VLDB 2026 Research / reviewers in the wild / expert
Christopher Chockley
dblp:193/0667
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2017
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 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.
| Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper |
Empirical software engineering · 75% Software maintenance and evolution · 25% | |
| Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
1 paper |
Collaborative and social computing · 100% |
Topics — the 4 heaviest of 5, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Software maintenance and evolution › code review
code review practices |
0.3 | 1 | 2017 | Process Aspects and Social Dynamics of Contemporary Code Review: Insights from Open Source Development and Industrial Practice at Microsoft · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2017 |
Empirical software engineering
developer studies |
0.3 | 1 | 2017 | Process Aspects and Social Dynamics of Contemporary Code Review: Insights from Open Source Development and Industrial Practice at Microsoft · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2017 |
Empirical software engineering
mining software repositories |
0.3 | 1 | 2017 | Process Aspects and Social Dynamics of Contemporary Code Review: Insights from Open Source Development and Industrial Practice at Microsoft · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2017 |
Empirical software engineering › open source software
open source software development |
0.3 | 1 | 2017 | Process Aspects and Social Dynamics of Contemporary Code Review: Insights from Open Source Development and Industrial Practice at Microsoft · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2017 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
survey · 0.6
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2017 | Process Aspects and Social Dynamics of Contemporary Code Review: Insights from Open Source Development and Industrial Practice at MicrosoftabstractMany open source and commercial developers practice contemporary code review, a lightweight, informal, tool-based code review process. To better understand this process and its benefits, we gathered information about code review practices via surveys of open source software developers and developers from Microsoft. The results of our analysis suggest that developers spend approximately 10-15 percent of their time in code reviews, with the amount of effort increasing with experience. Developers consider code review important, stating that in addition to finding defects, code reviews offer other benefits, including knowledge sharing, community building, and maintaining code quality. The quality of the code submitted for review helps reviewers form impressions about their teammates, which can influence future collaborations. We found a large amount of similarity between the Microsoft and OSS respondents. One interesting difference is that while OSS respondents view code review as an important method of impression formation, Microsoft respondents found knowledge dissemination to be more important. Finally, we found little difference between distributed and co-located Microsoft teams. Our findings identify the following key areas that warrant focused research: 1) exploring the non-technical benefits of code reviews, 2) helping developers in articulating review comments, and 3) assisting reviewers' program comprehension during code reviews. Amiangshu Bosu, Jeffrey C. Carver, Christian Bird, Jonathan D. Orbeck, Christopher Chockley |
IEEE Trans. Software Eng. | 5 |