A systematic literature review of software engineering research on Jupyter notebook
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
• This research provides the first comprehensive systematic literature review on software engineering research specifically targeting Jupyter notebooks, identifying 199 primary studies published up to September 2025 and categorizing them into 11 core software engineering topics. • This research reveals that a large portion of the studies have been published outside traditional software engineering venues, with Human-Computer Interaction conferences like ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI) being the top publishing venues, highlighting the interdisciplinary nature of Jupyter Notebook research. • This research identifies a reusability gap in existing research, showing that only 82 out of 199 studies offer usable replication packages, and most are hosted on GitHub instead of permanent repositories, which violates open science best practices. • This research identifies that notebook-specific solutions for software engineering issues such as testing, refactoring, and documentation are relatively underexplored. Future directions include resolving duplicated execution numbers, refactoring inter-notebook clones, and generating grouped documentation for coherent-code cells are future directions derived from our study. • This research proposes the integration of modern AI-based solutions into Jupyter notebooks to support various software engineering topics, including code search and code generation. Additionally, future research should leverage advanced AI techniques (e.g., large language models), to improve conversational AI-powered assistants for automated code generation by multi-step workflow automation in data science notebooks. • Although the paper exceeds the recommended length due to the inclusion of detailed tables, figures, and categorized analyses (covering 11 topics and 21 subtopics), we believe that this extended content is essential for clearly and completely reporting our findings. As the first systematic literature review in this domain, we have carefully structured the paper to ensure readability. We believe the length is justified by the value and breadth of this paper’s contributions. Context : Jupyter Notebook has emerged as a versatile tool that transforms how researchers, developers, and data scientists conduct and communicate their work. As the adoption of Jupyter notebooks continues to rise, so does the interest from the software engineering research community in improving the software engineering practices for Jupyter notebooks. Objective : The purpose of this study is to analyze trends, gaps, and methodologies used in software engineering research on Jupyter notebooks. Method : We selected 199 relevant publications up to September 2025, following established systematic literature review guidelines. We explored publication trends, categorized them based on software engineering topics, and reported findings based on those topics. Results : The most popular venues for publishing software engineering research on Jupyter notebooks are related to human-computer interaction instead of traditional software engineering venues. Researchers have addressed a wide range of software engineering topics on notebooks, such as code reuse, readability, and execution environment. Although reusability is one of the research topics for Jupyter notebooks, only 82 of the 199 studies can be reused based on their provided URLs. Additionally, most replication packages are not hosted on permanent repositories for long-term availability and adherence to open science principles. Conclusion : Solutions specific to notebooks for software engineering issues, including testing, refactoring, and documentation, are underexplored. Future research opportunities exist in automatic testing frameworks, refactoring clones between notebooks, and generating group documentation for coherent code cells.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,021 | 0,123 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,029 | 0,026 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,007 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,010 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».