New knowledge in science and engineering relies increasingly on results produced by scientific software. Therefore, knowing how scientists develop and use software in their research is critical to assessing the necessity for improving current development practices and to making decisions about the future allocation of resources. To that end, this paper presents the results of a survey conducted online in October-December 2008 which received almost 2000 responses. Our main conclusions are that (1) the knowledge required to develop and use scientific software is primarily acquired from peers and through self-study, rather than from formal education and training; (2) the number of scientists using supercomputers is small compared to the number using desktop or intermediate computers; (3) most scientists rely primarily on software with a large user base; (4) while many scientists believe that software testing is important, a smaller number believe they have sufficient understanding about testing concepts; and (5) that there is a tendency for scientists to rank standard software engineering concepts higher if they work in large software development projects and teams, but that there is no uniform trend of association between rank of importance of software engineering concepts and project/team size.

One major problem for integrating study results into a common body of knowledge is the heterogeneity of reporting styles: (1) It is difficult to locate relevant information and (2) important information is often missing. Reporting guidelines are expected to support a systematic, standardized presentation of empirical research, thus improving reporting in order to support readers in (1) finding the information they are looking for, (2) understanding how an experiment is conducted, and (3) assessing the validity of its results. The objective of this paper is to survey the most prominent published proposals for reporting guidelines, and to derive a unified standard that which can serve as a starting point for further discussion. We provide detailed guidance on the expected content of the sections and subsections for reporting a specific type of empirical studies, i.e., controlled experiments. Before the guidelines can be evaluated, feedback from the research community is required. For this purpose, we propose to adapt guideline development processes from other disciplines

Software developers often include available open-source software packages into their projects to minimize redundant effort. However, adding a package to a project can also introduce risks, which can propagate through multiple levels of dependencies. Currently, not much is known about the structure of open-source package ecosystems of popular programming languages and the extent to which transitive bug propagation is possible. This paper analyzes the dependency network structure and evolution of the JavaScript, Ruby, and Rust ecosystems. The reported results reveal significant differences across language ecosystems. The results indicate that the number of transitive dependencies for JavaScript has grown 60% over the last year, suggesting that developers should look more carefully into their dependencies to understand what exactly is included. The study also reveals that vulnerability to a removal of the most popular package is increasing, yet most other packages have a decreasing impact on vulnerability. The findings of this study can inform the development of dependency management tools.

Requirements Engineering (RE) has established itself as a software engineering discipline over the past decades. While researchers have been investigating the RE discipline with a plethora of empirical studies, attempts to systematically derive an empirical theory in context of the RE discipline have just recently been started. However, such a theory is needed if we are to define and motivate guidance in performing high quality RE research and practice. We aim at providing an empirical and externally valid foundation for a theory of RE practice, which helps software engineers establish effective and efficient RE processes in a problem-driven manner. We designed a survey instrument and an engineer-focused theory that was first piloted in Germany and, after making substantial modifications, has now been replicated in 10 countries worldwide. We have a theory in the form of a set of propositions inferred from our experiences and available studies, as well as the results from our pilot study in Germany. We evaluate the propositions with bootstrapped confidence intervals and derive potential explanations for the propositions. In this article, we report on the design of the family of surveys, its underlying theory, and the full results obtained from the replication studies conducted in 10 countries with participants from 228 organisations. Our results represent a substantial step forward towards developing an empirical theory of RE practice. The results reveal, for example, that there are no strong differences between organisations in different countries and regions, that interviews, facilitated meetings and prototyping are the most used elicitation techniques, that requirements are often documented textually, that traces between requirements and code or design documents are common, that requirements specifications themselves are rarely changed and that requirements engineering (process) improvement endeavours are mostly internally driven. Our study establishes a theory that can be used as starting point for many further studies for more detailed investigations. Practitioners can use the results as theory-supported guidance on selecting suitable RE methods and techniques.