Skip to main content
Have a personal or library account? Click to login
A code reviewer assignment model incorporating the competence differences and participant preferences Cover

A code reviewer assignment model incorporating the competence differences and participant preferences

Foundations of Computing and Decision Sciences
Volume 41 (2016): Issue 1 (March 2016)
By: ,  ,  ,   and    
Open Access
|Mar 2016
References

References

  1. [1] Chen Y., Fan Z. P., A Method for proposal-reviewer assignment in proposal review based on the match degree of research discipline,, 19, 2, 2011, 169-173 (in Chinese).
    Search in Google Scholar
  2. [2] Cook W. D., Golany B., Kress M., Penn M., Raviv T., Optimal allocation of proposals to reviewers to facilitate effective ranking,, 51, 4, 2005, 655-661.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  3. [3] Devito Da Cunha A., Greathead D., Does personality matter? An analysis of code-review ability,, 50, 5, 2007, 109-112.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  4. [4] Drexl M., Irnich S., Solving elementary shortest-path problems as mixed-integer programs,, 36, 2, 2014, 281-296.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  5. [5] Fagan E., Design and code inspections to reduce errors in program development,,, 1976, 182-211.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  6. [6] Karimzadehgan M., Zhai C. X., Integer linear programming for constrained multi-aspect committee review assignment,, 48, 4, 2012, 725-740.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  7. [7] Li X., Using peer review to assess coding standards–a case study, In, San Diego, CA, USA, 2006, 9-14.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  8. [8] Li X., Incorporating a code review process into the assessment, In, Nelson, New Zealand, 2007, 125-131.
    Search in Google Scholar
  9. [9] Li X., Watanabe T., Automatic paper-to-reviewer assignment based on the matching degree of the reviewers,, 22, 2013, 633-642.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  10. [10] Long C., Wong R. C. W., Peng Y., Ye L., On good and fair paper-reviewer assignment, In(ICDM’2013), 2013, 1145-1150.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  11. [11] Martello S., Pulleyblank W. R., Toth P., de Werra D., Balanced optimization problems,, 3, 5, 1984, 275-278.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  12. [12] Meyer B., Design and code reviews in the age of the internet,, 51, 9, 2008, 66-71.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  13. [13] Saaty T. L., How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process,, 48, 1, 1990, 9-26.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  14. [14] Sun Y. H., Ma J., Fan Z. P., Wang J., A hybrid knowledge and model approach for reviewer assignment,, 34, 2, 2008, 817-824.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  15. [15] Tayal D. K., Saxena P. C., Sharma A., Khanna G., Gupta S., New method for solving reviewer assignment problem using type-2 fuzzy sets and fuzzy functions,, 40, 1, 2014, 54-73.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  16. [16] Topping K., Peer Assessment Between Students in Colleges and Universities,, 68, 3, 1998, 249-276.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  17. [17] Tsang E. W. K., Is this referee really my peer? A challenge to the peer-review process,, 22, 2, 2013, 166-171.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  18. [18] Turner S. A., Peer review in CS2: the effects on attitudes, engagement, and conceptual learning, Doctoral Dissertation of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 2009, Retrieved from
    Search in Google Scholar
  19. [19] Wang F., Shi N., Chen B., A comprehensive survey of the reviewer assignment problem,, 9, 4, 2010, 645-668.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  20. [20] Wang Y. Q., Li H., Feng Y. Q., Jiang Y., Liu Y., Assessment of programming language learning based on peer code review model: Implementation and experience report,, 59, 2, 2012, 412-422.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  21. [21] Wang Y. Q., Li H., Sun Y. N., Jiang Y., Yu J., Learning outcomes of programming language courses based on peer code review model, In, August 3-5, SuperStar Virgo, Singapore, ThC 5.47, 2011, 751-754.
    Search in Google Scholar
  22. [22] Wang Y. Q., Li Y. J., Collins M., Liu P. J., Process improvement of peer code review and behavior analysis of its participants,, 40, 1, 2008, 107-111.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  23. [23] Wang Y. Q., Yang F., Liu P. J., Collins M., Quality assurance of peer code review process: A computer science based strategy,, 46(suppl), 2007, 116-120.
    Search in Google Scholar
  24. [24] Xu Y. H., Ma J., Sun Y. H., Hao G., Xu W., Zhao D. T., A decision support approach for assigning reviewers to proposals,, 37, 10, 2010, 6948-6956.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/fcds-2016-0004 | Journal eISSN: 2300-3405 (formerly 0867-6356) | Journal ISSN: 0867-6356
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Page range: 77 - 91
Submitted on: Oct 23, 2014
Accepted on: Oct 20, 2015
Published on: Mar 31, 2016
Published by: Poznan University of Technology
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Keywords:
peer code review,
reviewer assignment problem (RAP),
code review assignment model,
preference matrix,
subtour-size constraint,
mutual admiration society
Related subjects:
Computer sciences,
Software development

© 2016 Yanqing Wang, Xiaolei Wang, Yu Jiang, Yaowen Liang, Ying Liu, published by Poznan University of Technology
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

Volume 41 (2016): Issue 1 (March 2016)
Previous article