A consequence of the growing number of empirical studies in software engineering is the need to adopt systematic approaches to assessing and aggregating research outcomes in order to provide a balanced and objective summary of research evidence for a particular topic. The paper reports experiences with applying one such approach, the practice of systematic literature review, to the published studies relevant to topics within the software engineering domain. The systematic literature review process is summarised, a number of reviews being undertaken by the authors and others are described and some lessons about the applicability of this practice to software engineering are extracted.The basic systematic literature review process seems appropriate to software engineering and the preparation and validation of a review protocol in advance of a review activity is especially valuable. The paper highlights areas where some adaptation of the process to accommodate the domain-specific characteristics of software engineering is needed as well as areas where improvements to current software engineering infrastructure and practices would enhance its applicability. In particular, infrastructure support provided by software engineering indexing databases is inadequate. Also, the quality of abstracts is poor; it is usually not possible to judge the relevance of a study from a review of the abstract alone.

No abstract

Context: Many researchers adopting systematic reviews (SRs) have also published papers discussing problems with the SR methodology and suggestions for improving it. Since guidelines for SRs in software engineering (SE) were last updated in 2007, we believe it is time to investigate whether the guidelines need to be amended in the light of recent research. Objective: To identify, evaluate and synthesize research published by software engineering researchers concerning their experiences of performing SRs and their proposals for improving the SR process. Method: We undertook a systematic review of papers reporting experiences of undertaking SRs and/or discussing techniques that could be used to improve the SR process. Studies were classified with respect to the stage in the SR process they addressed, whether they related to education or problems faced by novices and whether they proposed the use of textual analysis tools. Results: We identified 68 papers reporting 63 unique studies published in SE conferences and journals between 2005 and mid-2012. The most common criticisms of SRs were that they take a long time, that SE digital libraries are not appropriate for broad literature searches and that assessing the quality of empirical studies of different types is difficult. Conclusion:We recommend removing advice to use structured questions to construct search strings and including advice to use a quasi-gold standard based on a limited manual search to assist the construction of search stings and evaluation of the search process. Textual analysis tools are likely to be useful for inclusion/exclusion decisions and search string construction but require more stringent evaluation. SE researchers would benefit from tools to manage the SR process but existing tools need independent validation. Quality assessment of studies using a variety of empirical methods remains a major problem.

No abstract

Context:Making best use of the growing number of empirical studies in Software Engineering, for making decisions and formulating research questions, requires the ability to construct an objective summary of available research evidence. Adopting a systematic approach to assessing and aggregating the outcomes from a set of empirical studies is also particularly important in Software Engineering, given that such studies may employ very different experimental forms and be undertaken in very different experimental contexts. Objectives: To provide an introduction to the role, form and processes involved in performing Systematic Literature Reviews. After the tutorial, participants should be able to read and use such reviews, and have gained the knowledge needed to conduct systematic reviews of their own. Method: We will use a blend of information presentation (including some experiences of the problems that can arise in the Software Engineering domain), and also of interactive working, using review material prepared in advance.