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 Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Systematic literature reviews tentativelydescribe the state of the art in agiven research area. However, the continuous publication of new primary andsecondary studies following the release of a tertiary study can make thecommunication of results not integrally representative in regards to theadvances achieved by that time. Consequently, using such a study as a referencewithin specific bodies of knowledge may introduce imprecision, both in terms ofits subareas and with respect to new methodologies, languages, and tools. Thus,a review of tertiary studies (what could be understood as a quaternary study)could contribute to show the representativeness of the reported findings incomparison to the state of the art and also to compile a set of perceptionsthat could not be previously achieved. In that direction, the main contributionof this paper is presenting the findings from an analysis of 34 softwareengineering tertiary studies published between 2009 and 2021. The resultsindicate that over 60% of the studies demonstrate varying degrees ofanachronism due to the publication of primary and secondary studies followingthe publication of the tertiary study or even due to a time elapse between itsconduction and its publication.

Anachronic Tertiary Studies in Software Engineering: An Exploratory Quaternary Study