China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Presenting and Publishing the Research Findings
Published in Vinayak Bairagi, Mousami V. Munot, Research Methodology, 2019
Krishna Warhade, Vinayak K. Bairagi, J. Jayanth
Peer review is the process of evaluation of scientific work by others who are expert in the same field. There are various types of peer review process as follows Single-blind reviewIn this type of review, the names of the reviewers are hidden from the author. Reviewer knows about author of paper but author is unaware about the reviewer of his/her manuscriptDouble-blind reviewIn this model of peer review system, reviewers don’t know the author of the paper and the author does not know the reviewer of his/her paperTriple-blind reviewWith triple-blind review, reviewers are anonymous and the author’s identity is unknown to both the reviewers and the editorOpen reviewIn this model of peer review, both the reviewers and authors are known to each other during the peer review process
Success Measurements
Published in Lory Mitchell Wingate, Systems Engineering for Projects, 2018
The preliminary design review is conducted once all major design issues have been resolved. The review is meant to ensure that all requirements have been allocated and flowed down in a manner that will be sufficient to test, verify, and validate that performance. The preliminary design must be demonstrated to be feasible within the risk profile and within the cost and schedule constraints. As described earlier, if the preliminary design review does not uncover gaps in the technical design and the preliminary design review is passed, this technical debt will increase the risk associated with the budget and schedule investment that must be made in the following phase. Detailed design of the system commences from this point and should progress with the least amount of technical debt possible, due to the fact that between preliminary design review and the critical design review, the maturity of the design must be such that full-scale production or builds can progress without technical debt.
Process Framework Model Institutionalized
Published in F. Alan Goodman, Process-Based Software Project Management, 2006
As an aside and being a process purist, I really mean “inspection” and not “review.” I make a huge distinction between these two terms. The primary purpose of an inspection is to find (and fix) defects. The primary purpose of a review is to externalize one or more work products to your audience, with a side possibility of finding defects. The focus is different in these two definitions. I want inspections. In the DoD contracting world, you see major reviews called out, in which large numbers of people are gathered in a room to go over top-level or detailed designs. This use of “review” really does externalize those designs to the gathered group and, yes, they sometimes find defects! Finding defects is not the main purpose of them being there.
Do we need to pay technical debt in blockchain software systems?
Published in Connection Science, 2022
Yubin Qu, Tie Bao, Xiang Chen, Long Li, Xianzhen Dou, Meng Yuan, Hongmei Wang
To alleviate these issues, more systematic software engineering approaches, referred to as engineering methodologies, have been researched to ensure the quality of both development and maintenance of blockchain-based software systems (Boopathi et al., 2020; Panda & Nagwani, 2021; Porru et al., 2017; Rankovic et al., 2021). According to 58 selected core studies, Fahmideh et al. organise the research of blockchain-based software systems in four aspects, including approaches, processes, modeling, and role which guide software developers, business managers, and academic researchers in the exploration of practical side and implications (Fahmideh et al., n.d.). There are four phases for the development of blockchain-based software systems, including system analysis, system design, system implementation and test, and system maintenance. In the test phase, conventional testing techniques are used to improve software quality. However, traditional software testing techniques are inadequate in practice. This is because blockchain technology has its own characteristics. For example, smart contracts have the property that cannot be modified after they are deployed. Code review is one of the basic methods to identify potential software bugs and fix them quickly and efficiently.
Testing the prediction profiler with disallowed combinations—A statistical engineering case study
Published in Quality Engineering, 2022
Jeremy Ash, Caleb King, Laura Lancaster, Ryan Lekivetz, Joseph Morgan, Yeng Saanchi
Validating software involves a variety of activities that fall into two broad categories: those that involve static analysis of software artifacts and those that involve dynamic analysis of software artifacts (see Adrion, Branstad, and Cherniavsky 1982). We use the term software artifact to refer to byproducts of the software development process, such as requirements documents, source code, test cases, and documentation. Static analysis activities involve the examination of such artifacts, either manually or automatically. A code review is an example of a static analysis activity, where a group of software engineers examine source code to identify potential problems with the implementation. Dynamic analysis activities are different, in that they require the execution of a software artifact for a set of inputs and the resulting behavior of the artifact is what is examined. Software testing is an example of a dynamic analysis activity and the primary focus of this paper.
Better quality built environments: design review panels as applied in Cambridge, England
Published in Journal of Urban Design, 2019
Bahar Durmaz-Drinkwater, Stephen Platt
The Design Council (2013, 6) defines design review as: ‘an independent and objective assessment process in which an expert panel reviews the design proposals … The process is designed to improve the quality of buildings and places for the benefit of public’. Schuster (1997, 210) defines design review as ‘all of the processes whereby private development proposals are presented for, and receive, independent, third-party public interest scrutiny’. As Carmona (2016) explains, design review is one of the design governance tools, and is a process that takes place within planning. The overall aim is to provide a better design and aesthetic quality of the environment. Design review panels aim to influence the quality of all aspects of the end product and to create a comfortable, sustainable, accessible and long-lasting place to live. The paper considers two questions: whether design review panels contribute to improving the quality of the built environment, and whether they are an important element of the design process. The paper will explore these by focusing on three design review panels in Cambridge.