Beyond Self-Promotion: How Software Engineering Research Is Discussed on
LinkedIn
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2401.02268v1
- Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2024 13:38:51 GMT
- Title: Beyond Self-Promotion: How Software Engineering Research Is Discussed on
LinkedIn
- Authors: Marvin Wyrich, Justus Bogner
- Abstract summary: We investigate how software engineering (SE) practitioners and researchers approach each other via public LinkedIn discussions.
We find that a considerable proportion of LinkedIn posts on SE research are written by people who are not the paper authors.
We formulate concrete advice for researchers and practitioners to make sharing new research findings on LinkedIn more fruitful.
- Score: 10.174594209898743
- License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
- Abstract: LinkedIn is the largest professional network in the world. As such, it can
serve to build bridges between practitioners, whose daily work is software
engineering (SE), and researchers, who work to advance the field of software
engineering. We know that such a metaphorical bridge exists: SE research
findings are sometimes shared on LinkedIn and commented on by software
practitioners. Yet, we do not know what state the bridge is in. Therefore, we
quantitatively and qualitatively investigate how SE practitioners and
researchers approach each other via public LinkedIn discussions and what both
sides can contribute to effective science communication. We found that a
considerable proportion of LinkedIn posts on SE research are written by people
who are not the paper authors (39%). Further, 71% of all comments in our
dataset are from people in the industry, but only every second post receives at
least one comment at all. Based on our findings, we formulate concrete advice
for researchers and practitioners to make sharing new research findings on
LinkedIn more fruitful.
Related papers
- Evaluation of LLMs Biases Towards Elite Universities: A Persona-Based Exploration [0.0]
This study investigates whether popular LLMs exhibit bias towards elite universities when generating personas for technology industry professionals.
We generated 432 personas across GPT-3.5, Gemini, and Claude 3 Sonnet with actual data from LinkedIn.
Results showed that LLMs significantly overrepresented elite universities, with 72.45% of generated personas featuring these institutions, compared to only 8.56% in the actual LinkedIn data.
This research highlights the need to address educational bias in LLMs and suggests strategies for mitigating such biases in AI-driven recruitment processes.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-06-24T04:09:03Z) - Cycling on the Freeway: The Perilous State of Open Source Neuroscience Software [46.83624918571962]
We will argue that the existing ecosystem of neuroscientific open source software is brittle.
In recent years there has been a shift toward relying on free, open-source scientific software (FOSSS) for neuroscience data analysis.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-03-28T13:11:09Z) - A Tale of Two Communities: Exploring Academic References on Stack Overflow [1.2914230269240388]
We find that Stack Overflow communities with different domains of interest engage with academic literature at varying frequencies and speeds.
The contradicting patterns suggest that some disciplines may have diverged in their interests and development trajectories from the corresponding practitioner community.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-03-14T20:33:55Z) - Software Engineering for OpenHarmony: A Research Roadmap [50.56072657598223]
Existing research efforts mainly focus on popular mobile platforms, namely Android and iOS.
OpenHarmony, a newly open-sourced mobile platform, has rarely been considered.
We present to the mobile software engineering community a research roadmap for encouraging our fellow researchers to contribute promising approaches to OpenHarmony.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-11-02T15:27:09Z) - Analyzing the Impact of Companies on AI Research Based on Publications [1.450405446885067]
We compare academic- and company-authored AI publications published in the last decade.
We find that the citation count an individual publication receives is significantly higher when it is (co-authored) by a company.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-10-31T13:27:04Z) - How do Software Engineering Researchers Use GitHub? An Empirical Study of Artifacts & Impact [0.2209921757303168]
We ask whether and how authors engage in social coding related to their research.
Ten thousand papers in top SE research venues, hand-annotating their GitHub links, and studying 309 paper-related repositories.
We find a wide distribution in popularity and impact, some strongly correlated with publication venue.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-10-02T18:56:33Z) - Why is AI not a Panacea for Data Workers? An Interview Study on Human-AI
Collaboration in Data Storytelling [59.08591308749448]
We interviewed eighteen data workers from both industry and academia to learn where and how they would like to collaborate with AI.
Surprisingly, though the participants showed excitement about collaborating with AI, many of them also expressed reluctance and pointed out nuanced reasons.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-04-17T15:30:05Z) - Can We Automate Scientific Reviewing? [89.50052670307434]
We discuss the possibility of using state-of-the-art natural language processing (NLP) models to generate first-pass peer reviews for scientific papers.
We collect a dataset of papers in the machine learning domain, annotate them with different aspects of content covered in each review, and train targeted summarization models that take in papers to generate reviews.
Comprehensive experimental results show that system-generated reviews tend to touch upon more aspects of the paper than human-written reviews.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-01-30T07:16:53Z) - How to Train Your Agent to Read and Write [52.24605794920856]
Reading and writing research papers is one of the most privileged abilities that a qualified researcher should master.
It would be fascinating if we could train an intelligent agent to help people read and summarize papers, and perhaps even discover and exploit the potential knowledge clues to write novel papers.
We propose a Deep ReAder-Writer (DRAW) network, which consists of a textitReader that can extract knowledge graphs (KGs) from input paragraphs and discover potential knowledge, a graph-to-text textitWriter that generates a novel paragraph, and a textit
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-01-04T12:22:04Z) - Study of the usability of LinkedIn: a social media platform meant to
connect employers and employees [91.3755431537592]
This paper is assessing LinkedIn's usability using both user and expert evaluation.
The overall usability of LinkedIn application has been measured by using SUS (System Usability Scale)
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2020-06-06T18:19:45Z) - How do academic topics shift across altmetric sources? A case study of
the research area of Big Data [2.208242292882514]
Author keywords from publications and terms from online events are extracted as the main topics of the publications and the online discussion of their audiences at Altmetric.
Results show there are substantial differences between the two sets of topics around Big Data scientific research.
Blogs and News show a strong similarity in the terms commonly used, while Policy documents and Wikipedia articles exhibit the strongest dissimilarity in considering and interpreting Big Data related research.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2020-03-23T19:37:36Z)
This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.
This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.