Defining Protocols of Systematic Literature Reviews in Software Engineering: A Survey

Context: Despite being defined during the first phase of the Systematic Literature Review (SLR) process, the protocol is usually refined when other phases are performed. Several researchers have reported their experiences in applying SLRs in Software Engineering (SE) however, there is still a lack of studies discussing the iterative nature of the protocol definition, especially how it should be perceived by researchers conducting SLRs. Objective: The main goal of this study is to perform a survey aiming to identify: (i) the perception of SE researchers related to protocol definition; (ii) the activities of the review process that typically lead to protocol refinements; and (iii) which protocol items are refined in those activities. Method: A survey was performed with 53 SE researchers. Results: Our results show that: (i) protocol definition and pilot test are the two activities that most lead to further protocol refinements; (ii) data extraction form is the most modified item. Besides that, this study confirmed the iterative nature of the protocol definition. Conclusions: An iterative pilot testcan facilitate refinements in the protocol.

[1]  Mark Staples,et al.  Experiences using systematic review guidelines , 2006, J. Syst. Softw..

[2]  Muhammad Ali Babar,et al.  Identifying relevant studies in software engineering , 2011, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[3]  Muhammad Ali Babar,et al.  Systematic reviews in software engineering: An empirical investigation , 2013, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[4]  Barbara A. Kitchenham,et al.  The role of replications in empirical software engineering—a word of warning , 2008, Empirical Software Engineering.

[5]  Muhammad Ali Babar,et al.  An Empirical Investigation of Systematic Reviews in Software Engineering , 2011, 2011 International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement.

[6]  Pearl Brereton,et al.  Evidence-Based Software Engineering and Systematic Reviews , 2015 .

[7]  Briony J. Oates,et al.  Using systematic reviews and evidence-based software engineering with masters students , 2009, EASE.

[8]  Pearl Brereton,et al.  A systematic review of systematic review process research in software engineering , 2013, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[9]  Jeffrey C. Carver,et al.  Outcomes of a community workshop to identify and rank barriers to the systematic literature review process , 2014, EASE '14.

[10]  Guenther Ruhe,et al.  Impact Analysis of Missing Values on the Prediction Accuracy of Analogy-based Software Effort Estimation Method AQUA , 2007, ESEM 2007.

[11]  Pearl Brereton,et al.  Lessons from applying the systematic literature review process within the software engineering domain , 2007, J. Syst. Softw..

[12]  Mehwish Riaz,et al.  Experiences Conducting Systematic Reviews from Novices' Perspective , 2010, EASE.

[13]  Pearl Brereton,et al.  A Study of Computing Undergraduates Undertaking a Systematic Literature Review , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Education.

[14]  Pearl Brereton,et al.  Performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering , 2006, ICSE.

[15]  Tayana Conte,et al.  A Systematic Review Process for Software Engineering , 2005 .

[16]  Salma Imtiaz,et al.  A tertiary study: experiences of conducting systematic literature reviews in software engineering , 2013, EASE '13.

[17]  Tore Dybå,et al.  Applying Systematic Reviews to Diverse Study Types: An Experience Report , 2007, First International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM 2007).

[18]  Shari Lawrence Pfleeger,et al.  Personal Opinion Surveys , 2008, Guide to Advanced Empirical Software Engineering.

[19]  Paula Gomes Mian,et al.  Systematic Review in Software Engineering , 2005 .

[20]  R. Likert “Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes, A” , 2022, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.