Katia Romero Felizardo

Vinicius dos Santos, Anderson Yoshiaki Iwazaki, Katia Romero Felizardo et al.

Background: The software engineering community has increasingly conducted systematic literature reviews (SLR) as a means to summarize evidence from different studies and bring to light the state of the art of a given research topic. While SLR provide many benefits, they also present several problems with punctual solutions for some of them. However, two main problems still remain: the high time-/effort-consumption nature of SLR and the lack of an effective impact of SLR results in the industry, as initially expected for SLR. Aims: The main goal of this paper is to introduce a new view - which we name Sustainability of SLR - on how to deal with SLR aiming at reducing those problems. Method: We analyzed six reference studies published in the last decade to identify, group, and analyze the SLR problems and their interconnections. Based on such analysis, we proposed the view of Sustainability of SLR that intends to address these problems. Results: The proposed view encompasses three dimensions (social, economic, and technical) that could become SLR more sustainable in the sense that the four major problems and 31 barriers (i.e., possible causes for those problems) that we identified could be mitigated. Conclusions: The view of Sustainability of SLR intends to change the researchers' mindset to mitigate the inherent SLR problems and, as a consequence, achieve sustainable SLR, i.e., those that consume less time/effort to be conducted and updated with useful results for the industry.

Katia Romero Felizardo, Elisa Yumi Nakagawa, Stephen G. MacDonell et al.

Context: In order to preserve the value of Systematic Reviews (SRs), they should be frequently updated considering new evidence that has been produced since the completion of the previous version of the reviews. However, the update of an SR is a time consuming, manual task. Thus, many SRs have not been updated as they should be and, therefore, they are currently outdated. Objective: The main contribution of this paper is to support the update of SRs. Method: We propose USR-VTM, an approach based on Visual Text Mining (VTM) techniques, to support selection of new evidence in the form of primary studies. We then present a tool, named Revis, which supports our approach. Finally, we evaluate our approach through a comparison of outcomes achieved using USR-VTM versus the traditional (manual) approach. Results: Our results show that USR-VTM increases the number of studies correctly included compared to the traditional approach. Conclusions: USR-VTM effectively supports the update of SRs.

Katia Romero Felizardo, Norsaremah Salleh, Rafael M. Martins et al.

Background: A systematic literature review (SLR) is a methodology used to aggregate all relevant existing evidence to answer a research question of interest. Although crucial, the process used to select primary studies can be arduous, time consuming, and must often be conducted manually. Objective: We propose a novel approach, known as 'Systematic Literature Review based on Visual Text Mining' or simply SLR-VTM, to support the primary study selection activity using visual text mining (VTM) techniques. Method: We conducted a case study to compare the performance and effectiveness of four doctoral students in selecting primary studies manually and using the SLR-VTM approach. To enable the comparison, we also developed a VTM tool that implemented our approach. We hypothesized that students using SLR-VTM would present improved selection performance and effectiveness. Results: Our results show that incorporating VTM in the SLR study selection activity reduced the time spent in this activity and also increased the number of studies correctly included. Conclusions: Our pilot case study presents promising results suggesting that the use of VTM may indeed be beneficial during the study selection activity when performing an SLR.

Katia Romero Felizardo, Mehwish Riaz, Muhammad Sulayman et al.

The presentation of results from Systematic Literature Reviews (SLRs) is generally done using tables. Prior research suggests that results summarized in tables are often difficult for readers to understand. One alternative to improve results' comprehensibility is to use graphical representations. The aim of this work is twofold: first, to investigate whether graph representations result is better comprehensibility than tables when presenting SLR results; second, to investigate whether interpretation using graphs impacts on performance, as measured by the time consumed to analyse and understand the data. We selected an SLR published in the literature and used two different formats to represent its results - tables and graphs, in three different combinations: (i) table format only; (ii) graph format only; and (iii) a mixture of tables and graphs. We conducted an experiment that compared the performance and capability of experts in SLR, as well as doctoral and masters students, in analysing and understanding the results of the SLR, as presented in one of the three different forms. We were interested in examining whether there is difference between the performance of participants using tables and graphs. The graphical representation of SLR data led to a reduction in the time taken for its analysis, without any loss in data comprehensibility. For our sample the analysis of graphical data proved to be faster than the analysis of tabular data. However , we found no evidence of a difference in comprehensibility whether using tables, graphical format or a combination. Overall we argue that graphs are a suitable alternative to tables when it comes to representing the results of an SLR.

Katia Romero Felizardo, Érica Ferreira de Souza, Bianca Minetto Napoleão et al.

Context: Several researchers have reported their experiences in applying secondary studies (Systematic Literature Reviews - SLRs and Systematic Mappings - SMs) in Software Engineering (SE). However, there is still a lack of studies discussing the value of performing secondary studies in an academic context. Goal: The main goal of this study is to provide an overview on the use of secondary studies in an academic context. Method: Two empirical research methods were used. Initially, we conducted an SM to identify the available and relevant studies on the use of secondary studies as a research methodology for conducting SE research projects. Secondly, a survey was performed with 64 SE researchers to identify their perception related to the value of performing secondary studies to support their research projects. Results: Our results show benefits of using secondary studies in the academic context, such as, providing an overview of the literature as well as identifying relevant research literature on a research area enabling to find reasons to explain why a research project should be approved for a grant and/or supporting decisions made in a research project. Difficulties faced by SE graduate students with secondary studies are that they tend to be conducted by a team and it demands more effort than a traditional review. Conclusions: Secondary studies are valuable to graduate students. They should consider conducting a secondary study for their research project due to the benefits and contributions provided to develop the overall project. However, the advice of an experienced supervisor is essential to avoid bias. In addition, the acquisition of skills can increase student's motivation to pursue their research projects and prepare them for both academic or industrial careers.

Claes Wohlin, Emilia Mendes, Katia Romero Felizardo et al.

Context: Systematic Literature Reviews (SLRs) have been adopted within Software Engineering (SE) for more than a decade to provide meaningful summaries of evidence on several topics. Many of these SLRs are now potentially not fully up-to-date, and there are no standard proposals on how to update SLRs in SE. Objective: The objective of this paper is to propose guidelines on how to best search for evidence when updating SLRs in SE, and to evaluate these guidelines using an SLR that was not employed during the formulation of the guidelines. Method: To propose our guidelines, we compare and discuss outcomes from applying different search strategies to identify primary studies in a published SLR, an SLR update, and two replications in the area of effort estimation. These guidelines are then evaluated using an SLR in the area of software ecosystems, its update and a replication. Results: The use of a single iteration forward snowballing with Google Scholar, and employing as a seed set the original SLR and its primary studies is the most cost-effective way to search for new evidence when updating SLRs. Furthermore, the importance of having more than one researcher involved in the selection of papers when applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria is highlighted through the results. Conclusions: Our proposed guidelines formulated based upon an effort estimation SLR, its update and two replications, were supported when using an SLR in the area of software ecosystems, its update and a replication. Therefore, we put forward that our guidelines ought to be adopted for updating SLRs in SE.

Bianca Minetto Napoleao, Katia Romero Felizardo, Erica Ferreira de Souza et al.

Context: A tertiary study can be performed to identify related reviews on a topic of interest. However, the elaboration of an appropriate and effective search string to detect secondary studies is challenging for Software Engineering (SE) researchers. Objective: The main goal of this study is to propose a suitable search string to detect secondary studies in SE, addressing issues such as the quantity of applied terms, relevance, recall and precision. Method: We analyzed seven tertiary studies under two perspectives: (1) structure -- strings' terms to detect secondary studies; and (2) field: where searching -- titles alone or abstracts alone or titles and abstracts together, among others. We validate our string by performing a two-step validation process. Firstly, we evaluated the capability to retrieve secondary studies over a set of 1537 secondary studies included in 24 tertiary studies in SE. Secondly, we evaluated the general capacity of retrieving secondary studies over an automated search using the Scopus digital library. Results: Our string was capable to retrieve an optimum value of over 90\% of the included secondary studies (recall) with a high general precision of almost 60\%. Conclusion: The suitable search string for finding secondary studies in SE contains the terms "systematic review", "literature review", "systematic mapping", "mapping study" and "systematic map".