Results of the summarizing process for the arXiv paper: 2006.05542v1

The paper titled "Guidelines for the Search Strategy to Update Systematic Literature Reviews in Software Engineering" by Claes Wohlin, Emilia Mendes, Katia Romero Felizardo, and Marcos Kalinowski addresses the issue of outdated Systematic Literature Reviews (SLRs) in the field of Software Engineering (SE). SLRs have been widely used in SE to provide comprehensive summaries of evidence on various topics. However, many existing SLRs are not up-to-date and there is a lack of standard proposals on how to update them. The objective of this paper is to propose guidelines for effectively searching for new evidence when updating SLRs in SE. The authors compare and discuss different search strategies applied to identify primary studies in a published SLR, an SLR update, and two replications related to effort estimation. These guidelines are then evaluated using an SLR in the area of software ecosystems, its update, and a replication. The results suggest that using a single iteration forward snowballing approach with Google Scholar and employing the original SLR and its primary studies as a seed set is the most cost-effective method for searching new evidence during SLR updates. Additionally, the importance of involving multiple researchers in the selection process based on inclusion and exclusion criteria is emphasized. Based on their findings from an effort estimation SLR, its update, and two replications, the authors propose that these guidelines should be adopted for updating SLRs in SE. The guidelines were further supported when applied to an SLR in the area of software ecosystems along with its update and replication. Overall, this paper provides valuable insights into how to effectively search for evidence when updating SLRs in SE. By following these proposed guidelines researchers can ensure that their literature reviews remain up-to-date and provide meaningful summaries of evidence on various topics within Software Engineering.

• - The paper addresses the issue of outdated Systematic Literature Reviews (SLRs) in Software Engineering (SE)
• - SLRs are widely used in SE to provide comprehensive summaries of evidence on various topics
• - Existing SLRs are often not up-to-date and lack standard proposals on how to update them
• - The objective of the paper is to propose guidelines for effectively searching for new evidence when updating SLRs in SE
• - Different search strategies are compared and discussed, including forward snowballing with Google Scholar using the original SLR and its primary studies as a seed set
• - Involving multiple researchers in the selection process based on inclusion and exclusion criteria is emphasized
• - The guidelines were evaluated using an SLR in software ecosystems, its update, and a replication
• - Results suggest that the proposed guidelines are cost-effective and should be adopted for updating SLRs in SE
• - The guidelines were further supported when applied to an SLR in software ecosystems along with its update and replication
• - Following these guidelines ensures that literature reviews remain up-to-date and provide meaningful summaries of evidence on various topics within Software Engineering.

The paper talks about a problem with old summaries of research in computer programming. These summaries are called Systematic Literature Reviews (SLRs). SLRs are used to gather all the important information on different topics in computer programming. But many of the existing SLRs are not updated regularly and don't have clear instructions on how to update them. The paper suggests some guidelines for finding new information when updating SLRs. They compare different ways of searching for new information, like using Google Scholar and starting from the original SLR. They also say it's important to involve more than one researcher in choosing which information to include or exclude. The guidelines were tested with a summary of research on software ecosystems, and they found that they were helpful and not too expensive to use. Using these guidelines will make sure that the summaries stay up-to-date and give us useful information about computer programming." Definitions- Systematic Literature Reviews (SLRs): Comprehensive summaries of evidence on various topics in computer programming. - Software Engineering (SE): The field of study that deals with designing, developing, and maintaining software systems. - Guidelines: Instructions or rules to follow. - Evidence: Information or facts that support a claim or idea. - Replication: Repeating an experiment or study to see if the same results can be obtained again.

Guidelines for Updating Systematic Literature Reviews in Software Engineering

Software Engineering (SE) is a rapidly evolving field, and it is essential to keep up with the latest research. Systematic Literature Reviews (SLRs) are widely used to provide comprehensive summaries of evidence on various topics within SE. However, many existing SLRs become outdated quickly due to the rapid rate of change in this field. To address this issue, researchers Claes Wohlin, Emilia Mendes, Katia Romero Felizardo, and Marcos Kalinowski recently published a paper titled "Guidelines for the Search Strategy to Update Systematic Literature Reviews in Software Engineering". The objective of this paper was to propose guidelines for effectively searching for new evidence when updating SLRs in SE.

Comparing Different Search Strategies

The authors compared and discussed different search strategies applied to identify primary studies in a published SLR, an SLR update, and two replications related to effort estimation. These strategies included forward snowballing with Google Scholar as well as backward snowballing with Scopus and Web of Science databases. Additionally, they evaluated using only the original SLR and its primary studies as a seed set versus using both the original SLR and its update as seed sets when conducting forward snowballing searches.

Evaluating Guidelines

The results suggested that using a single iteration forward snowballing approach with Google Scholar while employing the original SLR and its primary studies as seed sets was the most cost-effective method for searching new evidence during an SLR update. Furthermore, involving multiple researchers in selecting relevant papers based on inclusion/exclusion criteria was also found to be important when updating literature reviews. The authors then applied these guidelines to an additional study involving an SLR focused on software ecosystems along with its update and replication; their findings were consistent across all three cases studied.

Conclusion

Overall, this paper provides valuable insights into how researchers can ensure that their literature reviews remain up-to-date by following proposed guidelines for effectively searching for new evidence when updating them in SE. By adhering to these proposed guidelines researchers can guarantee that their summaries of evidence on various topics within Software Engineering are accurate representations of current knowledge within this field