Group versus Individual Review Requests: Tradeoffs in Speed and Quality at Mozilla Firefox

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.01514v1
• Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2026 12:46:40 GMT
• Title: Group versus Individual Review Requests: Tradeoffs in Speed and Quality at Mozilla Firefox
• Authors: Matej Kucera, Marco Castelluccio, Daniel Feitosa, Ayushi Rastogi,
• Abstract summary: This study examines the effects of group versus individual review requests on velocity and quality.<n>We investigate approximately 66,000 revisions in the Mozilla Firefox project.<n>Group reviews with improved review quality, characterized by fewer regressions, while having a negligible association with review velocity.
• Score: 3.990241123013486
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: The speed at which code changes are integrated into the software codebase, also referred to as code review velocity, is a prevalent industry metric for improved throughput and developer satisfaction. While prior studies have explored factors influencing review velocity, the role of the review assignment process, particularly the `group review request', is unclear. In group review requests, available on platforms like Phabricator, GitHub, and Bitbucket, a code change is assigned to a reviewer group, allowing any member to review it, unlike individual review assignments to specific reviewers. Drawing parallels with shared task queues in Management Sciences, this study examines the effects of group versus individual review requests on velocity and quality. We investigate approximately 66,000 revisions in the Mozilla Firefox project, combining statistical modeling with practitioner views from a focus group discussion. Our study associates group reviews with improved review quality, characterized by fewer regressions, while having a negligible association with review velocity. Additional perceived benefits include balanced work distribution and training opportunities for new reviewers.

Related papers

• Is Peer Review Really in Decline? Analyzing Review Quality across Venues and Time [55.756345497678204]
  We introduce a new framework for evidence-based comparative study of review quality.<n>We apply it to major AI and machine learning conferences: ICLR, NeurIPS and *ACL.<n>We study the relationships between measurements of review quality, and its evolution over time.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-21T16:48:29Z)
• LazyReview A Dataset for Uncovering Lazy Thinking in NLP Peer Reviews [74.87393214734114]
  This work introduces LazyReview, a dataset of peer-review sentences annotated with fine-grained lazy thinking categories.<n>Large Language Models (LLMs) struggle to detect these instances in a zero-shot setting.<n> instruction-based fine-tuning on our dataset significantly boosts performance by 10-20 performance points.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-15T10:07:33Z)
• Identifying Aspects in Peer Reviews [59.02879434536289]
  We develop a data-driven schema for deriving aspects from a corpus of peer reviews.<n>We introduce a dataset of peer reviews augmented with aspects and show how it can be used for community-level review analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-09T14:14:42Z)
• Analyzing DevOps Practices Through Merge Request Data: A Case Study in Networking Software Company [2.5999037208435705]
  GitLab's Request (MR) mechanism streamlines code submission and review.<n>MR data reflects broader aspects, including collaboration patterns, productivity, and process optimization.<n>This study examines 26.7k MRs from four teams across 116 projects of a networking software company.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-18T19:33:34Z)
• Deep Learning-based Code Reviews: A Paradigm Shift or a Double-Edged Sword? [14.970843824847956]
  We run a controlled experiment with 29 experts who reviewed different programs with/without the support of an automatically generated code review.<n>We show that reviewers consider valid most of the issues automatically identified by the LLM and that the availability of an automated review as a starting point strongly influences their behavior.<n>The reviewers who started from an automated review identified a higher number of low-severity issues while, however, not identifying more high-severity issues as compared to a completely manual process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-18T09:24:01Z)
• Analytical and Empirical Study of Herding Effects in Recommendation Systems [72.6693986712978]
  We study how to manage product ratings via rating aggregation rules and shortlisted representative reviews. We show that proper recency aware rating aggregation rules can improve the speed of convergence in Amazon and TripAdvisor.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-20T14:29:23Z)
• Factoring Expertise, Workload, and Turnover into Code Review Recommendation [4.492444446637857]
  We show that code review natural spreads knowledge thereby reducing the files at risk to turnover. We develop novel recommenders to understand their impact on the level of expertise during review. We are able to globally increase expertise during reviews, +3%, reduce workload concentration, -12%, and reduce the files at risk, -28%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-28T18:58:06Z)
• Improving Code Reviewer Recommendation: Accuracy, Latency, Workload, and Bystanders [6.301093158004018]
  We developed a new recommender based on features that had been successfully used in the literature.<n>In an A/B test on 82k diffs in Spring of 2022, we found that the new recommender was more accurate and had lower latency.<n>We conducted an A/B test on 12.5k authors in Spring 2023 and found a large decrease in the amount of time it took for diffs to be reviewed when a recommended individual was explicitly assigned.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-28T17:55:13Z)
• Learning Opinion Summarizers by Selecting Informative Reviews [81.47506952645564]
  We collect a large dataset of summaries paired with user reviews for over 31,000 products, enabling supervised training. The content of many reviews is not reflected in the human-written summaries, and, thus, the summarizer trained on random review subsets hallucinates. We formulate the task as jointly learning to select informative subsets of reviews and summarizing the opinions expressed in these subsets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-09T15:01:43Z)
• Polarity in the Classroom: A Case Study Leveraging Peer Sentiment Toward Scalable Assessment [4.588028371034406]
  Accurately grading open-ended assignments in large or massive open online courses (MOOCs) is non-trivial. In this work, we detail the process by which we create our domain-dependent lexicon and aspect-informed review form. We end by analyzing validity and discussing conclusions from our corpus of over 6800 peer reviews from nine courses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-08-02T15:45:11Z)
• Code Review in the Classroom [57.300604527924015]
  Young developers in a classroom setting provide a clear picture of the potential favourable and problematic areas of the code review process. Their feedback suggests that the process has been well received with some points to better the process. This paper can be used as guidelines to perform code reviews in the classroom.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-19T06:07:45Z)

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.