open source software literature review

7 open source tools to make literature reviews easy

Opensource.com

A good literature review is critical for academic research in any field, whether it is for a research article, a critical review for coursework, or a dissertation. In a recent article, I presented detailed steps for doing  a literature review using open source software .

The following is a brief summary of seven free and open source software tools described in that article that will make your next literature review much easier.

1. GNU Linux

Most literature reviews are accomplished by graduate students working in research labs in universities. For absurd reasons, graduate students often have the worst computers on campus. They are often old, slow, and clunky Windows machines that have been discarded and recycled from the undergraduate computer labs. Installing a flavor of GNU Linux will breathe new life into these outdated PCs. There are more than 100 distributions , all of which can be downloaded and installed for free on computers. Most popular Linux distributions come with a "try-before-you-buy" feature. For example, with Ubuntu you can make a bootable USB stick that allows you to test-run the Ubuntu desktop experience without interfering in any way with your PC configuration. If you like the experience, you can use the stick to install Ubuntu on your machine permanently.

Linux distributions generally come with a free web browser, and the most popular is Firefox . Two Firefox plugins that are particularly useful for literature reviews are Unpaywall and Zotero. Keep reading to learn why.

3. Unpaywall

Often one of the hardest parts of a literature review is gaining access to the papers you want to read for your review. The unintended consequence of copyright restrictions and paywalls is it has narrowed access to the peer-reviewed literature to the point that even Harvard University is challenged to pay for it. Fortunately, there are a lot of open access articles—about a third of the literature is free (and the percentage is growing). Unpaywall is a Firefox plugin that enables researchers to click a green tab on the side of the browser and skip the paywall on millions of peer-reviewed journal articles. This makes finding accessible copies of articles much faster that searching each database individually. Unpaywall is fast, free, and legal, as it accesses many of the open access sites that I covered in my paper on using open source in lit reviews .

Formatting references is the most tedious of academic tasks. Zotero can save you from ever doing it again. It operates as an Android app, desktop program, and a Firefox plugin (which I recommend). It is a free, easy-to-use tool to help you collect, organize, cite, and share research. It replaces the functionality of proprietary packages such as RefWorks, Endnote, and Papers for zero cost. Zotero can auto-add bibliographic information directly from websites. In addition, it can scrape bibliographic data from PDF files. Notes can be easily added on each reference. Finally, and most importantly, it can import and export the bibliography databases in all publishers' various formats. With this feature, you can export bibliographic information to paste into a document editor for a paper or thesis—or even to a wiki for dynamic collaborative literature reviews (see tool #7 for more on the value of wikis in lit reviews).

5. LibreOffice

Your thesis or academic article can be written conventionally with the free office suite LibreOffice , which operates similarly to Microsoft's Office products but respects your freedom. Zotero has a word processor plugin to integrate directly with LibreOffice. LibreOffice is more than adequate for the vast majority of academic paper writing.

If LibreOffice is not enough for your layout needs, you can take your paper writing one step further with LaTeX , a high-quality typesetting system specifically designed for producing technical and scientific documentation. LaTeX is particularly useful if your writing has a lot of equations in it. Also, Zotero libraries can be directly exported to BibTeX files for use with LaTeX.

7. MediaWiki

If you want to leverage the open source way to get help with your literature review, you can facilitate a dynamic collaborative literature review . A wiki is a website that allows anyone to add, delete, or revise content directly using a web browser. MediaWiki is free software that enables you to set up your own wikis.

Researchers can (in decreasing order of complexity): 1) set up their own research group wiki with MediaWiki, 2) utilize wikis already established at their universities (e.g., Aalto University ), or 3) use wikis dedicated to areas that they research. For example, several university research groups that focus on sustainability (including mine ) use Appropedia , which is set up for collaborative solutions on sustainability, appropriate technology, poverty reduction, and permaculture.

Using a wiki makes it easy for anyone in the group to keep track of the status of and update literature reviews (both current and older or from other researchers). It also enables multiple members of the group to easily collaborate on a literature review asynchronously. Most importantly, it enables people outside the research group to help make a literature review more complete, accurate, and up-to-date.

Wrapping up

Free and open source software can cover the entire lit review toolchain, meaning there's no need for anyone to use proprietary solutions. Do you use other libre tools for making literature reviews or other academic work easier? Please let us know your favorites in the comments.

Related Content

• Resources Home 🏠
• Try SciSpace Copilot
• Search research papers
• Add Copilot Extension
• Try AI Detector
• Try Paraphraser
• Try Citation Generator
• April Papers
• June Papers
• July Papers

5 literature review tools to ace your research (+2 bonus tools)

Table of Contents

Your literature review is the lore behind your research paper . It comes in two forms, systematic and scoping , both serving the purpose of rounding up previously published works in your research area that led you to write and finish your own.

A literature review is vital as it provides the reader with a critical overview of the existing body of knowledge, your methodology, and an opportunity for research applications.

Some steps to follow while writing your review:

• Pick an accessible topic for your paper
• Do thorough research and gather evidence surrounding your topic
• Read and take notes diligently or you can use ChatPDF tool for this
• Create a rough structure for your review
• Synthesis your notes and write the first draft
• Edit and proofread your literature review

To make your workload a little lighter, there are many literature review AI tools. These tools can help you find academic articles through AI and answer questions about a research paper.  

Best literature review tools to improve research workflow

A literature review is one of the most critical yet tedious stages in composing a research paper. Many students find it an uphill task since it requires extensive reading and careful organization .

Using some of the best literature review tools listed here, you can make your life easier by overcoming some of the existing challenges in literature reviews. From collecting and classifying to analyzing and publishing research outputs, these tools help you with your literature review and improve your productivity without additional effort or expenses.

1. SciSpace

SciSpace is an AI for academic research that will help find research papers and answer questions about a research paper. You can discover, read, and understand research papers with SciSpace making it an excellent platform for literature review. Featuring a repository with over 270 million research papers, it comes with your AI research assistant called Copilot that offers explanations, summaries , and answers as you read.

Get started now:

Find academic articles through AI

SciSpace has a dedicated literature review tool that finds scientific articles when you search for a question. Based on semantic search, it shows all the research papers relevant for your subject. You can then gather quick insights for all the papers displayed in your search results like methodology, dataset, etc., and figure out all the papers relevant for your research.

Identify relevant articles faster

Abstracts are not always enough to determine whether a paper is relevant to your research question. For starters, you can ask questions to your AI research assistant, SciSpace Copilot to explore the content and better understand the article. Additionally, use the summarize feature to quickly review the methodology and results of a paper and decide if it is worth reading in detail.

Learn in your preferred language

A big barrier non-native English speakers face while conducting a literature review is that a significant portion of scientific literature is published in English. But with SciSpace Copilot, you can review, interact, and learn from research papers in any language you prefer — presently, it supports 75+ languages. The AI will answer questions about a research paper in your mother tongue.

Integrates with Zotero

Many researchers use Zotero to create a library and manage research papers. SciSpace lets you import your scientific articles directly from Zotero into your SciSpace library and use Copilot to comprehend your research papers. You can also highlight key sections, add notes to the PDF as you read, and even turn helpful explanations and answers from Copilot into notes for future review.

Understand math and complex concepts quickly

Come across complex mathematical equations or difficult concepts? Simply highlight the text or select the formula or table, and Copilot will provide an explanation or breakdown of the same in an easy-to-understand manner. You can ask follow-up questions if you need further clarification.

Discover new papers to read without leaving

Highlight phrases or sentences in your research paper to get suggestions for related papers in the field and save time on literature reviews. You can also use the 'Trace' feature to move across and discover connected papers, authors, topics, and more.

SciSpace Copilot is now available as a Chrome extension , allowing you to access its features directly while you browse scientific literature anywhere across the web.

Get citation-backed answers

When you're conducting a literature review, you want credible information with proper references.  Copilot ensures that every piece of information provided by SciSpace Copilot is backed by a direct reference, boosting transparency, accuracy, and trustworthiness.

Ask a question related to the paper you're delving into. Every response from Copilot comes with a clickable citation. This citation leads you straight to the section of the PDF from which the answer was extracted.

By seamlessly integrating answers with citations, SciSpace Copilot assures you of the authenticity and relevance of the information you receive.

2. Mendeley

Mendeley Citation Manager is a free web and desktop application. It helps simplify your citation management workflow significantly. Here are some ways you can speed up your referencing game with Mendeley.

Generate citations and bibliographies

Easily add references from your Mendeley library to your Word document, change your citation style, and create a bibliography, all without leaving your document.

Retrieve references

It allows you to access your references quickly. Search for a term, and it will return results by referencing the year, author, or source.

Add sources to your Mendeley library by dragging PDF to Mendeley Reference Manager. Mendeley will automatically remove the PDF(s) metadata and create a library entry.‌

Read and annotate documents

It helps you highlight and comment across multiple PDFs while keep them all in one place using Mendeley Notebook . Notebook pages are not tied to a reference and let you quote from many PDFs.

A big part of many literature review workflows, Zotero is a free, open-source tool for managing citations that works as a plug-in on your browser. It helps you gather the information you need, cite your sources, lets you attach PDFs, notes, and images to your citations, and create bibliographies.

Import research articles to your database

Search for research articles on a keyword, and add relevant results to your database. Then, select the articles you are most interested in, and import them into Zotero.

Add bibliography in a variety of formats

With Zotero, you don’t have to scramble for different bibliography formats. Simply use the Zotero-Word plug-in to insert in-text citations and generate a bibliography.

Share your research

You can save a paper and sync it with an online library to easily share your research for group projects. Zotero can be used to create your database and decrease the time you spend formatting citations.

Sysrev is an AI too for article review that facilitates screening, collaboration, and data extraction from academic publications, abstracts, and PDF documents using machine learning. The platform is free and supports public and Open Access projects only.

Some of the features of Sysrev include:

Group labels

Group labels can be a powerful concept for creating database tables from documents. When exported and re-imported, each group label creates a new table. To make labels for a project, go into the manage -> labels section of the project.

Group labels enable project managers to pull table information from documents. It makes it easier to communicate review results for specific articles.

Track reviewer performance

Sysrev's label counting tool provides filtering and visualization options for keeping track of the distribution of labels throughout the project's progress. Project managers can check their projects at any point to track progress and the reviewer's performance.

Tool for concordance

The Sysrev tool for concordance allows project administrators and reviewers to perform analysis on their labels. Concordance is measured by calculating the number of times users agree on the labels they have extracted.

Colandr is a free, open-source, internet-based analysis and screening software used as an AI for academic research. It was designed to ease collaboration across various stages of the systematic review procedure. The tool can be a little complex to use. So, here are the steps involved in working with Colandr.

Create a review

The first step to using Colandr is setting up an organized review project. This is helpful to librarians who are assisting researchers with systematic reviews.

The planning stage is setting the review's objectives along with research queries. Any reviewer can review the details of the planning stage. However, they can only be modified by the author for the review.

Citation screening/import

In this phase, users can upload their results from database searches. Colandr also offers an automated deduplication system.

Full-text screening

The system in Colandr will discover the combination of terms and expressions that are most useful for the reader. If an article is selected, it will be moved to the final step.

Data extraction/export

Colandr data extraction is more efficient than the manual method. It creates the form fields for data extraction during the planning stage of the review procedure. Users can decide to revisit or modify the form for data extraction after completing the initial screening.

Bonus literature review tools

SRDR+ is a web-based tool for extracting and managing systematic review or meta-analysis data. It is open and has a searchable archive of systematic reviews and their data.

7. Plot Digitizer

Plot Digitizer is an efficient tool for extracting information from graphs and images, equipped with many features that facilitate data extraction. The program comes with a free online application, which is adequate to extract data quickly.

Final thoughts

Writing a literature review is not easy. It’s a time-consuming process, which can become tiring at times. The literature review tools mentioned in this blog do an excellent job of maximizing your efforts and helping you write literature reviews much more efficiently. With them, you can breathe a sigh of relief and give more time to your research.

As you dive into your literature review, don’t forget to use SciSpace ResearchGPT to streamline the process. It facilitates your research and helps you explore key findings, summary, and other components of the paper easily.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. what is rrl in research.

RRL stands for Review of Related Literature and sometimes interchanged with ‘Literature Review.’ RRL is a body of studies relevant to the topic being researched. These studies may be in the form of journal articles, books, reports, and other similar documents. Review of related literature is used to support an argument or theory being made by the researcher, as well as to provide information on how others have approached the same topic.

2. What are few softwares and tools available for literature review?

• SciSpace Discover

• Mendeley

• Zotero

• Sysrev

• Colandr

• SRDR+

3. How to generate an online literature review?

The Scispace Discover tool, which offers an excellent repository of millions of peer-reviewed articles and resources, will help you generate or create a literature review easily. You may find relevant information by utilizing the filter option, checking its credibility, tracing related topics and articles, and citing in widely accepted formats with a single click.

4. What does it mean to synthesize literature?

To synthesize literature is to take the main points and ideas from a number of sources and present them in a new way. The goal is to create a new piece of writing that pulls together the most important elements of all the sources you read. Make recommendations based on them, and connect them to the research.

5. Should we write abstract for literature review?

Abstracts, particularly for the literature review section, are not required. However, an abstract for the research paper, on the whole, is useful for summarizing the paper and letting readers know what to expect from it. It can also be used to summarize the main points of the paper so that readers have a better understanding of the paper's content before they read it.

6. How do you evaluate the quality of a literature review?

• Whether it is clear and well-written.

• Whether Information is current and up to date.

• Does it cover all of the relevant sources on the topic.

• Does it provide enough evidence to support its conclusions.

7. Is literature review mandatory?

Yes. Literature review is a mandatory part of any research project. It is a critical step in the process that allows you to establish the scope of your research and provide a background for the rest of your work.

8. What are the sources for a literature review?

• Reports

• Theses

• Conference proceedings

• Company reports

• Some government publications

• Journals

• Books

• Newspapers

• Articles by professional associations

• Indexes

• Databases

• Catalogues

• Encyclopaedias

• Dictionaries

• Bibliographies

• Citation indexes

• Statistical data from government websites

9. What is the difference between a systematic review and a literature review?

A systematic review is a form of research that uses a rigorous method to generate knowledge from both published and unpublished data. A literature review, on the other hand, is a critical summary of an area of research within the context of what has already been published.

Suggested reads!

Types of essays in academic writing Citation Machine Alternatives — A comparison of top citation tools 2023

QuillBot vs SciSpace: Choose the best AI-paraphrasing tool

ChatPDF vs. SciSpace Copilot: Unveiling the best tool for your research

You might also like

Consensus GPT vs. SciSpace GPT: Choose the Best GPT for Research

Literature Review and Theoretical Framework: Understanding the Differences

Types of Essays in Academic Writing - Quick Guide (2024)

• Open access
• Published: 08 November 2016

A systematic literature review of open source software quality assessment models

• Adewole Adewumi 1 ,
• Sanjay Misra   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3556-9331 1 , 2 ,
• Nicholas Omoregbe 1 ,
• Broderick Crawford 3 &
• Ricardo Soto 3  

SpringerPlus volume  5 , Article number:  1936 ( 2016 ) Cite this article

7888 Accesses

24 Citations

6 Altmetric

Metrics details

Many open source software (OSS) quality assessment models are proposed and available in the literature. However, there is little or no adoption of these models in practice. In order to guide the formulation of newer models so they can be acceptable by practitioners, there is need for clear discrimination of the existing models based on their specific properties. Based on this, the aim of this study is to perform a systematic literature review to investigate the properties of the existing OSS quality assessment models by classifying them with respect to their quality characteristics, the methodology they use for assessment, and their domain of application so as to guide the formulation and development of newer models. Searches in IEEE Xplore, ACM, Science Direct, Springer and Google Search is performed so as to retrieve all relevant primary studies in this regard. Journal and conference papers between the year 2003 and 2015 were considered since the first known OSS quality model emerged in 2003.

A total of 19 OSS quality assessment model papers were selected. To select these models we have developed assessment criteria to evaluate the quality of the existing studies. Quality assessment models are classified into five categories based on the quality characteristics they possess namely: single-attribute, rounded category, community-only attribute, non-community attribute as well as the non-quality in use models. Our study reflects that software selection based on hierarchical structures is found to be the most popular selection method in the existing OSS quality assessment models. Furthermore, we found that majority (47%) of the existing models do not specify any domain of application.

Conclusions

In conclusion, our study will be a valuable contribution to the community and helps the quality assessment model developers in formulating newer models and also to the practitioners (software evaluators) in selecting suitable OSS in the midst of alternatives.

Prior to the emergence of open source software (OSS) quality models, the McCall, Dromey and ISO 9126 models were already in existence (Miguel et al. 2014 ). These models however did not consider some quality attributes unique to OSS such as community—a body of users and developers formed around OSS who contribute to the software and popularize it (Haaland et al. 2010 ). This gap is what led to the evolution of OSS quality models. Majority of the OSS quality models that exist today are derived from the ISO 9126 quality model (Miguel et al. 2014 ; Adewumi et al. 2013 ). It defines six internal and external quality characteristics, which are functionality, reliability, usability, efficiency, maintainability and portability. ISO 25010 replaced the ISO 9126 in 2010 (ISO/IEC 9126 2001 ), it has the following product quality attributes (ISO/IEC 2501 0 2001): functional suitability, reliability, performance efficiency, operability, security, compatibility, maintainability and transferability. The ISO 25010 quality in use attributes includes effectiveness, efficiency, satisfaction, safety and usability.

It is important to note that ISO 25010 can serve as standard for OSS only in terms of product quality and quality in use. It does not address unique characteristics of OSS such as the community. A key distinguishing feature of OSS is that it is built and maintained by a community (Haaland et al. 2010 ). The quality of this community also determines the quality of the OSS (Samoladas et al. 2008 ). From the literature, community related quality characteristics include (Soto and Ciolkowski 2009 ): maintenance capacity, sustainability, and process maturity. Maintenance capacity refers to the number of contributors to an OSS project and the amount of time they are willing and able to contribute to the development effort as observed from versioning logs, mailing lists, discussion forums and bug report systems. Furthermore, sustainability refers to the ability of the community to grow in terms of new contributors and to regenerate by attracting and engaging new members to take the place of those leaving the community. In addition, process maturity refers to the adoption and use of standard practices in the development process such as submission and review of changes, peer review of changes, provision of a test suite, and planned releases.

Since the advent of the first OSS quality model in 2003 (Adewumi et al. 2013 ), a number of other models have since been derived leading to an increasing collection of OSS quality models. Quality models in general can be classified into three broad categories namely: definition, assessment and prediction models (Ouhbi et al. 2014 , 2015 ; Deissenboeck et al. 2009 ). Generally, OSS quality assessment models outline specific attributes that guide the selection of OSS. The assessment models are very significant because they can help software evaluators to select suitable OSS in the midst of alternatives (Kuwata et al. 2014 ). However, despite the numerous quality assessment models proposed, there is still little or no adoption of these models in practice (Hauge et al. 2009 ; Ali Babar 2010 ). In order to guide the formulation of newer models, there is need to understand the nature of the existing OSS quality assessment models. The aim of this study is to investigate the nature of the existing OSS quality assessment models by classifying them with respect to their quality characteristics, the methodology they use for assessment, and their domain of application so as to guide the formulation and development of newer models. Existing studies on OSS quality assessment models (Miguel et al. 2014 ; Adewumi et al. 2013 ) are largely descriptive reviews that did not seek to classify OSS quality assessment models along specific dimensions, or answer specific research questions. In contrast, this paper employs a methodical, structured, and rigorous analysis of existing literature in order to classify existing OSS quality assessment models and establish a template guide for model developers when they come up with new models. Thus, this study is a systematic literature review that investigates three research questions, namely: (1) what are the key quality characteristics possessed by the OSS assessment models? (2) What selection methods are employed for use in these assessment models? (3) What is the domain of application? In order to conduct this systematic review, the original guidelines proposed by Kitchenham ( 2004 ) have been followed.

The rest of this paper is structured as follows: “ Methods ” section describes the method of obtaining the existing OSS quality models. “ Results ” section presents the results obtained in the study, while “ Summary and discussion ” section discusses the findings of the study. “ Conclusion and future work ” section concludes the paper with a brief note.

This section outlines the research questions posed in this study and also explains in detail the rationale behind each question. It goes on to discuss the search strategy for retrieving the relevant papers; criteria for including any given paper in the study; quality assessment of the retrieved papers as well as how relevant information was extracted from each selected paper.

Research questions

This study aims at gaining insight into the existing OSS quality models and addresses three research questions. The three research questions alongside the rationale motivating each question is presented in Table  1 . These form the basis for defining the search strategy.

Search strategy

A search string was defined based on the keywords derived from the research question as follows: “(Open Source Software OR libre OR OSS or FLOSS or FOSS) AND (model OR quality model OR measurement model OR evaluation model)”.

In order to retrieve the primary studies containing OSS quality models we made use of Scopus digital library. It indexes several renowned scientific journals, books and conference proceedings (e.g. IEEE, ACM, Science Direct and Springer). We considered only papers from (2003 to 2015) since the first OSS quality model emerged in 2003 (Haaland et al. 2010 ; Adewumi et al. 2013 ). We also focused on journal papers and conference proceedings in the subject area of Computer Science that were written in English. A total of 3198 primary studies were initially retrieved. After checking through their titles and abstracts, the number was reduced to 209. To be sure that no paper had been left out, we also performed a search in IEEE Explore, ACM and Springer using the same search string. No new papers were retrieved from this search that had not already been seen from the search in Scopus. Furthermore, a search was performed using Google Search and two relevant articles were retrieved (Duijnhouwer and Widdows 2003 ; Atos 2006 ) and added to make a total of 211 retrieved papers. These papers were read in detail to determine their suitability for inclusion.

Inclusion criteria

Papers proposing cost models and conceptual models were removed. Also position papers and papers that did not present a model for assessing quality in OSS in order to guide selection in the midst of alternatives were also removed. A crosscheck was conducted through the reference list of candidate studies to ensure that no model had been left out. As a result, 19 primary studies were selected, which are further discussed in the next segment of this section.

Quality assessment

Each primary study was evaluated by using the criteria defined in Adewumi et al. ( 2013 ). The criteria are based on four quality assessment (QA) questions:

Are the model’s attributes derived from a known standard (this can be ISO 9126, ISO 25010 or CMMI)?

Is the evaluation procedure of the model adequately described?

Does a tool support the evaluation process?

Is a demonstration of quality assessment using the model provided?

The questions were scored as follows:

Y (yes), the model’s attribute are mostly derived from a known standard, P (Partly), only a few of the model’s attributes are derived from a known standard; N (no), the model’s attributes are not all derived from a known standard.

Y, the evaluation procedure of the model are adequately described; P, the evaluation procedure was described inadequately; N, the evaluation procedure of the model was not described at all.

Y, the evaluation process is fully supported by a tool; P, the evaluation process is partially supported by a tool; N no tool support is provided for the evaluation process.

Y a complete demonstration of quality assessment using the model is provided; P only a partial demonstration of quality assessment using the model is provided; N there is no demonstration of quality assessment using the model provided.

The scoring procedure was Y = 1, P = 0.5, N = 0. The first author coordinated the quality evaluation extraction process. The first author assessed every paper, and assigned 5 papers each to the second, third and fourth authors and 4 papers to the fifth author so they could assess independently. When there was a disagreement, we discussed the issues until we reached agreement.

Data extraction strategy

In this phase, the first author extracted the data while the other four authors checked the extraction. This approach though inconsistent with the medical standards summarized in Kitchenham’s guidelines ( 2004 ) has been found useful in practice (Brereton et al. 2007 ). The first author coordinated the data extraction and checking tasks, which involved all of the authors of this paper. Allocation was not randomized rather it was based on the time availability of the individual researchers. When there was a disagreement, we discussed the issues until we reached agreement.

The selected studies were gleaned to collect the data that would provide the set of possible answers to the research questions. Table  2 shows the data extraction form that was created as an Excel sheet and filled by the first author for each of the papers selected.

From Table  2 it can be observed that the information extracted includes: the Study Ref., title, and classification [publication outlet, publication year and research questions (RQ) 1, 2 and 3].

Quality characteristics that the models in the selected studies can possess include the product quality and the quality in use characteristics of the ISO 25010 namely: functional suitability, reliability, performance efficiency, operability, security, compatibility, maintainability, transferability, effectiveness, efficiency, satisfaction, safety and usability. We also include community related quality characteristics as described in the literature namely (Soto and Ciolkowski 2009 ): maintenance capacity, sustainability and process maturity.

The methods used by assessment models for selection can be classified as (Petersen et al. 2008 ; Wen et al. 2012 ):

Data mining technique such as: Artificial Neural Network, Case-Based Reasoning, Data Envelope Analysis (DEA), Fuzzy Logic etc.

Process: A series of actions, or functions leading to a selection result and performing operations on data

Tool based technique: A technique that greatly employs software tools to accomplish selection task

Model: A system representation that allows for selection based on investigation through a hierarchical structure

Framework: A real or conceptual structure intended to serve as support or guide for selection process

Other, e.g. guidelines

The domain of application can be classified as follows (Forward and Lethbridge 2008 ):

Data dominant software—i.e. consumer-oriented software, business-oriented software, design and engineering software as well as information display and transaction entry

Systems software—i.e. operating systems, networking/communications, device/peripheral drivers, support utilities, middleware and system components, software backplanes (e.g. Eclipse), servers and malware

Control-dominant software—i.e. hardware control, embedded software, real time control software, process control software (e.g. air traffic control, industrial process, nuclear plants)

Computation-dominant software—i.e. operations research, information management and manipulation, artistic creativity, scientific software and artificial intelligence

No domain specified

Synthesis method

The synthesis method was based on:

Counting the number of papers per publication outlet and the number of papers found on a year-wise basis,

Counting the primary studies that are classified in response to each research question,

Presenting charts and frequency tables for the classification results which have been used in the analysis,

Presenting in the discussion a narrative summary with which to recount the key findings of this study.

This section presents the results obtained in response to the research questions posed in this study. Table  3 is a summary of the OSS quality assessment models used in this study, their sources and year of publication. The first column of the table (Study Ref.) represents the reference number of each quality assessment model in ascending order. The table shows that 2009 has the most number of published papers—three publications in total. The year 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2012 have the lowest number of publications—one published paper each. All other years (2007, 2008, 2011, 2013, 2014, 2015) have two published papers.

The studies were assessed for quality using the criteria described in the previous section (see “ Quality assessment ” section). The score for each study is shown in Table  4 . The results of the quality analysis shows that all studies scored above 1 on the proposed quality assessment scale with only one study scoring less than 2. One study scored 4, five studies scored 3.5, five studies scored 3, five studies scored 2.5 and two studies scored 2.

Table  5 shows the summary of the response to the research questions from each of the selected articles. From the table, it can be observed that an assessment model can belong to more than one category for RQ1 (an example is the assessment model in Study Ref. 8 which is single-attribute model, a non-community attribute model and a non-quality in use model).

RQ1. What are the key quality characteristics possessed by the models?

To address RQ1, we performed a comparative study of each identified model against ISO 25010 as well as community related quality characteristics described in “ Background ” section. Based on our comparative study, which is presented in Table  6 , we classify the quality assessment models into five categories, which are discussed as follows:

Single-attribute models: This refers to models that only measure one quality characteristic. Qualification and Selection of Open Source software (QSOS) model (Atos 2006 , Deprez and Alexandre 2008 ), Mathieu and Wray model ( 2007 ), Sudhaman and Thangavel model ( 2015 ) and Open Source Usability Maturity Model (OS-UMM) model (Raza et al. 2012 ) fall into this category. QSOS possesses maintainability as its quality characteristic. Mathieu and Wray as well as Sudhaman and Thangavel models both possess efficiency as their singular quality characteristic. In addition, OS-UMM possesses usability as its singular quality characteristic.

Rounded category models: This refers to models that possess at least one quality characteristic in each of the three categories used for comparison (i.e. product quality, quality in use and community related characteristics). Open Source Maturity Model (OSMM) (Duijnhouwer and Widdows 2003 ), Open Business Readiness Rating (Open BRR) model (Wasserman et al. 2006 ), Source Quality Observatory for Open Source Software (SQO-OSS) model (Samoladas et al. 2008 ; Spinellis et al. 2009 ), Evaluation Framework for Free/Open souRce projecTs (EFFORT) model (Aversano and Tortorella 2013 ), Muller ( 2011 ) and Sohn et al. model ( 2015 ) fall into this category of models. OSMM possesses all the quality characteristics in the product quality category as well as in the community-related quality characteristics but only possesses usability in the quality in use category. Open BRR and EFFORT models both possess all the community-related quality characteristics, some of the product quality characteristics and usability from the quality in use category. SQO-OSS possesses all the community-related quality characteristics, three of the product quality characteristics and effectiveness from the quality in use category. Muller model possesses one characteristic each from the product quality and community-related categories. It also possesses efficiency and usability from the quality in use category. As for Sohn et al. model, it possesses two quality characteristics from the product quality category and one quality characteristic each from the quality in use and community-related quality categories.

Community-only attribute model: This refers to a model that only measures community-related quality characteristics. The only model that fits this description is the Kuwata et al. model ( 2014 ) as seen in Table  6 . The model does not possess any quality characteristic from the product quality or quality in use categories.

Non-community attribute model: This refers to models that do not measure any community-related quality characteristics. QSOS (Atos 2006 ), Sung et al. ( 2007 ), Raffoul et al. ( 2008 ), Alfonzo et al. ( 2008 ), Mathieu and Wray, Chirila et al. (Del Bianco et al. 2010a ), OS-UMM (Raza et al. 2012 ), Sudhaman and Thangavel, and Sarrab and Rehman (Sarrab and Rehman 2014 ) models fall into this category.

Non-quality in use models: This refers to models that do not include any quality in use characteristics in their structure. QSOS (Atos 2006 , Deprez and Alexandre 2008 ), QualOSS (Soto and Ciolkowski 2009 ), OMM (Petrinja et al. 2009 , Del Bianco et al. 2010b , Del Bianco et al. 2011 , Chirila et al. ( 2011 ), Adewumi et al. ( 2013 ), and Kuwata et al. models are the models in this category.

From our classification, it is possible for a particular model to belong to more than one category. QSOS for instance belongs to three of the categories (i.e. it is a single-attribute model, non-community attribute model and non-quality in use model). Mathieu and Wray model ( 2007 ), Chirila et al. model ( 2011 ), OS-UMM (Raza et al. 2012 ), Sudhaman and Thangavel model ( 2015 ), as well as Kuwata et al. model ( 2014 ) all belong to two categories respectively. Precisely, Mathieu and Wray model is a single-attribute model and non-community attribute model. Chirila et al. model is a non-community attribute model as well as a non-quality in use model. OS-UMM is a single attribute model and a non-community attribute model. Sudhaman and Thangavel model is both a single-attribute model and non-community attribute model. Kuwata et al. model is both a community-only attribute model and a non-quality in use model. All the other models belong to a single category and they include: OSMM (Duijnhouwer and Widdows 2003 ), Open BRR (Wasserman et al. 2006 ), Sung et al. ( 2007 ), QualOSS (Soto and Ciolkowski 2009 ), OMM (Petrinja et al. 2009 ), SQO-OSS (Samoladas et al. 2008 ), EFFORT (Aversano and Tortorella 2013 ), Raffoul et al. ( 2008 ), Alfonzo et al. ( 2008 ), Muller ( 2011 ), Adewumi et al. ( 2013 ), Sohn et al. as well as Sarrab and Rehman models ( 2014 ).

Table  6 is a comparative analysis between the OSS quality models presented in Table  3 and the ISO 25010 model. It also features community related characteristics and how they compare with the OSS quality models. Cells marked with ‘x’ indicate that the OSS quality model possesses such characteristic similar to ISO 25010. An empty cell simply means that the OSS quality model does not possess such characteristic as found in ISO 25010.

Figure  1 shows the frequency distribution of the ISO 25010 Product quality characteristics in the OSS quality models we considered. It shows that maintainability is measured by 55% of the existing OSS quality models making it the most common product quality characteristic measured by existing OSS quality models. This is followed by functional suitability, which is measured in 50% of the existing quality models. The least measured are operability, compatibility and transferability that are each measured by 30% of the existing quality models. From Fig.  1 , it can be inferred that the maintainability of a given OSS is of more importance than the functionality it possesses. This is because being an OSS; the code is accessible making it possible to incorporate missing features. However, such missing features can be difficult to implement if the code is not well documented, readable and understandable which are all attributes of maintainable code. Similar inferences can be made as regard the other quality characteristics. For instance, the reliability and security of an OSS can be improved upon if the code is maintainable. In addition, the performance efficiency, operability, compatibility and transferability can all be improved upon with maintainable code.

Frequency distribution of ISO 25010 product quality characteristics in OSS quality models

Figure  2 shows the frequency distribution of the ISO 25010 Quality in Use characteristics in the OSS quality models we considered. It shows that usability is measured by 50% of the existing OSS quality models making it the most commonly measured characteristic in this category. It is followed by effectiveness and efficiency, which are both considered by 15% of the existing OSS quality models. Satisfaction and safety on the other hand are not considered in any of the existing OSS quality models. From Fig.  2 , it can be easily inferred that usability is the most significant attribute under the quality in use category and hence all other attributes in this category add up to define it. In other words, usable OSS is one that is effective in accomplishing specific tasks, efficient in managing system resources, safe for the environment and provides satisfaction to an end-user.

Frequency distribution of ISO 25010 quality in use characteristics in OSS quality models

Figure  3 shows the frequency distribution of community related quality characteristics in the OSS quality models we considered. It shows that maintenance capacity is measured in 45% of the existing OSS quality models making it the most commonly measured attribute in this category. It is closely followed by sustainability that is measured by 40% of the existing OSS quality models. Process maturity is the least measured attribute in this category and is considered in 35% of the existing OSS quality models. It can be inferred from Fig.  3 that evaluators of an OSS quality via its community are mostly interested in the maintenance capacity of such a community in comparison to the sustainability of the community. Also, they are more concerned about the sustainability of the community than the maturity of the community’s processes.

Frequency distribution of community related quality characteristics in OSS quality models

RQ2. What are the methods applied for reaching selection decisions?

Figure  4 depicts the various selection methods adopted in the existing OSS quality models for reaching a decision in the midst of alternatives. The model approach, which entails making system representation that allows for selection based on investigation through a hierarchical structure is the most common selection method used in the existing literature and is used by six (32%) of the existing models. This is followed by the process approach that accounts for use in 21% (four) of the existing models. For the “other” category, three (16%) of the models use a form of guideline in the selection process. Framework approach accounts for 11% while the data mining approach, as well as the tool-based approach both account for 10% each of the existing OSS quality models. In general, it can be observed that more emphasis is placed on non-automated approaches in the existing quality models and so applying these models in real life selection scenarios is usually time-consuming and requires expertise to conduct (Hauge et al. 2009 ; Ali Babar 2010 ).

Selection methods used in OSS quality models

RQ3. What is the domain of application?

Figure  5 depicts the domain of application of the existing OSS quality assessment models. In general, majority of the models do not specify the domain of application. However, for those with specific domain of application, we observed that majority focus on measuring quality in data-dominant software that includes: business-oriented software such as Enterprise Resource Planning and Customer Relationship Management solutions; design and engineering software as well as information display and transaction systems such as issue tracking systems. System software evaluation accounts for 16% while computation-dominant software accounts for 11%.

Domains in which OSS quality models have been applied

Summary and discussion

Principal findings.

From the existing OSS quality models considered in this study, 20% of the models only measure a single quality attribute. Models in this category include: QSOS (which measures maintainability) (Atos 2006 ), Wray and Mathieu (Mathieu and Wray 2007 ) (which measures efficiency), OS-UMM (which measures usability) (Raza et al. 2012 ) and Sudhaman and Thangavel model (which measures efficiency) (Sudhaman and Thangavel 2015 ). Furthermore, 50% of the existing models do not measure community related quality characteristics even though community is what distinguishes OSS from their proprietary counterpart. Models in this category include: QSOS (Atos 2006 ), Sung et al. model ( 2007 ), Raffoul et al. model ( 2008 ), Alfonzo et al. model ( 2008 ), Wray and Mathieu model (Mathieu and Wray 2007 ), Chirila et al. model ( 2011 ), OS-UMM (Raza et al. 2012 ), Sudhaman and Thangavel model ( 2015 ) and Sarrab and Rehman model ( 2014 ). In addition, 35% of the models touch on all categories. They include: OSMM (Duijnhouwer and Widdows 2003 ), Open BRR (Wasserman et al. 2006 ), SQO-OSS (Spinellis et al. 2009 ), EFFORT (Aversano and Tortorella 2013 ), Müller model ( 2011 ) and Sohn et al. model ( 2015 ). Among these models a number of them have been applied to selection scenarios and reported in the literature. A notable example is the EFFORT model, which has been applied to evaluate OSS in the customer relationship management (CRM) domain (Aversano and Tortorella 2011 ) as well as in the enterprise resource-planning (ERP) domain (Aversano and Tortorella 2013 ).

From the existing OSS quality models, it is observed that in the aspect of product quality as defined by ISO 25010, maintainability is the most significant quality characteristic; Usability is the most significant quality in use characteristic in the existing OSS quality models while Maintenance capacity is the most significant community related characteristic in the OSS quality assessment models. Also worthy of note is that satisfaction and safety attributes of quality in use are never considered in the OSS quality models.

The model approach is the most adopted selection method in the existing OSS quality models. The least considered are the tool-based and data mining selection approaches. However, as newer publications emerge we expect to see other approaches and data mining gaining more ground.

Majority (47%) of the existing models do not specify any domain of application. As for those with specific domain of application, a greater percentage focus of data-dominant software especially enterprise resource planning software. Computation-dominant software is the least considered in this regard. Software in this category includes: operations research, information management and manipulation, artistic creativity, scientific software and artificial intelligence software.

From the this study, we also observed that none of the existing models evaluate all the criteria that we laid out, in terms of every quality characteristic under product quality, quality in use, and community related quality characteristics.

Implications of the results

Based on the comparison of the existing quality assessment models, there is clearly no suitable model—each model has its own limitations. As a result, the findings of this analysis have implications especially for practitioners who work towards coming up with new assessment models. They should note the following points in line with the research questions posed in this study:

Emphasis should shift from trying to build comprehensive models (containing all the possible software characteristics) to building models that include only essential quality characteristics. This study has shown that these essential quality characteristics include: maintainability, usability and maintenance capacity of software community. By narrowing down to these three essential quality characteristics, model developers would help to reduce the burden of OSS evaluation via existing quality assessment models, which has been referred to largely as being laborious and time consuming to conduct (Hauge et al. 2009 ; Ali Babar 2010 ).

Newer models should incorporate selection methods that are amenable to automation as this is not the case in most of the existing OSS quality assessment models reviewed in this study. The selection methods mostly adopted are the model (32%), process (21%) and other (16%) such as guidelines, which are not easily amenable to automation (Fahmy et al. 2012 ). Model developers should thus turn their focus to data mining techniques (Leopairote et al. 2013 ), framework or tool-based selection methods, which are currently among the least considered options. The advantage this offers is that it will help quicken the evaluation process resulting in faster decision-making. Following this advice could also bring about increased adoption of the models in practice (Wang et al. 2013 ). In addition, model developers can also consider modeling quality assessment as a multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) problem so as to facilitate automation as seen in recent studies (Fakir and Canbolat 2008 ; Cavus 2010 , 2011 ). A MCDM problem in this context can be regarded as a process of choosing among available alternatives (i.e. different OSS alternatives) based on a number of attributes (quality criteria). Considering this option opens the model developer to several well-known MCDM methods that amenable to automation such as: DEA, Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), and Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) to mention a few (Zavadskas et al. 2014 ).

From Fig.  5 , it can be observed that 47% of the quality assessment models considered do not mention the domain of application. This implies that most of the models were designed to be domain-independent. As such, domain-independence should be the focus of model developers (Wagner et al. 2015 ). A domain independent model is one that is able to assess quality in various category of OSS including those that are data-dominant, system software, control-dominant and computation-dominant. It should also be able to this with little or no customization. By following this particular consideration, the model proposed can tend to be widely adopted and possibly standardized.

Threats to validity

Construct threats to validity in this type of study is related to the identification of primary studies. In order to ensure that, as many relevant primary studies as possible were included, different synonyms for ‘open source software’ and ‘quality model’ were included in the search string. The first and second author conducted the automatic search for relevant literature independently and the results obtained were harmonized using a spreadsheet application and duplicates were removed. The reference sections of the selected papers were also scanned to ensure that all relevant references had been included. The final decision to include a study for further consideration depended on the agreement of all the authors. If a disagreement arose, then a discussion took place until consensus was reached.

Internal validity has to do with the data extraction and analysis. As previously mentioned, the first author carried out the data extraction of the primary studies and assigned them to the other authors to assess. The first author also participated in assessing all the primary studies and compared his results with those of the other authors and discrepancies in results were discussed until an agreement was reached. The assignment process of the primary studies to the other authors was not randomized because the sample size (number of primary studies) was relatively small and the time availability of each researcher needed to be considered. In order to properly classify the primary studies based on the quality characteristics they possessed, the authors adopted the ISO 25010 model ( 2001 ) as benchmark. All the authors were fully involved in the process of classifying the primary studies and all disagreements where discussed until a consensus was reached.

To mitigate the effects of incorrect data extraction, which can affect conclusion validity, the steps in the selection and data, extraction activity was clearly described as discussed in the previous paragraphs. The traceability between the data extracted and the conclusions was strengthened through the direct generation of charts and frequency tables from the data by using a statistical package. In our opinion, slight differences based on publication selection bias and misclassification would not alter the main conclusions drawn from the papers identified in this study.

As regards the external validity of this study, the results obtained apply specifically to quality assessment models within the OSS domain. Quality assessment models that evaluate quality in proprietary software are not covered. In addition, the validity of the inferences in this paper only concern OSS quality assessment models. This threat is therefore not present in this context. The results of this study may serve as starting point for OSS quality researchers to further identify and classify newer models in this domain.

Conclusion and future work

The overall goal of this study is to analyze and classify the existing knowledge as regards OSS quality assessment models. Papers dealing with these models were identified between 2003 and 2015. 19 papers were selected. The main publication outlets of the papers identified were journals and conference proceedings. The result of this study shows that maintainability is the most significant and ubiquitous product quality characteristic considered in the literature while usability is the most significant attribute in the quality in use category. Maintenance capacity of an OSS community is also a crucial quality characteristic under community related quality characteristics. The most commonly used selection method is the model approach and the least considered are the tool-based and data mining approaches. Another interesting result is that nearly half (47%) of the selected papers do not mention an application domain for the models in their research. More attention should be paid to building models that incorporate only essential quality characteristics. Also, framework, tool-based and data mining selection methods should be given more attention in future model proposals.

This study could help researchers to identify essential quality attributes with which to develop more robust quality models that are applicable in the various software domains. Also, researchers can compare the existing selection methods in order to determine the most effective. As future work, we intend to model OSS quality assessment as a MCDM problem. This will afford us the opportunity to choose from a range of MCDM methods one (or more) that can be used to evaluate quality in OSS across multiple domains.

Abbreviations

customer relationship management

Data Envelope Analysis

Evaluation Framework for Free/Open souRce projecTs

enterprise resource-planning

multi-criteria decision making

Open Business Readiness Rating

Open Source Maturity Model

Open Source Usability Maturity Model

open source software

quality assessment

Qualification and Selection of Open Source software

research question

Source Quality Observatory for Open Source Software

Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution

Adewumi A, Misra S, Omoregbe N (2013a) A review of models for evaluating quality in open source software. IERI Proc 4(1):88–92

Article   Google Scholar  

Adewumi A, Omoregbe N, Misra S (2013) Quantitative quality model for evaluating open source web applications: case study of repository software. In: 16th International conference on computational science and engineering (CSE), Dec 3 2013

Alfonzo O, Domínguez K, Rivas L, Perez M, Mendoza L, Ortega M (2008) Quality measurement model for analysis and design tools based on FLOSS. In: 19th Australian conference on software engineering, Perth, Australia, 26–28 March 2008

Atos (2006), Method for qualification and selection of open source software (QSOS) version 2.0. http://backend.qsos.org/download/qsos-2.0_en.pdf . Accessed 5 Jan 2015

Aversano L, Tortorella M (2011) Applying EFFORT for evaluating CRM open source systems. In: International conference on product-focused software process improvement, Springer, Heidelberg, pp 202–216

Aversano L, Tortorella M (2013) Quality evaluation of FLOSS projects: application to ERP systems. Inf Softw Technol 55(7):1260–1276

Brereton OP, Kitchenham BA, Budgen DT, Khalil M (2007) Lessons from applying the systematic literature review process within the software engineering domain. J Syst Softw 80:571–583

Cavus N (2010) The evaluation of learning management systems using an artificial intelligence fuzzy logic algorithm. Adv Eng Softw 41:248–254

Article   MATH   Google Scholar  

Cavus N (2011) The application of a multi-attribute decision-making algorithm to learning management systems evaluation. Br J Edu Technol 42:19–30

Chirila C, Juratoni D, Tudor D, Cretu V (2011) Towards a software quality assessment model based on open-source statical code analyzers. In: 6th IEEE international conference on computational intelligence and informatics (SACI), May 19 2011

Deissenboeck F, Juergens E, Lochman K, Wagner S (2009) Software quality models: purposes, usage scenarios and requirements. In: ICSE workshop on software quality, May 16 2009

Del Bianco V, Lavazza L, Morasca S, Taibi D, Tosi D (2010a) The QualiSPo approach to OSS product quality evaluation. In: 3rd International workshop on emerging trends in free/libre/open source software research and development, New York

Del Bianco V, Lavazza L, Morasca S, Taibi D, Tosi D (2010b) An investigation of the users’ perception of OSS quality. In: 6th International conference on open source systems, Springer Verlag, pp 15–28

Del Bianco V, Lavazza L, Morasca S, Taibi D (2011) A survey on open source software trustworthiness. IEEE Softw 28(5):67–75

Deprez JC, Alexandre S (2008) Comparing assessment methodologies for free/open source software: OpenBRR and QSOS. In: 9th international conference on product-focused software process improvement (PROFES‘08), Springer, Heidelberg, pp 189–203

Duijnhouwer F, Widdows C (2003) Open source maturity model. http://jose-manuel.me/thesis/references/GB_Expert_Letter_Open_Source_Maturity_Model_1.5.3.pdf Accessed: 5 Jan 2015

Fahmy S, Haslinda N, Roslina W, Fariha Z (2012) Evaluating the quality of software in e-book using the ISO 9126 model. Int J Control Autom 5:115–122

Google Scholar  

Fakir O, Canbolat MS (2008) A web-based decision support system for multi-criteria inventory classification using fuzzy AHP methodology. Expert Syst Appl 35:1367–1378

Forward A, Lethbridge TC (2008) A taxonomy of software types to facilitate search and evidence-based software engineering. In: Proceedings of the 2008 conference of the centre for advanced studies on collaborative research, Oct 27 2008

Haaland K, Groven AK, Regnesentral N, Glott R, Tannenberg A, FreeCode AS (2010) Free/libre open source quality models—a comparison between two approaches. In: 4th FLOS international workshop on Free/Libre/Open Source Software, July 2010

Hauge Ø, Østerlie T, Sørensen CF, Gerea M (2009) An empirical study on selection of open source software—preliminary results. In: ICSE workshop on emerging trends in free/libre/open source software research and development, May 18 2009

ISO/IEC 9126 (2001) Software engineering—product quality—part 1: quality model. http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=22749 Accessed 14 Nov 2015

ISO/IEC 25010 (2010) Systems and software engineering—systems and software product quality requirements and evaluation (SQuaRE)—system and software quality models. http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=35733 Accessed 14 Oct 2016

Kitchenham BA (2004) Procedures for undertaking systematic reviews. http://csnotes.upm.edu.my/kelasmaya/pgkm20910.nsf/0/715071a8011d4c2f482577a700386d3a/$FILE/10.1.1.122.3308[1].pdf . Accessed 14 Oct 2016

Kuwata Y, Takeda K, Miura H (2014) A study on maturity model of open source software community to estimate the quality of products. Proc Comput Sci 35:1711–1717

Leopairote W, Surarerks A, Prompoon N (2013) Evaluating software quality in use using user reviews mining. In: 10th International joint conference on computer science and software engineering, May 29 2013

Mathieu R, Wray B (2007) The application of DEA to measure the efficiency of open source security tool production. In: AMCIS 2007 proceedings, Dec 31 2007

Miguel JP, Mauricio D, Rodríguez G (2014) A review of software quality models for the evaluation of software products. Int J Soft Eng Appl 5(6):31–53

Müller T (2011) How to choose an free and open source integrated library system. Int Digi Lib Perspect 27(1):57–78

Ouhbi S, Idri A, Fernández-Alemán JL, Toval A (2014) Evaluating software product quality: a systematic mapping study. In: International conference on software process and product measurement, Oct 6 2014

Ouhbi S, Idri A, Fernández-Alemán JL, Toval A (2015) Predicting software product quality: a systematic mapping study. Computación y Sistemas 19(3):547–562

Petersen K, Feldt R, Mujtaba S, Mattsson M (2008) Systematic mapping studies in software engineering. In: 12th International conference on evaluation and assessment in software engineering, Blekinge Institute of Technology, Italy, Jun 26 2008

Petrinja E, Nambakam R, Sillitti A (2009) Introducing the open source maturity model. In: Proceedings of the 2009 ICSE workshop on emerging trends in free/libre/open source software research and development, May 18 2009

Raffoul E, Domínguez K, Perez M, Mendoza LE, Griman AC (2008) Quality model for the selection of FLOSS-based Issue tracking system. In: Proceedings of the IASTED international conference on software engineering, Innsbruck, Austria, 12 Feb 2008

Raza A, Capretz LF, Ahmed F (2012) An open source usability maturity model (OS-UMM). Comput Hum Behav 28(4):1109–1121

Samoladas I, Gousios G, Spinellis D, Stamelos I (2008) The SQO-OSS quality model: measurement based open source software evaluation. In: IFIP International Conference on Open Source Systems. Springer, Milano, pp 237–248

Sarrab M, Rehman OMH (2014) Empirical study of open source software selection for adoption, based on software quality characteristics. Adv Eng Softw 69:1–11

Sohn H, Lee M, Seong B, Kim J (2015) Quality evaluation criteria based on open source mobile HTML5 UI framework for development of cross-platform. Int J Soft Eng Appl 9(6):1–12

Soto M, Ciolkowski M (2009) The QualOSS open source assessment model measuring the performance of open source communities. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international symposium on empirical software engineering and measurement, 15 Oct 2009

Spinellis D, Gousios G, Karakoidas V, Louridas P, Adams PJ, Samoladas I, Stamelos I (2009) Evaluating the quality of open source software. Elect Notes Theor Comp Sci 233:5–28

Stol KJ, Ali Babar, M (2010) Challenges in using open source software in product development: a review of the literature. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international workshop on emerging trends in free/libre/open source software research and development, May 8 2010

Sudhaman P, Thangavel C (2015) Efficiency analysis of ERP projects—software quality perspective. Int J of Proj Manag 33:961–970

Sung WJ, Kim JH, Rhew SY (2007) A quality model for open source software selection. In: Sixth international conference on advanced language processing and web information technology, 22 Aug 2007

Wagner S, Goeb A, Heinemann L, Kläs M, Lampasona C, Lochmann K, Mayr A, Plösch R, Seidl A, Streit J, Trendowicz A (2015) Operationalised product quality models and assessment: the Quamoco approach. Inf and Soft Tech 62:101–123

Wang D, Zhu S, Li T (2013) SumView: a web-based engine for summarizing product reviews and customer opinions. Expert Syst Appl 40:27–33

Wasserman AI, Pal M, Chan C (2006) Business readiness rating for open source. In: Proceedings of the EFOSS Workshop, Como, Italy, 8 Jun 2006

Wen J, Li S, Lin Z, Hu Y, Huang C (2012) Systematic literature review of machine learning based software development effort estimation models. Inf Softw Technol 54(1):41–59

Zavadskas EK, Turskis Z, Kildienė S (2014) State of art surveys of overviews on MCDM/MADM methods. Technol Econ Dev Econ 20:165–179

Download references

Authors’ contributions

AA is a Ph.D. student and has done a significant part of the work under the supervision of SM. SM—is main supervisor of AA and working with him since last 4 years for completion of the work. NO is co-supervisor of AA and provided his continuous guidance in completion of the work. BC and RS—are co-researchers with our software engineering cluster in CU. They both contributed a lot for improving the manuscript (reviewed and added valuable contributions) since the beginning of the work. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements

We are thankful to Dr. Olawande Daramola of Computer and Information Science Department for his valuable suggestions and comments for improvement of the work/paper.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Availability of data and materials

The dataset(s) supporting the conclusions of this article is included within the article in Tables  3 , 5 and 6 .

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Covenant University, Ota, Nigeria

Adewole Adewumi, Sanjay Misra & Nicholas Omoregbe

Atilim University, Ankara, Turkey

Sanjay Misra

Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso, Valparaiso, Chile

Broderick Crawford & Ricardo Soto

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sanjay Misra .

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Adewumi, A., Misra, S., Omoregbe, N. et al. A systematic literature review of open source software quality assessment models. SpringerPlus 5 , 1936 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-3612-4

Download citation

Received : 17 May 2016

Accepted : 27 October 2016

Published : 08 November 2016

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-3612-4

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Open source software
• Quality assessment models

Systematic Literature Review of Commercial Participation in Open Source Software

New citation alert added.

This alert has been successfully added and will be sent to:

You will be notified whenever a record that you have chosen has been cited.

To manage your alert preferences, click on the button below.

New Citation Alert!

Please log in to your account

Information & Contributors

Bibliometrics & citations, view options, index terms.

Human-centered computing

Collaborative and social computing

Collaborative and social computing systems and tools

Open source software

Social and professional topics

Professional topics

Management of computing and information systems

Software management

Software and its engineering

Software creation and management

Collaboration in software development

Open source model

Software notations and tools

Software configuration management and version control systems

Recommendations

Corporate dominance in open source ecosystems: a case study of openstack.

Corporate participation plays an increasing role in Open Source Software (OSS) development. Unlike volunteers in OSS projects, companies are driven by business objectives. To pursue corporate interests, companies may try to dominate the development ...

A systematic review of research on open source software in commercial software product development

Context: The popularity of the open source software development in the last decade, has brought about an increased interest from the industry on how to use open source components, participate in the open source community, build business models around ...

Background: The popularity of the open source software development in the last decade, has brought about an increased interest from the industry on how to use open source components, participate in the open source community, build business models around ...

Information

Published in.

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Check for updates, author tags.

• Open Source Ecosystem
• Software Development
• Commercial Participation
• Research-article

Contributors

Other metrics, bibliometrics, article metrics.

• 0 Total Citations
• 37 Total Downloads
• Downloads (Last 12 months) 37
• Downloads (Last 6 weeks) 37

View options

View or Download as a PDF file.

View online with eReader .

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Share this publication link.

Copying failed.

Share on social media

Affiliations, export citations.

• Please download or close your previous search result export first before starting a new bulk export. Preview is not available. By clicking download, a status dialog will open to start the export process. The process may take a few minutes but once it finishes a file will be downloadable from your browser. You may continue to browse the DL while the export process is in progress. Download
• Download citation
• Copy citation

We are preparing your search results for download ...

We will inform you here when the file is ready.

Your file of search results citations is now ready.

Your search export query has expired. Please try again.

• DOI: 10.7275/JJHZ-SZ75
• Corpus ID: 53608075

How to Perform a Literature Review with Free and Open Source Software

• Joshua M. Pearce
• Published 8 May 2018
• Computer Science
• IRPN: Innovation Policy Studies (Topic)

13 Citations

How to conduct systematic literature reviews in management research: a guide in 6 steps and 14 decisions.

• Highly Influenced

The Rise of Platinum Open Access Journals with Both Impact Factors and Zero Article Processing Charges

Does open access citation advantage depend on paper topics, free and open source automated open access preprint harvesting, from open access to open science: the path from scientific reality to open scientific communication, how do self-archiving and author-pays models associate and contribute to oa citation advantage within hybrid journals, awareness, knowledge, and utilisation of online digital tools for literature review in educational research, analysis of free and open source software (foss) product in web based client-server architecture, design and biomimicry: a review of interconnections and creative potentials, a systematic approach to beginning a retrospective research study: a guide for surgical trainees, 77 references, performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering, article review of randolph (2006) ‘a guide to writing the dissertation literature review, open source database and website to provide free and open access to inactive u.s. patents in the public domain, bibliographic database searching by graduate students in language and literature: search strategies, system interfaces, and relevance judgments., how open source software works: 'free' user-to-user assistance.

• Highly Influential
• 16 Excerpts

A Systems Approach to Conduct an Effective Literature Review in Support of Information Systems Research

The state of oa: a large-scale analysis of the prevalence and impact of open access articles, open source research in sustainability, do open-access articles have a greater research impact, organizing knowledge syntheses: a taxonomy of literature reviews, related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

10 Open Science Tools for Literature Review You Should Know about

Here are 10 literature search tools that will make your scientific literature search faster and more convenient. All of the presented literature review software is free and follows Open Science principles.

Traditionally, scientific literature has been tucked away behind paywalls of academic publishers. Not only is the access to papers often restricted, but subscriptions are required to use many scientific search engines. This practice discriminates against universities and institutions who cannot afford the licenses, e.g. in low-income countries. Closed publishing also makes it hard for persons not affiliated with research institutes, such as freelance journalists or the public, to learn about scientific discoveries. 

The proportion of research accessible publicly today at no cost varies between disciplines . While in the biomedical sciences and mathematics, the majority of research published between 2009 and 2015 was openly accessible, this held true only for around 15 percent of publications in chemistry. Luckily, the interest in open access publishing is steadily increasing and has gained momentum in the past decade or so.

Many governmental funding bodies around the world nowadays require science resulting from grant money they provided to be available publicly for free. The exact requirements vary and UNESCO is currently developing a framework that specifies standards for the whole area of Open Science. 

Once I started my research on the topic, I was astonished by just how many free Open Science tools for literature review already exist! Read on below for 10 literature search tools — from a search engines for research papers, over literature review software that helps you quickly find open access versions of papers, to tools that help you save the correct citation in one click.

Tools for Literature review

First, an overview of the literature search tools in this blog post:

ScienceOpen

• Citation Gecko
• Local Citation Network

ResearchRabbit

• Open Access Button
• EndNote Click

Read by QxMD

I divided the tools into four categories:

Search engines for research papers

• Literature review software based on citation networks
• Locating open access scientific papers, and
• Other tools that help in the literature review

Here, we go!

The best place to start a scientific literature search is with a search engine for research papers. Here are two you might not have heard of!

Want to perform a literature search and don’t want to pay for Web of Science or Scopus or perhaps you are tired of the limited functionality of the free Google Scholar ? ScienceOpen is many things, among others a search engine for research papers. Despite being owned by a private company, this scientific search engine is freely accessible with visually appealing and functional design. Search results are clearly labelled for type of publication, number of citations, altmetrics scores etc. and allow for filtering. You can also access citation metrics, i.e., display which publications have cited a certain paper.

Recommended by a reader of the blog (thank you!), the Lens is a search tool that doesn’t only allow you to search the scholarly literature but patents too! Millions of patents from over 95 jurisdictions can be searched. The Lens is run by the non-profit social enterprise Cambia. The search engine is free to use for the public, though charges occur for commercial use and to get additional functionality.

Literature Review software based on citation networks

The next category of tools we will be looking at are a bit more advanced than a simple search engine for research papers. These literature search tools help you discover scientific literature you may have missed by visualising citation networks.

Citation Gecko 

The literature search tool Citation Gecko is an open source web app that makes it easier to discover relevant scientific literature than your average keyword-based search engine for research papers. It works in the following way: First you upload about 5-6 “seed papers”. The program then extracts all references in and to these seed papers and creates a visual citation network. The nodes are displayed in different colours and sizes depending on whether the papers are citing a seed paper or are cited by it and how many, respectively. By combing through the citation network, you can discover new papers that may be relevant for your scientific literature search. You can also increase your citation network step by step by including more seed papers. 

This literature review tool was developed by Barney Walker , and the underlying citation data is provided by Crossref and Open Citations .

Local Citation Network 

Similar to Citation Gecko, Local Citation Network is an open source tool that works as a scientific search engine on steroids. Local Citation Network was developed by Physician Scientist Tim Wölfle. This literature review tool works best if you feed it with a larger library of seed papers than required for Citation Gecko. Therefore, Wölfle recommends using it at the end of your scientific literature search to identify papers you may have missed. 

As an alternative to the literature search tools Citation Gecko and Local Citation Network, a reader of the blog recommended ResearchRabbit . It’s free to use and looks like a versatile piece of literature review software helping you build your own citation network. ResearchRabbit lets you add labels to the entries in your citation network, download PDFs of papers and sign up for email alerts for new papers related to your research topic. Instead of a tool to use only once during your scientific literature search, ResearchRabbit seems to function more like a private scientific library storing (and connecting) all the papers in your field.

Run by (former) researchers and engineers, ResearchRabbit is partly financed through donations but their website does not state where the core funding of this literature review software originates from.

Locating open access scientific papers

You may face the problem in your scientific literature search that you don’t have access to every research paper you are interested in. I highly recommend installing at least one of the open access tools below so you can quickly locate freely accessible versions of the scientific literature if available anywhere.

Open Access Button 

Works like the scientific search engine Sci-hub but is legal: You enter the DOI, link or citation of a paper and the literature review tool Open Access Button displays it if freely accessible anywhere. To find an open access version, Open Access Button searches thousands of repositories, for example, preprint servers, authors’ personal pages, open access journals and other aggregators such as the COnnecting REpositories service based at The Open University in the UK ( CORE ), the EU-funded OpenAire infrastructure, and the US community initiative Share . 

If the article you are looking for isn’t freely available, Open Access Button asks the author to share it to a repository. You can enter your email address to be notified once it has become available. 

Open Access Button is also available as browser plugin, which means that a button appears next to an article whenever a free version is available. This search engine for research papers is funded by non-profit foundations and is open source. 

Unpaywall 

Unpaywall is a search engine for research papers similar to Open Access Button — but only available as browser plugin. If the article you are looking at is behind a paywall but freely accessible somewhere else, a green button appears on the right side of the article. I installed it recently and regret not having done it sooner, it works really smoothly! I think the plugin is a great help in your scientific literature search.

Unpaywall is run by the non-profit organisation Our Research who has created a fleet of open science tools.

EndNote Click 

Another browser extension that lets you access the scientific literature for free if available is EndNote Click (formerly Kopernio). EndNote Click claims to be faster than other search engines for research papers bypassing redirects and verification steps. I personally don’t find the Unpaywall or Open Access Button plugins inconvenient to use but I’d encourage you to try out all of these scientific search engines and see what works best for you. 

One advantage of EndNote Click that a reader of the blog told me about is the side bar that appears when opening a paper through the plugin. It lets you, for example, save citations quickly, avoiding time-consuming searches on publishers’ websites. 

As the reference manager, EndNote Click is part of the research analytics company Clarivate.  

Other tools for literature review

This last category of literature search tools features a tool that creates a personalised feed of scientific literature for you and another that makes citing the scientific literature effortless.

Available as an app or in a browser window, the literature review tool Read lets you create a personalised feed that is updated daily with new papers on research topics or from journals of your choice. If there is an openly accessible version of an article, you can read it with one click. If your institution has journal subscriptions, you can also link them to your Read profile. Read has been created by the company QxMD and is free to use. 

CiteAs 

You discovered a promising paper in your scientific literature search and want to cite it? CiteAs is a convenient literature review tool to obtain the correct citation for any publication, preprint, software or dataset in one click. Funded by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, CiteAs is operated partly by the non-profit Our Research . 

Beyond literature review tools

There you have it, 10 tools for literature review that are all completely free and follow Open Science principles.

Of course, finding a great literature review tool, such as a search engine for research papers or a citation tool, is only one essential part in the whole process of writing a scientific paper. If you would like to learn a complete process to write a scientific article step by step, then you’ll love our free training. Simply click on the orange button below to watch it now (or sign up to watch it later).

Share article

© Copyright 2018-2024 by Anna Clemens. All Rights Reserved. 

Photography by Alice Dix

Start your free trial

Arrange a trial for your organisation and discover why FSTA is the leading database for reliable research on the sciences of food and health.

REQUEST A FREE TRIAL

• Research Skills Blog

5 software tools to support your systematic review processes

By Dr. Mina Kalantar on 19-Jan-2021 13:01:01

Systematic reviews are a reassessment of scholarly literature to facilitate decision making. This methodical approach of re-evaluating evidence was initially applied in healthcare, to set policies, create guidelines and answer medical questions.

Systematic reviews are large, complex projects and, depending on the purpose, they can be quite expensive to conduct. A team of researchers, data analysts and experts from various fields may collaborate to review and examine incredibly large numbers of research articles for evidence synthesis. Depending on the spectrum, systematic reviews often take at least 6 months, and sometimes upwards of 18 months to complete.

The main principles of transparency and reproducibility require a pragmatic approach in the organisation of the required research activities and detailed documentation of the outcomes. As a result, many software tools have been developed to help researchers with some of the tedious tasks required as part of the systematic review process.

hbspt.cta._relativeUrls=true;hbspt.cta.load(97439, 'ccc20645-09e2-4098-838f-091ed1bf1f4e', {"useNewLoader":"true","region":"na1"});

The first generation of these software tools were produced to accommodate and manage collaborations, but gradually developed to help with screening literature and reporting outcomes. Some of these software packages were initially designed for medical and healthcare studies and have specific protocols and customised steps integrated for various types of systematic reviews. However, some are designed for general processing, and by extending the application of the systematic review approach to other fields, they are being increasingly adopted and used in software engineering, health-related nutrition, agriculture, environmental science, social sciences and education.

Software tools

There are various free and subscription-based tools to help with conducting a systematic review. Many of these tools are designed to assist with the key stages of the process, including title and abstract screening, data synthesis, and critical appraisal. Some are designed to facilitate the entire process of review, including protocol development, reporting of the outcomes and help with fast project completion.

As time goes on, more functions are being integrated into such software tools. Technological advancement has allowed for more sophisticated and user-friendly features, including visual graphics for pattern recognition and linking multiple concepts. The idea is to digitalise the cumbersome parts of the process to increase efficiency, thus allowing researchers to focus their time and efforts on assessing the rigorousness and robustness of the research articles.

This article introduces commonly used systematic review tools that are relevant to food research and related disciplines, which can be used in a similar context to the process in healthcare disciplines.

These reviews are based on IFIS' internal research, thus are unbiased and not affiliated with the companies.

This online platform is a core component of the Cochrane toolkit, supporting parts of the systematic review process, including title/abstract and full-text screening, documentation, and reporting.

The Covidence platform enables collaboration of the entire systematic reviews team and is suitable for researchers and students at all levels of experience.

From a user perspective, the interface is intuitive, and the citation screening is directed step-by-step through a well-defined workflow. Imports and exports are straightforward, with easy export options to Excel and CVS.

Access is free for Cochrane authors (a single reviewer), and Cochrane provides a free trial to other researchers in healthcare. Universities can also subscribe on an institutional basis.

Rayyan is a free and open access web-based platform funded by the Qatar Foundation, a non-profit organisation supporting education and community development initiative . Rayyan is used to screen and code literature through a systematic review process.

Unlike Covidence, Rayyan does not follow a standard SR workflow and simply helps with citation screening. It is accessible through a mobile application with compatibility for offline screening. The web-based platform is known for its accessible user interface, with easy and clear export options.

Function comparison of 5 software tools to support the systematic review process

EPPI-Reviewer

EPPI-Reviewer is a web-based software programme developed by the Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre  (EPPI) at the UCL Institute for Education, London .

It provides comprehensive functionalities for coding and screening. Users can create different levels of coding in a code set tool for clustering, screening, and administration of documents. EPPI-Reviewer allows direct search and import from PubMed. The import of search results from other databases is feasible in different formats. It stores, references, identifies and removes duplicates automatically. EPPI-Reviewer allows full-text screening, text mining, meta-analysis and the export of data into different types of reports.

There is no limit for concurrent use of the software and the number of articles being reviewed. Cochrane reviewers can access EPPI reviews using their Cochrane subscription details.

EPPI-Centre has other tools for facilitating the systematic review process, including coding guidelines and data management tools.

CADIMA is a free, online, open access review management tool, developed to facilitate research synthesis and structure documentation of the outcomes.

The Julius Institute and the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence established the software programme to support and guide users through the entire systematic review process, including protocol development, literature searching, study selection, critical appraisal, and documentation of the outcomes. The flexibility in choosing the steps also makes CADIMA suitable for conducting systematic mapping and rapid reviews.

CADIMA was initially developed for research questions in agriculture and environment but it is not limited to these, and as such, can be used for managing review processes in other disciplines. It enables users to export files and work offline.

The software allows for statistical analysis of the collated data using the R statistical software. Unlike EPPI-Reviewer, CADIMA does not have a built-in search engine to allow for searching in literature databases like PubMed.

DistillerSR

DistillerSR is an online software maintained by the Canadian company, Evidence Partners which specialises in literature review automation. DistillerSR provides a collaborative platform for every stage of literature review management. The framework is flexible and can accommodate literature reviews of different sizes. It is configurable to different data curation procedures, workflows and reporting standards. The platform integrates necessary features for screening, quality assessment, data extraction and reporting. The software uses Artificial Learning (AL)-enabled technologies in priority screening. It is to cut the screening process short by reranking the most relevant references nearer to the top. It can also use AL, as a second reviewer, in quality control checks of screened studies by human reviewers. DistillerSR is used to manage systematic reviews in various medical disciplines, surveillance, pharmacovigilance and public health reviews including food and nutrition topics. The software does not support statistical analyses. It provides configurable forms in standard formats for data extraction.

DistillerSR allows direct search and import of references from PubMed. It provides an add on feature called LitConnect which can be set to automatically import newly published references from data providers to keep reviews up to date during their progress.

The systematic review Toolbox is a web-based catalogue of various tools, including software packages which can assist with single or multiple tasks within the evidence synthesis process. Researchers can run a quick search or tailor a more sophisticated search by choosing their approach, budget, discipline, and preferred support features, to find the right tools for their research.

If you enjoyed this blog post, you may also be interested in our recently published blog post addressing the difference between a systematic review and a systematic literature review.

• FSTA - Food Science & Technology Abstracts
• IFIS Collections
• Resources Hub
• Diversity Statement
• Sustainability Commitment
• Company news
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Use for IFIS Collections

Ground Floor, 115 Wharfedale Road,  Winnersh Triangle, Wokingham, Berkshire RG41 5RB

Get in touch with IFIS

© International Food Information Service (IFIS Publishing) operating as IFIS – All Rights Reserved     |     Charity Reg. No. 1068176     |     Limited Company No. 3507902     |     Designed by Blend

🛠️ Tools and Software for SLR

A systematic literature review (SLR) involves a comprehensive and structured approach to searching, selecting, and analyzing relevant research papers. To facilitate this process, various tools and software can be used to streamline tasks. Here is a list of tools commonly used for conducting a systematic literature review:

Reference Management Software :

EndNote : A popular reference management tool for organizing, storing, and citing references in SLRs.

Zotero : A free, open-source reference management software that helps collect, organize, and cite research materials.

Mendeley : Combines reference management, PDF annotation, and social networking features, aiding in SLR organization and collaboration.

Database Search Tools :

PubMed : A widely-used database for medical and life sciences research.

IEEE Xplore : Useful for computer science and engineering SLRs.

Web of Science : Provides access to a wide range of academic disciplines.

Scopus : Offers extensive coverage of scientific literature across various fields.

Google Scholar : A free tool for discovering scholarly articles, useful for broad searches.

Systematic Review Software :

Covidence : Specifically designed for managing systematic reviews, it facilitates screening, data extraction, and collaboration.

Rayyan : A web-based tool for systematic reviewers to screen and collaborate on study selection.

DistillerSR : DistillerSR is another proprietary platform that excels in meeting the essential criteria for systematic review work. Researchers often opt for DistillerSR due to its robust capabilities and user-friendly interface.

Screening and Data Extraction Tools :

EPPI-Reviewer : A tool for systematic review management, data extraction, and synthesis. It offers a suite of features that streamline the review process, ensuring thorough and accurate results.

JBI SUMARI : Software for systematic review, meta-analysis, and evidence synthesis. JBI SUMARI is a proprietary systematic review software known for its comprehensive functionality and user-friendly interface. Researchers favor it for its ability to handle various types of systematic reviews effectively.

Giotto Compliance : Giotto Compliance is a proprietary, web-based systematic review tool known for its comprehensive feature set, making it a preferred choice among researchers for conducting systematic reviews with high precision.

Nested Knowledge : Nested Knowledge is recognized for its effectiveness in handling complex systematic reviews. Its inclusion of a wide array of key features makes it a valuable tool for researchers tackling intricate research questions.

LitStream : LitStream stands out for its capacity to support researchers in conducting systematic reviews efficiently. Its incorporation of crucial features facilitates the review process and contributes to the quality of the results.

Citation Analysis and Visualization Tools :

VOSviewer : Used to visualize and analyze bibliographic data and co-citation networks.

CiteSpace : A tool for visualizing and analyzing trends, patterns, and emerging themes in scientific literature.

Excel or Google Sheets : Often used for data extraction and organization of study characteristics, results, and quality assessments.

Screening Forms and Templates : Custom-designed forms or templates in Microsoft Word or Google Docs for screening and data extraction.

Online Survey Tools : For collecting data on the risk of bias assessments or other relevant data points.

Statistical Software : If conducting meta-analyses, software like R or specialized meta-analysis software (e.g., RevMan ) may be needed.

Flowchart Diagram Tools : Tools like Lucidchart or draw.io can help create PRISMA flowcharts to visualize the screening process.

Collaboration and Communication Tools : Tools like Slack, Microsoft Teams, or Trello can facilitate collaboration among review team members.

Documentation and Reporting Tools : Microsoft Word or Google Docs for writing the systematic review report, adhering to PRISMA guidelines.

Screen Recording Tools : If collaboration involves virtual meetings and discussions, screen recording tools like Zoom or Microsoft Teams can be useful for documentation.

The choice of tools depends on your specific needs, budget, and preferences. Many researchers use a combination of these tools to conduct a systematic literature review efficiently and accurately.

Last updated 9 months ago

Architectural Views: The State of Practice in Open-Source Software Projects

• Conference paper
• First Online: 01 September 2024
• Cite this conference paper

• Sofia Migliorini 13 ,
• Roberto Verdecchia 13 ,
• Ivano Malavolta 14 ,
• Patricia Lago 14 &
• Enrico Vicario 13  

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 14889))

Included in the following conference series:

• European Conference on Software Architecture

Context: Architectural views serve as fundamental artefacts for designing and communicating software architectures. In the context of collaborative software development, producing sound architectural documentation, where architectural views play a central role, is a crucial aspect for effective teamwork. Despite their importance, the use of architectural views in open-source projects to date remains only marginally explored.

Goal: We aim at conducting a comprehensive analysis on an extensive corpus of open-source architectural views. The goal is to understand (i) what the “history” of architectural views is, (ii) how architectural views are represented, and (iii) what architectural views are used for in the context of open-source projects.

Methods: We leverage a software repository mining process to systematically construct a dataset of 15k architectural views. Then, we perform (i) a quantitative analysis on the metadata of all 15k views and (ii) a qualitative analysis on a statistically-relevant sample of 373 views.

Results: Most projects rely on a single architectural view, which is often used to document a medium or high level description of the architecture. Views are usually created at either the beginning or at the end of a project, are rarely updated, and tend to be maintained by a single contributor. Views usually adopt an informal colored notation without a supporting legend and frequently report technologies used. Deployment and control flow are the most recurrent viewpoints, and commonly cover concerns related to software maintainability and functional suitability.

Conclusion: The state of the practice about architectural views in open-source software systems seems to favor informal descriptions. Despite this, the effort needed to create views might hinder keeping views up to date, and a common syntactic ground between viewpoints seems hard to find. To address current needs, we speculate that a solution could lie in defining and popularizing versionable, templateable views that can be integrated in collaborative programming environments.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Data Availability Statement

To support reproducibility and verifiability, we make all data used in this study, scripts, settings, coding guide, and results available in a replication package online ( https://figshare.com/s/a796b8b414bbc7d09fe2 . Accessed 24th April 2024). To encourage open science, the replication package is shared under open-source MIT license.

https://github.blog/2023-11-08-the-state-of-open-source-and-ai .

https://docs.github.com/en/rest . Accessed 9th April 2024.

https://docs.github.com/en/rest/search/search?apiVersion=2022-11-28#search-code . Accessed 9th April 2024.

https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/reg-reporting-blueprint .

https://github.com/ApsaraDB/PolarDB-for-PostgreSQL Accessed 14th April 2024.

https://github.com/digitaltwinconsortium/ManufacturingOntologies/blob/main/Docs/architecture.png . Accessed 15th April 2024.

https://github.com/gridsuite/documentation . Accessed 15th April 2024.

https://www.cloudcraft.co . Accessed 15th April 2024.

https://aws.amazon.com/lambda . Accessed 10th April 2024.

The complete list of technologies and their recurrence is reported for completeness in the replication package of this study.

https://github.com/mermaid-js/mermaid . Accessed 24th April 2024.

https://adr.github.io . Accessed 24th April 2024.

https://github.com/features/actions . Accessed 24th April 2024.

https://aws.amazon.com/architecture/icons . Accessed 17th April 2024.

IEEE Standard for Information Technology-Systems Design-Software Design Descriptions: IEEE STD 1016-2009, pp. 1–35 (2009)

Google Scholar  

International Standard for Software, systems and enterprise Architecture description. ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010:2022(E), pp. 1–74 (2022)

Alshuqayran, N., Ali, N., Evans, R.: A systematic mapping study in microservice architecture. In: International Conference on Service-Oriented Computing and Applications, pp. 44–51. IEEE (2016)

Bass, L., Clements, P., Kazman, R.: Software Architecture in Practice, 4 edn. Addison-Wesley Professional (2021)

Buchgeher, G., Schöberl, S., Geist, V., Dorninger, B., Haindl, P., Weinreich, R.: Using architecture decision records in open source projects–an MSR study on GitHub. IEEE Access (2023)

Clements, P., et al.: Documenting Software Architectures: Views and Beyond. Addison-Wesley (2011)

Ding, W., Liang, P., Tang, A., Van Vliet, H., Shahin, M.: How do open source communities document software architecture: an exploratory survey. In: André, É., Zhang, L. (eds.) Proceedings - 19th International Conference on Engineering of Complex Computer Systems, ICECCS 2014, pp. 136–145. IEEE, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (2014)

Garlan, D.: Software architecture: a roadmap. In: ICSE 2000: Proceedings of the Conference on The Future of Software Engineering, pp. 91–101. Association for Computing Machinery, New York (2000)

Geiger, R., Varoquaux, N., Mazel-Cabasse, C., et al.: The types, roles, and practices of documentation in data analytics open source software libraries. Comput. Support. Coop. Work 27 , 767–802 (2018)

Article   Google Scholar  

Ghanam, Y., Carpendale, S.: A survey paper on software architecture visualization. University of Calgary, Technical report, p. 17 (2008)

Gousios, G., Vasilescu, B., Serebrenik, A., Zaidman, A.: Lean GHTorrent: GitHub data on demand. In: Proceedings of the 11th Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories, MSR 2014, pp. 384–387. Association for Computing Machinery, New York (2014)

Hebig, R., Quang, T.H., Chaudron, M.R.V., Robles, G., Fernandez, M.A.: The quest for open source projects that use UML: mining GitHub. In: Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE 19th International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems, MODELS 2016, pp. 173–183. Association for Computing Machinery, New York (2016)

ISO/IEC 25010: Systems and software engineering - systems and software quality requirements and evaluation (square) - system and software quality models (2023)

Jenner, B., Flick, U., von Kardoff, E., Steinke, I.: A Companion to Qualitative Research. Sage (2021)

Kalliamvakou, E., Gousios, G., Blincoe, K., Singer, L., German, D., Damian, D.: An in-depth study of the promises and perils of mining GitHub. Empir. Softw. Eng. 21 (5), 2035–2071 (2016)

Malavolta, I., Lago, P., Muccini, H., Pelliccione, P., Tang, A.: What industry needs from architectural languages: a survey. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 39 (6), 869–891 (2012)

Malavolta, I., Lewis, G.A., Schmerl, B., Lago, P., Garlan, D.: Mining guidelines for architecting robotics software. J. Syst. Softw. 178 , 110969 (2021)

Muszynski, M., Lugtigheid, S., Castor, F., Brinkkemper, S.: A study on the software architecture documentation practices and maturity in open-source software development. In: IEEE International Conference on Software Architecture, pp. 47–57 (2022)

Ozkaya, M.: What is software architecture to practitioners: a survey. In: International Conference on Model-Driven Engineering and Software Development (MODELSWARD) (2016)

Ozkaya, M., Erata, F.: A survey on the practical use of UML for different software architecture viewpoints. Inf. Softw. Technol. 121 , 106275 (2020)

Prana, G., Treude, C., Thung, F., et al.: Categorizing the content of GitHub README files. Empir. Softw. Eng. 24 , 1296–1327 (2019)

Rost, D., Naab, M., Lima, C., von Flach Garcia Chavez, C.: Software architecture documentation for developers: a survey. In: Drira, K. (ed.) ECSA 2013. LNCS, vol. 7957, pp. 72–88. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39031-9_7

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Rozanski, N., Woods, E.: Software Systems Architecture: Working With Stakeholders Using Viewpoints and Perspectives. Addison-Wesley Professional (2005)

Saldaña, J.: The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. Sage (2021)

Shahin, M., Liang, P., Babar, M.A.: A systematic review of software architecture visualization techniques. J. Syst. Softw. 94 , 161–185 (2014)

Smolander, K.: What is included in software architecture? A case study in three software organizations. In: Proceedings Ninth Annual IEEE International Conference and Workshop on the Engineering of Computer-Based Systems, pp. 131–138 (2002)

Tu, Q., Godfrey, M.: The build-time software architecture view. In: Proceedings IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance, ICSM 2001, pp. 398–407 (2001)

Venigalla, A.S.M., Chimalakonda, S.: What’s in a GitHub repository?–a software documentation perspective. arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.12727 (2021)

Verdecchia, R., Engström, E., Lago, P., Runeson, P., Song, Q.: Threats to validity in software engineering research: a critical reflection. Inf. Softw. Technol. 164 , 107329 (2023)

Wohlin, C., Runeson, P., Höst, M., Ohlsson, M.C., Regnell, B., Wesslén, A.: Experimentation in Software Engineering. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29044-2

Book   Google Scholar  

Zagalsky, A., Feliciano, J., Storey, M.A., Zhao, Y., Wang, W.: The emergence of github as a collaborative platform for education. In: ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing. Association for Computing Machinery (2015)

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Florence, Florence, Italy

Sofia Migliorini, Roberto Verdecchia & Enrico Vicario

Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Ivano Malavolta & Patricia Lago

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Roberto Verdecchia .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand

Matthias Galster

University of Bergamo, Bergamo, Italy

Patrizia Scandurra

University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland

Tommi Mikkonen

Fraunhofer IESE, Kaiserslautern, Germany

Pablo Oliveira Antonino

University of São Paulo, São Carlos, São Paulo, Brazil

Elisa Yumi Nakagawa

University of Castilla-La Mancha, Albacete, Spain

Elena Navarro

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Cite this paper.

Migliorini, S., Verdecchia, R., Malavolta, I., Lago, P., Vicario, E. (2024). Architectural Views: The State of Practice in Open-Source Software Projects. In: Galster, M., Scandurra, P., Mikkonen, T., Oliveira Antonino, P., Nakagawa, E.Y., Navarro, E. (eds) Software Architecture. ECSA 2024. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 14889. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-70797-1_27

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-70797-1_27

Published : 01 September 2024

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-70796-4

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-70797-1

eBook Packages : Computer Science Computer Science (R0)

Share this paper

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

How to Perform a Literature Review with Free and Open Source Software

As it provides a firm foundation for advancing knowledge, a solid literature review is a critical feature of any academic investigation. Yet, there are several challenges in performing literature reviews including: i) lack of access to the literature because of costs, ii) fracturing of the literature into many sources, lack of access and comprehensive coverage in many databases and search engines, and iii) the use of proprietary software lock-in strategies for bibliographic software, which can make porting literature reviews between organizations cumbersome and costly. These challenges often result in poor quality literature reviews completed by a single researcher unfamiliar with the approaches to the same research in other sub-fields and static reviews that are often lost to the scientific community. In this paper, an open source approach will be expanded to the application of improving the quality of literature reviews by providing best practices. Although there are many types and goals of literature reviews, it is found that all of them can be improved using a tool chain of free and open source software (FOSS) and methods. Specifically, this paper will provide a clear framework for i) comprehensive searching and obtaining access to the literature, ii) the use of FOSS for all steps including browsing, bibliographic software, and writing and iii) documenting a literature review to encourage collaboration of a dynamic document that lives into the future. This approach solves the current challenges of literature reviews and provides benefits of lower labor and economic costs, improved researcher control, and increased potential for collaboration. Finally, the challenges of using this approach and methods to overcome them are reviewed and future work is described.

Related Papers

Burak Karakan

Die steigende Popularität des evidenz-basierten und empirischen Software-Engineerings hat dazu geführt, dass systematische Reviews sich in diesem Bereich als eine wichtige Forschungsmethode etabliert haben. Der systematische Charakter dieses Forschungsansatzes ermöglicht es, alle relevanten Beweise in Bezug auf ein bestimmtes Forschungsthema zu identifizieren, zu sammeln und zu interpretieren, wobei auch neue Forschungsaktivitäten zur weiteren Untersuchung durchgeführt werden können. Die Entwicklung eines umfassenden und detaillierten Review-Protokolls, das alle relevanten Methoden, Verfahren und Strategien für den Review dokumentiert, muss daher befolgt werden, um eine mögliche Verzerrung in der Bewertung durch den Forscher zu vermeiden und den wissenschaftlichen Wert der Ergebnisse zu erhöhen. Folglich sind die manuellen Tätigkeiten von systematischen Reviews sehr zeitaufwendig und erfordern einen hohen Arbeitsaufwand. Angesichts dieser Herausforderungen gibt es ein großes Potenzi...

Publications

Cherley C Du Plessis

The ability to conduct an explicit and robust literature review by students, scholars or scientists is critical in producing excellent journal articles, academic theses, academic dissertations or working papers. A literature review is an evaluation of existing research works on a specific academic topic, theme or subject to identify gaps and propose future research agenda. Many postgraduate students in higher education institutions lack the necessary skills and understanding to conduct in-depth literature reviews. This may lead to the presentation of incorrect, false or biased inferences in their theses or dissertations. This study offers scientific knowledge on how literature reviews in different fields of study could be conducted to mitigate against biased inferences such as unscientific analogies and baseless recommendations. The literature review is presented as a process that involves several activities including searching, identifying, reading, summarising, compiling, analysing, interpreting and referencing. We hope this article serves as reference material to improve the academic rigour in the literature review chapters of postgraduate students' theses or dissertations. This article prompts established scholars to explore more innovative ways through which scientific literature reviews can be conducted to identify gaps (empirical, knowledge, theoretical, methodological, application and population gap) and propose a future research agenda.

Jenine Beekhuyzen

It is important for researchers to efficiently conduct quality literature studies. Hence, a structured and efficient approach is essential. We overview work that has demonstrated the potential for using software tools in literature reviews. We highlight the untapped opportunities in using an end-to-end tool-supported literature review methodology. Qualitative data-analysis tools such as NVivo are immensely useful as a means to analyze, synthesize, and write up literature reviews. In this paper, we describe how to organize and prepare papers for analysis and provide detailed guidelines for actually coding and analyzing papers, including detailed illustrative strategies to effectively write up and present the results. We present a detailed case study as an illustrative example of the proposed approach put into practice. We discuss the means, value, and also pitfalls of applying tool-supported literature review approaches. We contribute to the literature by proposing a four-phased tool-supported methodology that serves as best practice in conducting literature reviews in IS. By viewing the literature review process as a qualitative study and treating the literature as the " data set " , we address the complex puzzle of how best to extract relevant literature and justify its scope, relevance, and quality. We provide systematic guidelines for novice IS researchers seeking to conduct a robust literature review.

Reference & User Services Quarterly

Virginia G Britt

Research outputs across the academic disciplines are almost exclusively published electronically. Organizing and managing these digital resources for purposes of review, and with the technical savvy to do so, are now essential skills for graduate study and life in academia. Paradoxically, digital and web-based technologies provide greater ease and efficiency with which to gather mass amounts of information, while at the same time presenting new challenges for reading, analyzing, organizing, and storing resources. Students, scholars, and the librarians who support them must adopt and refine practices to convert from paper-full to paperless literature review. This article proposes a methodical, reproducible, three-stage process that harnesses the power digital tools bring to the research cycle, regardless of the user’s preferred platform or operating system. Focusing just on the literature review phase, we develop a conceptual framework, illustrated with concrete tips and advice for s...

Francis Lapique

Oxymoron is a World Wide Web based knowledge capitalization and sharing tool, which was conceived and developed by a multidisciplinary team, comprised of adult education and distributed systems professionals from France and Switzerland. It aims to support and facilitate inter-peer work of students and researchers in the social sciences by providing them with a system where they can contribute and receive knowledge about the relevant readings in their fields of interest. Oxymoron is an extranet tool, the access to which is granted to various adult education institutions, in order to constitute an transdisciplinary knowledge repository as well as to facilitate distance learning and tutored pedagogy.

Systematic Reviews

Farhana Islam

Frances Slack

This article offers support and guidance for students undertaking a literature review as part of their dissertation during an undergraduate or Masters course. A literature review is a summary of a subject field that supports the identification of specific research questions. A literature review needs to draw on and evaluate a range of different types of sources including academic and professional journal articles, books, and web-based resources. The literature search helps in the identification and location of relevant documents and other sources. Search engines can be used to search web resources and bibliographic databases. Conceptual frameworks can be a useful tool in developing an understanding of a subject area. Creating the literature review involves the stages of: scanning, making notes, structuring the literature review, writing the literature review, and building a bibliography .

Amanda Bolderston

A literature review can be an informative, critical, and useful synthesis of a particular topic. It can identify what is known (and unknown) in the subject area, identify areas of controversy or debate, and help formulate questions that need further research. There are several commonly used formats for literature reviews, including systematic reviews conducted as primary research projects; reviews written as an introduction and foundation for a research study, such as a thesis or dissertation; and reviews as secondary data analysis research projects. Regardless of the type, a good review is characterized by the author’s efforts to evaluate and critically analyze the relevant work in the field. Published reviews can be invaluable, because they collect and disseminate evidence from diverse sources and disciplines to inform professional practice on a particular topic. This directed reading will introduce the learner to the process of conducting and writing their own literature review.

Australian Journal of Management

Martina Linnenluecke

Literature reviews play an essential role in academic research to gather existing knowledge and to examine the state of a field. However, researchers in business, management and related disciplines continue to rely on cursory and narrative reviews that lack a systematic investigation of the literature. This article details methodological steps for conducting literature reviews in a replicable and scientific fashion. This article also discusses bibliographic mapping approaches to visualise bibliometric information and findings from a systematic literature review. We hope that the insights provided in this article are useful for researchers at different stages of their careers-ranging from doctoral students who wish to assemble a broad overview of their field of interest to guide their work, to senior researchers who wish to publish authoritative literature reviews. JEL Classification: C18, C80, C88, M10, M20

Angelo D'Ambrosio

The exponential growth of scientific literature makes secondary literature abridgements increasingly demanding. We introduce a new open-source framework for systematic reviews that significantly reduces time and human resource allocation for collecting and screening scientific literature. The framework provides three main tools: 1) an automatic citation search engine and manager that collects records from multiple online sources with a unified query syntax, 2) a Bayesian, active machine learning, citation screening tool based on iterative human-machine interaction to increase predictive accuracy and, 3) a semi-automatic, data-driven query generator to create new search queries from existing citation data sets. To evaluate the automatic screener’s performance, we estimated the median posterior sensitivity and efficiency [90% Credible Intervals] using Bayesian simulation to predict the distribution of undetected potentially relevant records. Tested on an example topic, the framework c...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

International Journal of P R O F E S S I O N A L Business Review

Information and Software Technology

Bedir Tekinerdogan

Zheng Huang

Journal of Asian Development

Erni Murniarti

F1000Research

Andrew Treloar

Alexandra Gheondea-Eladi

Review of Managerial Science

Marina Dabić

Rebekka Tunombili

Anayiaz Zaigmie

Helio Ferenhof , Roberto Fernandes

Auxiliadora Padilha

Isabel Pinho

The Qualitative Report

Janeen T Lamb

Proceedings of the 15th ACM / IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM)

Érica Souza

Tatam Chiway , Abdullah Ramdhani , Muhammad Ali Ramdhani

Neal R Haddaway

Proceedings of the 23rd European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2015)

Ali Sunyaev

selorm kuffour

Campbell Systematic Reviews

Julia Littell

Management Information Systems Quarterly

Richard Watson

Communications of the Association for Information Systems

Murray Jennex

Alexandra Collins

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

This week: the arXiv Accessibility Forum

Help | Advanced Search

Computer Science > Software Engineering

Title: open source software development challenges: a systematic literature review on github.

Abstract: Git is used as the distributed version control system for many open-source software projects. One Git-based service, GitHub, is the most common code hosting and repository service for open-source software projects. For researchers that study software engineering, the content that is hosted on these platforms provides much valuable data. There are some alternatives to get GitHub data such as GitHub Archive, GitHub API or GHTorrent. Among these options, GHTorrent is the most widely known and used GitHub dataset in the literature. Although there are some review studies about software engineering challenges across the GitHub platform, no review of GHTorrent dataset-specific research is available. In this study, the 172 studies that use GHTorrent as a data source were categorized within the scope of open source software development challenges and a systematic literature review was carried out. Moreover, the pros and cons of the dataset have been indicated and the focused issues of the literature on and the open challenges have been noted.

Submission history

Access paper:, references & citations.

• Google Scholar
• Semantic Scholar

DBLP - CS Bibliography

Bibtex formatted citation.

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Code, data and media associated with this article, recommenders and search tools.

• Institution

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs .

Open Source Literature Review Search Tools

• A list of search tools help you find open source articles

Open Source Serch Tools

Browser extensions to help you identify open access articles, are you suspicious of a journal's authenticity is it a predatory journal, sammy chapman jr.

• Web Literacy for Student Fact Checkers

Use these browser extensions below to find open access articles The Chrome browser is recommended when using these extensions 

• CORE Discovery One-click access to free copies of research papers whenever you hit the paywall
• Open Access Button The Open Access Button is a browser bookmarklet which registers when people hit a paywall to an academic article and cannot access it. It is supported by Medsin UK and the Right to Research Coalition.
• Unpaywall Unpaywall searches the Unpaywall database which works by harvesting from Open Access sources to find OA content and then matching that content to the Crossref DOI, so for any DOI searched via the plugin, Unpaywall "knows about any OA versions that exist anywhere". The Unpaywall extension is already integrated into a number of discovery tools and platforms, including Scopus, Web of Science
• EndNote Click EndNote Click provides a link to the "best available full-text PDF" of an article and works in the same way as other OA browser extensions; by searching for an OA version on open databases on the Internet.
• Open Access Helper for iOS & macOS FIND OPEN ACCESS There are more than 25 million Open Access versions of otherwise “paywalled” scientific articles, however they are often not easy to find.Open Access Helper for iOS & macOS is designed to help you get easy access to these documents, with a lot of help from some amazing APIs.
• Google Scholar Button This extension for Firefox adds a browser button for easy access to Google Scholar from any web page. Click Scholar Settings (you may need to login with your libthe Scholar button to: Find full text on the web or in your university library. Select the title of the paper on the page you're reading, and click the Scholar button to find it. Transfer your query from web search to Scholar. Press the Scholar button to see top three results; click "full screen" in the lower left of the popup to see them all. Format references in widely used citation styles. Press the quote button under the result to see a formatted reference and copy it into the paper you're writing.Save the article to your Scholar library, so you can read it or cite it later. Press the blue star under the result to save it, or the gray star at the bottom to see all saved articles. Library links work best when you're on campus.To search the US case law, click the gear icon at the bottom of the popup, and configure your preferred collection in Google Scholar Settings.
• Google Scholar Button Extension for Chrome
• Cabell's Directories This link opens in a new window Are you suspicious of a journal's authenticity? Is it a predatory journal? Check the black list with Cabell's Directories
• Compass to Publish (Beta Version) helps you determine the degree of authenticity of open access journals requiring or hiding article processing charges (APCs) using a criteria-based evaluation
• QOAM /kju:əʊm/ abbr. Quality Open Access Market. QOAM is a market place for scientific and scholarly journals which publish articles in open access. It is important to realise that ‘quality’ in the context of QOAM relates to the quality of a journal’s service to authors, rather than to a hypothesized quality of a journal’s scientific and scholarly content as based on citation metrics. In QOAM, academic authors score the experience they have had with the journal’s peer review and editorial board from 1 to 5 via a concise journal score card. The QoS indicator of a journal is then defined as the product of the average score of the journal and the ‘robustness’ of this score.
• << Previous: A list of search tools help you find open source articles
• Next: Web Literacy for Student Fact Checkers >>
• Last Updated: Jun 11, 2024 1:38 PM
• URL: https://guides.pnw.edu/opensource

• Computer Software
• Free Software
• Computer Science
• Open Source Software

Open source software and Libraries: a literature review.

• January 2012
• 16(1):55-80

• SDM Institute for Management Development (SDMIMD), Mysore, India

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations
• Bus Inform Rev

• Farrah Diana Saiful Bahry
• Haslinda Husaini
• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

• Upload file
• Community portal
• Recent changes
• Contributions
• Create account
• Enable dark mode
• Enable read mode
• View history
• What links here
• Related changes
• Permanent link
• Page information
• Browse properties

How to perform a literature review with free and open source software

As it provides a firm foundation for advancing knowledge, a solid literature review is a critical feature of any academic investigation. Yet, there are several challenges in performing literature reviews including: i) lack of access to the literature because of costs, ii) fracturing of the literature into many sources, lack of access and comprehensive coverage in many databases and search engines, and iii) the use of proprietary software lock-in strategies for bibliographic software, which can make porting literature reviews between organizations cumbersome and costly. These challenges often result in poor quality literature reviews completed by a single researcher unfamiliar with the approaches to the same research in other sub-fields and static reviews that are often lost to the scientific community. In this paper, an open source approach will be expanded to the application of improving the quality of literature reviews by providing best practices. Although there are many types and goals of literature reviews, it is found that all of them can be improved using a tool chain of free and open source software (FOSS) and methods. Specifically, this paper will provide a clear framework for i) comprehensive searching and obtaining access to the literature, ii) the use of FOSS for all steps including browsing, bibliographic software, and writing and iii) documenting a literature review to encourage collaboration of a dynamic document that lives into the future. This approach solves the current challenges of literature reviews and provides benefits of lower labor and economic costs, improved researcher control, and increased potential for collaboration. Finally, the challenges of using this approach and methods to overcome them are reviewed and future work is described.

Keywords [ edit | edit source ]

See also [ edit | edit source ].

• MOST literature reviews
• Open Source Lab

Media [ edit | edit source ]

• 7 open source tools to make literature reviews easy - Open source

• MOST completed projects and publications
• Pages with no main image

Olivia A. Gallucci

Offensive Security, Open Source, and Glitter

Literature Reviews on Open Source

Literature reviews

In this post, I share the literature reviews I wrote for the Humanitarian Free and Open Source Software Development (HFOSS) course at Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT). I took this course in 2021, and the information in this post comes from the old HFOSS’21 blog. As I added more posts to my blog, I decided to combine my literature reviews into one post to make it clear that they were all written for an undergraduate class.

What are literature reviews

A literature review is an analysis and summary of existing research or publications on a particular topic. The purpose of a literature review is to provide an overview of what is known about the topic and to identify gaps or inconsistencies in the existing research.

🌸👋🏻 Join 10,000+ followers! Let’s take this to your inbox. You’ll receive occasional emails about whatever’s on my mind—offensive security, open source, academics, boats, software freedom, you get the idea.

Type your email…

Types of literature reviews

There are several types of literature reviews, including:

• Narrative Literature Review : This type of literature review involves a comprehensive and systematic review of the literature on a specific topic without using statistical methods to analyze the data.
• Systematic Literature Review : A systematic review is a more structured approach to reviewing the literature. It involves a comprehensive and rigorous search of the literature on a particular topic, with a specific methodology to identify, assess and analyze the literature.
• Meta-analysis : This type of literature review involves statistical analysis of the data from a collection of studies on a particular topic, with the goal of identifying patterns, relationships, and trends.
• Scoping Review : A scoping review is a type of literature review that aims to map the key concepts, theories, and sources of evidence on a particular topic, without necessarily answering a specific research question.
• Critical Review : A critical review is an in-depth analysis of the literature on a particular topic that includes an evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of the studies reviewed. It aims to identify gaps in the existing research and to provide recommendations for future research.

This post consists of four scoping reviews. Here are the titles of my literature reviews:

The Organization for Ethical Source: Increasing the Adoptability of Ethical Licenses

How small businesses and organizations can manage open source components, new open source projects combating racism, defenders of free software in the legal sphere, open source open for business, literature review summary.

Ethical-Source Movement Opens New Open-Source Organization by Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols details the creation of the Organization for Ethical Source (OES). OES is a non-profit created by ethical source advocates. The goal of OES is to increase the adoption of Ethical Source licenses.

Why should you read this article?

Vaughan-Nichols provided ample context to the creation of ethical source licenses. Ethical source licensing has a long history, and it mostly consists of failures; OES’ goal is to change that. For example, some ethical licenses (i.e., Hippocratic License 2.1) use the MIT open-source license as a backbone; then, add human rights clauses in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Global Compact . The human rights clauses are what makes the license ethical. Vaughan-Nichols explanation of standard licensing, and ethical source licensing, helps the reader understand the differences between them.

Another benefit of the article is that Vaughan-Nichols explores the perspectives of OES’ legal and funding bodies. OES’ partners like the Corporate Accountability Lab, a pro bono legal team, and the Omidyar Network, a philanthropic investment firm, are quoted. This helps the reader understand the development and structure of OES as an organization.

The article also provides why some licenses in open source are incompatible with ethical licenses. The primary reason open source and ethical licenses are incompatible is because some open source licenses include Freedom Zero. Freedom Zero allows software to run for any purpose.

Freedom zero, the right to run the program for any purpose, comes first in the four freedoms because if users do not have that right with respect to computer programs they run, they ultimately do not have any rights in those programs at all. Efforts to give permission only for good uses, or to prohibit bad ones in the eyes of the licensor, violate the requirement to protect freedom zero. Thus they cannot be free software licenses, and cannot be “open source” licenses unless that category now includes licenses that don’t protect all the fundamental software freedoms. Eben Moglen, Columbia law professor, 2019

Freedom Zero allows software to be used for the creation of a bomb or for the work of a local charity. Ethical licenses want to restrict the usage of their software (i.e. the software should not help with the creation of a bomb, but can be used to help a local charity). Vaughan-Nichols decision to include the conflict between open and ethical source helps the reader understand that they do not perfectly overlap; this is critical for the reader to understand because many ethical source advocates promote open source software.

Questions and critiques

The article left me wondering about the effectiveness of Fortune 500 company ethics. Vaughan-Nichols notes that ethics are appearing in “numerous big tech companies” that produce artificial intelligence software like Google and Microsoft. Google and Microsoft have drowned in ethics-related controversies; Google’s secret search engine built for the Chinese government to Microsoft’s contract with ICE are microscopic compared to their overall collection of ethical violations. Given Google and Microsoft’s lack of credibility, it was not effective for Vaughan-Nichols to cite them as companies including ethics in their software production. Vaughan-Nichols should expand upon his reasoning for including immoral companies as promoters of ethical software production; at present, it is difficult for the reader to follow his train of thought.

Another issue is that the article does not explain how OES plans on increasing the adoptablity of ethical source licenses. Specifically, Vaughan-Nichols overlooks why ethical-source licensing has previously failed, and how OES will improve the adoptablity of ethical source licenses. This would give the reader insight as to why ethical source licensing has failed, and what OES plans on doing to improve the adoption of ethical source licenses. In short, Vaughan-Nichols disregards the topic of his article: what is OES doing to promote ethical source licenses?

Lastly, Vaughan-Nichols’ article should have included more information about the potential success and failures of OES. Vaughan-Nichols should provide his input, or the input of an OES advocate and OES detractor, to where they think the fate of OES and ethical source licenses will be.

• OES promotes ethical licenses because of companies like Google and Microsoft’s immoral software usage. Why does Vaughan-Nichols compare the ethical practices of OES to the immoral practices of Google and Microsoft?
• What do experts say about OES’ future?
• What is Vaughan-Nichols opinion of OES, and what are his predictions about the future success or failure of OES?

This article provides a meaningful update to what is going on in the ethical source community. The article provides a neutral standpoint on an ideologically driven issue, but does not provide expert opinions. Providing multiple opinions on the future of OES and ethical source licensing gives readers insight as to why some people support initiatives like OES, and why others reject ethical source licenses entirely.

Overall, I give this article 6/10 starts. (Bad=0-3; Good=4-6; Great=7-10).

7 Best Practices for Managing Open Source Components by Limor Wainstein is an overview of how to use community-driven open source software in a business environment. The article included actionable steps, which help companies organize their existing projects, so that they can be safely managed. These steps are policy, update promptly, empathize quality, use a binary repo manager, participate in the community, control build with tools, and fork when possible.

Wainstein explains how to implement each step, and provides caveats and hazards to consider at each step. The article is similar to something on WikiHow or in the Dummies book series; Wainstein takes a complex issue, and simplifies it to make the issue solvable for lay people.

Additionally, Wainstein leaves the steps open-ended, but provides enough information to make the caveats and hazards easily searchable. This way, readers can apply her solutions to their specific needs, and find the resources they need to succeed. Lastly, Wainstein’s article is concise and organized. Wainstein has a fabulous, cookie-cutter essay outline, which makes it easy for the reader to follow. Wainstein introduces the topic, supports her thesis, and concludes the article. Although essay formatting is taught in most schools, it is rarely perfected; Wainstein’s article is close to perfection.

The article’s link contains “5-best-practices-for-managing-open-source-components,” but the article lists seven reasons; this is a bit sloppy, but Altexsoft may not update URLs after the initial article has been published. Another issue with the article is the conclusion. Wainstein’s introduction and body are thorough, and provide the reader with lots of details. The conclusion, however, is very short and does a poor job summarizing the information provided in the introduction (mainly, her hypothesis) and body of the article.

• Is it normal for websites to keep the same URL if the article is updated?
• How often are guest writers featured on company blogs?
• Why does Altexsoft choose an independent writer when they could use their own writers to implement Altexsoft’s products and solutions into the article?

IBM, Call for Code, and the Linux Foundation announce new open source projects to combat racism by Tristan Greene discusses seven, innovative open source projects trying to combat racism. The seven projects are Fair Change, TakeTwo, Five Fifths Voter, Legit-Info, Incident Accuracy Reporting System, and Open Sentencing. Each project promotes racial equity through online mediums; examples include, fixing racially-biased facial recognition and artificial intelligence programs, promoting information accuracy, voting strategies, easy-to-read documentation of local laws and regulations, and collaborative-witness police reports.

Greene’s article is hyper-focused. It is similar to a secretary’s meeting notes because Greene only states the programs’ objectives and intentions; he does not give his analysis on the programs’ effectiveness or legitimacy. Articles like this are unusual because of the internet’s politically charged culture.

The article is structured in this format: introduction, project descriptions, and where to find more information. The project descriptions include their history and what they hope to accomplish. Most importantly, the project descriptions are thorough and simply worded.

Greene’s article does not leave much room for critiques or questions. He cites his sources, and he does not give his own take on the projects. This is important because many articles that push a specific view do not include a fair explanation of detractors’ views. However, articles like Greene’s are politically neutral. Overall, this allows readers to gauge their interest in the projects without feeling politically charged.

The only issue with this article is that it excludes how to get involved. For example, what demographic are the projects looking for (i.e. people of color, writing skills, bilingual, volunteers or paid workers, etc…)? Including this information would help the reader define their role in the projects if they wanted to join. At the end of the article, Greene includes a link to learn more , but it would be more effective to disbursed links throughout the article.

• Who can contribute? Are these projects looking for people with a specific skill set or background? Are these projects looking for volunteers, new employees, or are they only open to employees at IBM, Call for Code, and the Linux Foundation?
• What skills are necessary for each project?
• How can readers contribute to these projects?

The The New York Times published The Defenders of Free Software by Ashlee Vance in 2010. It is about an enthusiastic, free and open source software (FOSS) volunteer watchman named Armijn Hemel. Vance chronicles Hemel’s experience sending cease-and-desist letters to large companies–like Dell, Google, TiVo and Sony–who use FOSS, but do not follow the conditions of FOSS licenses. He explains that licensing enforcement is a recurring problem because large companies “often opt to piggyback on the work of others rather than going through the ordeal of building all of the software for their products from scratch.” Vance examines potential solutions to this problem; mainly, that some FOSS and open source groups, like the Linux Foundation , are creating programs to make it easier for companies to keep track of the licenses they are using, so they can avoid lawsuits.

Vance explains the lifestyle, intentions, and outcomes of Hemel’s work, which helps the reader understand why Hemel (and other FOSS volunteers) promote licensing enforcement. The article is personal, but also explains the broader implications of FOSS activism in the legal sphere. In addition, Vance mentions activist groups like the Software Freedom Law Center and gpl-violations.org . Name-dropping these organizations allows the reader to learn more about those groups.

Although Vance explains what legal FOSS volunteers undertake, he excludes how FOSS activists can contribute to the legal sphere. Additionally, he excludes information about what contributor qualifications projects desire. The article leaves out details about the effectiveness of the current volunteers, and does not predict if the solutions provided by the Linux Foundation will be effective in educating big companies on how to follow licenses. This point is important because most FOSS licenses are short and easy to follow. Lastly, some of the information Vance includes does not make sense for readers who do not understand business or law. For example, Vance states that “lawsuits are typically settled out of court,” but does not explain why a company would want to settle in or out of court.

• How can FOSS activists contribute to the FOSS legal sphere?
• What qualifications and experience does Hemel have? What about other volunteers in FOSS law?
• Why are FOSS lawsuits normally settled out of court?

Open Source Open for Business –written by Bill Brigge, Stefan Kircher, and Michael Bechtel–is about how large companies interact with open source software (OSS). Specifically, this article is about the current benefits and future potential of companies using OSS in business. The piece focuses on the advantages OSS offers and some of the untapped advantages OSS can provide companies. Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited (Deloitte for short) sponsored the article, and The Wall Street Journal published the article.

I read this article because I am co-oping at Deloitte’s 30 Rockefeller Head Quarters this summer. I thought reading this would be a great way to learn about open source at Deloitte.

This article offers insight as to where large companies are spending money. For example, Deloitte and Datawheel created a joint research effort called Open Source Compass , and the article includes statistics from the research they conducted.

Another benefit of this article is that it examines ideas rarely discussed in open source communities (OSC). Specifically, the authors note how contributing to OSCs can increase productivity, growth, knowledge, and security. However, this is weird because many older companies–particularly those involved with finance and legal work–focus on profits and secrecy. Since profits drive the economy, it is interesting that a large company like Deloitte would endorse and contribute to OSCs. In addition, the authors describe how OSS is beneficial for auditing because all the code is publicly available.

Lastly, Deloitte acknowledges that participating in OSCs provides junior developers with opportunities to “read code written by more experienced codes and highly creative pioneers.” Although universities and OSCs acknowledge this benefit, it is rare to see large companies recommending OSS for junior developers to gain experience. Again, this is surprising because older private companies tend to favor proprietary software.

Critiques on Open Source Open for Business

The authors mention companies contributing to OSS, but exclude examples of companies contributing. The authors state that “for technology capabilities at the core of strategic differentiation, a healthy reluctance to depend on–let alone share expertise with–anyone outside the organization’s direct control is in order.” Although that notion makes sense, it conveys that a company’s “core of strategic differentiation” consists of all internally developed software. In other words, all internally developed code gives companies a competitive edge, and therefore, should not be shared.

• Why do the authors claim that it is beneficial for companies to contribute to OSS without providing any examples?
• Does Deloitte contribute to the OSS they use? If so, how?

Open source literature reviews

The literature reviews I wrote during the 2021 Humanitarian Free and Open Source Software Development (HFOSS) course at Rochester Institute of Technology provided basic insights into various aspects of open-source software development, as well as its applications in humanitarian contexts. Through my reviews, I learned about the challenges and opportunities associated with the development and use of humanitarian FOSS projects. Additionally, I learned about the importance of collaboration, community building, and user engagement in successful open-source development. Overall, I believe that the knowledge and skills I gained during this course were useful in my endeavors as a software developer. Additionally, I hope future HFOSS students can use my reviews as sample responses for the literature review assignments.

I hope you enjoyed this post on my open source literature reviews. If you want to learn more about open source or HFOSS , consider reading Contributing to Open Source at RIT .

Written by Olivia Gallucci

Olivia is an honors student at the Rochester Institute of Technology. She writes about security, open source software, and professional development.

Discover more from Olivia A. Gallucci

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

Open Source Digital Library Software: A Literature Review

Proceedings of the National Seminar on 'Preservation and Conservation of Information Resources in Knowledge Society: Issues, Challenges and Trends', pp. 238-258, Manipur University, Canchipur, Imphal, March 3-4, 2009

18 Pages Posted: 13 Dec 2019

Hanadashisha Warr

Affiliation not provided to ssrn, prof p hangsing.

North-Eastern Hill University (NEHU) - Department of Library and Information Science

Date Written: 2009

Digital Library initiatives are gaining momentum and many open source digital library software emerged. These developments necessitate universal standard for digital library software. Conforming the software to universal standard means compromising local requirements. No matter how general the software may be, suitability of the digital library software to specific requirements of digital library project will differ from software to software. These variations in digital library software allow ample room for librarians to assess the digital library softwares with the local requirement criterion. To ease assessment/selection process, this paper attempts to evaluate four most popular open source digital library software. Various features of the softwares are comparatively tabled for ready reference.

Keywords: Digital Library, Digital Library Software, Open Source Digital Library Software, Library Digitization, Digital Archive

Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation

Paokholun Hangsing (Contact Author)

North-eastern hill university (nehu) - department of library and information science ( email ).

North-Eastern Hill University Shillong, ME India

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics, related ejournals, io: productivity, innovation & technology ejournal.

Subscribe to this fee journal for more curated articles on this topic

Writing Technologies eJournal

Subscribe to this free journal for more curated articles on this topic

Legal Information, Technology & Law Librarianship eJournal

Economic & social impacts of innovation ejournal, diffusion of innovation ejournal, information technology & systems ejournal, information systems: behavioral & social methods ejournal, international political economy: globalization ejournal, information curation, management & organization ejournal, library services & librarianship ejournal.

Platform products

• Red Hat Enterprise Linux A flexible, stable operating system to support hybrid cloud innovation.
• Red Hat OpenShift A container platform to build, modernize, and deploy applications at scale.
• Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform A foundation for implementing enterprise-wide automation.
• Start a trial Assess a product with a no-cost trial.
• Buy online Buy select products and services in the Red Hat Store.

• Red Hat Enterprise Linux AI New
• Red Hat OpenShift AI
• Red Hat OpenShift Virtualization
• Red Hat OpenShift Service on AWS
• Microsoft Azure Red Hat OpenShift
• Application platform Simplify the way you build, deploy, manage, and secure apps across the hybrid cloud.
• Artificial intelligence Build, deploy, and monitor AI models and apps with Red Hat's open source platforms.
• Edge computing Deploy workloads closer to the source with security-focused edge technology.
• IT automation Unite disparate tech, teams, and environments with 1 comprehensive automation platform.
• Linux standardization Get consistency across operating environments with an open, flexible infrastructure.
• Security Deliver software using trusted platforms and real-time security scanning and remediation.
• Virtualization Modernize operations using a single platform for virtualized and containerized workloads.

By industry

• Financial services
• Industrial sector
• Media and entertainment
• Public sector
• Telecommunications
• Open Innovation Labs
• Technical Account Management

Training & certification

• All courses and exams
• All certifications
• Verify a certification
• Skills assessment
• Learning subscription
• Learning community
• Red Hat Academy
• Connect with learning experts
• Ansible Basics: Automation Technical Overview (No cost)
• Containers, Kubernetes and Red Hat OpenShift Technical Overview (No cost)
• Red Hat Enterprise Linux Technical Overview (No cost)
• Red Hat Certified System Administrator exam
• Red Hat System Administration I
• Application modernization
• Cloud computing
• Cloud-native applications

Edge computing

• Virtualization
• See all topics
• What is InstructLab? New
• What are cloud services?
• What is edge computing?
• What is hybrid cloud?
• Why build a Red Hat cloud?
• Cloud vs. edge
• Red Hat OpenShift vs. Kubernetes
• Learning Ansible basics
• What is Linux?

More to explore

• Customer success stories
• Events and webinars
• Podcasts and video series
• Documentation
• Resource library
• Training and certification

For customers

• Our partners
• Red Hat Ecosystem Catalog
• Find a partner

For partners

• Partner Connect
• Become a partner
• Access the partner portal
• Our company
• How we work
• Our social impact
• Development model
• Subscription model
• Product support

Open source

• Open source commitments
• How we contribute
• Red Hat on GitHub

Company details

• Analyst relations

Recommendations

As you browse redhat.com, we'll recommend resources you may like. For now, try these.

• All Red Hat products
• Tech topics
• Red Hat resources

Select a language

• Training & services
• Red Hat Enterprise Linux
• Red Hat OpenShift
• Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform

Applications

• Cloud services

Infrastructure

Open hybrid cloud, original shows, understanding open source software in 2024.

• Back to all posts

What we today call open source was originally called “Free Software.” The word “free” wasn’t meant to refer to the price of the software, but to independence and liberty from corporate control. As the popularity of Free Software grew, so did the confusion over the word “free,” and it became clear that a different word was required.

Where did the term “open source” come from?

On February 5 1998, there was a meeting at VA Research of IT workers looking to promote free software as an approach to improving software security and reliability. In this meeting, Christine Peterson, with support from Todd Anderson,  formally proposed to influential technologists the term “open source” for software that made its source code available for review, modification, and sharing.

What is open source software?

Open source software is any software with source code that’s available to anyone for modification and redistribution. The appeal of this kind of software is primarily its development model. When anyone can review the code that makes an application work, any software developer can find and potentially fix bugs when that application doesn’t work as intended. This method of distributed and collaborative programming has created a foundation for constant improvement and maintenance for the software that we all use across countless industries.

What is the Open Source Initiative?

The Open Source Initiative (OSI) is the organization that formally defines the term “open source.” The OSI is one reason that you can trust that when something is advertised as open source, it actually does come with an open source license attached. Of course, the OSI doesn’t police the use of the words “open source,” but the term has a singular meaning largely because organizations like the OSI and companies like Red Hat are precise about what earns the open source label.

If software isn’t accompanied by an  open source license that grants you the legal right to use, modify, and redistribute its source code, then it’s not open source software.

What is the Open Source Definition?

The Open Source Definition (OSD) is the online document published by the Open Source Initiative that states the requirements a license must meet in order to be described as open source. There are 10 conditions in the definition, and if you’re new to software licensing then you’ll likely find it surprisingly easy to understand. The OSD isn’t full of specialized legal terminology, and instead has been designed to be understood by anyone needing clarification on what open source software is all about. As usual, the central theme of the definition can be summed up with just three broad characteristics: Open source software can be freely used, modified, and shared.

About the author

Red Hat Editorial Team

More like this, openshift commons security special interest group (sig) at red hat summit 2024, reducing complexity in virtual machine migration and in application platform management, the truth about netcode | compiler, air-gapped networks | compiler, keep exploring.

• Free trial: Red Hat Learning Subscription
• Start your no-cost product trial
• Subscribe to Red Hat TV at no-cost

Browse by channel

The latest on IT automation for tech, teams, and environments

Artificial intelligence

Updates on the platforms that free customers to run AI workloads anywhere

Explore how we build a more flexible future with hybrid cloud

The latest on how we reduce risks across environments and technologies

Updates on the platforms that simplify operations at the edge

The latest on the world’s leading enterprise Linux platform

Inside our solutions to the toughest application challenges

Entertaining stories from the makers and leaders in enterprise tech

• See all products
• Customer support
• Developer resources
• Red Hat value calculator

Try, buy, & sell

• Product trial center
• Red Hat Marketplace
• Red Hat Store
• Buy online (Japan)

Communicate

• Contact sales
• Contact customer service
• Contact training
• About Red Hat

We’re the world’s leading provider of enterprise open source solutions—including Linux, cloud, container, and Kubernetes. We deliver hardened solutions that make it easier for enterprises to work across platforms and environments, from the core datacenter to the network edge.

Red Hat legal and privacy links

• Contact Red Hat
• Red Hat Blog
• Diversity, equity, and inclusion
• Cool Stuff Store
• Red Hat Summit
• Privacy statement
• Terms of use
• All policies and guidelines
• Digital accessibility