Happy software developers solve problems better: psychological measurements in empirical software engineering

For more than 30 years, it has been claimed that a way to improve software developers' productivity and software quality is to focus on people and to provide incentives to make developers satisfied and happy. This claim has rarely been verified in software engineering research, which faces an additional challenge in comparison to more traditional engineering fields: software development is an intellectual activity and is dominated by often-neglected human aspects. Among the skills required for software development, developers must possess high analytical problem-solving skills and creativity for the software construction process. According to psychology research, affects-emotions and moods-deeply influence the cognitive processing abilities and performance of workers, including creativity and analytical problem solving. Nonetheless, little research has investigated the correlation between the affective states, creativity, and analytical problem-solving performance of programmers. This article echoes the call to employ psychological measurements in software engineering research. We report a study with 42 participants to investigate the relationship between the affective states, creativity, and analytical problem-solving skills of software developers. The results offer support for the claim that happy developers are indeed better problem solvers in terms of their analytical abilities. The following contributions are made by this study: (1) providing a better understanding of the impact of affective states on the creativity and analytical problem-solving capacities of developers, (2) introducing and validating psychological measurements, theories, and concepts of affective states, creativity, and analytical-problem-solving skills in empirical software engineering, and (3) raising the need for studying the human factors of software engineering by employing a multidisciplinary viewpoint.Comment: 33 pages, 11 figures, published at Peer

Gender Disparities in Science? Dropout, Productivity, Collaborations and Success of Male and Female Computer Scientists

Scientific collaborations shape ideas as well as innovations and are both the substrate for, and the outcome of, academic careers. Recent studies show that gender inequality is still present in many scientific practices ranging from hiring to peer-review processes and grant applications. In this work, we investigate gender-specific differences in collaboration patterns of more than one million computer scientists over the course of 47 years. We explore how these patterns change over years and career ages and how they impact scientific success. Our results highlight that successful male and female scientists reveal the same collaboration patterns: compared to scientists in the same career age, they tend to collaborate with more colleagues than other scientists, seek innovations as brokers and establish longer-lasting and more repetitive collaborations. However, women are on average less likely to adapt the collaboration patterns that are related with success, more likely to embed into ego networks devoid of structural holes, and they exhibit stronger gender homophily as well as a consistently higher dropout rate than men in all career ages

Utilising content marketing metrics and social networks for academic visibility

There are numerous assumptions on research evaluation in terms of quality and relevance of academic contributions. Researchers are becoming increasingly acquainted with bibliometric indicators, including; citation analysis, impact factor, h-index, webometrics and academic social networking sites. In this light, this chapter presents a review of these concepts as it considers relevant theoretical underpinnings that are related to the content marketing of scholars. Therefore, this contribution critically evaluates previous papers that revolve on the subject of academic reputation as it deliberates on the individual researchers’ personal branding. It also explains how metrics are currently being used to rank the academic standing of journals as well as higher educational institutions. In a nutshell, this chapter implies that the scholarly impact depends on a number of factors including accessibility of publications, peer review of academic work as well as social networking among scholars.peer-reviewe

Benchmarking some Portuguese S&T system research units: 2nd Edition

The increasing use of productivity and impact metrics for evaluation and comparison, not only of individual researchers but also of institutions, universities and even countries, has prompted the development of bibliometrics. Currently, metrics are becoming widely accepted as an easy and balanced way to assist the peer review and evaluation of scientists and/or research units, provided they have adequate precision and recall. This paper presents a benchmarking study of a selected list of representative Portuguese research units, based on a fairly complete set of parameters: bibliometric parameters, number of competitive projects and number of PhDs produced. The study aimed at collecting productivity and impact data from the selected research units in comparable conditions i.e., using objective metrics based on public information, retrievable on-line and/or from official sources and thus verifiable and repeatable. The study has thus focused on the activity of the 2003-06 period, where such data was available from the latest official evaluation. The main advantage of our study was the application of automatic tools, achieving relevant results at a reduced cost. Moreover, the results over the selected units suggest that this kind of analyses will be very useful to benchmark scientific productivity and impact, and assist peer review.Comment: 26 pages, 20 figures F. Couto, D. Faria, B. Tavares, P. Gon\c{c}alves, and P. Verissimo, Benchmarking some portuguese S\&T system research units: 2nd edition, DI/FCUL TR 13-03, Department of Informatics, University of Lisbon, February 201

The impact of Group Intelligence software on enquiry-based learning

Despite the increasing use of groupware technologies in education, there is little evidence of their impact, especially within an enquiry-based learning (EBL) context. In this paper, we examine the use of a commercial standard Group Intelligence software called GroupSystems®ThinkTank. To date, ThinkTank has been adopted mainly in the USA and supports teams in generating ideas, categorising, prioritising, voting and multi-criteria decision-making and automatically generates a report at the end of each session. The software was used by students carrying out an EBL project, set by employers, for a full academic year. The criteria for assessing the impact of ThinkTank on student learning were those of creativity, participation, productivity, engagement and understanding. Data was collected throughout the year using a combination of interviews and questionnaires, and written feedback from employers. The overall findings show an increase in levels of productivity and creativity, evidence of a deeper understanding of their work but some variation in attitudes towards participation in the early stages of the project

Bibliometric studies on single journals: a review

This paper covers a total of 82 bibliometric studies on single journals (62 studies cover unique titles) published between 1998 and 2008 grouped into the following fields; Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences (12 items); Medical and Health Sciences (19 items); Sciences and Technology (30 items) and Library and Information Sciences (21 items). Under each field the studies are described in accordance to their geographical location in the following order, United Kingdom, United States and Americana, Europe, Asia (India, Africa and Malaysia). For each study, elements described are (a) the journal’s publication characteristics and indexation information; (b) the objectives; (c) the sampling and bibliometric measures used; and (d) the results observed. A list of journal titles studied is appended. The results show that (a)bibliometric studies cover journals in various fields; (b) there are several revisits of some journals which are considered important; (c) Asian and African contributions is high (41.4 of total studies; 43.5 covering unique titles), United States (30.4 of total; 31.0 on unique titles), Europe (18.2 of total and 14.5 on unique titles) and the United Kingdom (10 of total and 11 on unique titles); (d) a high number of bibliometrists are Indians and as such coverage of Indian journals is high (28 of total studies; 30.6 of unique titles); and (e) the quality of the journals and their importance either nationally or internationally are inferred from their indexation status