Methods used in the selection of instruments for outcomes included in core outcome sets have improved since the publication of the COSMIN/COMET guideline

Objectives: Once a core outcome set (COS) has been defined, it is important to achieve consensus on how these outcomes should be measured. The aims of this systematic review were to gain insight into the methods used to select outcome measurement instruments and to determine whether methods have improved following the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN)/Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) guideline publication. Study Design and Setting: Eligible articles, which were identified from the annual COMET systematic review, concerned any COS development studies that provided a recommendation on how to measure the outcomes included in the COS. Data were extracted on the methods used to select outcome measurement instruments in accordance with the COSMIN/COMET guideline. Results: Of the 118 studies included in the review, 48% used more than one source of information when finding outcome measurement instruments, and 74% performed some form of quality assessment of the measurement instruments. Twenty-three studies recommended one single instrument for each core outcome included in the COS. Clinical experts and public representatives were involved in selecting instruments in 62% and 28% of studies, respectively. Conclusion: Methods used to select outcome measurement instruments have improved since the publication of the COSMIN/COMET guideline. Going forward, COS developers should ensure that recommended outcome measurement instruments have sufficient content validity. In addition, COS developers should recommend one instrument for each core outcome to contribute to the overarching goal of uniformity in outcome reporting

git2net - Mining Time-Stamped Co-Editing Networks from Large git Repositories

Data from software repositories have become an important foundation for the empirical study of software engineering processes. A recurring theme in the repository mining literature is the inference of developer networks capturing e.g. collaboration, coordination, or communication from the commit history of projects. Most of the studied networks are based on the co-authorship of software artefacts defined at the level of files, modules, or packages. While this approach has led to insights into the social aspects of software development, it neglects detailed information on code changes and code ownership, e.g. which exact lines of code have been authored by which developers, that is contained in the commit log of software projects. Addressing this issue, we introduce git2net, a scalable python software that facilitates the extraction of fine-grained co-editing networks in large git repositories. It uses text mining techniques to analyse the detailed history of textual modifications within files. This information allows us to construct directed, weighted, and time-stamped networks, where a link signifies that one developer has edited a block of source code originally written by another developer. Our tool is applied in case studies of an Open Source and a commercial software project. We argue that it opens up a massive new source of high-resolution data on human collaboration patterns.Comment: MSR 2019, 12 pages, 10 figure

Coopetition of software firms in Open source software ecosystems

Software firms participate in an ecosystem as a part of their innovation strategy to extend value creation beyond the firms boundary. Participation in an open and independent environment also implies the competition among firms with similar business models and targeted markets. Hence, firms need to consider potential opportunities and challenges upfront. This study explores how software firms interact with others in OSS ecosystems from a coopetition perspective. We performed a quantitative and qualitative analysis of three OSS projects. Finding shows that software firms emphasize the co-creation of common value and partly react to the potential competitiveness on OSS ecosystems. Six themes about coopetition were identified, including spanning gatekeepers, securing communication, open-core sourcing and filtering shared code. Our work contributes to software engineering research with a rich description of coopetition in OSS ecosystems. Moreover, we also come up with several implications for software firms in pursing a harmony participation in OSS ecosystems.Comment: This is the author's version of the work. Copyright owner's version can be accessed at https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-69191-6_10, Coopetition of software firms in Open source software ecosystems, 8th ICSOB 2017, Essen, Germany (2017