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

Burak Turhan

Burak Turhan contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Software EngineeringGeneral Literature

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 21 - EmergingVerification L1Unclaimed author
8works
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

8 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

On the Violation of Honesty in Mobile Apps: Automated Detection and Categories

Human values such as integrity, privacy, curiosity, security, and honesty are guiding principles for what people consider important in life. Such human values may be violated by mobile software applications (apps), and the negative effects of such human value violations can be seen in various ways in society. In this work, we focus on the human value of honesty. We present a model to support the automatic identification of violations of the value of honesty from app reviews from an end-user perspective. Beyond the automatic detection of honesty violations by apps, we also aim to better understand different categories of honesty violations expressed by users in their app reviews. The result of our manual analysis of our honesty violations dataset shows that honesty violations can be characterised into ten categories: unfair cancellation and refund policies; false advertisements; delusive subscriptions; cheating systems; inaccurate information; unfair fees; no service; deletion of reviews; impersonation; and fraudulent-looking apps. Based on these results, we argue for a conscious effort in developing more honest software artefacts including mobile apps, and the promotion of honesty as a key value in software development practices. Furthermore, we discuss the role of app distribution platforms as enforcers of ethical systems supporting human values, and highlight some proposed next steps for human values in software engineering (SE) research.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Software Engineers Response to Public Crisis: Lessons Learnt from Spontaneously Building an Informative COVID-19 Dashboard

The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak quickly spread around the world, resulting in over 240 million infections and 4 million deaths by Oct 2021. While the virus is spreading from person to person silently, fear has also been spreading around the globe. The COVID-19 information from the Australian Government is convincing but not timely or detailed, and there is much information on social networks with both facts and rumors. As software engineers, we have spontaneously and rapidly constructed a COVID-19 information dashboard aggregating reliable information semi-automatically checked from different sources for providing one-stop information sharing site about the latest status in Australia. Inspired by the John Hopkins University COVID-19 Map, our dashboard contains the case statistics, case distribution, government policy, latest news, with interactive visualization. In this paper, we present a participant's in-person observations in which the authors acted as founders of https://covid-19-au.com/ serving more than 830K users with 14M page views since March 2020. According to our first-hand experience, we summarize 9 lessons for developers, researchers and instructors. These lessons may inspire the development, research and teaching in software engineer aspects for coping with similar public crises in the future.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

Empirical Standards for Software Engineering Research

Empirical Standards are natural-language models of a scientific community's expectations for a specific kind of study (e.g. a questionnaire survey). The ACM SIGSOFT Paper and Peer Review Quality Initiative generated empirical standards for research methods commonly used in software engineering. These living documents, which should be continuously revised to reflect evolving consensus around research best practices, will improve research quality and make peer review more effective, reliable, transparent and fair.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Increasing Validity Through Replication: An Illustrative TDD Case

Context: Software Engineering (SE) experiments suffer from threats to validity that may impact their results. Replication allows researchers building on top of previous experiments' weaknesses and increasing the reliability of the findings. Objective: Illustrating the benefits of replication to increase the reliability of the findings and uncover moderator variables. Method: We replicate an experiment on Test-Driven-Development (TDD) and address some of its threats to validity and those of a previous replication. We compare the replications' results and hypothesize on plausible moderators impacting results. Results: Differences across TDD replications' results might be due to the operationalization of the response variables, the allocation of subjects to treatments, the allowance to work outside the laboratory, the provision of stubs, or the task. Conclusion: Replications allow examining the robustness of the findings, hypothesizing on plausible moderators influencing results, and strengthening the evidence obtained.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Iterative versus Exhaustive Data Selection for Cross Project Defect Prediction: An Extended Replication Study

Context: The effectiveness of data selection approaches in improving the performance of cross project defect prediction(CPDP) has been shown in multiple previous studies. Beside that, replication studies play an important role in the support of any valid study. Repeating a study using the same or different subjects can lead to better understandings of the nature of the problem. Objective: We use an iterative dataset selection (IDS) approach to generate training datasets and evaluate them on a set of randomly created validation datasets in the context of CPDP while considering a higher range of flexibility which makes the approach more feasible in practice. Method: We replicate an earlier study and present some insights into the achieved results while pointing out some of the shortcomings of the original study. Using the lessons learned, we propose to use an alternative training/validation dataset generation approaches which not only is more feasible in practice, but also achieves slightly better performances. We compare the results of our experiments to those from scenarios A, B, C and D from the original study. Results:Our experiments reveal that IDS is heavily recall based. The average recall performance for all test sets is 0.933 which is significantly higher than that from the replicated method. This in turn comes with a loss in precision. IDS has the lowest precision among the compared scenarios that use Decision Table learner. IDS however, achieves comparable or better F-measure performances. IDS achieves higher mean, median and min F-measure values while being more stable generally, in comparison with the replicated method. Conclusions: We conclude that datasets obtained from iterative/search-based approaches is a promising way to tackle CPDP. Especially, the performance increase in terms of both time and performance encourages further investigation of our approach.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

On the Need of Preserving Order of Data When Validating Within-Project Defect Classifiers

[Context] The use of defect prediction models, such as classifiers, can support testing resource allocations by using data of the previous releases of the same project for predicting which software components are likely to be defective. A validation technique, hereinafter technique defines a specific way to split available data in training and test sets to measure a classifier accuracy. Time-series techniques have the unique ability to preserve the temporal order of data; i.e., preventing the testing set to have data antecedent to the training set. [Aim] The aim of this paper is twofold: first we check if there is a difference in the classifiers accuracy measured by time-series versus non-time-series techniques. Afterward, we check for a possible reason for this difference, i.e., if defect rates change across releases of a project. [Method] Our method consists of measuring the accuracy, i.e., AUC, of 10 classifiers on 13 open and two closed projects by using three validation techniques, namely cross validation, bootstrap, and walk-forward, where only the latter is a time-series technique. [Results] We find that the AUC of the same classifier used on the same project and measured by 10-fold varies compared to when measured by walk-forward in the range [-0.20, 0.22], and it is statistically different in 45% of the cases. Similarly, the AUC measured by bootstrap varies compared to when measured by walk-forward in the range [-0.17, 0.43], and it is statistically different in 56% of the cases. [Conclusions] We recommend choosing the technique to be used by carefully considering the conclusions to draw, the property of the available datasets, and the level of realism with the classifier usage scenario.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Researcher Bias in Software Engineering Experiments: a Qualitative Investigation

Researcher Bias (RB) occurs when researchers influence the results of an empirical study based on their expectations.RB might be due to the use of Questionable Research Practices(QRPs). In research fields like medicine, blinding techniques have been applied to counteract RB. We conducted an explorative qualitative survey to investigate RB in Software Engineering (SE)experiments, with respect to (i) QRPs potentially leading to RB, (ii) causes behind RB, and (iii) possible actions to counteract including blinding techniques. Data collection was based on semi-structured interviews. We interviewed nine active experts in the empirical SE community. We then analyzed the transcripts of these interviews through thematic analysis. We found that some QRPs are acceptable in certain cases. Also, it appears that the presence of RB is perceived in SE and, to counteract RB, a number of solutions have been highlighted: some are intended for SE researchers and others for the boards of SE research outlets.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2018arXiv

Cognitive Biases in Software Engineering: A Systematic Mapping Study

One source of software project challenges and failures is the systematic errors introduced by human cognitive biases. Although extensively explored in cognitive psychology, investigations concerning cognitive biases have only recently gained popularity in software engineering (SE) research. This paper therefore systematically maps, aggregates and synthesizes the literature on cognitive biases in software engineering to generate a comprehensive body of knowledge, understand state of the art research and provide guidelines for future research and practise. Focusing on bias antecedents, effects and mitigation techniques, we identified 65 articles, which investigate 37 cognitive biases, published between 1990 and 2016. Despite strong and increasing interest, the results reveal a scarcity of research on mitigation techniques and poor theoretical foundations in understanding and interpreting cognitive biases. Although bias-related research has generated many new insights in the software engineering community, specific bias mitigation techniques are still needed for software professionals to overcome the deleterious effects of cognitive biases on their work.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access