Analyzing the impact of feedback in github on the software developer's mood
1. Does the paper propose a new opinion mining approach?
Yes
2. Which opinion mining techniques are used (list all of them, clearly stating their name/reference)?
SentiStrength with the corrected lexicon Words Original Value Change Reason broke*, fail -2 0 Usually is a reference to the build status and has no sentiment bug, defect, error, missing, mock, -2 0 No sentiment related just reference fact constrain*, drop, kill, static -2 0 Common term in development with no sentiment expressed Default, exit -2 0 A common term in development with no sentiment expressed garbage, vagrant, storm -3 0 A common term in java projects with no sentiment expressed revert -2 0 Common term across GitHub social network not working -4 0 Idiomatic expression that most of the times have no sentiment expressed
3. Which opinion mining approaches in the paper are publicly available? Write down their name and links. If no approach is publicly available, leave it blank or None.
SentiStrength http://sentistrength.wlv.ac.uk/ but the lexicon has to be manually corrected
4. What is the main goal of the whole study?
The impact of feedback in github on the software developer's mood
5. What the researchers want to achieve by applying the technique(s) (e.g., calculate the sentiment polarity of app reviews)?
assessment of the mood
6. Which dataset(s) the technique is applied on?
100 GitHub projects, 555,665 commits, 78,475 pull requests, 226,446 reviews, 240,060 pull comments and 15,865 developers.
7. Is/Are the dataset(s) publicly available online? If yes, please indicate their name and links.
It seems that the dataset is not publicly available
8. Is the application context (dataset or application domain) different from that for which the technique was originally designed?
Yes, SentiStrength is general purpose tool and while its lexicon has somehow been adapted it is not clear whether this is enough
9. Is the performance (precision, recall, run-time, etc.) of the technique verified? If yes, how did they verify it and what are the results?
No
10. Does the paper replicate the results of previous work? If yes, leave a summary of the findings (confirm/partially confirms/contradicts).
No
11. What success metrics are used?
N/A
12. Write down any other comments/notes here.
-