skip to main content
10.1145/3239235.3267432acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesesemConference Proceedingsconference-collections
short-paper

Maintaining systematic literature reviews: benefits and drawbacks

Published:11 October 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

Background: Maintenance and traceability (versioning) are constant concerns in Software Engineering (SE), however, few works related to these topics in Systematic Literature Reviews (SLR) were found. Goal: The goal of this research is to elucidate how SLRs can be maintained and what are the benefits and drawbacks in this process. Method: This work presents a survey where experienced researchers that conducted SLRs between 2011 and 2015 answered questions about maintenance and traceability and, using software maintenance concepts, it addresses the SLRs maintenance process. From the 79 e-mails sent we reach 28 answers. Results: 19 of surveyed researchers have shown interest in keeping their SLRs up-to-date, but they have expressed concerns about the effort to be made to accomplish it. It was also observed that 20 participants would be willing to share their SLRs in common repositories, such as GitHub. Conclusions: There is a need to perform maintenance on SLRs. Thus, we are proposing a SLR maintenance process, taking into account some benefits and drawbacks identified during our study and presented through the paper.

References

  1. F. Q. B. da Silva, A. L. M. Santos, S. Soares, A. C. C. França, C. V. F. Monteiro, and F. F. Maciel. 2011. Six Years of Systematic Literature Reviews in Software Engineering: An Updated Tertiary Study. Inf. Softw. Technol. 53, 9 (Sept. 2011), 899--913. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. K. R. Felizardo, E. Mendes, M. Kalinowski, E. F. Souza, and N. L. Vijaykumar. 2016. Using Forward Snowballing to Update Systematic Reviews in Software Engineering (ESEM '16). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. J. Higgins and S. Green(editors). 2011. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 {updated March 2011}. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. S. Jalali and C. Wohlin. 2012. Systematic literature studies: Database searches vs. backward snowballing (ESEM '12). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. B. Kitchenham, O. Pearl Brereton, and D. Budgen. 2008. Protocol for extending a tertiary study of systematic literature reviews in software engineering.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. B. Kitchenham, O. Pearl Brereton, D. Budgen, M. Turner, J. Bailey, and S. Linkman. 2009. Systematic literature reviews in software engineering - A systematic literature review. Information and Software Technology 51, 1 (2009), 7 -- 15. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. B. Kitchenham, O. Pearl Brereton, Z. Li, D. Budgen, and A. Burn. 2011. Repeatability of systematic literature reviews. In 15th Annual Conference on Evaluation Assessment in Software Engineering (EASE 2011). 46--55.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. B. Kitchenham and S. Charters. 2007. Guidelines for performing Systematic Literature Reviews in Software Engineering.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. B. Kitchenham, R. Pretorius, D. Budgen, O. Pearl Brereton, M. Turner, M. Niazi, and S. Linkman. 2010. Systematic Literature Reviews in Software Engineering - A Tertiary Study. Inf. Softw. Technol. 52, 8 (2010), 792--805. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. S. MacDonell, M. Shepperd, B. Kitchenham, and E. Mendes. 2010. How Reliable Are Systematic Reviews in Empirical Software Engineering? IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 36, 5 (2010), 676--687. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. L. M. Garcés Rodriguez, K. R. Felizardo, L. B. R. Oliveira, and E. Y. Nakagawa. 2017. An Experience Report on Update of Systematic Literature Reviews. In The 29th International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Ian Sommerville. 2010. Software Engineering (9th ed.). Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, USA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. C. Wohlin. 2016. Second-generation Systematic Literature Studies Using Snowballing (EASE '16). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Maintaining systematic literature reviews: benefits and drawbacks

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      ESEM '18: Proceedings of the 12th ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement
      October 2018
      487 pages
      ISBN:9781450358231
      DOI:10.1145/3239235

      Copyright © 2018 ACM

      © 2018 Association for Computing Machinery. ACM acknowledges that this contribution was authored or co-authored by an employee, contractor or affiliate of a national government. As such, the Government retains a nonexclusive, royalty-free right to publish or reproduce this article, or to allow others to do so, for Government purposes only.

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 11 October 2018

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • short-paper

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate130of594submissions,22%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader