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

Márcio Ribeiro

Márcio Ribeiro contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Software Engineering

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 15 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
3works
0followers
1topics
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

3 published item(s)

preprint2020arXiv

Influence of Technical and Social Factors for Introducing Bugs

[This paper has been withdrawn by the author due to updated research available on arXiv (arXiv:1811.01918)] As the modern open-source paradigm makes it easier to contribute to software projects, the number of developers involved in these projects keep increasing. This growth in the amount of developers makes it more difficult to deal with harmful contributions. Recent researches have found that technical and social factors can predict the success of contributions to open-source projects on GitHub. However, these researches do not study the relation between these factors with the introduction of bugs. Our study aims at investigating the influence of technical (such as, developers' experience) and social (such as, number of followers) factors on the introduction of bugs, using information from 14 projects hosted on GitHub. Understanding the influence of these factors may be useful to developers, code reviewers and researchers. For instance, code reviewers may want to double check commits from developers that present bug-related factors. We found that technical factors have a consistent influence in the introduction of bugs. On the other hand, social factors present signs of influence in bug introduction that would require more data to be properly evaluated. Moreover, we found that perils present in the mining of GitHub may impact the factors results.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

On Relating Technical, Social Factors, and the Introduction of Bugs

As collaborative coding environments make it easier to contribute to software projects, the number of developers involved in these projects keeps increasing. This increase makes it more difficult for code reviewers to deal with buggy contributions. Collaborative environments like GitHub provide a rich source of data on developers' contributions. Such data can be used to extract information about developers regarding technical (e.g., their experience) and social (e.g., their interactions) factors. Recent studies analyzed the influence of these factors on different activities of software development. However, there is still room for improvement on the relation between these factors and the introduction of bugs. We present a broader study, including 8 projects from different domains and 6,537 bug reports, on relating five technical, three social factors, and the introduction of bugs. The results indicate that technical and social factors can discriminate between buggy and clean commits. But, the technical factors are more determining than social ones. Particularly, the developers' habits of not following technical contribution norms and the developer's commit bugginess are associated with an increase on commit bugginess. On the other hand, project's establishment, ownership level of developers' commit, and social influence are related to a lower chance of introducing bugs.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

On the Use of Grey Literature: A Survey with the Brazilian Software Engineering Research Community

Background: The use of Grey Literature (GL) has been investigate in diverse research areas. In Software Engineering (SE), this topic has an increasing interest over the last years. Problem: Even with the increase of GL published in diverse sources, the understanding of their use on the SE research community is still controversial. Objective: To understand how Brazilian SE researchers use GL, we aimed to become aware of the criteria to assess the credibility of their use, as well as the benefits and challenges. Method: We surveyed 76 active SE researchers participants of a flagship SE conference in Brazil, using a questionnaire with 11 questions to share their views on the use of GL in the context of SE research. We followed a qualitative approach to analyze open questions. Results: We found that most surveyed researchers use GL mainly to understand new topics. Our work identified new findings, including: 1) GL sources used by SE researchers (e.g., blogs, community website); 2) motivations to use (e.g., to understand problems and to complement research findings) or reasons to avoid GL (e.g., lack of reliability, lack of scientific value); 3) the benefit that is easy to access and read GL and the challenge of GL to have its scientific value recognized; and 4) criteria to assess GL credibility, showing the importance of the content owner to be renowned (e.g., renowned author and institutions). Conclusions: Our findings contribute to form a body of knowledge on the use of GL by SE researchers, by discussing novel (some contradictory) results and providing a set of lessons learned to both SE researchers and practitioners.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access