# Software Engineering Research Community Viewpoints on Rapid Reviews

## TL;DR

This study explores the software engineering research community's perceptions of rapid reviews, revealing diverse viewpoints on their applicability and emphasizing the importance of quality and context in their use.

## Contribution

It provides the first empirical analysis of SE researchers' attitudes towards rapid reviews using Q-Methodology, identifying four distinct perspectives.

## Key findings

- Four main viewpoints identified among researchers.
- Diverse opinions on the standards and quality of RRs.
- Consensus that both RRs and systematic reviews can vary in quality.

## Abstract

Background: One of the most important current challenges of Software Engineering (SE) research is to provide relevant evidence to practice. In health related fields, Rapid Reviews (RRs) have shown to be an effective method to achieve that goal. However, little is known about how the SE research community perceives the potential applicability of RRs. Aims: The goal of this study is to understand the SE research community viewpoints towards the use of RRs as a means to provide evidence to practitioners. Method: To understand their viewpoints, we invited 37 researchers to analyze 50 opinion statements about RRs, and rate them according to what extent they agree with each statement. Q-Methodology was employed to identify the most salient viewpoints, represented by the so called factors. Results: Four factors were identified: Factor A groups undecided researchers that need more evidence before using RRs; Researchers grouped in Factor B are generally positive about RRs, but highlight the need to define minimum standards; Factor C researchers are more skeptical and reinforce the importance of high quality evidence; Researchers aligned to Factor D have a pragmatic point of view, considering RRs can be applied based on the context and constraints faced by practitioners. Conclusions: In conclusion, although there are opposing viewpoints, there are also some common grounds. For example, all viewpoints agree that both RRs and Systematic Reviews can be poorly or well conducted.