Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
10.1145/3530019.3530026acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageseaseConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Open access

Peer-Reviewing and Submission Dynamics Around Top Software-Engineering Venues: A Juniors’ Perspective

Published: 13 June 2022 Publication History
  • Get Citation Alerts
  • Abstract

    Academic research, by its nature, is notorious for being a challenging and demanding field. However, these challenges may become more complicated for certain groups of researchers rather than others. For instance, junior researchers who make up a large group of the current scientific community, particularly in the computer science domain, may face various types of impediments. A notable hindrance to realizing the impediments is the difficulty of precisely delineating them. In this paper, we report an empirical investigation to measure the level of awareness of any kind of obstacles that might hinder junior researchers’ publishing ability and disturb their involvement. For this purpose, we conducted a survey targeting active researchers from the Software Engineering field with a total of 52 respondents. We mainly focus on two types of aspects: peer reviewing models and collaboration. Our findings indicate that junior researchers seem to be more comfortable with double-blind reviewing models with more than half (approximately 67.2%) of them voting in favor of this model. The results also show a significant agreement that a lack of experience especially in academic writing and supervision problems constitute the most influential barriers to publishing. Our findings can help understand the needs of junior researchers and provide insights into our research community and its specific groups.

    References

    [1]
    Rand Alchokr, Jacob Krüger, Yusra Shakeel, Gunter Saake, and Thomas Leich. 2021. Understanding the Contributions of Junior Researchers at Software-Engineering Conferences. In Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (JCDL). IEEE.
    [2]
    Rand Alchokr, Jacob Krüger, Yusra Shakeel, Gunter Saake, and Thomas Leich. 2022. On Academic Age Aspect and Discovering the Golden Age in Software Engineering. In International Conference on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering (CHASE). ACM.
    [3]
    Alberto Bacchelli and Moritz Beller. 2017. Double-Blind Review in Software Engineering Venues: The Community’s Perspective. In International Conference on Software Engineering Companion (ICSE-C). IEEE.
    [4]
    John A. Bargh and Erin L. Williams. 2006. The Automaticity of Social Life. Current Directions in Psychological Science 15, 1 (2006).
    [5]
    Amber E. Budden, Tom Tregenza, Lonnie W. Aarssen, Julia Koricheva, Roosa Leimu, and Christopher J. Lortie. 2008. Double-Blind Review Favours Increased Representation of Female Authors. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 23, 1 (2008).
    [6]
    Shelly Chaiken and Yaacov Trope. 1999. Dual-Process Theories in Social Psychology. Guilford.
    [7]
    Justine Fam and Jessica C. Lee. 2019. Peer Mentoring: A Move Towards Addressing Inequality Between PhD Students. Neuroanatomy and Behaviour 1, 1 (2019).
    [8]
    Vahid Garousi and João M. Fernandes. 2016. Highly-Cited Papers in Software Engineering: The Top-100. Information and Software Technology 71 (2016).
    [9]
    Katjuša Gorela and Roberto Biloslavo. 2017. Organizational Culture and Behavior: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications. IGI Global, Chapter Relationship Between Senior and Junior Researcher: Challenges and Opportunities for Knowledge Creating and Sharing.
    [10]
    Hugo Horta and João M. Santos. 2016. An Instrument to Measure Individuals’ Research Agenda Setting: The Multi-Dimensional Research Agendas Inventory. Scientometrics 108, 3 (2016).
    [11]
    Ralph Katz. 1982. The Effects of Group Longevity on Project Communication and Performance. Administrative Science Quarterly(1982).
    [12]
    Carole J. Lee, Cassidy R. Sugimoto, Guo Zhang, and Blaise Cronin. 2012. Bias in Peer Review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 64, 1 (2012).
    [13]
    Weihua Li, Tomaso Aste, Fabio Caccioli, and Giacomo Livan. 2019. Early Coauthorship with Top Scientists Predicts Success in Academic Careers. Nature Communications 10(2019).
    [14]
    Johan Linåker, Sardar M. Sulaman, Rafael M. de Mello, and Martin Höst. 2015. Guidelines for Conducting Surveys in Software Engineering. Technical Report. Lund University.
    [15]
    Samuel Madden and David DeWitt. 2006. Impact of Double-Blind Reviewing on SIGMOD Publication Rates. ACM SIGMOD Record 35, 2 (2006).
    [16]
    Douglas P. Peters and Stephen J. Ceci. 1982. Peer-Review Practices of Psychological Journals: The Fate of Published Articles, Submitted Again. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5, 2 (1982).
    [17]
    Alexander M. Petersen, Santo Fortunato, Raj K. Pan, Kimmo Kaski, Orion Penner, Armando Rungi, Massimo Riccaboni, H. Eugene Stanley, and Fabio Pammolli. 2014. Reputation and Impact in Academic Careers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111, 43(2014).
    [18]
    Mona Pfeiffer, Martin Fischer, and Daniel Bauer. 2016. Publication Activities of German Junior Researchers in Academic Medicine: Which Factors Impact Impact Factors?BMC Medical Education 16(2016).
    [19]
    Lutz Prechelt, Daniel Graziotin, and Daniel Méndez Fernández. 2018. A community’s perspective on the status and future of peer review in software engineering. Information and Software Technology 95 (2018), 75–85.
    [20]
    Lutz Prechelt, Daniel Graziotin, and Daniel Mendez. 2020. Double-Blind is Good but Open Would Be Better: Perceptions of Peer Review in the SE Community. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes 45, 3 (2020).
    [21]
    Mengjiao Qi, An Zeng, Menghui Li, Ying Fan, and Zengru Di. 2017. Standing on the Shoulders of Giants: The Effect of Outstanding Scientists on Young Collaborators’ Careers. Scientometrics 111, 3 (2017).
    [22]
    Kristoffer Rørstad and Dag W. Aksnes. 2015. Publication Rate Expressed by Age, Gender and Academic Position - A Large-Scale Analysis of Norwegian Academic Staff. Journal of Informetrics 9, 2 (2015).
    [23]
    Richard Snodgrass. 2006. Single- Versus Double-blind Reviewing: An Analysis of the Literature. ACM SIGMOD Record 35, 3 (2006).
    [24]
    Iman Tahamtan, Askar Safipour Afshar, and Khadijeh Ahamdzadeh. 2016. Factors Affecting Number of Citations: A Comprehensive Review of the Literature. Scientometrics 107, 3 (2016).
    [25]
    Damian A. Tamburri and Giuliano Casale. 2019. Cognitive Distance and Research Output in Computing Education: A Case-Study. IEEE Transactions on Education 62, 2 (2019).
    [26]
    Anthony K. H. Tung. 2006. Impact of Double Blind Reviewing on SIGMOD Publication: A More Detail Analysis. ACM SIGMOD Record 35, 3 (2006).
    [27]
    Jan van der Boon, Stefanie Kahmen, Katrien Maes, and Cathelijn Waaijer. 2018. Delivering Talent: Careers of Researchers Inside and Outside Academia. Technical Report. The League of European Research Universities.
    [28]
    Claes Wohlin, Per Runeson, Martin Höst, Magnus C. Ohlsson, Björn Regnell, and Anders Wesslén. 2012. Experimentation in Software Engineering. Springer.

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2023)An Empirical Analysis of Newcomers’ Contributions to Software-Engineering ConferencesLeveraging Generative Intelligence in Digital Libraries: Towards Human-Machine Collaboration10.1007/978-981-99-8085-7_21(231-247)Online publication date: 4-Dec-2023

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image ACM Other conferences
    EASE '22: Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering
    June 2022
    466 pages
    ISBN:9781450396134
    DOI:10.1145/3530019
    This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution International 4.0 License.

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    Published: 13 June 2022

    Check for updates

    Author Tags

    1. bias
    2. challenges
    3. collaboration
    4. juniors
    5. peer review

    Qualifiers

    • Research-article
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

    Conference

    EASE 2022

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate 71 of 232 submissions, 31%

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)79
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)6

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2023)An Empirical Analysis of Newcomers’ Contributions to Software-Engineering ConferencesLeveraging Generative Intelligence in Digital Libraries: Towards Human-Machine Collaboration10.1007/978-981-99-8085-7_21(231-247)Online publication date: 4-Dec-2023

    View Options

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    HTML Format

    View this article in HTML Format.

    HTML Format

    Get Access

    Login options

    Media

    Figures

    Other

    Tables

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media