Systematic Literature Reviews in Software Engineering -- Enhancement of the Study Selection Process using Cohen's Kappa Statistic
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Context: Systematic literature reviews (SLRs) rely on a rigorous and auditable methodology for minimizing biases and ensuring reliability. A common kind of bias arises when selecting studies using a set of inclusion/exclusion criteria. This bias can be decreased through dual revision, which makes the selection process more time-consuming and remains prone to generating bias depending on how each researcher interprets the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Objective: To reduce the bias and time spent in the study selection process, this paper presents a process for selecting studies based on the use of Cohen's Kappa statistic. We have defined an iterative process based on the use of this statistic during which the criteria are refined until obtain almost perfect agreement (k>0.8). At this point, the two researchers interpret the selection criteria in the same way, and thus, the bias is reduced. Starting from this agreement, dual review can be eliminated; consequently, the time spent is drastically shortened. Method: The feasibility of this iterative process for selecting studies is demonstrated through a tertiary study in the area of software engineering on works that were published from 2005 to 2018. Results: The time saved in the study selection process was 28% (for 152 studies) and if the number of studies is sufficiently large, the time saved tend asymptotically to 50%. Conclusions: Researchers and students may take advantage of this iterative process for selecting studies when conducting SLRs to reduce bias in the interpretation of inclusion and exclusion criteria. It is especially useful for research with few resources.
Key facts. Cited by 7 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 21 May 2020.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2022: 1; 2023: 0; 2024: 1; 2025: 3; 2026: 2.
7 papers.
- 2025Can LLM Agents Maintain a Persona in Discourse?cited by 15
- 2025An Empirical Study on Failures in Automated Issue Solvingcited by 15
- 2022Machine Learning for Software Engineering: A Tertiary Studycited by 7
- 2024PatUntrack: Automated Generating Patch Examples for Issue Reports without Tracked Insecure Codecited by 1
- 2026All Changes May Have Invariant Principles: Improving Ever-Shifting Harmful Meme Detection via Design Concept Reproductioncited by 1
- 2025From Questions to Insights: Exploring XAI Challenges Reported on Stack Overflow Questionscited by 0
- 2026A Tertiary Review of Large Language Model-Based Code Generating Tasks: Trends, Challenges, and Future Directionscited by 0
- 2026A Tertiary Review of Large Language Model-Based Code Generating Tasks: Trends, Challenges, and Future Directions25 May 2026
- 2026All Changes May Have Invariant Principles: Improving Ever-Shifting Harmful Meme Detection via Design Concept Reproduction8 Jan 2026
- 2025An Empirical Study on Failures in Automated Issue Solving17 Sep 2025
- 2025From Questions to Insights: Exploring XAI Challenges Reported on Stack Overflow Questions3 Apr 2025
- 2025Can LLM Agents Maintain a Persona in Discourse?17 Feb 2025
- 2024PatUntrack: Automated Generating Patch Examples for Issue Reports without Tracked Insecure Code16 Aug 2024
- 2022Machine Learning for Software Engineering: A Tertiary Study17 Nov 2022