Are You a Real Software Engineer? Best Practices in Online Recruitment for Software Engineering Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Online research platforms, such as Prolific, offer rapid access to diverse participant pools but also pose unique challenges in participant qualification and skill verification. Previous studies reported mixed outcomes and challenges in leveraging online platforms for the recruitment of qualified software engineers. Drawing from our experience in conducting three different studies using Prolific, we propose best practices for recruiting and screening participants to enhance the quality and relevance of both qualitative and quantitative software engineering (SE) research samples. We propose refined best practices for recruitment in SE research on Prolific. (1) Iterative and controlled prescreening, enabling focused and manageable assessment of submissions (2) task-oriented and targeted questions that assess technical skills, knowledge of basic SE concepts, and professional engagement. (3) AI detection to verify the authenticity of free-text responses. (4) Qualitative and manual assessment of responses, ensuring authenticity and relevance in participant answers (5) Additional layers of prescreening are necessary when necessary to collect data relevant to the topic of the study. (6) Fair or generous compensation post-qualification to incentivize genuine participation. By sharing our experiences and lessons learned, we contribute to the development of effective and rigorous methods for SE empirical research. particularly the ongoing effort to establish guidelines to ensure reliable data collection. These practices have the potential to transferability to other participant recruitment platforms.
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 | 0.395 | 0.367 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.010 |
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".