No abstract

Context: Over the past decade Software Engineering research has seen a steady increase in survey-based studies, and there are several guidelines providing support for those willing to carry out surveys. The need for auditing survey research has been raised in the literature. Checklists have been used to assess different types of empirical studies, such as experiments and case studies.Objective: This paper proposes a checklist to support the design and assessment of survey-based research in software engineering grounded in existing guidelines for survey research. We further evaluated the checklist in the research practice context.Method: To construct the checklist, we systematically aggregated knowledge from 14 methodological papers supporting survey-based research in software engineering. We identified the key stages of the survey process and its recommended practices through thematic analysis and vote counting. To improve our initially designed checklist we evaluated it using a mixed evaluation approach involving experienced researchers.Results: The evaluation provided insights regarding limitations of the checklist in relation to its understanding and objectivity. In particular, 19 of the 38 checklist items were improved according to the feedback received from its evaluation. Finally, a discussion on how to use the checklist and what its implications are for research practice is also provided.Conclusion: The proposed checklist is an instrument suitable for auditing survey reports as well as a support tool to guide ongoing research with regard to the survey design process.

The importance of achieving high quality in research practice has been highlighted in different disciplines. At the same time, citations are utilized to measure the impact of academic researchers and institutions. One open question is whether the quality in the reporting of research is related to scientific impact, which would be desired. In this exploratory study we aim to: (1) Investigate how consistently a scoring rubric for rigor and relevance has been used to assess research quality of software engineering studies; (2) Explore the relationship between rigor, relevance and citation count. Through backward snowball sampling we identified 718 primary studies assessed through the scoring rubric. We utilized cluster analysis and conditional inference tree to explore the relationship between quality in the reporting of research (represented by rigor and relevance) and scientiometrics (represented by normalized citations). The results show that only rigor is related to studies’ normalized citations. Besides that, confounding factors are likely to influence the number of citations. The results also suggest that the scoring rubric is not applied the same way by all studies, and one of the likely reasons is because it was found to be too abstract and in need to be further refined. Our findings could be used as a basis to further understand the relation between the quality in the reporting of research and scientific impact, and foster new discussions on how to fairly acknowledge studies for performing well with respect to the emphasized research quality. Furthermore, we highlighted the need to further improve the scoring rubric.