arXiv ScienceSearch

arXiv subjects

Justus Bogner

Publications and source records attributed to Justus Bogner.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Empirical Software Engineering in Practice: Insights from Google

While it is fairly well known how empirical software engineering (ESE) is used in the academic world, we have limited knowledge of how ESE is practiced in industry. As part of our regular column on empirical software engineering (ACM SIGSOFT SEN-ESE), we want to dedicate a series of articles to interviewing ESE practitioners from various companies. Among other things, we want to understand how ESE processes are implemented in industry, e.g., different research methods, how practitioners decide on what to study, how research results are used within companies and beyond, and if they face recurrent impediments to using ESE methods in industrial contexts. In the first edition of "ESE in Practice", we are joined by Ciera Jaspan and Collin Green from the Developer Intelligence team at Google. This article is a faithful account of our conversation from August 13, 2026, which we edited for our column.

cs.SE

The State of Peer Review in Empirical Software Engineering: A Community Survey on Review Load, Quality, and GenAI Use

The scientific peer review system has been slowly deteriorating over the last years, and not just within empirical software engineering (ESE) research. Increased submission numbers, high workload, and the rise of generative AI use with all its associated issues have made many cracks in the system more visible. To get a better understanding of the current state of peer review in the ESE community, we conducted a questionnaire survey, which accumulated 120 responses. We report on (i) the perceived review load of community members, (ii) review quality perception as well as frequent challenges for and issues with reviews, (iii) the use of LLM-based tools in the reviewing process, and (iv) the community's suggestions for improving the peer review system. We hope that these community opinions can facilitate more evidence-based discussions about how people want to see the review system change for the better.

cs.SE