"A Second Set of Eyes": The Process and Challenges of Software Documentation Review

Malleable Interfaces for Reviewing Software Documentation

Research on documentation quality has examined developers and software artifacts but overlooked technical writers, the dedicated practitioners who synthesize distributed software knowledge into documentation. By interviewing 31 technical writers, we found that documentation quality is facilitated by a review process in which practitioners with different expertise evaluate against distinct quality criteria over multiple stages. This process lacks dedicated tooling, forcing documentation teams to adopt developer-focused platforms like GitHub and leaving non-technical reviewers to resort to alternative tools, resulting in feedback scattered across platforms. This thesis proposes malleable interfaces for documentation review, where practitioners reshape interfaces to fit their work rather than adapting to fixed tool interfaces. We propose to build a review environment where practitioners describe interface needs in natural language, and the system generates views to accommodate diverse expertise and surface information relevant to their roles. We plan two evaluation studies: examining how individuals articulate and use generated interfaces, then how practitioners with different roles collaborate using them. This work contributes toward a vision of software tooling that practitioners can shape to fit their needs.

Documentor mindsets: Considerations when contributing learning resources for software development technologies

Peer Code Review in Research Software: Practices, Improvements, and Implementation Challenges from Interviews of RSEs

The quality of research software directly impacts the quality of the research results. Peer code review can identify defects, improve design, and facilitate knowledge sharing. Previously, we conducted a survey to understand how Research Software Engineers (RSEs) view and use code review. Because the prior survey did not examine how RSEs implement code review or the challenges they face, we study here how RSEs implement code review improvement practices, the challenges that limit adoption, and the additional strategies they propose. To gather this insight, we conducted 20 semi-structured interviews of RSEs. The results show that RSEs most often improved code review by using pull requests, defining review expectations, adding lightweight process steps, and using tools and automation (e.g., CI checks) to reduce effort and increase consistency. Key challenges included limited reviewer capacity and time, gaps in Git and software engineering skills, social and authority barriers to setting norms, and weak documentation or enforcement of standards. They also proposed lightweight training, clearer reviewer guidance (e.g., checklists), and better recognition of review and mentoring work. To ease peer code review adoption in research software, teams should begin with lightweight pull-request workflows, document a few clear review rules, use CI to enforce basics, and support reviewers with simple guidance, training, and recognition.

Supporting FAIR Practices In Scholarly Publishing with the Editorial Reference Handbook

The Editorial Reference Handbook assists scholarly publishers in supporting the sharing of digital research objects and in operationalising FAIR research practices by addressing gaps in editorial workflows, policy implementation and stakeholder alignment. Comprising a checklist, detailed guidance, and a flowchart, the Handbook provides a flexible framework for in-house editorial staff while also providing value to reviewers, authors, and service providers. The project was developed through a co-creation process involving 14 journals and 9 publishers, and was subsequently piloted by 6 journals across 190 manuscripts. In total, 35 participants representing 19 journals and 11 publishers contributed to the various stages of the project. Evaluation through surveys and performance metrics showed that the Handbook can help in-house editorial staff ensure that data underpinning publications is shared more FAIRly without significantly impacting turnaround times or author correspondence. This article reports on the contributions of the participants, describes the rationale and development of the Handbook, and presents the outcomes of the pilot, offering a reusable framework adaptable across diverse publishing contexts.

LLMs’ reshaping of people, processes, products, and society in software development: a qualitative exploration with early adopters

Interviews with sixteen early-adopter software professionals who integrated LLM-based tools into their day-to-day work in early to mid-2023 offer actionable implications for developers, organizations, educators, and tool designers seeking to integrate LLMs responsibly into professional software practice.

A Preliminary Search for Evidence on Government Software Engineering Practices: Results from Three Rapid Reviews

Government agencies are major software developers and drivers of digital transformation, yet empirical evidence on their software engineering (SE) practices remains largely unexplored. This paper reports three rapid reviews of 2024 peer reviewed publications to assess the availability of evidence on government SE practices. We examined a subset of top tier international SE venues, regional South American SE conferences, and a curated newsletter on public sector digitalization. Across 984 screened papers, we identified only four studies reporting on SE practices conducted by, for, or in collaboration with government bodies, most published in regional venues as experience reports or case studies. Our findings are consistent with practitioners'perceptions that academic evidence on government SE practices has low visibility in mainstream SE venues. We discuss implications including the need for dedicated publication venues, incentives for government academia collaboration, and improved methods for evaluating grey literature, currently a key information source for government agencies. This work provides a preliminary study for understanding the evidence landscape and identifies directions for future research to better support evidence based software engineering in the public sector.