Demo Data from SIGIR 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Derek Janni
dblp:144/4492
· 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
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 · 100% | |
| Network and information security
1 paper |
Systems and software security · 100% |
Topics — the 4 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Systems and software security
vulnerability discovery |
0.2 | 1 | 2014 | Identifying the characteristics of vulnerable code changes: an empirical study · SIGSOFT FSE 2014 |
Empirical software engineering
mining software repositories |
0.2 | 1 | 2014 | Identifying the characteristics of vulnerable code changes: an empirical study · SIGSOFT FSE 2014 |
Empirical software engineering › developer studies
developer experience |
0.1 | 1 | 2014 | Identifying the characteristics of vulnerable code changes: an empirical study · SIGSOFT FSE 2014 |
Empirical software engineering
developer studies |
0.1 | 1 | 2014 | Identifying the characteristics of vulnerable code changes: an empirical study · SIGSOFT FSE 2014 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
manual analysis · 0.4automated analysis · 0.4
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2014 | Identifying the characteristics of vulnerable code changes: an empirical studyabstractTo focus the efforts of security experts, the goals of this empirical study are to analyze which security vulnerabilities can be discovered by code review, identify characteristics of vulnerable code changes, and identify characteristics of developers likely to introduce vulnerabilities. Using a three-stage manual and automated process, we analyzed 267,046 code review requests from 10 open source projects and identified 413 Vulnerable Code Changes (VCC). Some key results include: (1) code review can identify common types of vulnerabilities; (2) while more experienced contributors authored the majority of the VCCs, the less experienced contributors' changes were 1.8 to 24 times more likely to be vulnerable; (3) the likelihood of a vulnerability increases with the number of lines changed, and (4) modified files are more likely to contain vulnerabilities than new files. Knowing which code changes are more prone to contain vulnerabilities may allow a security expert to concentrate on a smaller subset of submitted code changes. Moreover, we recommend that projects should: (a) create or adapt secure coding guidelines, (b) create a dedicated security review team, (c) ensure detailed comments during review to help knowledge dissemination, and (d) encourage developers to make small, incremental changes rather than large changes. Amiangshu Bosu, Jeffrey C. Carver, Munawar Hafiz, Patrick Hilley, Derek Janni |
SIGSOFT FSE | 5 |