Research artifacts in secondary studies: A systematic mapping in software engineering
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context: Systematic reviews (SRs) summarize state-of-the-art evidence in science, including software engineering (SE). Objective: Our objective is to evaluate how SRs report research artifacts and to provide a comprehensive list of these artifacts. Method: We examined 537 secondary studies published between 2013 and 2023 to analyze the availability and reporting of research artifacts. Results: Our findings indicate that only 31.5% of the reviewed studies include research artifacts. Encouragingly, the situation is gradually improving, as our regression analysis shows a significant increase in the availability of research artifacts over time. However, in 2023, just 62.0% of secondary studies provide a research artifact while an even lower percentage, 30.4% use a permanent repository with a digital object identifier (DOI) for storage. Conclusion: To enhance transparency and reproducibility in SE research, we advocate for the mandatory publication of research artifacts in secondary studies.
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 | 0.375 | 0.716 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.081 | 0.063 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".