Demo Data from SIGIR 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Tobias Barth
dblp:25/4545
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2003
—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% Requirements engineering and software design · 23% |
Topics — the 1 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Software maintenance and evolution
software quality management |
0.0 | 1 | 2003 | Experiences on Defining and Evaluating an Adapted Review Process · ICSE 2003 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
empirical study · 0.0defect data analysis · 0.0
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2003 | Experiences on Defining and Evaluating an Adapted Review ProcessabstractThis paper presents our experiences with the introduction of a review process for software requirements documents in a development project of the Passenger Car Development business unit (PCD) of DaimlerChrylser AG. As software quality management and quality assurance must be carefully integrated into existing company processes or business cultures, we had to substantially adapt the review process to the specific needs of the above project and its context characteristics. The chief difference to the traditional procedure for conducting reviews as, for example, set out in [1] or [2] is that our review process has a strong workshop character with an emphasis on one of the most crucial success factors for reviews: sufficient time for the individual preparation of the reviewers. We also describe the phase of analyzing the effort and defect data captured with respect to cost benefit aspects and the quality of the reviewed documents in relation to each other. Thomas Gantner, Tobias Barth |
ICSE | 2 |