Towards Continuous Systematic Literature Review in Software Engineering
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context: New scientific evidence continuously arises with advances in Software Engineering (SE) research. Conventionally, Systematic Literature Reviews (SLRs) are not updated or updated intermittently, leaving gaps between updates, during which time the SLR may be missing crucial new evidence. Goal: We propose and evaluate a concept and process called Continuous Systematic Literature Review (CSLR) in SE. Method: To elaborate on the CSLR concept and process, we performed a synthesis of evidence by conducting a meta-ethnography, addressing knowledge from varied research areas. Furthermore, we conducted a case study to evaluate the CSLR process. Results: We describe the resulting CSLR process in BPMN format. The case study results provide indications on the importance and preliminary feasibility of applying CSLR in practice to continuously update SLR evidence in SE. Conclusion: The CSLR concept and process provide a feasible and systematic way to continuously incorporate new evidence into SLRs, supporting trustworthy and up-to-date evidence for SLRs in SE.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.783 | 0.838 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.042 | 0.028 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.033 | 0.052 |
| Open science | 0.012 | 0.036 |
| Research integrity | 0.019 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".