Hasil untuk "Engineering"

B. Harrison, A. Atala

D. Hutmacher, J. Schantz, C. Lam et al.

K. Weiss

J. Gordijn, H. Akkermans

Jay L. Devore

L. Freed, G. Vunjak‐Novakovic, R. Biron et al.

J. Vacanti, R. Langer

M. Ferris, J. Pang

S. Brinkkemper

Hikmet Geçkil, Feng Xu, Xiaohui Zhang et al.

S. Brophy, S. Klein, Merredith Portsmore et al.

R. D. Lemos, H. Giese, H. Müller et al.

R. Wieringa, N. Maiden, N. Mead et al.

B. Kitchenham, T. Dybå, M. Jørgensen

Andreas Holzinger

C. Atman, R. Adams, M. Cardella et al.

L. Chung, B. Nixon, E. Yu et al.

Al Muttakin, Saikat Mondal, Chanchal K. Roy

Replication packages are crucial for enabling transparency, validation, and reuse in software engineering (SE) research. While artifact sharing is now a standard practice and even expected at premier SE venues such as ICSE, the practical usability of these replication packages remain underexplored. In particular, there is a marked lack of studies that comprehensively examine the executability and reproducibility of replication packages in SE research. In this paper, we aim to fill this gap by evaluating 100 replication packages published in ICSE proceedings over the past decade (2015 - 2024). We assess the (1) executability of the replication packages, (2) efforts and modifications required to execute them, (3) challenges that prevent executability, and (4) reproducibility of the original findings for those that are executable. We spent approximately 650 person-hours in total to execute the artifacts and reproduce the study findings. Our analysis shows that only 40 of the 100 evaluated artifacts were fully executable. Among these, 32.5% ran without any modification. However, even executable artifacts required varying levels of effort: 17.5% required low effort, while 82.5% required moderate to high effort to execute successfully. We identified five common types of modifications and 13 challenges that lead to execution failure, encompassing environmental, documentation, and structural issues. Among the executable artifacts, only 35% (14 out of 40) reproduced the original results. These findings highlight a notable gap between artifact availability, executability, and reproducibility. Our study proposes three actionable guidelines to improve the preparation, documentation, and review of research artifacts, thereby strengthening the rigor and sustainability of open science practices in SE research.

C. Mota, D. Puppi, F. Chiellini et al.

‘Additive manufacturing’ (AM) refers to a class of manufacturing processes based on the building of a solid object from three‐dimensional (3D) model data by joining materials, usually layer upon layer. Among the vast array of techniques developed for the production of tissue‐engineering (TE) scaffolds, AM techniques are gaining great interest for their suitability in achieving complex shapes and microstructures with a high degree of automation, good accuracy and reproducibility. In addition, the possibility of rapidly producing tissue‐engineered constructs meeting patient's specific requirements, in terms of tissue defect size and geometry as well as autologous biological features, makes them a powerful way of enhancing clinical routine procedures. This paper gives an extensive overview of different AM techniques classes (i.e. stereolithography, selective laser sintering, 3D printing, melt–extrusion‐based techniques, solution/slurry extrusion‐based techniques, and tissue and organ printing) employed for the development of tissue‐engineered constructs made of different materials (i.e. polymeric, ceramic and composite, alone or in combination with bioactive agents), by highlighting their principles and technological solutions. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Iflaah Salman, Ayse Tosun Misirli, Natalia Juristo Juzgado