Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Søren S. Sander

dblp:144/5449 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Design research and methods
research methodology
0.212014
Is once enough?: on the extent and content of replications in human-computer interaction · CHI 2014
Empirical software engineering › reproducibility
replication study
0.212014
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
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2014 Is once enough?: on the extent and content of replications in human-computer interaction
abstract
A 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
CHI2