A. Kitchenham, Pearl Brereton, Mark Turner, Stephen Linkman, Rialette Pretorius, Mahmood K. Niazi, David Budgen
    Abstract:

    Systematic literature reviews (SLRs) are a major tool for supporting evidence-based software engineering. Adapting the procedures involved in such a review to meet the needs of software engineering and its literature remains an ongoing process. As part of this process of refinement, we undertook two case studies which aimed 1) to compare the use of targeted manual searches with broad automated searches and 2) to compare different methods of reaching a consensus on quality. For Case 1, we compared a tertiary study of systematic literature reviews published between January 1, 2004 and June 30, 2007 which used a manual search of selected journals and conferences and a replication of that study based on a broad automated search. We found that broad automated searches find more studies than manual restricted searches, but they may be of poor quality. Researchers undertaking SLRs may be justified in using targeted manual searches if they intend to omit low quality papers, or they are assessing research trends in research methodologies. For Case 2, we analyzed the process used to evaluate the quality of SLRs. We conclude that if quality evaluation of primary studies is a critical component of a specific SLR, assessments should be based on three independent evaluators incorporating at least two rounds of discussion.

  • refining the systematic literature review process two Participant Observer case studies
    Empirical Software Engineering, 2010
    Co-Authors: Barbara Kitchenham, Pearl Brereton, Mark Turner, Mahmood Niazi, Stephen Linkman, Rialette Pretorius, David Budgen
    Abstract:

    Systematic literature reviews (SLRs) are a major tool for supporting evidence-based software engineering. Adapting the procedures involved in such a review to meet the needs of software engineering and its literature remains an ongoing process. As part of this process of refinement, we undertook two case studies which aimed 1) to compare the use of targeted manual searches with broad automated searches and 2) to compare different methods of reaching a consensus on quality. For Case 1, we compared a tertiary study of systematic literature reviews published between January 1, 2004 and June 30, 2007 which used a manual search of selected journals and conferences and a replication of that study based on a broad automated search. We found that broad automated searches find more studies than manual restricted searches, but they may be of poor quality. Researchers undertaking SLRs may be justified in using targeted manual searches if they intend to omit low quality papers, or they are assessing research trends in research methodologies. For Case 2, we analyzed the process used to evaluate the quality of SLRs. We conclude that if quality evaluation of primary studies is a critical component of a specific SLR, assessments should be based on three independent evaluators incorporating at least two rounds of discussion.

  • the impact of limited search procedures for systematic literature reviews a Participant Observer case study
    Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, 2009
    Co-Authors: Barbara Kitchenham, Pearl Brereton, Mark Turner, Mahmood Niazi, Stephen Linkman, Rialette Pretorius, David Budgen
    Abstract:

    This study aims to compare the use of targeted manual searches with broad automated searches, and to assess the importance of grey literature and breadth of search on the outcomes of SLRs. We used a Participant-Observer multi-case embedded case study. Our two cases were a tertiary study of systematic literature reviews published between January 2004 and June 2007 based on a manual search of selected journals and conferences and a replication of that study based on a broad automated search. Broad searches find more papers than restricted searches, but the papers may be of poor quality. Researchers undertaking SLRs may be justified in using targeted manual searches if they intend to omit low quality papers; if publication bias is not an issue; or if they are assessing research trends in research methodologies.

  • ESEM - The impact of limited search procedures for systematic literature reviews — A Participant-Observer case study
    2009 3rd International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, 2009
    Co-Authors: Barbara Kitchenham, Pearl Brereton, Mark Turner, Mahmood Niazi, Stephen Linkman, Rialette Pretorius, David Budgen
    Abstract:

    This study aims to compare the use of targeted manual searches with broad automated searches, and to assess the importance of grey literature and breadth of search on the outcomes of SLRs. We used a Participant-Observer multi-case embedded case study. Our two cases were a tertiary study of systematic literature reviews published between January 2004 and June 2007 based on a manual search of selected journals and conferences and a replication of that study based on a broad automated search. Broad searches find more papers than restricted searches, but the papers may be of poor quality. Researchers undertaking SLRs may be justified in using targeted manual searches if they intend to omit low quality papers; if publication bias is not an issue; or if they are assessing research trends in research methodologies.

  • The impact of limited search procedures for systematic literature reviews — A Participant-Observer case study
    2009 3rd International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, 2009
    Co-Authors: Barbara Kitchenham, Pearl Brereton, Mark Turner, Mahmood Niazi, Stephen Linkman, Rialette Pretorius, David Budgen
    Abstract:

    This study aims to compare the use of targeted manual searches with broad automated searches, and to assess the importance of grey literature and breadth of search on the outcomes of SLRs. We used a Participant-Observer multi-case embedded case study. Our two cases were a tertiary study of systematic literature reviews published between January 2004 and June 2007 based on a manual search of selected journals and conferences and a replication of that study based on a broad automated search. Broad searches find more papers than restricted searches, but the papers may be of poor quality. Researchers undertaking SLRs may be justified in using targeted manual searches if they intend to omit low quality papers; if publication bias is not an issue; or if they are assessing research trends in research methodologies.

Mark Turner - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Refining the systematic literature review process—two Participant-Observer case studies
    Empirical Software Engineering, 2010
    Co-Authors: Barbara A. Kitchenham, Pearl Brereton, Mark Turner, Stephen Linkman, Rialette Pretorius, Mahmood K. Niazi, David Budgen
    Abstract:

    Systematic literature reviews (SLRs) are a major tool for supporting evidence-based software engineering. Adapting the procedures involved in such a review to meet the needs of software engineering and its literature remains an ongoing process. As part of this process of refinement, we undertook two case studies which aimed 1) to compare the use of targeted manual searches with broad automated searches and 2) to compare different methods of reaching a consensus on quality. For Case 1, we compared a tertiary study of systematic literature reviews published between January 1, 2004 and June 30, 2007 which used a manual search of selected journals and conferences and a replication of that study based on a broad automated search. We found that broad automated searches find more studies than manual restricted searches, but they may be of poor quality. Researchers undertaking SLRs may be justified in using targeted manual searches if they intend to omit low quality papers, or they are assessing research trends in research methodologies. For Case 2, we analyzed the process used to evaluate the quality of SLRs. We conclude that if quality evaluation of primary studies is a critical component of a specific SLR, assessments should be based on three independent evaluators incorporating at least two rounds of discussion.

  • refining the systematic literature review process two Participant Observer case studies
    Empirical Software Engineering, 2010
    Co-Authors: Barbara Kitchenham, Pearl Brereton, Mark Turner, Mahmood Niazi, Stephen Linkman, Rialette Pretorius, David Budgen
    Abstract:

    Systematic literature reviews (SLRs) are a major tool for supporting evidence-based software engineering. Adapting the procedures involved in such a review to meet the needs of software engineering and its literature remains an ongoing process. As part of this process of refinement, we undertook two case studies which aimed 1) to compare the use of targeted manual searches with broad automated searches and 2) to compare different methods of reaching a consensus on quality. For Case 1, we compared a tertiary study of systematic literature reviews published between January 1, 2004 and June 30, 2007 which used a manual search of selected journals and conferences and a replication of that study based on a broad automated search. We found that broad automated searches find more studies than manual restricted searches, but they may be of poor quality. Researchers undertaking SLRs may be justified in using targeted manual searches if they intend to omit low quality papers, or they are assessing research trends in research methodologies. For Case 2, we analyzed the process used to evaluate the quality of SLRs. We conclude that if quality evaluation of primary studies is a critical component of a specific SLR, assessments should be based on three independent evaluators incorporating at least two rounds of discussion.

  • the impact of limited search procedures for systematic literature reviews a Participant Observer case study
    Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, 2009
    Co-Authors: Barbara Kitchenham, Pearl Brereton, Mark Turner, Mahmood Niazi, Stephen Linkman, Rialette Pretorius, David Budgen
    Abstract:

    This study aims to compare the use of targeted manual searches with broad automated searches, and to assess the importance of grey literature and breadth of search on the outcomes of SLRs. We used a Participant-Observer multi-case embedded case study. Our two cases were a tertiary study of systematic literature reviews published between January 2004 and June 2007 based on a manual search of selected journals and conferences and a replication of that study based on a broad automated search. Broad searches find more papers than restricted searches, but the papers may be of poor quality. Researchers undertaking SLRs may be justified in using targeted manual searches if they intend to omit low quality papers; if publication bias is not an issue; or if they are assessing research trends in research methodologies.

  • ESEM - The impact of limited search procedures for systematic literature reviews — A Participant-Observer case study
    2009 3rd International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, 2009
    Co-Authors: Barbara Kitchenham, Pearl Brereton, Mark Turner, Mahmood Niazi, Stephen Linkman, Rialette Pretorius, David Budgen
    Abstract:

    This study aims to compare the use of targeted manual searches with broad automated searches, and to assess the importance of grey literature and breadth of search on the outcomes of SLRs. We used a Participant-Observer multi-case embedded case study. Our two cases were a tertiary study of systematic literature reviews published between January 2004 and June 2007 based on a manual search of selected journals and conferences and a replication of that study based on a broad automated search. Broad searches find more papers than restricted searches, but the papers may be of poor quality. Researchers undertaking SLRs may be justified in using targeted manual searches if they intend to omit low quality papers; if publication bias is not an issue; or if they are assessing research trends in research methodologies.

  • The impact of limited search procedures for systematic literature reviews — A Participant-Observer case study
    2009 3rd International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, 2009
    Co-Authors: Barbara Kitchenham, Pearl Brereton, Mark Turner, Mahmood Niazi, Stephen Linkman, Rialette Pretorius, David Budgen
    Abstract:

    This study aims to compare the use of targeted manual searches with broad automated searches, and to assess the importance of grey literature and breadth of search on the outcomes of SLRs. We used a Participant-Observer multi-case embedded case study. Our two cases were a tertiary study of systematic literature reviews published between January 2004 and June 2007 based on a manual search of selected journals and conferences and a replication of that study based on a broad automated search. Broad searches find more papers than restricted searches, but the papers may be of poor quality. Researchers undertaking SLRs may be justified in using targeted manual searches if they intend to omit low quality papers; if publication bias is not an issue; or if they are assessing research trends in research methodologies.