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

Katia Romero Felizardo

Katia Romero Felizardo contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Software Engineeringcs.CYDigital Libraries

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 21 - EmergingVerification L1Unclaimed author
7works
0followers
3topics
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

7 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Benefits and Drawbacks of a Graduate Course: An Experience Teaching Systematic Literature Review

Graduate courses can provide specialized knowledge for Ph.D. and Master's students and contribute to develop their hard and soft skills. At the same time, Systematic Literature Review (SLR) has been increasingly adopted in the computing area as a valuable technique to synthesize the state of the art of a given research topic. However, there is still a poor understanding of the real benefits and drawbacks of offering the SLR course for graduate students. This paper reports an experience that examines such benefits and drawbacks, the difficulties for professors (i.e., educators), and the essential SLR topics to be taught as well as a way to better teach them. We also surveyed computer science graduate students who attended the SLR course, which we have offered for almost ten years for Ph.D. and Master's students in our institution. We found the attendance to the SLR course is a valuable opportunity for graduate students to conduct the required deep literature review of their research topic, improve their research skills, and increase their formation. Hence, we recommend that Ph.D. and Masters' programs offer the SLR course to contribute to their academic achievement.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Establishing a Search String to Detect Secondary Studies in Software Engineering

Context: A tertiary study can be performed to identify related reviews on a topic of interest. However, the elaboration of an appropriate and effective search string to detect secondary studies is challenging for Software Engineering (SE) researchers. Objective: The main goal of this study is to propose a suitable search string to detect secondary studies in SE, addressing issues such as the quantity of applied terms, relevance, recall and precision. Method: We analyzed seven tertiary studies under two perspectives: (1) structure -- strings' terms to detect secondary studies; and (2) field: where searching -- titles alone or abstracts alone or titles and abstracts together, among others. We validate our string by performing a two-step validation process. Firstly, we evaluated the capability to retrieve secondary studies over a set of 1537 secondary studies included in 24 tertiary studies in SE. Secondly, we evaluated the general capacity of retrieving secondary studies over an automated search using the Scopus digital library. Results: Our string was capable to retrieve an optimum value of over 90\% of the included secondary studies (recall) with a high general precision of almost 60\%. Conclusion: The suitable search string for finding secondary studies in SE contains the terms "systematic review", "literature review", "systematic mapping", "mapping study" and "systematic map".

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

A Visual Analysis Approach to Update Systematic Reviews

Context: In order to preserve the value of Systematic Reviews (SRs), they should be frequently updated considering new evidence that has been produced since the completion of the previous version of the reviews. However, the update of an SR is a time consuming, manual task. Thus, many SRs have not been updated as they should be and, therefore, they are currently outdated. Objective: The main contribution of this paper is to support the update of SRs. Method: We propose USR-VTM, an approach based on Visual Text Mining (VTM) techniques, to support selection of new evidence in the form of primary studies. We then present a tool, named Revis, which supports our approach. Finally, we evaluate our approach through a comparison of outcomes achieved using USR-VTM versus the traditional (manual) approach. Results: Our results show that USR-VTM increases the number of studies correctly included compared to the traditional approach. Conclusions: USR-VTM effectively supports the update of SRs.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

Analysing the use of graphs to represent the results of Systematic Reviews in Software Engineering

The presentation of results from Systematic Literature Reviews (SLRs) is generally done using tables. Prior research suggests that results summarized in tables are often difficult for readers to understand. One alternative to improve results' comprehensibility is to use graphical representations. The aim of this work is twofold: first, to investigate whether graph representations result is better comprehensibility than tables when presenting SLR results; second, to investigate whether interpretation using graphs impacts on performance, as measured by the time consumed to analyse and understand the data. We selected an SLR published in the literature and used two different formats to represent its results - tables and graphs, in three different combinations: (i) table format only; (ii) graph format only; and (iii) a mixture of tables and graphs. We conducted an experiment that compared the performance and capability of experts in SLR, as well as doctoral and masters students, in analysing and understanding the results of the SLR, as presented in one of the three different forms. We were interested in examining whether there is difference between the performance of participants using tables and graphs. The graphical representation of SLR data led to a reduction in the time taken for its analysis, without any loss in data comprehensibility. For our sample the analysis of graphical data proved to be faster than the analysis of tabular data. However , we found no evidence of a difference in comprehensibility whether using tables, graphical format or a combination. Overall we argue that graphs are a suitable alternative to tables when it comes to representing the results of an SLR.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

Using Visual Text Mining to Support the Study Selection Activity in Systematic Literature Reviews

Background: A systematic literature review (SLR) is a methodology used to aggregate all relevant existing evidence to answer a research question of interest. Although crucial, the process used to select primary studies can be arduous, time consuming, and must often be conducted manually. Objective: We propose a novel approach, known as 'Systematic Literature Review based on Visual Text Mining' or simply SLR-VTM, to support the primary study selection activity using visual text mining (VTM) techniques. Method: We conducted a case study to compare the performance and effectiveness of four doctoral students in selecting primary studies manually and using the SLR-VTM approach. To enable the comparison, we also developed a VTM tool that implemented our approach. We hypothesized that students using SLR-VTM would present improved selection performance and effectiveness. Results: Our results show that incorporating VTM in the SLR study selection activity reduced the time spent in this activity and also increased the number of studies correctly included. Conclusions: Our pilot case study presents promising results suggesting that the use of VTM may indeed be beneficial during the study selection activity when performing an SLR.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Guidelines for the Search Strategy to Update Systematic Literature Reviews in Software Engineering

Context: Systematic Literature Reviews (SLRs) have been adopted within Software Engineering (SE) for more than a decade to provide meaningful summaries of evidence on several topics. Many of these SLRs are now potentially not fully up-to-date, and there are no standard proposals on how to update SLRs in SE. Objective: The objective of this paper is to propose guidelines on how to best search for evidence when updating SLRs in SE, and to evaluate these guidelines using an SLR that was not employed during the formulation of the guidelines. Method: To propose our guidelines, we compare and discuss outcomes from applying different search strategies to identify primary studies in a published SLR, an SLR update, and two replications in the area of effort estimation. These guidelines are then evaluated using an SLR in the area of software ecosystems, its update and a replication. Results: The use of a single iteration forward snowballing with Google Scholar, and employing as a seed set the original SLR and its primary studies is the most cost-effective way to search for new evidence when updating SLRs. Furthermore, the importance of having more than one researcher involved in the selection of papers when applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria is highlighted through the results. Conclusions: Our proposed guidelines formulated based upon an effort estimation SLR, its update and two replications, were supported when using an SLR in the area of software ecosystems, its update and a replication. Therefore, we put forward that our guidelines ought to be adopted for updating SLRs in SE.

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