Publication Type. More Filters. View 1 excerpt, cites methods. Research Feed. A categorization scheme for software engineering conference papers and its application. View 1 excerpt, cites background. View 2 excerpts, cites background. Bad Smells in Software Analytics Papers.
Management of quality requirements in agile and rapid software development: A systematic mapping study. View 3 excerpts, cites methods. Bad Smells in So ware Analytics Papers. The who, what, how of software engineering research: a socio-technical framework. View 3 excerpts, cites methods and background. Writing good software engineering research papers.
View 1 excerpt, references background. Writing good software engineering research papers: minitutorial. Related Papers. Also fairly common are papers Newman's critical comparison of HCI and traditional about methods for reasoning about software systems, engineering papers  found that the engineering papers principally analysis of correctness testing and were mostly incremental improved model, improved verification.
Analysis papers have a modest acceptance technique , whereas many of the HCI papers broke new edge in this very selective conference. For each type of research question, Figures 1 and 2 show these counts and distributions. Table 2. Counts of acceptances and rejections Figure 2. Distribution of acceptances and rejections by type of research question by type of research question 2. You'll devote most of your paper to describing or results about particular systems.
Table 3 lists the types your result, but you should begin by explaining what of research results that are reported in software engineer- question you're answering and why the answer matters. If the program committee has trouble figuring out whether you developed a new evaluation technique and 3. Tools and notations were well 3. What is your new result? Table 4 gives the distribu- Explain precisely what you have contributed to the tion of submissions to ICSE , based on reading the store of software engineering knowledge and how this is abstracts but not the papers , followed by graphs of the useful beyond your own project.
Table 3. Table 4. Counts of acceptances and rejections Figure 4. If that idea is increased papers because 50 papers included a supporting result, confidence in the tool or technique, show how your usually a tool or a qualitative model. In most cases, this provides too little space to allow full development of more than one The program committee wants to know what is novel idea, perhaps with one or two supporting ideas.
Many or exciting, and why. What, specifically, is the authors present the individual ideas in conference papers, contribution? What is the increment over earlier work by and then synthesize them in a journal article that allows the same authors? Is this a sufficient space to develop more complex relations among results. Above all, the program committee also wants to know 3.
Sure, you wrote this tool and exciting results that significantly enhance our ability to tried it out. Be sure to explain program committee to guess. Use them consistently. Here are some examples, with advice for the standard detector. If it does, explain what part of it is distributed and "Try not.
Do, or do not. There is no try. What has been done before? What existing technology does your research build on? What practical software project, be sure that you explain alternatives have other researchers pursued, and how is what idea the reader can take away from the paper to your work different or better? As in other areas of science and engineering, software If your contribution is principally the synthesis or engineering knowledge grows incrementally.
Program integration of other results or components, be clear about committees are very interested in your interpretation of why the synthesis is itself a contribution. What is novel, prior work in the area. They want to know how your work exciting, or nonobvious about the integration? Did you is related to the prior work, either by building on it or by generalize prior results? Did you find a better providing an alternative. A added to our store of knowledge. There whether you know about related work.
Are your galumphing. An anecdotal report on blitzing, whereas Jones  took a a single project is usually not enough. Also, if your report flitzing approach. And if you changed the but only for pointer-free cases . Can a reader apply the idea without the tool?
If a system implementation plays a featured role in What, precisely, is the result? Is the Explain what your result is and how it works. Be system sound? Does it do what you claim it does? What concrete and specific. Use examples. If you introduce a new model, be clear about its power. Is it based on empirical data, on a design strategy, what does it reveal about the formal semantics, on mathematical principles? How architecture? What was the design rationale? What formal is it—a qualitative model that provides design were the design tradeoffs?
What can the reader apply guidance may be as valuable as a mathematical model of to a different implementation? Will the model scale up to implementation technique, how does it help the problems of size appropriate to its domain? If you introduce a new metric, define it precisely. Does it, for example, pattern, or similar design element, treat it as if it were a show you can do something that no one has done new generalization or model. How does it differ from the before especially if people doubted that this could alternatives?
In what way is it better? What real problem be done? Does it scale? Why should the reader believe your result? As an obvious example, a formal model should be Show evidence that your result is valid—that it actually supported by rigorous derivation and proof, not by one or helps to solve the problem you set out to solve.
On the other hand, a simple example derived from a practical system may play a major 4. What kinds of validation do software role in validating a new type of development method. Table 5 lists the types of research validation that are used Software engineers offer several kinds of evidence in in software engineering research papers and provides support of their research results. It is essential to select a specific examples.
In this table, the examples are keyed to form of validation that is appropriate for the type of the type of result they apply to. Table 5. Types of software engineering research validation Type of validation Examples Analysis I have analyzed my result and find it satisfactory through rigorous analysis, e. Toy or textbook examples often fail to provide persuasive validation, except for standard examples used as model problems by the field.
Persuasion I thought hard about this, and I believe passionately that For a technique … if you do it the following way, then … For a system … a system constructed like this would … For a model … this example shows how my idea works Validation purely by persuasion is rarely sufficient for a research paper.
Note, though, that if the original question was about feasibility, a working system, even without analysis, can suffice Blatant assertion No serious attempt to evaluate result. This is highly unlikely to be acceptable The most successful kinds of validation were based on 4. Persuasion was not persuasive, and give no indication of how the paper's results are validated, narrative evaluation was only slightly more successful. Even when the abstract mentions that the result Table 6 gives the distribution of submissions to ICSE was applied to an example, it was not always clear , based on reading the abstracts but not the papers , whether the example was a textbook example, or a report followed by graphs of the counts and distributions.
Figures 5 and 6 show these counts and distributions. Table 6. Counts of acceptances and rejections Figure 6. Distribution of acceptances and rejections by type of validation by type of validation Is the validation related to the claim? If you're claiming 4. And support your result. It's not enough that your idea works conversely. Here are some examples, with advice for result should be believed.
Careful narrative, qualitative staying out of trouble: analysis can also work if the reasoning is sound. Is the paper argued persuasively? What kind of evidence is that analysis technique. If the technique is not a offered? Does it meet the usual standard of the common one in software engineering e. If at all themselves. What is the hypothesis? What is of their theses, I offer the following heuristic: Look the treatment?
What is being controlled? What data carefully at the short statement of the result—the principal did you collect, and how did you analyze it? Are the claim of the thesis. This often has two or three clauses results significant?
What are the potentially e. Do each presents a separate validation problem. Ask of each the conclusions follow rigorously from the clause whether it is a global statement "always", "fully" , experimental data? Global statements often require concluded. What data did you collect, and how?
How analytic validation, qualified statements can often be is the analysis related to the goal of supporting your validated by evaluation or careful examination of claim about the result? Do not confuse correlation experience, and existential statements can sometimes be with causality.
If we have this discussion early enough in the thesis process, students think about planning the research with 5. How do you combine the elements into a demonstrable claims in mind. Concretely, Table 7 shows the combinations that were represented among the accepted papers at ICSE , It is clear that not all combinations of a research omitting the 7 for which the abstracts were unclear about question, a result, and a validation strategy lead to good validation: research.
Software engineering has not developed good Table 7. Paradigms of ICSE acceptances general guidance on this question. Question Result Validation Tables 1, 3, and 5 define a 3-dimensional space.