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/

Zendy Open

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Insights

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Context: Previously, the authors had developed and evaluated a framework to evaluate systematic review (SR) lifecycle tools. Goal: The goal of this study was to use the experiences of researchers in other domains to further evaluate and refine the evaluation framework. Method: The authors investigated the opinions of researchers with experience of systematic reviews in the healthcare and social sciences domains. They used semi-structured interviews to elicit their experiences of systematic reviews and SR support tools. Results: Study participants found broadly the same problems as software engineering (SE) researchers with the SR process. They agreed with the tool features included in the evaluation framework. Furthermore, although there were some differences, the majority of the importance assessments were very close. Conclusions: In the context of SRs, the experiences of researchers in other domains can be useful to software engineering researchers. The evaluation framework for SR lifecycle tools appeared quite robust.

Tool Features to Support Systematic Reviews in Software Engineering – A Cross Domain Study