Paper detail

Automatic Detection and Analysis of Technical Debts in Peer-Review Documentation of R Packages

Technical debt (TD) is a metaphor for code-related problems that arise as a result of prioritizing speedy delivery over perfect code. Given that the reduction of TDs can have long-term positive impact in the software engineering life-cycle (SDLC), TDs are studied extensively in the literature. However, very few of the existing research focused on the technical debts of R programming language despite its popularity and usage. Recent research by Codabux et al. [21] finds that R packages can have 10 diverse TD types analyzing peer-review documentation. However, the findings are based on the manual analysis of a small sample of R package review comments. In this paper, we develop a suite of Machine Learning (ML) classifiers to detect the 10 TDs automatically. The best performing classifier is based on the deep ML model BERT, which achieves F1-scores of 0.71 - 0.91. We then apply the trained BERT models on all available peer-review issue comments from two platforms, rOpenSci and BioConductor (13.5K review comments coming from a total of 1297 R packages). We conduct an empirical study on the prevalence and evolution of 10 TDs in the two R platforms. We discovered documentation debt is the most prevalent among all types of TD, and it is also expanding rapidly. We also find that R packages of generic platform (i.e. rOpenSci) are more prone to TD compared to domain-specific platform (i.e. BioConductor). Our empirical study findings can guide future improvements opportunities in R package documentation. Our ML models can be used to automatically monitor the prevalence and evolution of TDs in R package documentation.

preprint2022arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

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

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.