{"title":"关于定义人类受试者对照实验社区协议的必要性:一份讨论文件","authors":"Stefan Hanenberg, A. Stefik","doi":"10.1145/2846680.2846692","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"While it looks like controlled trials with human involvement are increasingly applied in software science, there are few explicitly documented community standards in regard to their design or approach. This leads to a number of problems: experimenters cannot be sure whether an experiment they perform does represent the current state-of-the-art, reviewers have no guidelines to check whether a critique they have in mind is valid or not, and readers from experiments have hardly any chance to check whether the results of an experiment they are reading should be taken seriously. This paper discusses the problem of missing community standards for empirical studies in computer science and makes a first proposal with respect to subjects, training, measurements, experimental designs, and documentation. The overall goal of this paper is to begin a discussion on this issue.","PeriodicalId":213941,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on Evaluation and Usability of Programming Languages and Tools","volume":"17 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"On the need to define community agreements for controlled experiments with human subjects: a discussion paper\",\"authors\":\"Stefan Hanenberg, A. Stefik\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/2846680.2846692\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"While it looks like controlled trials with human involvement are increasingly applied in software science, there are few explicitly documented community standards in regard to their design or approach. This leads to a number of problems: experimenters cannot be sure whether an experiment they perform does represent the current state-of-the-art, reviewers have no guidelines to check whether a critique they have in mind is valid or not, and readers from experiments have hardly any chance to check whether the results of an experiment they are reading should be taken seriously. This paper discusses the problem of missing community standards for empirical studies in computer science and makes a first proposal with respect to subjects, training, measurements, experimental designs, and documentation. The overall goal of this paper is to begin a discussion on this issue.\",\"PeriodicalId\":213941,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on Evaluation and Usability of Programming Languages and Tools\",\"volume\":\"17 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-10-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on Evaluation and Usability of Programming Languages and Tools\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/2846680.2846692\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on Evaluation and Usability of Programming Languages and Tools","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/2846680.2846692","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
On the need to define community agreements for controlled experiments with human subjects: a discussion paper
While it looks like controlled trials with human involvement are increasingly applied in software science, there are few explicitly documented community standards in regard to their design or approach. This leads to a number of problems: experimenters cannot be sure whether an experiment they perform does represent the current state-of-the-art, reviewers have no guidelines to check whether a critique they have in mind is valid or not, and readers from experiments have hardly any chance to check whether the results of an experiment they are reading should be taken seriously. This paper discusses the problem of missing community standards for empirical studies in computer science and makes a first proposal with respect to subjects, training, measurements, experimental designs, and documentation. The overall goal of this paper is to begin a discussion on this issue.