Demo Data from VLDB 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Søren S. Sander
dblp:144/5449
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2014
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 1
Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.
| Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
1 paper |
Design research and methods · 100% | |
| Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper |
Empirical software engineering · 100% | |
| Interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and emerging computing
1 paper |
Computing education · 100% |
Topics — the 2 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Design research and methods
research methodology |
0.2 | 1 | 2014 | Is once enough?: on the extent and content of replications in human-computer interaction · CHI 2014 |
Empirical software engineering › reproducibility
replication study |
0.2 | 1 | 2014 | Is once enough?: on the extent and content of replications in human-computer interaction · CHI 2014 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
survey · 0.6publication analysis · 0.6
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2014 | Is once enough?: on the extent and content of replications in human-computer interactionabstractA replication is an attempt to confirm an earlier study's findings. It is often claimed that research in Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) contains too few replications. To investigate this claim we examined four publication outlets (891 papers) and found 3% attempting replication of an earlier result. The replications typically confirmed earlier findings, but treated replication as a confirm/not-confirm decision, rarely analyzing effect sizes or comparing in depth to the replicated paper. When asked, most authors agreed that their studies were replications, but rarely planned them as such. Many non-replication studies could have corroborated earlier work if they had analyzed data differently or used minimal effort to collect extra data. We discuss what these results mean to HCI, including how reporting of studies could be improved and how conferences/journals may change author instructions to get more replications. Kasper Hornbæk, Søren S. Sander, Javier A. Bargas-Avila, Jakob Grue Simonsen |
CHI | 2 |