English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

For quite a long time research results in requirements engineering (RE) were developed without much interaction with, or impact on, practice. In 1993 Hsia et al. [2] made an honest evaluation of the requirements engineering practice. Since then, some improvements have been achieved, e.g., by some applications of usage scenarios. Nevertheless, mainstream practice is still to use one’s favourite word processor to write down mostly unstructured text in natural language, even though there exists some influential work and good experience with approaches that have used RE results in real projects (see, e.g., [1, 3]). In fact, mainstream practice deals only rudimentarily with requirements, and what is done might not even deserve to be called “engineering”.

Why Is It So Difficult to Introduce RE Research Results into Mainstream RE Practice?