Rapid Reviews in Software Engineering

Cartaxo, Bruno; Pinto, Gustavo; Soares, Sérgio

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-32489-6_13

Cited by 46 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…To perform the RR, we considered the guidelines provided by Cartaxo et al [30], Tricco et al [29] and Rico et al [31]. In general, the main activities suggested by these authors are: (i) problem definition, (ii) specify the research questions, (iii) define the search string, (iv) search strategy, (v) data sources and inclusion and exclusion criteria, (vi) synthesis methods and (vii) initial proposals of how the results will be disseminated.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Support for Accessible Software Coding: Results of a Rapid Literature Review

Furukawa

Soares²,

Cagnin³

et al. 2023

CLEIej

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Due to difficulties faced by people with disabilities, it is necessary to provide all citizens with mechanisms to guarantee the accessibility of information and services offered through the internet. This study aims to identify which models and tools support developers in the software coding phase in order to meet accessibility requirements. The data obtained were extracted from the literature and were evaluated with professionals working with information technology. It was possible to conclude that taking accessibility into account throughout the software development cycle from the early stages, as well as having models and tools that help during the software coding process are essential to succeed in creating accessible products.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Support for Accessible Software Coding: Results of a Rapid Literature Review

Furukawa

Soares²,

Cagnin³

et al. 2023

CLEIej

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Additionally, their results can be hard to integrate into industry practice. We therefore decided to conduct a Rapid Review, 29 a lightweight secondary study performed in close collaboration with industry and focused on providing timely and easily consumable results. The protocol of a rapid review is still systematic, but may consciously sacrifice rigor and extensiveness for industry relevance and efficiency.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adopting microservices and DevOps in the cyber‐physical systems domain: A rapid review and case study

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The domain of cyber‐physical systems (CPS) has recently seen strong growth, for example, due to the rise of the Internet of Things (IoT) in industrial domains, commonly referred to as “Industry 4.0.” However, CPS challenges like the strong hardware focus can impact modern software development practices, especially in the context of modernizing legacy systems. While microservices and DevOps have been widely studied for enterprise applications, there is insufficient coverage for the CPS domain. Our goal is therefore to analyze the peculiarities of such systems regarding challenges and practices for using and migrating towards microservices and DevOps. We conducted a rapid review based on 146 scientific papers, and subsequently validated our findings in an interview‐based case study with nine CPS professionals in different business units at Siemens AG. The combined results picture the specifics of microservices and DevOps in the CPS domain. While several differences were revealed that may require adapted methods, many challenges and practices are shared with typical enterprise applications. Our study supports CPS researchers and practitioners with a summary of challenges, practices to address them, and research opportunities.

show abstract

“…As an example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, a considerable amount of rapid reviews were conducted to support decision-making in many areas of medicine [41]. A group of researchers in software engineering proposed the use of rapid reviews to support decision-making in software projects [14]. A difference with the guidelines adopted in this study is the focus on the interaction between researchers and practitioners to make the reviews more relevant in the practitioners' context and foster the knowledge exchange.…”

Section: Interactive Rapid Reviewsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring ML testing in practice -- Lessons learned from an interactive rapid review with Axis Communications

Song¹,

Borg²,

Engström³

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is a growing interest in industry and academia in machine learning (ML) testing. We believe that industry and academia need to learn together to produce rigorous and relevant knowledge. In this study, we initiate a collaboration between stakeholders from one case company, one research institute, and one university. To establish a common view of the problem domain, we applied an interactive rapid review of the state of the art. Four researchers from Lund University and RISE Research Institutes and four practitioners from Axis Communications reviewed a set of 180 primary studies on ML testing. We developed a taxonomy for the communication around ML testing challenges and results and identified a list of 12 review questions relevant for Axis Communications. The three most important questions (data testing, metrics for assessment, and test generation) were mapped to the literature, and an in-depth analysis of the 35 primary studies matching the most important question (data testing) was made. A final set of the five best matches were analysed and we reflect on the criteria for applicability and relevance for the industry. The taxonomies are helpful for communication but not final. Furthermore, there was no perfect match to the case company's investigated review question (data testing). However, we extracted relevant approaches from the five studies on a conceptual level to support later context-specific improvements. We found the interactive rapid review approach useful for triggering and aligning communication between the different stakeholders.

show abstract

Rapid Reviews in Software Engineering

Cited by 46 publications

References 47 publications

Support for Accessible Software Coding: Results of a Rapid Literature Review

Support for Accessible Software Coding: Results of a Rapid Literature Review

Adopting microservices and DevOps in the cyber‐physical systems domain: A rapid review and case study

Exploring ML testing in practice -- Lessons learned from an interactive rapid review with Axis Communications

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About