Advertisement

A Bibliographic Review of Software Metrics: Applying the Consolidated Meta-Analytic Approach

  • Ari Melo MarianoEmail author
  • Ana Carla Bittencourt Reis
  • Lucas dos Santos Althoff
  • Laís Bandeira Barros
Conference paper
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Mathematics & Statistics book series (PROMS, volume 280)

Abstract

This research aimed to provide an integrating model for the principle contributions of the scientific literature on software metrics with an impact on that field. Software metrics has emerged as a crucially important aspect of software development planning insofar as indicators representing development costs and the effort involved are essential for the formulation of new systems proposals and the analysis of the systems already in use inside organizations. To that end an exploratory, quantitative, bibliometric study was carried out using the Theory of the Consolidated Meta-analytic Approach. The study retrieved 658 relevant registrations from the Web of Science database for the period 2010–2018. The main contributions and most important approaches are presented together with an integrating model with three main classifications (a) Metrics for Quality in Cloud (40.93%), (b) Software Metrics as Technique (29.30%), and (c) Current Uses of Software metrics (29.77%). In addition the taxonomy of the most cited articles was established and comparisons were made with the results from multi-language databases like Scopus and Google scholar.

Keywords

Software metrics Theory of the consolidated meta-analytic approach Categorization Integrating model 

References

  1. 1.
    Voulgaropoulou, S., Spanos, G.: Analyzing measurements of the R statistical open source software (2012). ieeexplore.ieee.org
  2. 2.
    Kitchenham, B.: What’s up with software metrics?—a preliminary mapping study. J. Syst. Softw. 83(1), 37–51 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Melo, A., Br, M.A.: Revisão da Literatura: Apresentação de uma Abordagem Integradora. In: AEDEM International Conference, pp. 427–443 (2017)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pritchard, A.: Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics. researchgate.net
  5. 5.
    Gurzki, H., Woisetschläger, D.M.: Mapping the luxury research landscape: a bibliometric citation analysis. J. Bus. Res. 77, 147–166 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zupic, I. Čater, T.: Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organ. Res. Methods 18(3), 429–472 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mariano, A.M., García, R., Arenas-Gaitan, J.: Meta analysis as a tool of research: a systematic review of bibliography applied study of international strategic alliances. An. ADMPG, no. August (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Butler, S., Wermelinger, M., Yu, Y., Sharp, H.: Exploring the influence of identifier names on code quality: an empirical study. In: 2010 14th European Conference on Software Maintenance and Reengineering, pp. 156–165 (2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Staron, M.: Critical role of measures in decision processes: managerial and technical measures in the context of large software development organizations. Inf. Softw. Technol. 54(8), 887–899 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mordal, K., Anquetil, N., Laval, J., Serebrenik, A., Vasilescu, B., Ducasse, S.: Software quality metrics aggregation in industry. J. Softw. Evol. Process 25(10), 1117–1135 (2013)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Shin, Y., Meneely, A., Williams, L., Osborne, J.A.: Evaluating complexity, code churn, and developer activity metrics as indicators of software vulnerabilities. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 37(6), 772–787 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Van Eck, N.J., Waltman, L.: VOSviewer Manual. 1 January 2013, no. January, 1–28 (2013)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yadav, H.B., Yadav, D.K.: Early software reliability analysis using reliability relevant software metrics. Int. J. Syst. Assur. Eng. Manag. 8(S4), 2097–2108 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wallace, L.G., Sheetz, S.D.: The adoption of software measures: a technology acceptance model (TAM) perspective. Inf. Manag. 51(2), 249–259 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Okutan, A., Yıldız, O.T.: Software defect prediction using Bayesian networks. Empir. Softw. Eng. 19(1), 154–181 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Abdellatief, M., Sultan, A.B.M., Ghani, A.A.A., Jabar, M.A.: A mapping study to investigate component-based software system metrics. J. Syst. Softw. 86(3), 587–603 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    He, P., Li, B., Liu, X., Chen, J., Ma, Y.: An empirical study on software defect prediction with a simplified metric set. Inf. Softw. Technol. 59, 170–190 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Harzing, A.-W., Alakangas, S.: Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: a longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison. Scientometrics 106(2), 87–804 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Radjenović, D., Heričko, M., Torkar, R., Živkovič, A.: Software fault prediction metrics: a systematic literature review. Inf. Softw. Technol. 55(8), 1397–1418 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Halstead, M.H.: Elements of Software Science, vol. 7. Elsevier, New York (1977)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Singh, Y., Kaur, A., Malhotra, R.: Empirical validation of object-oriented metrics for predicting fault proneness models. Softw. Qual. J. 18(1), 3–35 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ferreira, K.A.M., Bigonha, M.A.S., Bigonha, R.S., Mendes, L.F.O., Almeida, H.C.: Identifying thresholds for object-oriented software metrics. J. Syst. Softw. 85(2), 244–257 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    McCabe, T.J.: A complexity measure. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. SE-2, 308–320 (1976)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Chidamber, S.R., Kemerer, C.F.: A metrics suite for object oriented design. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 20(6), 476–493 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Basili, V.R., Briand, L.C., Melo, W.L.: A validation of object-oriented design metrics as quality indicators. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 22(10), 751–761 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Madeyski, L., Jureczko, M.: Which process metrics can significantly improve defect prediction models? An empirical study. Softw Qual. J. 23(3), 393–422 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Menzies, T. et al.: Local versus global lessons for defect prediction and effort estimation. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 39(6), 822–834 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Projeto MAP, Department of Production Engineering, Faculty of TechnologyUniversity of BrasíliaBrasíliaBrazil

Personalised recommendations