灰色文献的可信度评估——巴西软件工程研究人员的研究

F. Kamei, I. Wiese, Gustavo Pinto, Waldemar Ferreira, Márcio Ribeiro, Renata Souza, S. Soares
{"title":"灰色文献的可信度评估——巴西软件工程研究人员的研究","authors":"F. Kamei, I. Wiese, Gustavo Pinto, Waldemar Ferreira, Márcio Ribeiro, Renata Souza, S. Soares","doi":"10.5753/jserd.2022.1897","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In recent years, the use and investigations about Grey Literature (GL) increased, in particular, in Software Engineering (SE) research. However, its understanding is still scarce and sometimes controversial, such as interpreting GL types and assessing their credibility. This study aimed to understand the credibility aspects that SE researchers consider in assessing GL and its types. To achieve this goal, we surveyed 53 SE researchers (who answered that they have used GL in our previous investigation), receiving a total of 34 valid responses. Our main findings show that: 1) GL source produced or cited by a renowned source is the main credibility criteria used to assess GL, 2) most of the GL types tend to have a Low to Moderate level of Control and Expertise, 3) there is a positive statistical correlation between the level of Control and Expertise for most GL types, and 4) the different respondent profiles shared similar opinions about the credibility criteria. Our investigation contributes to helping future SE researchers that intend to use GL with more credibility. Additionally, shows the need for future studies to better understand the GL types in SE research.","PeriodicalId":189472,"journal":{"name":"J. Softw. Eng. Res. Dev.","volume":"45 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessing the Credibility of Grey Literature - A Study with Brazilian Software Engineering Researchers\",\"authors\":\"F. Kamei, I. Wiese, Gustavo Pinto, Waldemar Ferreira, Márcio Ribeiro, Renata Souza, S. Soares\",\"doi\":\"10.5753/jserd.2022.1897\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In recent years, the use and investigations about Grey Literature (GL) increased, in particular, in Software Engineering (SE) research. However, its understanding is still scarce and sometimes controversial, such as interpreting GL types and assessing their credibility. This study aimed to understand the credibility aspects that SE researchers consider in assessing GL and its types. To achieve this goal, we surveyed 53 SE researchers (who answered that they have used GL in our previous investigation), receiving a total of 34 valid responses. Our main findings show that: 1) GL source produced or cited by a renowned source is the main credibility criteria used to assess GL, 2) most of the GL types tend to have a Low to Moderate level of Control and Expertise, 3) there is a positive statistical correlation between the level of Control and Expertise for most GL types, and 4) the different respondent profiles shared similar opinions about the credibility criteria. Our investigation contributes to helping future SE researchers that intend to use GL with more credibility. Additionally, shows the need for future studies to better understand the GL types in SE research.\",\"PeriodicalId\":189472,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"J. Softw. Eng. Res. Dev.\",\"volume\":\"45 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"J. Softw. Eng. Res. Dev.\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5753/jserd.2022.1897\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"J. Softw. Eng. Res. Dev.","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5753/jserd.2022.1897","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

近年来,灰色文献(GL)在软件工程(SE)研究中的应用和研究越来越多。然而,对其理解仍然很少,有时还存在争议,例如对GL类型的解释和对其可信度的评估。本研究旨在了解SE研究人员在评估GL及其类型时所考虑的可信度方面。为了实现这一目标,我们调查了53名SE研究人员(他们回答说他们在我们之前的调查中使用过GL),共收到34份有效回复。我们的主要研究结果表明:1)知名来源生产或引用的GL来源是用于评估GL的主要可信度标准;2)大多数GL类型倾向于具有低至中等水平的控制和专业知识;3)大多数GL类型的控制和专业知识水平之间存在正统计相关关系;4)不同受访者对可信度标准的看法相似。我们的研究有助于帮助未来的SE研究者更可信地使用GL。此外,还需要在未来的研究中更好地了解SE研究中的GL类型。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Assessing the Credibility of Grey Literature - A Study with Brazilian Software Engineering Researchers
In recent years, the use and investigations about Grey Literature (GL) increased, in particular, in Software Engineering (SE) research. However, its understanding is still scarce and sometimes controversial, such as interpreting GL types and assessing their credibility. This study aimed to understand the credibility aspects that SE researchers consider in assessing GL and its types. To achieve this goal, we surveyed 53 SE researchers (who answered that they have used GL in our previous investigation), receiving a total of 34 valid responses. Our main findings show that: 1) GL source produced or cited by a renowned source is the main credibility criteria used to assess GL, 2) most of the GL types tend to have a Low to Moderate level of Control and Expertise, 3) there is a positive statistical correlation between the level of Control and Expertise for most GL types, and 4) the different respondent profiles shared similar opinions about the credibility criteria. Our investigation contributes to helping future SE researchers that intend to use GL with more credibility. Additionally, shows the need for future studies to better understand the GL types in SE research.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信