Demo Data from VLDB 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Daniel P. Freedman
dblp:40/5244
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 1984
—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 |
Software maintenance and evolution · 77% Empirical software engineering · 23% |
Topics — the 2 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Software maintenance and evolution
software quality assurance |
0.0 | 1 | 1984 | Reviews, Walkthroughs, and Inspections · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 1984 |
Empirical software engineering
software project management |
0.0 | 1 | 1984 | Reviews, Walkthroughs, and Inspections · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 1984 |
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1984 | Reviews, Walkthroughs, and InspectionsabstractFormal technical reviews supply the quality measurement to the ``cost effectiveness'' equation in a project management system. There are several unique formal technical review procedures, each applicable to particular types of technical material and to the particular mix of the Review Committee. All formal technical reviews produce reports on the overall quality for project management, and specific technical information for the producers. These reports also serve as an historic account of the systems development process. Historic origins and future trends of formal and informal technical reviews are discussed. Gerald M. Weinberg, Daniel P. Freedman |
IEEE Trans. Software Eng. | 2 |