关于灰色文献的使用：巴西软件工程研究团体的调查
On the Use of Grey Literature: A Survey with the Brazilian Software Engineering Research Community
摘要：
背景：灰色文献在不同研究领域的应用已被广泛研究。在软件工程（SE）中，这个主题在过去几年中越来越受到关注。问题：尽管GL在不同来源中发表的数量有所增加，但对SE研究社区使用GL的理解仍然存在争议。目的：为了了解巴西SE研究人员如何使用GL，我们的目标是了解评估其使用可信度的标准，以及好处和挑战。方法：我们调查了76名活跃的SE研究人员参加了在巴西举行的SE旗舰会议，使用了一份包含11个问题的问卷，以分享他们对在SE研究背景下使用GL的看法。我们采用定性的方法来分析开放性问题。结果：研究者使用语言学习主要是为了理解新的主题。我们的工作确定了新的发现，包括：1）SE研究人员使用的GL来源（例如，博客、社区网站）; 2）使用的动机（例如，了解问题和补充研究结果）或避免GL的原因（例如，缺乏可靠性，缺乏科学价值）; 3）易于访问和阅读GL的好处以及GL使其科学价值得到认可的挑战;以及4）评估GL可信度的标准，表明内容所有者享有声誉的重要性（例如，知名作家和机构）。结论：我们的研究结果有助于形成一个知识体系的使用GL的SE研究人员，通过讨论新的（一些矛盾的）结果，并提供了一套经验教训，SE的研究人员和从业人员。
英文摘要：
Background: The use of Grey Literature (GL) has been investigate in diverse research areas. In Software Engineering (SE), this topic has an increasing interest over the last years. Problem: Even with the increase of GL published in diverse sources, the understanding of their use on the SE research community is still controversial. Objective: To understand how Brazilian SE researchers use GL, we aimed to become aware of the criteria to assess the credibility of their use, as well as the benefits and challenges. Method: We surveyed 76 active SE researchers participants of a flagship SE conference in Brazil, using a questionnaire with 11 questions to share their views on the use of GL in the context of SE research. We followed a qualitative approach to analyze open questions. Results: We found that most surveyed researchers use GL mainly to understand new topics. Our work identified new findings, including: 1) GL sources used by SE researchers (e.g., blogs, community website); 2) motivations to use (e.g., to understand problems and to complement research findings) or reasons to avoid GL (e.g., lack of reliability, lack of scientific value); 3) the benefit that is easy to access and read GL and the challenge of GL to have its scientific value recognized; and 4) criteria to assess GL credibility, showing the importance of the content owner to be renowned (e.g., renowned author and institutions). Conclusions: Our findings contribute to form a body of knowledge on the use of GL by SE researchers, by discussing novel (some contradictory) results and providing a set of lessons learned to both SE researchers and practitioners.
机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来，可能存在错误，请以论文正文为准。
