@article {43103,
	title = {Determining a core view of research quality in empirical software engineering},
	journal = {Computer Standards \& Interfaces},
	volume = {84},
	year = {2023},
	publisher = {Elsevier},
	abstract = {Context:Research quality is intended to appraise the design and reporting of studies. It comprises a set of standards such as methodological rigor, practical relevance, and conformance to ethical standards. Depending on the perspective, different views of importance are given to the standards for research quality.Objective:To investigate the suitability of a conceptual model of research quality to Software Engineering (SE), from the perspective of researchers engaged in Empirical Software Engineering (ESE) research, in order to understand the core value of research quality.Method:We conducted a mixed-methods approach with two distinct group perspectives: (i) a research group; and (ii) the empirical SE research community. Our\&nbsp;data collection approach\&nbsp;comprised a questionnaire survey and a complementary focus group. We carried out a hierarchical voting prioritization to collect relative values for importance of standards for research quality.Results:In the context of this research, {\textquoteleft}internally valid{\textquoteright}, {\textquoteleft}relevant research idea{\textquoteright}, and {\textquoteleft}applicable results{\textquoteright} are perceived as the core standards for research quality in empirical SE. The alignment at the research group level was higher compared to that at the community level.Conclusion:The conceptual model was seen to express fairly the standards for research quality in the SE context. It presented limitations regarding its structure and components{\textquoteright} description, which resulted in an updated model.},
	author = {Jefferson Seide {Moll{\'e}ri} and Mendes, Emilia and Petersen, Kai and Felderer, Michael}
}
@article {27678,
	title = {Determining a Core View of Research Quality in Empirical Software Engineering},
	journal = {Empirical Software Engineering},
	year = {2021},
	publisher = {Springer},
	abstract = {Context:\&nbsp;Research quality is intended to appraise the design and reporting of studies. It comprises a set of concepts such as methodological rigor, practical relevance, and conformance to ethical standards. Depending on the perspective, different views of importance are given to the conceptual dimensions of research quality.Objective:\&nbsp;We intend to assess the level of alignment between researchers with regard to a conceptual model of research quality. This includes aligning the definition of research quality and reasoning on the relative importance of quality characteristics.Method:\&nbsp;We conducted a mixed-methods approach with two distinct group perspectives: (i) a research group; and (ii) the empirical software engineering research community. Our data collection approach comprised a questionnaire survey and a complementary focus group. We carried out a hierarchical voting prioritization to collect relative values for importance.Results:\&nbsp;In the context of this research, {\textquoteleft}internally valid{\textquoteright}, {\textquoteleft}relevant research idea{\textquoteright}, and {\textquoteleft}applicable results{\textquoteright} are perceived as the core dimensions of quality. The alignment at the research group level was higher compared to that at the community level.Conclusion:\&nbsp;The interdisciplinary model of research quality was seen to express fairly the quality of research in the software engineering context. It presented limitations regarding its structure and components{\textquoteright} description, which resulted in an updated model.},
	author = {Jefferson Seide {Moll{\'e}ri} and Mendes, Emilia and Petersen, Kai and Felderer, Michael}
}
@article {28249,
	title = {Quantum Software: Model-driven or Search-driven? A Q-SE 2021 Workshop Report},
	journal = { ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes},
	volume = {46},
	year = {2021},
	pages = {23-25},
	publisher = {ACM},
	author = {Abreu, Rui and Ali, Shaukat and Yue, Tao and Felderer, Michael and Exman:, Iaakov}
}
@manual {DBLP:journals/corr/abs-2010-03525,
	title = {ACM SIGSOFT Empirical Standards},
	journal = {CoRR},
	volume = {abs/2010.03525},
	year = {2020},
	publisher = {ACM},
	abstract = {Empirical Standards are natural-language models of a scientific community{\textquoteright}s expectations for a specific kind of study (e.g. a questionnaire survey). The ACM SIGSOFT Paper and Peer Review Quality Initiative generated empirical standards for research methods commonly used in software engineering. These living documents, which should be continuously revised to reflect evolving consensus around research best practices, will improve research quality and make peer review more effective, reliable, transparent and fair.},
	url = {https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.03525},
	author = {Ralph, Paul and Baltes, Sebastian and Bianculli, Domenico and Dittrich, Yvonne and Felderer, Michael and Feldt, Robert and Filieri, Antonio and Carlo Alberto {Furia} and Graziotin, Daniel and He, Pinjia and Hoda, Rashina and Juristo, Natalia and Barbara A. {Kitchenham} and Robbes, Romain and M{\'e}ndez, Daniel and Jefferson Seide {Moll{\'e}ri} and Spinellis, Diomidis and Staron, Miroslaw and Stol, Klaas-Jan and Damian A. {Tamburri} and Torchiano, Marco and Treude, Christoph and Turhan, Burak and Vegas, Sira}
}
@article {26330,
	title = {Status Quo in Requirements Engineering: A Theory and a Global Family of Surveys},
	journal = {ACM Transactions of Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM)},
	volume = {28},
	number = {9},
	year = {2019},
	publisher = {ACM},
	abstract = {Requirements Engineering (RE) has established itself as a software engineering discipline during the past decades. While researchers have been investigating the RE discipline with a plethora of empirical studies, attempts to systematically derive an empirically-based theory in context of the RE discipline have just recently been started. However, such a theory is needed if we are to define and motivate guidance in performing high quality RE research and practice. We aim at providing an empirical and valid foundation for a theory of RE, which helps software engineers establish effective and efficient RE processes. We designed a survey instrument and theory that has now been replicated in 10 countries world-wide. We evaluate the propositions of the theory with bootstrapped confidence intervals and derive potential explanations for the propositions. We report on the underlying theory and the full results obtained from the replication studies with participants from 228 organisations. Our results represent a substantial step forward towards developing an empirically-based theory of RE giving insights into current practices with RE processes. The results reveal, for example, that there are no strong differences between organisations in different countries and regions, that interviews, facilitated meetings and prototyping are the most used elicitation techniques, that requirements are often documented textually, that traces between requirements and code or design documents is common, requirements specifications themselves are rarely changed and that requirements engineering (process) improvement endeavours are mostly intrinsically motivated. Our study establishes a theory that can be used as starting point for many further studies for more detailed investigations. Practitioners can use the results as theory-supported guidance on selecting suitable RE methods and techniques.},
	url = {https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.07951},
	author = {Wagner, Stefan and Daniel Mendez {Fernandez} and Felderer, Michael and Vetr{\'o}, Antonio and Kalinowski, Marcos and Wieringa, Roel and Pfahl, Dietmar and Conte, Tayana and Christiansson, Marie-Therese and Greer, Desmond and Lassenius, Casper and M{\"a}nnist{\"o}, Tomi and Nayebi, Maleknaz and Oivo, Markku and Penzenstadler, Birgit and Prikladnicki, Rafael and Ruhe, Guenther and Schekelmann, Andr{\'e} and Sen, Sagar and Sp{\'\i}nola, Rodrigo and Tuzcu, Ahmed and Jose Luis {de la Vara} and Winkler, Dietmar}
}
