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: Yanqing Wang,  Xiaolei Wang,  Yu Jiang,  Yaowen Liang and  Ying Liu  
Open Access
|Mar 2016

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, Chinese Journal of Management Science, 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, Management Science, 51, 4, 2005, 655-661.10.1287/mnsc.1040.0290
    Search in Google Scholar
  3. [3] Devito Da Cunha A., Greathead D., Does personality matter? An analysis of code-review ability, Communications of the ACM, 50, 5, 2007, 109-112.10.1145/1230819.1241672
    Search in Google Scholar
  4. [4] Drexl M., Irnich S., Solving elementary shortest-path problems as mixed-integer programs, OR spectrum, 36, 2, 2014, 281-296.10.1007/s00291-012-0302-7
    Search in Google Scholar
  5. [5] Fagan E., Design and code inspections to reduce errors in program development, IBM System Journal, 3, 1976, 182-211.10.1147/sj.153.0182
    Search in Google Scholar
  6. [6] Karimzadehgan M., Zhai C. X., Integer linear programming for constrained multi-aspect committee review assignment, Information Processing and Management, 48, 4, 2012, 725-740.10.1016/j.ipm.2011.09.004
    Search in Google Scholar
  7. [7] Li X., Using peer review to assess coding standards–a case study, In Frontiers in education conference, 36th annual, San Diego, CA, USA, 2006, 9-14.10.1109/FIE.2006.322572
    Search in Google Scholar
  8. [8] Li X., Incorporating a code review process into the assessment, In the 20th Annual Conference of the National Advisory Committee on Computing Qualifications, 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, Procedia Computer Science, 22, 2013, 633-642.10.1016/j.procs.2013.09.144
    Search in Google Scholar
  10. [10] Long C., Wong R. C. W., Peng Y., Ye L., On good and fair paper-reviewer assignment, In IEEE 13th International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM’2013), 2013, 1145-1150.10.1109/ICDM.2013.13
    Search in Google Scholar
  11. [11] Martello S., Pulleyblank W. R., Toth P., de Werra D., Balanced optimization problems, Operations Research Letters, 3, 5, 1984, 275-278.10.1016/0167-6377(84)90061-0
    Search in Google Scholar
  12. [12] Meyer B., Design and code reviews in the age of the internet, Communications of the ACM, 51, 9, 2008, 66-71.10.1145/1378727.1378744
    Search in Google Scholar
  13. [13] Saaty T. L., How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process, European journal of operational research, 48, 1, 1990, 9-26.10.1016/0377-2217(90)90057-I
    Search in Google Scholar
  14. [14] Sun Y. H., Ma J., Fan Z. P., Wang J., A hybrid knowledge and model approach for reviewer assignment, Expert Systems with Applications, 34, 2, 2008, 817-824.10.1016/j.eswa.2006.10.021
    Search 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, Applied intelligence, 40, 1, 2014, 54-73.10.1007/s10489-013-0445-5
    Search in Google Scholar
  16. [16] Topping K., Peer Assessment Between Students in Colleges and Universities, Review of Educational Research, 68, 3, 1998, 249-276.10.3102/00346543068003249
    Search in Google Scholar
  17. [17] Tsang E. W. K., Is this referee really my peer? A challenge to the peer-review process, Journal of Management Inquiry, 22, 2, 2013, 166-171.10.1177/1056492612461306
    Search 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 http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-08272009-003738/unrestricted/Turner_SA_D_2009.pdf
    Search in Google Scholar
  19. [19] Wang F., Shi N., Chen B., A comprehensive survey of the reviewer assignment problem, International Journal of Information Technology and Decision Making, 9, 4, 2010, 645-668.10.1142/S0219622010003993
    Search 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, Computers & Education, 59, 2, 2012, 412-422.10.1016/j.compedu.2012.01.007
    Search 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 the 6th International Conference on Computer Science & Education, 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, ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 40, 1, 2008, 107-111.10.1145/1352322.1352171
    Search 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, Zhongshan Daxue Xuebao/Acta Scientiarum Natralium Universitatis Sunyatseni, 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, Expert Systems with Applications, 37, 10, 2010, 6948-6956.10.1016/j.eswa.2010.03.027
    Search in Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/fcds-2016-0004 | Journal eISSN: 2300-3405 | 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
Publication frequency: 4 issues per year
Keywords:
peer code review,
reviewer assignment problem (RAP),
code review assignment model,
preference matrix,
subtour-size constraint,
mutual admiration society
Related subjects:
Computer sciences,
Artificial intelligence,
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.

Previous articleVolume 41 (2016): Issue 1 (March 2016)