BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Bianca Minetto Napoleão

Bianca Minetto Napoleão contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Software Engineeringcs.CY

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 17 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
4works
0followers
2topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

4 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Towards Continuous Systematic Literature Review in Software Engineering

Context: New scientific evidence continuously arises with advances in Software Engineering (SE) research. Conventionally, Systematic Literature Reviews (SLRs) are not updated or updated intermittently, leaving gaps between updates, during which time the SLR may be missing crucial new evidence. Goal: We propose and evaluate a concept and process called Continuous Systematic Literature Review (CSLR) in SE. Method: To elaborate on the CSLR concept and process, we performed a synthesis of evidence by conducting a meta-ethnography, addressing knowledge from varied research areas. Furthermore, we conducted a case study to evaluate the CSLR process. Results: We describe the resulting CSLR process in BPMN format. The case study results provide indications on the importance and feasibility of applying CSLR in practice to continuously update SLR evidence in SE. Conclusion: The CSLR concept and process provide a feasible and systematic way to continuously incorporate new evidence into SLRs, supporting trustworthy and up-to-date evidence for SLRs in SE.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

A Tertiary and Secondary Study Canvas

Over the past years, more secondary (Systematic Literature Reviews and Systematic Mappings) and tertiary studies have been conducted. Their conduction is considered a quite large task and labor-intensive since it involves a detailed process including a protocol development, which is one of the most challenging phase reported by the software engineering research community. In this scenario, we propose a Secondary and Tertiary Study Canvas aiming to simplify and clarify the understanding of the steps that need to be performed during the secondary and tertiary process conduction, including the protocol development. For this, we synthesized and organized the existing secondary studies' protocols in a Canvas format as well as suggesting a step-based approach to assist the secondary and tertiary studies' conduction.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Open Source Software Development Process: A Systematic Review

Open Source Software (OSS) has been recognized by the software development community as an effective way to deliver software. Unlike traditional software development, OSS development is driven by collaboration among developers spread geographically and motivated by common goals and interests. Besides this fact, it is recognized by OSS community the need of understand OSS development process and its activities. Our goal is to investigate the state-of-art about OSS process through conducting a systematic literature review providing an overview of how the OSS community has been investigating OSS process over past years identifying and summarizing OSS process activities and their characteristics as well as translating OSS process in a macro process through BPMN notation. As a result, we systematically analysed 33 studies presenting an overview of the state-of-art of researches regarding OSS process, a generalized OSS development macro process represented by BPMN notation with a detailed description of each OSS process activity and roles in OSS environment. We conclude that OSS process can be in practice further investigated by researchers. In addition, the presented OSS process can be used as a guide for OSS projects and being adapted according to each OSS project reality. It provides insights to managers and developers who want to improve their development process even in OSS and traditional environments. Finally, recommendations for OSS community regarding OSS process activities are provided.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Secondary Studies in the Academic Context: A Systematic Mapping and Survey

Context: Several researchers have reported their experiences in applying secondary studies (Systematic Literature Reviews - SLRs and Systematic Mappings - SMs) in Software Engineering (SE). However, there is still a lack of studies discussing the value of performing secondary studies in an academic context. Goal: The main goal of this study is to provide an overview on the use of secondary studies in an academic context. Method: Two empirical research methods were used. Initially, we conducted an SM to identify the available and relevant studies on the use of secondary studies as a research methodology for conducting SE research projects. Secondly, a survey was performed with 64 SE researchers to identify their perception related to the value of performing secondary studies to support their research projects. Results: Our results show benefits of using secondary studies in the academic context, such as, providing an overview of the literature as well as identifying relevant research literature on a research area enabling to find reasons to explain why a research project should be approved for a grant and/or supporting decisions made in a research project. Difficulties faced by SE graduate students with secondary studies are that they tend to be conducted by a team and it demands more effort than a traditional review. Conclusions: Secondary studies are valuable to graduate students. They should consider conducting a secondary study for their research project due to the benefits and contributions provided to develop the overall project. However, the advice of an experienced supervisor is essential to avoid bias. In addition, the acquisition of skills can increase student's motivation to pursue their research projects and prepare them for both academic or industrial careers.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access