Demo Data from SIGIR 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Ruth B. Schwartz
dblp:01/2907
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 1988
—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 |
Requirements engineering and software design · 67% Empirical software engineering · 33% |
Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Requirements engineering and software design › software design methodology
design methodology comparison |
0.0 | 1 | 1988 | User Validation of Information System Requirements: Some Empirical Results · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 1988 |
Empirical software engineering
developer studies |
0.0 | 1 | 1988 | User Validation of Information System Requirements: Some Empirical Results · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 1988 |
Requirements engineering and software design
requirements validation |
0.0 | 1 | 1988 | User Validation of Information System Requirements: Some Empirical Results · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 1988 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
controlled experiment · 0.0
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1988 | User Validation of Information System Requirements: Some Empirical ResultsabstractWhile validation of user requirements has become an important goal for information system designers, little empirical research has been done in this area. Many methodologies have been presented as the best procedures for achieving user validation of design. An attempt is made to consider four of these methodologies in four different experimental settings. In the four experiments, the following treatments were examined: HIPO (hierarchy plus input, process, and output) vs. system flowcharts; DFD (data-flow diagram) narrative; DFD vs. Warnier-Orr diagrams; and DFD vs. HIPO. The main result of all four experiments was that choice of design methodology had no effect on the level of user understanding of system requirements.> John T. Nosek, Ruth B. Schwartz |
IEEE Trans. Software Eng. | 2 |