{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2025,6,18]],"date-time":"2025-06-18T04:24:36Z","timestamp":1750220676989,"version":"3.41.0"},"reference-count":4,"publisher":"Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)","issue":"3","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2020,7,9]],"date-time":"2020-07-09T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1594252800000},"content-version":"vor","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/www.acm.org\/publications\/policies\/copyright_policy#Background"}],"content-domain":{"domain":["dl.acm.org"],"crossmark-restriction":true},"short-container-title":["SIGSOFT Softw. Eng. Notes"],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2020,7,9]]},"abstract":"<jats:p>The standard approach for evaluating scientific contributions by software engineering venues is peer-reviewing. Papers submitted for consideration by a venue are sent to peers (i.e., expert colleagues in the field), who carefully read them and provide corresponding evaluation reports, i.e., the peer reviews. Peer-reviewing comes in various alternative forms, as discussed in the teaser column of this series [1]. The teaser also pointed out some questions currently motivating discussion within the software engineering community: Which is the \"best\" among currently adopted peer-reviewing alternatives? Would it be better to have zero-blind, single-blind, or double-blind reviews? How many, and which stages should be involved in the process of peer-reviewing? Are currently adopted peer-reviewing processes sustainable in the long run? These are just a few examples of questions setting up the discussion, with many other questions outside there and yet to come.<\/jats:p>","DOI":"10.1145\/3402127.3402132","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2020,7,9]],"date-time":"2020-07-09T22:13:10Z","timestamp":1594332790000},"page":"15-15","update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1145\/crossmark-policy","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":0,"title":["Pains and Gains of Peer-Reviewing in Software Engineering (2)"],"prefix":"10.1145","volume":"45","author":[{"given":"Jacopo","family":"Soldani","sequence":"first","affiliation":[{"name":"University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy"}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]}],"member":"320","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2020,7,9]]},"reference":[{"key":"e_1_2_1_1_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1145\/3375572.3375575"},{"key":"e_1_2_1_2_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1145\/3385678.3385681"},{"key":"e_1_2_1_3_1","unstructured":"The ACM SIGSOFT Improving Paper and Peer Review Quality Initiative. https:\/\/www.sigsoft.org\/resources\/improvingreview.html  The ACM SIGSOFT Improving Paper and Peer Review Quality Initiative. https:\/\/www.sigsoft.org\/resources\/improvingreview.html"},{"key":"e_1_2_1_4_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.infsof.2017.10.019"}],"container-title":["ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/dl.acm.org\/doi\/10.1145\/3402127.3402132","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/dl.acm.org\/doi\/pdf\/10.1145\/3402127.3402132","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2025,6,17]],"date-time":"2025-06-17T22:03:13Z","timestamp":1750197793000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/dl.acm.org\/doi\/10.1145\/3402127.3402132"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2020,7,9]]},"references-count":4,"journal-issue":{"issue":"3","published-print":{"date-parts":[[2020,7,9]]}},"alternative-id":["10.1145\/3402127.3402132"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1145\/3402127.3402132","relation":{},"ISSN":["0163-5948"],"issn-type":[{"type":"print","value":"0163-5948"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2020,7,9]]},"assertion":[{"value":"2020-07-09","order":2,"name":"published","label":"Published","group":{"name":"publication_history","label":"Publication History"}}]}}