skip to main content
10.1145/3629479.3629493acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessbqsConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Twenty one years of SBQS (2002 to 2022): A Comprehensive Descriptive and Meta-Scientific Analysis

Published:06 December 2023Publication History

ABSTRACT

As the largest scientific conference in Brazil devoted to software quality, the Brazilian Software Quality Symposium (SBQS) groups and pioneers these area in the country, Brazilian institutions and scholars have advanced software quality since 2002. The goal of meta-research is to investigate, promote, and uphold the integrity of rigorous scientific procedures, comprehending a meta-scientific social and cultural complexity through a diverse and prolific community and scientific activity. We present an analytical-descriptive overview of different SBQS aspects covering all editions, 2002 – 2022, based on data from its publications and derivatives, such as more prolific authorship, institutional collaborations, gender distribution, and abstract analysis. Additionally, we calculate and analyze social network metrics, generating collaboration graphs. SBQS features a connected and involved community, female presences in high production and collaboration positions; there was a predominance of Brazilian Portuguese as the main language until 2017, being surpassed by English in the following years. UFRJ stands out in production and authorship, isolated at the top; in terms of collaboration, UFRJ, UFAM, UNIRIO stand out. SBQS authorship are concentrated mainly in the Southeast region of Brazil. The analysis of the abstracts and keywords shows consistency and cohesion between the primary elements of the event and the publications.

References

  1. Joseph Agassi. 2008. Science and its History: A Reassessment of the Historiography of Science (1st ed.). Springer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Adriano Bessa Albuquerque and Ana Regina C. Da Rocha. 2021. Characterization of Brazilian Software Startups Focusing on Processes, Product Quality and IT Governance. In Proceedings of the XIX SBQS (São Luís, Brazil) (SBQS ’20). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 38, 6 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3439961.3439999Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Ruth Alvarado, Lizeth Delgado, and Abraham Dávila. 2012. Mapeo y evaluación de la cobertura de los procesos de MPS.Br a los procesos de la categoría de Operación de MoProSoft. In Anais do XI SBQS (Fortaleza). SBC, Porto Alegre, RS, Brasil, 158–172. https://doi.org/10.5753/sbqs.2012.15314Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. ANPEd. 2019. Ética e pesquisa em Educação: subsídios – volume 1. Vol. 1. ANPEd, Rio de Janeiro, RJ.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. E. Babbie. 2021. The Practice of Social Research. Cengage Learning, Boston, MA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. A.L Barabási, H Jeong, Z Néda, E Ravasz, A Schubert, and T Vicsek. 2002. Evolution of the social network of scientific collaborations. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 311, 3 (2002), 590–614. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-4371(02)00736-7Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Clara Berenguer, Adriano Borges, Sávio Freire, Nicolli Rios, Nebojsa Tausan, Robert Ramac, Boris Pérez, Camilo Castellanos, Darío Correal, Alexia Pacheco, Gustavo López, Davide Falessi, Carolyn Seaman, Vladimir Mandic, Clemente Izurieta, and Rodrigo Spínola. 2021. Technical Debt is Not Only about Code and We Need to Be Aware about It. In Proceedings of the XX SBQS (Virtual Event, Brazil) (SBQS ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 14, 12 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3493244.3493285Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Jaap Bos. 2020. Research Ethics for Students in the Social Sciences (1st ed.). Springer Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48415-6Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Michele A Brandão and Mirella M Moro. 2017. Social professional networks: A survey and taxonomy. Computer Communications 100 (2017), 20–31.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Brasil. 2016. Ministério da Saúde. RESOLUÇÃO Nº 510, DE 07 DE ABRIL DE 2016. Retrieved 29-may-2023 from https://4658.short.gy/CEP_2016Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Maiane Carianha and Crescencio Lima Neto. 2013. Uma Análise dos Últimos 5 anos do Simpósio Brasileiro de Qualidade de Software. In Anais do XII SBQS (Salvador). SBC, Porto Alegre, RS, Brasil, 153–164. https://doi.org/10.5753/sbqs.2013.15280Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Luiz Paulo Carvalho, Silas Lima Filho, Michele Brandão, Jonice Oliveira, Flávia Santoro, and Mônica Silva. 2023. Uma década de interações entre eventos e pesquisadores do CSBC: Um estudo meta-científico. In Anais do XII BraSNAM (João Pessoa/PB). SBC, Porto Alegre, RS, Brasil, 139–150. https://doi.org/10.5753/brasnam.2023.230632Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. L. P. Carvalho, J. A. Suzano, F. M. Santoro, and J. Oliveira. 2022. A meta-scientific broad panorama of ethical aspects in the Brazilian IHC. Journal on Interactive Systems 13, 1 (Aug. 2022), 105–126. https://doi.org/10.5753/jis.2022.2579Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Mehran Badin Dahesh, Gholamali Tabarsa, Mostafa Zandieh, and Mohammadreza Hamidizadeh. 2020. Reviewing the intellectual structure and evolution of the innovation systems approach: A social network analysis. Technology in Society 63 (2020), 101399.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Antônio dos Santos Jr., Vandermi da Silva, and Vicente Lucena Jr.2008. Desenvolvimento de um Processo de Software Aderente à ISO 9001:2000 Baseado no Processo Ágil Scrum. In Anais do VII SBQS (Florianópolis). SBC, Porto Alegre, RS, Brasil, 359–367. https://doi.org/10.5753/sbqs.2008.15556Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Silas Lima Filho, Luiz Paulo Carvalho, José Suzano, Michele Brandão, Jonice Oliveira, and Flávia Santoro. 2023. CSBCSet: Um conjunto de dados para uma década de CSBC, seus eventos e publicações. In Anais do XII BraSNAM (João Pessoa/PB). SBC, Porto Alegre, RS, Brasil, 240–245. https://doi.org/10.5753/brasnam.2023.230688Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. International Organization for Standardization. 2014. ISO/IEC 25000: 2014: Systems and software engineering — Systems and software Quality Requirements and Evaluation (SQuaRE) — Guide to SQuaRE. ISO/IEC.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Jeremy Freese and David Peterson. 2018. The emergence of statistical objectivity: Changing ideas of epistemic vice and virtue in science. Sociological theory 36, 3 (2018), 289–313.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Emmanuel Sávio Silva Freire, Daniela Medeiros Cedro, and Antonio de Barros Serra. 2018. An Analysis of Brazilian Symposium on Software Quality (SBQS): Retrospective, Relevance, and Trends in the Past 5 Years. In Proceedings of the XVII Brazilian Symposium on Software Quality (Curitiba, Brazil) (SBQS ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 31–40. https://doi.org/10.1145/3275245.3275279Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Eliakim Gama, Matheus Paixao, Emmanuel Sávio Silva Freire, and Mariela Inés Cortés. 2019. Technical Debt’s State of Practice on Stack Overflow: A Preliminary Study. In Proceedings of the XVIII SBQS (Fortaleza, Brazil) (SBQS ’19). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 228–233. https://doi.org/10.1145/3364641.3364668Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Magalí González, Silvia Abrahão, Joan Fons, and Oscar Pastor. 2002. Evaluando la Calidad de Métodos para el Diseño de Aplicaciones Web. In Anais do I SBQS (Gramado-RS). SBC, Porto Alegre, RS, Brasil, 143–156. https://doi.org/10.5753/sbqs.2002.16222Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Mohammad Reza HabibAgahi, Mehrdad Agha Mohammad Ali Kermani, and Mehrdad Maghsoudi. 2022. On the Co-authorship network analysis in the Process Mining research Community: A social network analysis perspective. Expert Systems with Applications 206 (2022), 117853.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. J.P. Ioannidis, D. Fanelli, D.D. Dunne, and S.N. Goodman. 2015. Meta-research: Evaluation and Improvement of Research Methods and Practices. PLoS biology 13, 10 (10 2015). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002264Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. J. P. A. Ioannidis. 2018. Meta-research: Why research on research matters. PLoS Biol 16, 3 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2005468Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Xiangjie Kong, Yajie Shi, Shuo Yu, Jiaying Liu, and Feng Xia. 2019. Academic social networks: Modeling, analysis, mining and applications. Journal of Network and Computer Applications 132 (2019), 86–103.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Eva Maria Lakatos and Marina Marconi. 2019. Sociologia Geral (8th ed.). Atlas.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Bruno Latour. 1987. Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Harvard university press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Wolfgang Lefèvre. 2005. Science as Labor. Perspectives on Science 13, 2 (06 2005), 194–225. https://doi.org/10.1162/106361405774270539Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Fábio Lobato, Gleyce Sousa, and Antonio Jacob Jr.2021. BraSNAM em perspectiva: uma análise da sua trajetória até os 10 anos de existência. In Anais do X BraSNAM (Evento Online). SBC, Porto Alegre, RS, Brasil, 217–228. https://doi.org/10.5753/brasnam.2021.16143Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Alex John London. 2022. For the Common Good: Philosophical Foundations of Research Ethics (1st ed.). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197534830.001.0001Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Adriana Lopes, Tayana Conte, and Clarisse de Souza. 2020. Exploring the Directives of Communicability for Improving the Quality of Software Artifacts. In Anais do XIX SBQS (São Luiz do Maranhão). SBC, Porto Alegre, RS, Brasil, 121–130. https://sol.sbc.org.br/index.php/sbqs/article/view/14208Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Cybele Macedo, Sandra Helena de Lima, Ana Regina Rocha, Ana Cândida Natali, Káthia de Oliveira, Paula Mian, Andrea Barreto, Ahilton Barreto, Gleison Santos, and Tayana Conte. 2006. Implantação de Melhoria de Processo de Software no Tribunal Superior Eleitoral. In Anais do V SBQS (Vila Velha). SBC, Porto Alegre, RS, Brasil, 351–358. https://doi.org/10.5753/sbqs.2006.15622Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Marina de Andrade Marconi and Eva Maria Lakatos. 2017. Fundamentos de Metodologia Científica (8ª ed.). Atlas, São Paulo, SP.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. N. Mendonça. 2021. Abertura e Internacionalização do SBES: Um Oximoro Irreconciliável?. In Anais do I Workshop de Práticas de Ciência Aberta para Engenharia de Software (Joinville). SBC, Porto Alegre, RS, Brasil, 49–51. https://doi.org/10.5753/opensciense.2021.17146Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Erasmo Leite Monteiro, Rita Suzana Pitangueira Maciel, and Magalhães A.P.2021. Towards a Methodology for Maturity Models Development: An Exploratory Study in Software Systems Interoperability Domain. In Proceedings of the XIX SBQS (São Luís, Brazil) (SBQS ’20). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 23, 10 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3439961.3439984Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Patricia Morillo, Marco Vizcardo, Víctor Sanchez, and Abraham Dávila. 2012. Implementación y certificación de MoProSoft en una pequeña empresa desarrolladora de software: lecciones aprendidas de cuatro iteraciones de mejora. In Anais do XI SBQS (Fortaleza). SBC, Porto Alegre, RS, Brasil, 389–396. https://doi.org/10.5753/sbqs.2012.15333Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. Elaine Nunes, Rosângela Silva, Ana Regina Rocha, Ana Candida Natali, and Gleison Santos. 2005. Uma Abordagem para Implantação de Processos de Software com ISO 9001 e CMMI. In Anais do IV SBQS (Porto Alegre-RS). SBC, Porto Alegre, RS, Brasil, 276–283. https://doi.org/10.5753/sbqs.2005.16169Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. David Peterson and Aaron Panofsky. 2023. Metascience as a scientific social movement. Minerva 62 (2023), 147–174.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. K. S. F. M. Ribeiro, C. Maciel, and M. Amaral S. Bim. 2020. Gênero e tecnologias. In Computação e sociedade: a profissão - volume 1, C. Maciel and J. Viterbo (Eds.). EdUFMT Digital, Mato Grosso, Brasil, 104–140.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Thalia Santana and Adriano Braga. 2020. Uma Análise Cienciométrica das Publicações do Congresso da Sociedade Brasileira de Computação na Perspectiva das Mulheres na Computação. In Anais do XIV WIT (Cuiabá). SBC, Porto Alegre, RS, Brasil, 279–283. https://doi.org/10.5753/wit.2020.11310Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. Edison J. Santos, Rita Suzana Pitangueira Maciel, and Cláudio Sant’Anna. 2018. A Catalogue of Bad Smells for Software Process. In Proceedings of the XVII SBQS (Curitiba, Brazil) (SBQS ’18). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1145/3275245.3275264Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Mariana Santos, Paulo Henrique Bermejo, and Heitor Costa. 2016. A Quantitative Study for the Characterization of Internal Quality of Open-Source Object-Oriented Software. In Anais do XV SBQS (Maceió). SBC, Porto Alegre, RS, Brasil, 421–435. https://doi.org/10.5753/sbqs.2016.15150Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  43. Shazia Tabassum, Fabiola S. F. Pereira, Sofia Fernandes, and João Gama. 2018. Social network analysis: An overview. WIREs Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery 8, 5 (2018), e1256. https://doi.org/10.1002/widm.1256Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. Pedro Henrique Dias Valle, Ricardo Ferreira Vilela, and Elis C. Montoro Hernandes. 2021. Does Gamification Improve the Training of Software Testers? A Preliminary Study from the Industry Perspective. In Proceedings of the XIX SBQS (São Luís, Brazil) (SBQS ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 43, 10 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3439961.3440004Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Jéssyka Vilela, Jaelson Castro, and Luiz Eduardo G. Martins. 2019. Uni-REPM SCS: A Safety Maturity Model for Requirements Engineering Process. In Proceedings of the XVIII SBQS (Fortaleza, Brazil) (SBQS ’19). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 313. https://doi.org/10.1145/3364641.3364678Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Raul Sidnei Wazlawick. 2014. Metodologia de Pesquisa para Ciência da Computação (2ª ed.). Elsevier, São Paulo, SP.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Wikipedia contributors. 2023. Federative units of Brazil — Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Federative_units_of_Brazil&oldid=1156016556.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Twenty one years of SBQS (2002 to 2022): A Comprehensive Descriptive and Meta-Scientific Analysis

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Other conferences
        SBQS '23: Proceedings of the XXII Brazilian Symposium on Software Quality
        November 2023
        391 pages
        ISBN:9798400707865
        DOI:10.1145/3629479

        Copyright © 2023 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 6 December 2023

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
        • Research
        • Refereed limited

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate35of99submissions,35%
      • Article Metrics

        • Downloads (Last 12 months)11
        • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)2

        Other Metrics

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      HTML Format

      View this article in HTML Format .

      View HTML Format