Corpus items
146
121 articles · 25 posters
LONGITUDINAL STUDY · 19 EDITIONS
20 Years of the Requirements Engineering Track at SAC
Retrospective, Relevance, and Trends 2008—2026
An updated view of the track’s research community, themes, contribution types, validation practices, citation impact, and emerging directions ahead of its 20th edition in 2027.
AT A GLANCE
Corpus overview
The updated corpus covers 19 editions, from 2008 through 2026. The final edition has not yet taken place; SAC’s 20th RE-Track edition is planned for 2027.
Editions analyzed
19
2008–2026
Distinct authors
408
18 appear in both periods
OpenAlex citations
1,588
1,101 in P1 · 487 in P2
↗
Key result. Average output declined from 9.9 items per edition in P1 (2008–2015) to 6.1 in P2 (2016–2026). Since 2021, article output has remained between three and five papers per edition.
ArticlesPosters
Numbers above bars show the combined annual total. The orange segment represents posters.
Annual publication counts
Exact article and poster counts used in the overview figure.
19 rows
| Year | Articles | Posters | Total items | Period |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2008 | 10 | 2 | 12 | 2008-2015 |
| 2009 | 8 | 4 | 12 | 2008-2015 |
| 2010 | 8 | 1 | 9 | 2008-2015 |
| 2011 | 9 | 0 | 9 | 2008-2015 |
| 2012 | 8 | 2 | 10 | 2008-2015 |
| 2013 | 11 | 1 | 12 | 2008-2015 |
| 2014 | 5 | 0 | 5 | 2008-2015 |
| 2015 | 8 | 2 | 10 | 2008-2015 |
| 2016 | 6 | 0 | 6 | 2016-2026 |
| 2017 | 6 | 0 | 6 | 2016-2026 |
| 2018 | 6 | 1 | 7 | 2016-2026 |
| 2019 | 5 | 1 | 6 | 2016-2026 |
| 2020 | 7 | 3 | 10 | 2016-2026 |
| 2021 | 5 | 1 | 6 | 2016-2026 |
| 2022 | 5 | 2 | 7 | 2016-2026 |
| 2023 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 2016-2026 |
| 2024 | 4 | 2 | 6 | 2016-2026 |
| 2025 | 3 | 2 | 5 | 2016-2026 |
| 2026 | 4 | 1 | 5 | 2016-2026 |
P1 · FIRST PERIOD
2008–2015
79 items
67 articles and 12 posters across eight editions.
Items per edition9.9
Articles per edition8.4
P2 · UPDATED PERIOD
2016–2026
67 items
54 articles and 13 posters across eleven editions.
Items per edition6.1
Articles per edition4.9
RESEARCH QUESTION 01
Countries, institutions, and authors
What are the main authors, institutions, and countries that published in the SAC RE-Track?
RQ1 describes participation across the two periods. Counts are based on affiliations/publications as reported in the current manuscript; repeated co-authors and multiple countries may contribute to the same paper.
Countries represented33
Institutions reported by period84 + 83
Authors in the union408
Authors in both periods18 (4.4%)
Brazil remains the leading country, with 48 country affiliations (25.7%), followed by Portugal (19; 10.2%). The ten individually highlighted countries account for 78.6% of the 187 country affiliations. UFPE and NOVA Lisbon form the most stable institutional core. The author distribution has a long tail: the 25 highlighted authors account for 20.2% of the authorships, while 79.8% are associated with researchers who published one or two papers.
Country affiliation counts, not the number of papers. “Others” is excluded from this ranked chart and included in the table.
Class A countries
Percentage is calculated over the 187 country affiliations in the corpus.
11 rows
| Country | 2008–2015 | 2016–2026 | Total | Share of affiliations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 25 | 23 | 48 | 25.67% |
| Portugal | 10 | 9 | 19 | 10.16% |
| USA | 9 | 5 | 14 | 7.49% |
| Canada | 9 | 4 | 13 | 6.95% |
| UK | 8 | 5 | 13 | 6.95% |
| Germany | 4 | 6 | 10 | 5.35% |
| Italy | 6 | 3 | 9 | 4.81% |
| Spain | 5 | 4 | 9 | 4.81% |
| France | 1 | 5 | 6 | 3.21% |
| Japan | 4 | 2 | 6 | 3.21% |
| Others | 19 | 21 | 40 | 21.40% |
The institution table groups the entries listed as Class A plus an “Others” aggregate. Period counts refer to the source paper’s institution table.
Class A institutions
UFPE and NOVA Lisbon are the two most frequent institutions in both periods.
19 rows
| Institution | 2008–2015 | 2016–2026 | Total | Share |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| UFPE | 10 | 10 | 20 | 19.4% |
| NOVA Lisbon | 7 | 6 | 13 | 12.6% |
| Aston University | 2 | 3 | 5 | 4.9% |
| PUC-Rio | 5 | 0 | 5 | 4.9% |
| UFRN | 3 | 2 | 5 | 4.9% |
| University of São Paulo | 2 | 2 | 4 | 3.9% |
| University of Toronto | 4 | 0 | 4 | 3.9% |
| Shinshu University | 3 | 0 | 3 | 2.9% |
| UPE | 0 | 3 | 3 | 2.9% |
| Universidade da Coruña, CITIC | 0 | 3 | 3 | 2.9% |
| Athabasca University | 2 | 0 | 2 | 1.9% |
| Concordia University | 2 | 0 | 2 | 1.9% |
| Durham University | 0 | 2 | 2 | 1.9% |
| UFCG | 2 | 0 | 2 | 1.9% |
| ISTI-CNR | 2 | 0 | 2 | 1.9% |
| IISER Bhopal | 0 | 2 | 2 | 1.9% |
| Texas Tech University | 0 | 2 | 2 | 1.9% |
| The Open University | 2 | 0 | 2 | 1.9% |
| Others | 14 | 8 | 22 | 21.4% |
The chart highlights the five leading contributors and the next five Class A authors; the complete top-25 table is shown below.
Class A authors
Twenty-five authors have at least three papers. “Other authorships” aggregates the remaining authorships; it is not a single author.
26 rows
| Author / group | 2008–2015 | 2016–2026 | Total papers |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jaelson Castro | 7 | 6 | 13 |
| João Araújo | 6 | 5 | 11 |
| Ana Moreira | 4 | 3 | 7 |
| Julio Leite | 5 | 1 | 6 |
| Carla Silva | 3 | 2 | 5 |
| Carina Alves | 2 | 2 | 4 |
| Fernanda Alencar | 4 | 0 | 4 |
| João Pimentel | 3 | 1 | 4 |
| Maria Lencastre | 1 | 3 | 4 |
| Nelly Bencomo | 1 | 3 | 4 |
| Akira Osada | 3 | 0 | 3 |
| Ebrahim Bagheri | 3 | 0 | 3 |
| Emanuel Santos | 2 | 1 | 3 |
| Franklin Ramalho | 2 | 1 | 3 |
| George Valença | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| Haruhiko Kaiya | 3 | 0 | 3 |
| John Mylopoulos | 3 | 0 | 3 |
| Kenji Kaijiri | 3 | 0 | 3 |
| Luis H. Garcia Paucar | 0 | 3 | 3 |
| Miguel Goulão | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| Márcia Lucena | 3 | 0 | 3 |
| Nelly Condori-Fernandez | 0 | 3 | 3 |
| Quelita Ribeiro | 0 | 3 | 3 |
| Stefania Gnesi | 2 | 1 | 3 |
| Xavier Franch | 2 | 1 | 3 |
| Other authorships | 211 | 211 | 422 |
Open the country-level appendix from the source workbook 33 named country rows
This supplement provides the full named-country ranking and its ABC class from Workbook V2. Values should be interpreted as country affiliations.
33 rows
| Country | 2008–2015 | 2016–2026 | Total affiliations | Share | ABC class |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 25 | 23 | 48 | 25.67% | A |
| Portugal | 10 | 9 | 19 | 10.16% | A |
| USA | 9 | 5 | 14 | 7.49% | A |
| Canada | 9 | 4 | 13 | 6.95% | A |
| UK | 8 | 5 | 13 | 6.95% | A |
| Germany | 4 | 6 | 10 | 5.35% | A |
| Italy | 6 | 3 | 9 | 4.81% | B |
| Spain | 5 | 4 | 9 | 4.81% | B |
| France | 1 | 5 | 6 | 3.21% | B |
| Japan | 4 | 2 | 6 | 3.21% | B |
| Netherlands | 2 | 2 | 4 | 2.14% | B |
| Australia | 3 | 0 | 3 | 1.60% | B |
| Belgium | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1.60% | B |
| China | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1.60% | B |
| India | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1.60% | B |
| Switzerland | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1.60% | B |
| Argentina | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1.07% | C |
| Ecuador | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1.07% | C |
| Greece | 2 | 0 | 2 | 1.07% | C |
| Luxembourg | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1.07% | C |
| Austria | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.53% | C |
| Botswana | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.53% | C |
| Chile | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.53% | C |
| Iran | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.53% | C |
| Ireland | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.53% | C |
| Israel | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.53% | C |
| Korea | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.53% | C |
| Mexico | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.53% | C |
| Montenegro | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.53% | C |
| Norway | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.53% | C |
| Peru | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.53% | C |
| South Korea | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.53% | C |
| Sweden | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.53% | C |
Open institution entries listed in the source workbook Selected named entries
The workbook does not enumerate all 161 period-specific institution counts as individual rows. It shows selected named entries and an aggregate for “Others”; this is not a full institution catalogue.
30 rows
| Rank | Institution | 2008–2015 | 2016–2026 | Total occurrences | Share | ABC class |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | UFPE | 10 | 10 | 20 | 19.42% | A |
| 2 | NOVA Lisbon | 7 | 6 | 13 | 12.62% | A |
| 3 | Aston University | 2 | 3 | 5 | 4.85% | A |
| 4 | PUC-Rio | 5 | 0 | 5 | 4.85% | A |
| 5 | UFRN | 3 | 2 | 5 | 4.85% | A |
| 6 | University of São Paulo | 2 | 2 | 4 | 3.88% | A |
| 7 | University of Toronto | 4 | 0 | 4 | 3.88% | A |
| 8 | Shinshu University | 3 | 0 | 3 | 2.91% | A |
| 9 | UPE | 0 | 3 | 3 | 2.91% | A |
| 10 | Universidade da Coruña, CITIC | 0 | 3 | 3 | 2.91% | A |
| 11 | Athabasca University | 2 | 0 | 2 | 1.94% | A |
| 12 | Concordia University | 2 | 0 | 2 | 1.94% | A |
| 13 | Durham University | 0 | 2 | 2 | 1.94% | A |
| 14 | Federal University of Campina Grande | 2 | 0 | 2 | 1.94% | A |
| 15 | ISTI-CNR | 2 | 0 | 2 | 1.94% | A |
| 16 | Indian Institute of Science Education and Research, Bhopal | 0 | 2 | 2 | 1.94% | A |
| 17 | Texas Tech University | 0 | 2 | 2 | 1.94% | A |
| 18 | The Open University | 2 | 0 | 2 | 1.94% | A |
| 19 | Tsinghua University | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1.94% | B |
| 20 | Universidade Federal da Paraíba | 2 | 0 | 2 | 1.94% | B |
| 21 | Universidade de Santiago | 0 | 2 | 2 | 1.94% | B |
| 22 | University Paul Sabatier | 0 | 2 | 2 | 1.94% | B |
| 23 | University of Birmingham | 2 | 0 | 2 | 1.94% | B |
| 24 | University of California | 2 | 0 | 2 | 1.94% | B |
| 25 | University of Duisburg-Essen | 0 | 2 | 2 | 1.94% | B |
| 26 | University of Texas | 2 | 0 | 2 | 1.94% | B |
| 27 | University of Trento | 2 | 0 | 2 | 1.94% | C |
| 28 | University of Twente | 2 | 0 | 2 | 1.94% | C |
| 29 | ABB | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.97% | C |
| 30 | Ajou University | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.97% | C |
Open the author-level appendix from Workbook V2 404 names · reconciliation needed
The author worksheet contains 404 named records, while Manuscript V15 reports 408 distinct authors after normalization. This table is preserved for auditability but is provisional; do not treat its raw count as reconciled.
404 rows
| Rank | Author | 2008–2015 | 2016–2026 | Total author records | Share | ABC class |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Jaelson Castro | 7 | 6 | 13 | 2.46% | A |
| 2 | João Araújo | 6 | 5 | 11 | 2.08% | A |
| 3 | Ana Moreira | 4 | 3 | 7 | 1.32% | A |
| 4 | Julio Leite | 5 | 1 | 6 | 1.13% | A |
| 5 | Carla Silva | 3 | 2 | 5 | 0.95% | A |
| 6 | Carina Alves | 2 | 2 | 4 | 0.76% | A |
| 7 | Fernanda Alencar | 4 | 0 | 4 | 0.76% | A |
| 8 | João Pimentel | 3 | 1 | 4 | 0.76% | A |
| 9 | Maria Lencastre | 1 | 3 | 4 | 0.76% | A |
| 10 | Nelly Bencomo | 1 | 3 | 4 | 0.76% | A |
| 11 | Akira Osada | 3 | 0 | 3 | 0.57% | A |
| 12 | Ebrahim Bagheri | 3 | 0 | 3 | 0.57% | A |
| 13 | Emanuel Santos | 2 | 1 | 3 | 0.57% | A |
| 14 | Franklin Ramalho | 2 | 1 | 3 | 0.57% | A |
| 15 | George Valença | 1 | 2 | 3 | 0.57% | A |
| 16 | Haruhiko Kaiya | 3 | 0 | 3 | 0.57% | A |
| 17 | John Mylopoulos | 3 | 0 | 3 | 0.57% | A |
| 18 | Kenji Kaijiri | 3 | 0 | 3 | 0.57% | A |
| 19 | Luis H. Garcia Paucar | 0 | 3 | 3 | 0.57% | A |
| 20 | Miguel Goulão | 1 | 2 | 3 | 0.57% | A |
| 21 | Márcia Lucena | 3 | 0 | 3 | 0.57% | A |
| 22 | Nelly Condori-Fernandez | 0 | 3 | 3 | 0.57% | A |
| 23 | Quelita Ribeiro | 0 | 3 | 3 | 0.57% | A |
| 24 | Stefania Gnesi | 2 | 1 | 3 | 0.57% | A |
| 25 | Xavier Franch | 2 | 1 | 3 | 0.57% | A |
| 26 | Abdelmalek Benzekri | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0.38% | B |
| 27 | Abimael Santos | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0.38% | B |
| 28 | Ahmad Samer Wazan | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0.38% | B |
| 29 | Akbar Siami Namin | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0.38% | B |
| 30 | Alberto Rodrigues da Silva | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0.38% | B |
| 31 | Alessio Ferrari | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0.38% | B |
| 32 | Andrés Paz | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0.38% | B |
| 33 | Arpit Sharma | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0.38% | B |
| 34 | Arthur Marques | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0.38% | B |
| 35 | Carme Quer | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0.38% | B |
| 36 | Claudia Cappelli | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0.38% | B |
| 37 | Daniel Sinnig | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0.38% | B |
| 38 | Didar Zowghi | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0.38% | B |
| 39 | Dragan Gašević | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0.38% | B |
| 40 | Enyo Gonçalves | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0.38% | B |
| 41 | Eric Yu | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0.38% | B |
| 42 | François Barrère | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0.38% | B |
| 43 | Ghizlane El Boussaidi | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0.38% | B |
| 44 | Jennifer Brings | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0.38% | B |
| 45 | Juan Pablo Carvallo | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0.38% | B |
| 46 | Jéssyka Vilela | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0.38% | B |
| 47 | Kristian Beckers | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0.38% | B |
| 48 | Lawrence Chung | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0.38% | B |
| 49 | Lyrene Silva | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0.38% | B |
| 50 | Marian Daun | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0.38% | B |
| 51 | Maritta Heisel | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0.38% | B |
| 52 | María-Isabel Limaylla-Lunarejo | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0.38% | B |
| 53 | Miguel R. Luaces | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0.38% | B |
| 54 | Mohsen Asadi | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0.38% | B |
| 55 | Moniky Ribeiro | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0.38% | B |
| 56 | Naoyuki Kitazawa | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0.38% | B |
| 57 | Patrice Chalin | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0.38% | B |
| 58 | Pete Sawyer | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0.38% | B |
| 59 | Rami Bahsoon | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0.38% | B |
| 60 | Rodrigo Oliveira Spínola | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0.38% | B |
| 61 | Sara Sartoli | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0.38% | B |
| 62 | Seok-Won Lee | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0.38% | B |
| 63 | Sravani Teja Bulusu | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0.38% | B |
| 64 | Thorsten Weyer | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0.38% | B |
| 65 | Tomonori Sato | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0.38% | B |
| 66 | Vítor E. Silva Souza | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0.38% | B |
| 67 | Wilkerson L. Andrade | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0.38% | B |
| 68 | Yijun Yu | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0.38% | B |
| 69 | A. J. Alencar | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | B |
| 70 | A. L. Correa | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | B |
| 71 | Abdul Babar | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | B |
| 72 | Adailton Ferreira de Araújo | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | B |
| 73 | Ahmed Bouabdallah | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | B |
| 74 | Akihiko Ohsuga | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | B |
| 75 | Alan Pedro | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | B |
| 76 | Alberto Sardinha | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | B |
| 77 | Aldo Dagnino | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | B |
| 78 | Alejandro Catalá | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | B |
| 79 | Alessandro Fantechi | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | B |
| 80 | Alexander Uder | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | B |
| 81 | Alexandre Costa | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | B |
| 82 | Alexandre Vasconcelos | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | B |
| 83 | Alexei Lapouchnian | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | B |
| 84 | Alfonso Martínez-Martínez | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | B |
| 85 | Alfredo Goldman | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | B |
| 86 | Alistair Sutcliffe | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | B |
| 87 | Almir Buarque | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | B |
| 88 | Américo Sampaio | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | B |
| 89 | Ana Carolina Oliveira Lima | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | B |
| 90 | Ana Holanda | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | B |
| 91 | Ana Sofia Penim | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | B |
| 92 | Anargyros Tsadimas | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | B |
| 93 | Anarosa Alves Franco Brandão | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | B |
| 94 | Andrea Arnoldi | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | B |
| 95 | Andrea Giessmann | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | B |
| 96 | Andrea Polini | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | B |
| 97 | Andreas Rauber | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | B |
| 98 | Andrew Yi-Zong Ou | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | B |
| 99 | André Almeida | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | B |
| 100 | Angelina Espinoza | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | B |
| 101 | Angelo Susi | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | B |
| 102 | Aniko Ekárt | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | B |
| 103 | Annie I. Antón | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | B |
| 104 | Antonio Bucchiarone | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | B |
| 105 | Antônio C. F. Silva | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | B |
| 106 | Anzira Rahman | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | B |
| 107 | Arnaud Blouin | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | B |
| 108 | Atef Bader | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | B |
| 109 | Atul Gupta | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | B |
| 110 | Awais Rashid | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | B |
| 111 | Ayuso-Pérez | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | B |
| 112 | B. J. F. van Beijnum | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | B |
| 113 | Balbir S. Barn | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | B |
| 114 | Bardia Mohabbati | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | B |
| 115 | Bendra Ojameruaye | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | B |
| 116 | Bruno Figueiredo | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | B |
| 117 | Bruno Gonzalez-Baixauli | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | B |
| 118 | Bruno Nogueira | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | B |
| 119 | C. Guerlain | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | B |
| 120 | C. Palomares | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | B |
| 121 | Caio César Silva Sousa | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | B |
| 122 | Carla Oran | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | B |
| 123 | Carlos Araújo | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | B |
| 124 | Carlos Lucena | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | B |
| 125 | Carlos Michel Betemps | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | B |
| 126 | Carlos Salgado | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | B |
| 127 | Carlos Toxtli | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | B |
| 128 | Carmen Fernandez-Gago | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | B |
| 129 | Carolina Lisboa Sequeira | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | B |
| 130 | Catarina Gralha | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | B |
| 131 | Celal Ziftci | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | B |
| 132 | Christine Choppy | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | B |
| 133 | Christine Legner | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | B |
| 134 | Christoph Becker | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | B |
| 135 | Claudia Di Napoli | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | B |
| 136 | Corentin Burnay | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | B |
| 137 | Cássio L. Rodrigues | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | B |
| 138 | Daigo Ozawa | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | B |
| 139 | Dana Naous | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | B |
| 140 | Daniel Ferreira | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 141 | Daniel M. Berry | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 142 | Daniel Perovich | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 143 | Danyllo Wagner Albuquerque | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 144 | Darliane Miranda | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 145 | David Ferreira | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 146 | David Sennhauser | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 147 | Debra J. Richardson | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 148 | Denis Hatebur | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 149 | Denise Bombonatti | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 150 | Dewi Mairiza | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 151 | Dhyey Shekhaliya | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 152 | Diego Dermeval | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 153 | Dimosthenis Anagnostopoulos | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 154 | E. A. Schmitz | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 155 | Edgar Sarmiento-Calisaya | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 156 | Eduardo Almentero | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 157 | Edward Hinojosa Cárdenas | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 158 | Elder Elisandro Schemberger | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 159 | Elisa Baniassad | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 160 | Elizabeth Kielczewski | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 161 | Ellen Francine Barbosa | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 162 | Emanuel Dantas | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 163 | Emília Leal | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 164 | Endhe Elias | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 165 | Eric Souza | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 166 | Erik Kamsties | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 167 | Eriky Rodrigues | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 168 | Ermeson Andrade | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 169 | Everton Cavalcante | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 170 | Everton Tavares Guimarães | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 171 | F. G. Dias | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 172 | Fabian Kneer | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 173 | Fabio Natanael Kepler | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 174 | Faezeh Ensan | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 175 | Faranak Abri | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 176 | Felipe C. do R. Pinto | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 177 | Felipe Ramos | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 178 | Feng Chen | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 179 | Ferhat Khendek | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 180 | Fernando Wanderley | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 181 | Francesca Palumbo | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 182 | Francesco Regazzoni | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 183 | Francisco Dantas | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 184 | Francisco Moyano | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 185 | Fuyuki Ishikawa | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 186 | Fábio Levy Siqueira | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 187 | Fábio Soares | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 188 | Gabriele Tolomei | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 189 | Garyfallos Fragidis | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 190 | Geber Lisboa Ramalho | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 191 | Geert Poels | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 192 | Genaina Nunes Rodrigues | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 193 | Gianna Reggio | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 194 | Gilleanes T. A. Guedes | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 195 | Giuseppe Primiero | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 196 | Golnaz Elahi | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 197 | Grace Gabriel | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 198 | Guglielmo De Angelis | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 199 | Guilherme H. Travassos | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 200 | Guina Sotomayor Alzamora | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 201 | Gustavo Callou | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 202 | Gustavo Rossi | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 203 | Hadar Ziv | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 204 | Haihua Xie | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 205 | Hans Myrhaug | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 206 | Henrique Frota Soares | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 207 | Herbet Cunha | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 208 | Hermie J Hermens | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 209 | Hiroyuki Nakagawa | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 210 | Holger Röder | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 211 | Huma Samin | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 212 | Hyggo Oliveira de Almeida | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 213 | Ig Ibert Bittencourt | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 214 | Ikram Darif | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 215 | Ing Widya | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 216 | Ingolf Krüger | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 217 | Inês Simão | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 218 | Irene Garrigós | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 219 | Isabel Brito | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 220 | Isabel John | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 221 | Isabelle Côté | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 222 | Israel Mendonça | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 223 | Ivana Ognjanovic | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 224 | Ivonei Freitas da Silva | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 225 | Izumi Nagata | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 226 | J. Adriaanse | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 227 | J.J. Collins | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 228 | Jamal El Hachem | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 229 | Jane Cleland-Huang | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 230 | Jeane Mendes | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 231 | Jennifer Horkoff | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 232 | Jingwei Yang | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 233 | Jonathan D. Lewis | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 234 | Jorge Barreiros | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 235 | Jose-Norberto Mazón | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 236 | João Eduardo Ferreira | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 237 | João Lemos | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 238 | João Pablo S. da Silva | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 239 | Juan Trujillo | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 240 | Juliana Medeiros | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 241 | K. Zedda | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 242 | Kaito Utsunomiya | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 243 | Karen Smiley | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 244 | Karina Abad | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 245 | Karina R. G. Silva | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 246 | Karl Cox | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 247 | Karolyne Oliveira | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 248 | Keith S. Jones | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 249 | Ken Decreus | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 250 | Kevin Kam Fung Yuen | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 251 | Kianoush Torkzadeh | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 252 | Klaus Pohl | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 253 | Klaus Schmid | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 254 | Konstantinos Angelopoulos | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 255 | Konstantinos Tarabanis | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 256 | Konstantinos Tsilionis | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 257 | Kozo Honda | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 258 | Kristina Winbladh | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 259 | Kushagra Bhatia | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 260 | Larissa Mangolim Amaral | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 261 | Lauriane Pereira | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 262 | Leandro Antonelli | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 263 | Leendert Schaake | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 264 | Leif Sandsjö | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 265 | Leticia Duboc | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 266 | Lin Liu | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 267 | Lisa Krajinski | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 268 | Luca Sabatucci | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 269 | Lui Sha | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 270 | Luis Felipe González Gutiérrez | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 271 | Luiz Marcio Cysneiros | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 272 | Luíla M. Oliveira | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 273 | M. L. M. Campos | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 274 | M. Sanchez | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 275 | M.H.A. Huis In't Veld | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 276 | Manoel Mendonça | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 277 | Manuel Noguera | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 278 | Mara Nikolaidou | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 279 | Marcelo S. Pimenta | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 280 | Marcio Veronez | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 281 | Marco Dolci | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 282 | Marcos E. B. Broinizi | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 283 | Marcos Kalinowski | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 284 | Marek Hatala | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 285 | Maria Renata Keithlyn de Gois Cruz | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 286 | Mariana Peixoto | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 287 | Mariá A. R. Araújo | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 288 | Maryam Rahmaniheris | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 289 | Masaaki Tanigawa | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 290 | Masayoshi Aritsugi | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 291 | Massimo Cossentino | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 292 | Matheus Prestes | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 293 | Maurício Manoel | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 294 | Michael Masin | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 295 | Michael Rath | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 296 | Michel Bourdellès | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 297 | Michel Perilo | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 298 | Miguel Ecar | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 299 | Mirko Perkusich | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 300 | Monique Snoeck | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 301 | Monique Soares | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 302 | Mário André de F. Farias | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 303 | Nabor C. Mendonça | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 304 | Nan Niu | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 305 | Nemésio Freitas Duarte Filho | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 306 | Neuma Chaveiro | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 307 | Nicolas Aillery | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 308 | Norah Power | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 309 | Nour Ali | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 310 | Novica Zarvic | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 311 | Nurie Nurmuliani | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 312 | Olivier Barais | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 313 | Omid Jafarinezhad | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 314 | Pascal van Eck | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 315 | Patricia Lago | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 316 | Patrick Brito | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 317 | Patrick Mäder | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 318 | Patrizia Scandurra | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 319 | Patrícia Varela | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 320 | Paul N. Otto | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 321 | Paulo Cavalcanti | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 322 | Paulo M. S. Rodrigues | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 323 | Paulo Maciel | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 324 | Philippe Dugerdil | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 325 | Prerit Datta | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 326 | Priscila Engiel | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 327 | Qingfeng He | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 328 | Rafael Parizi | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 329 | Rafael Pinto | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 330 | Rainer Lutz | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 331 | Raman Ramsin | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 332 | Ravinder Barn | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 333 | Renan Lima Baima | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 334 | Renata R. O. Garcia | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 335 | Ricardo J. Machado | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 336 | Ricardo Marcondes Marcacini | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 337 | Ricardo Ramos | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 338 | Ricardo Valentim | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 339 | Richard Banach | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 340 | Richard G. A. Bults | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 341 | Rita Suzana | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 342 | Roel Wieringa | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 343 | Rogério Caetano | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 344 | Romain Laborde | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 345 | Romeu Oliveira | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 346 | Ronaldo Gonçalves Junior | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 347 | Rutvij Mehta | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 348 | S. Renault | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 349 | Sabrina Marczak | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 350 | Salah Sadou | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 351 | Sam Supakkul | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 352 | Samedi Heng | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 353 | Sangeeta Dey | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 354 | Sascha Schäfer | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 355 | Saurabh Tiwari | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 356 | Sergio F. Ochoa | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 357 | Shangping Ren | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 358 | Shehnila Zardari | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 359 | Shubhanan Bakre | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 360 | Shunichi Suzuki | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 361 | Sombat Chanvilai | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 362 | Soraya B. R. Duarte | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 363 | Sotirios Liaskos | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 364 | Stephan Diehl | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 365 | Stephan Faßbender | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 366 | Sègla Kpodjedo | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 367 | Sílvia Maria Dias Pedro Rebouças | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 368 | Tao Yue | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 369 | Tarcisio Pereira | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 370 | Tayana Conte | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 371 | Tayanna Sotero | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 372 | Teodora Dundjerovic | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 373 | Thais Batista | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 374 | Thiago Souto Mendes | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 375 | Thyago Tenório | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 376 | Tiago Candeias | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 377 | Tiago Miguel Barao Caetano | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 378 | Tiago Rolim | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 379 | Tomas Vera | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 380 | Tomás Ruiz-López | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 381 | Tong Li | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 382 | Torsten Bandyszak | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 383 | Travis D. Breaux | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 384 | Tshepho Koboyatshwene | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 385 | Tzilla Elrad | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 386 | Val Jones | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 387 | Vasco Amaral | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 388 | Victor Cornejo-Aparicio | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 389 | Victor Francisco Araya Santander | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 390 | Viktoria Stenkova | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 391 | Vinícius B. Santos | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 392 | Vladimir Tosic | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 393 | Wangfan Li | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 394 | WenQian Liu | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 395 | Wilson Pérez | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 396 | Yasuyuki Tahara | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 397 | Yinghao Zhi | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 398 | Yirsaw Ayalew | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 399 | Yonghee Shin | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 400 | Youssou Ndiaye | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 401 | Yu Jiang | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 402 | Yuto Takaki | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 403 | Zhen Yang | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
| 404 | Zhicheng Fu | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.19% | C |
RESEARCH QUESTION 02
Main topics and validation practices
What are the main topics discussed?
The current manuscript extends the 2016 coding scheme with labels for elicitation, agile RE, security/privacy/ethics/law, and language models/generative AI/natural language.
24 papers 30.4% of P1
17 papers 25.4% of P2
12 papers 17.9% of P2
Across both periods, GORE remains the most frequent category (33 papers, 22.6%), although its share declines from 30.4% in P1 to 13.4% in P2. NFR/Quality leads P2, followed by Elicitation and language-model-related work. Behavioral Models disappear from the reported P2 labels, while SPL/Variability and Use Cases decline to two papers each. These shifts need to be interpreted in light of the coding scheme: several newer labels were not used in the 2016 classification, so their zero values for P1 do not prove that the topics were absent.
2008–20152016–2026
Topics are not mutually exclusive: a single paper may receive more than one topic label.
12 rows
| Topic | 2008–2015 | 2016–2026 | Total | Share of P1 | Share of P2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Goal-Oriented RE (GORE) | 24 | 9 | 33 | 30.4% | 13.4% |
| Non-Functional Requirements (NFR) / Quality | 10 | 17 | 27 | 12.7% | 25.4% |
| Design/Software Architecture | 17 | 6 | 23 | 21.5% | 9.0% |
| Model-Driven Development (MDD) | 11 | 7 | 18 | 13.9% | 10.4% |
| Elicitation | 0 | 14 | 14 | 0.0% | 20.9% |
| SPL / Feature Models / Variability | 11 | 2 | 13 | 13.9% | 3.0% |
| Use Cases or Scenarios | 11 | 2 | 13 | 13.9% | 3.0% |
| Traceability | 9 | 3 | 12 | 11.4% | 4.5% |
| LLM / Generative AI / Natural Language | 0 | 12 | 12 | 0.0% | 17.9% |
| Behavioral models | 11 | 0 | 11 | 13.9% | 0.0% |
| Agile RE | 0 | 8 | 8 | 0.0% | 11.9% |
| Security, Privacy, Ethics and Law | 0 | 8 | 8 | 0.0% | 11.9% |
Show all topic labels recorded in the workbook 38 topic rows
This is the wider source-workbook list. Labels beyond the 12-topic summary in V15 are supplementary and should be confirmed before being treated as final results. “n/d” means the category was not coded as such in P1.
38 rows
| Topic | 2008–2015 | 2016–2026 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Goal-Oriented RE (GORE) | 24 | 9 | 33 |
| Non-Functional Requirements (NFR) /Quality | 10 | 17 | 27 |
| Design/Software Architecture | 17 | 6 | 23 |
| Model-Driven Development (MDD) | 11 | 7 | 18 |
| Elicitation | n/d | 14 | 14 |
| SPL / Feature Models / Variability | 11 | 2 | 13 |
| Use Cases or Scenarios | 11 | 2 | 13 |
| Traceability | 9 | 3 | 12 |
| LLM / Generative AI/ Natual Language | n/d | 12 | 12 |
| Behavioral models | 11 | 0 | 11 |
| Agile RE | n/d | 8 | 8 |
| Security & Privacy / Ethics / Law | n/d | 8 | 8 |
| Requirements Engineering (RE): | n/d | n/d | — |
| Methods, | n/d | n/d | — |
| Elicitation, | n/d | n/d | — |
| Analysis, | n/d | n/d | — |
| Management, | n/d | n/d | — |
| Specification languages, and | n/d | n/d | — |
| Quality; | n/d | n/d | — |
| Using Requirements Engineering: | n/d | n/d | — |
| RE cases, | n/d | n/d | — |
| Model driven RE, | n/d | n/d | — |
| Collaborative RE, | n/d | n/d | — |
| RE evolution, | n/d | n/d | — |
| RE interaction with Software Architecture, and | n/d | n/d | — |
| RE interaction with Programming; | n/d | n/d | — |
| Social Impact of Requirements Engineering: | n/d | n/d | — |
| Domain oriented RE, | n/d | n/d | — |
| RE interaction with Information Systems, | n/d | n/d | — |
| RE education, | n/d | n/d | — |
| Cognitive factors, | n/d | n/d | — |
| Cultural factors, and | n/d | n/d | — |
| Social factors, | n/d | n/d | — |
| Security, | n/d | n/d | — |
| Saftety, | n/d | n/d | — |
| Privacy, | n/d | n/d | — |
| Tranparency, | n/d | n/d | — |
| Trust. | n/d | n/d | — |
How were approaches validated or evaluated?
Empirical evaluation became more common in P2. A paper may have more than one validation type.
2008–20152016–2026
The four empirical categories—case study, experiment, survey, and observational study—account for 22 occurrences in P1 and 61 in P2.
8 rows
| Validation type | 2008–2015 | 2016–2026 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Illustration | 44 | 3 | 47 |
| Case study | 15 | 27 | 42 |
| No validation | 8 | 9 | 17 |
| Experiment | 4 | 11 | 15 |
| Survey | 2 | 13 | 15 |
| Comparison | 6 | 7 | 13 |
| Observational study | 1 | 10 | 11 |
| Simulation | 2 | 2 | 4 |
Interpretation from V15
Illustrations decline from 44 papers (55.7%) in P1 to 3 (4.5%) in P2, while case studies rise from 15 (19.0%) to 27 (40.3%). Surveys, experiments, and observational studies also increase. This is consistent with a stronger emphasis on empirical evaluation, but counts represent classification occurrences where multiple labels are allowed.
RESEARCH QUESTION 03
Types of contribution
What are the types of contribution?
The classification includes approaches, methods, processes, models, tools, surveys and other forms of research output. A paper may be assigned more than one contribution type.
The profile shifts from proposing approaches and methods toward synthesis and evidence-based contributions. Approach declines from 42 papers in P1 to 15 in P2, while Survey increases from one to 16, becoming the most frequent P2 contribution type (23.9%). Guidelines, case studies, catalogs, tools, and models also increase; process, method, methodology, framework, and language contributions decline.
2008–20152016–2026
Bar lengths show the number of papers classified under each contribution type.
14 rows
| Contribution type | 2008–2015 | 2016–2026 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Approach | 42 | 15 | 57 |
| Method | 16 | 5 | 21 |
| Process | 11 | 7 | 18 |
| Survey | 1 | 16 | 17 |
| Model | 7 | 9 | 16 |
| Tool | 4 | 8 | 12 |
| Guidelines | 2 | 9 | 11 |
| Case study | 1 | 9 | 10 |
| Methodology | 6 | 3 | 9 |
| Framework | 5 | 3 | 8 |
| Catalog | 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Language | 3 | 1 | 4 |
| Metric | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| Metamodel | 1 | 0 | 1 |
16Survey contributions in P2
Includes secondary studies such as literature reviews and mapping studies.
9Guidelines and case studies
Each category reaches nine papers in P2, compared with two and one in P1.
15Approach papers in P2
Down from 42 in the first eight editions.
RESEARCH QUESTION 04
RE phases supported
What phases of the RE process are supported by the contributions?
The categories follow Kotonya and Sommerville’s requirements engineering process. Requirements management is also treated as an RE phase.
The balance among RE phases changed. Specification—the dominant phase in P1—falls to third place in P2. Elicitation and Analysis & Negotiation each receive 35 labels, equivalent to 52.2% of the 67 P2 items. Requirements Management increases from six to 15 labels, while Validation remains nearly constant (13 and 12 labels).
2008–20152016–2026
Phase labels are non-exclusive. Percentages in the table use 79 P1 items and 67 P2 items as denominators.
5 rows
| RE phase | 2008–2015 | 2016–2026 | Total | Share of P1 items | Share of P2 items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Specification | 52 | 24 | 76 | 65.8% | 35.8% |
| Analysis & Negotiation | 28 | 35 | 63 | 35.4% | 52.2% |
| Elicitation | 16 | 35 | 51 | 20.3% | 52.2% |
| Validation | 13 | 12 | 25 | 16.5% | 17.9% |
| Management | 6 | 15 | 21 | 7.6% | 22.4% |
Shift in emphasis
The results suggest a move from documenting requirements toward discovering them and reasoning about them. This reading is consistent with the topic results for elicitation, quality, and language processing, while the non-exclusive phase counts mean that percentages can sum to more than 100%.
RESEARCH QUESTION 05
Publications with the greatest impact
What are the publications with the greatest impact?
Citation counts were obtained through OpenAlex, with citing-work metadata supplemented through the Crossref REST API. Counts were collected between 30 September and 2 October 2026.
Total citations1,588
P1 citations1,101
P2 citations487
Uncited P2 items9
The 146 papers and posters received 1,588 citations: 1,101 for P1 and 487 for P2. The mean is 13.9 citations per P1 item, 7.3 per P2 item, and 10.9 overall. The ten most-cited papers account for 571 citations (35.9% of the total). The leading paper is the 2010 study An investigation into the notion of non-functional requirements, with 145 citations.
4 rows
| Indicator | 2008–2015 | 2016–2026 | Overall | Unit |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Articles and posters | 79 | 67 | 146 | items |
| Citations | 1,101 | 487 | 1,588 | citations |
| Average citations per paper | 13.9 | 7.3 | 10.9 | citations/paper |
| Papers without citations | 0 | 9 | 9 | papers |
OpenAlex citation counts as reported in V15; the ranking is a snapshot and can change as citation indexes update.
10 rows
| Rank | Year | Paper title | Citations (OpenAlex) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2010 | An investigation into the notion of non-functional requirements | 145 |
| 2 | 2011 | Analyzing goal models: different approaches and how to choose among them | 79 |
| 3 | 2008 | Configuring features with stakeholder goals | 69 |
| 4 | 2021 | RE-BERT: automatic extraction of software requirements from app reviews using BERT language model | 69 |
| 5 | 2012 | A systematic mapping study on creativity in requirements engineering | 47 |
| 6 | 2013 | A requirements catalog for mobile learning environments | 44 |
| 7 | 2021 | Towards an understanding of benefits and challenges in the use of design thinking in requirements engineering | 33 |
| 8 | 2011 | Goal-driven software product line engineering | 30 |
| 9 | 2010 | Towards modular i* models | 28 |
| 10 | 2016 | Impacts of agile requirements documentation debt on software projects: a retrospective study | 27 |
i
Comparability note. The 2016 retrospective used Google Scholar, while this update uses OpenAlex and Crossref. The coverage and document classification differ, and P2 papers had less time to accumulate citations. Therefore, raw citation totals across the two studies are not strictly comparable.
RESEARCH QUESTION 06
Citing publication venues
What are the conferences and journals that most referenced the track papers?
Venue types were updated in V15 to distinguish citations from proceedings published within book series from citations to conference venues.
Journals account for the largest share of classified citing works (596; 37.5%), followed by conferences (521; 32.8%), books and book-series volumes (264; 16.6%), and other sources (207; 13.0%). Under the updated classification, the International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE) is the leading named citing conference, while ACM SIGAPP Applied Computing Review is the most frequent citing journal.
These values use the updated V15 classification: book-series proceedings are counted under books/book-series volumes, not conferences.
4 rows
| Venue type | 2008–2015 | 2016–2026 | Total | Share of 1,588 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Books / book-series volumes | 190 | 74 | 264 | 16.6% |
| Conferences | 339 | 182 | 521 | 32.8% |
| Journals | 405 | 191 | 596 | 37.5% |
| Other venues | 167 | 40 | 207 | 13.0% |
Most frequent citing conferences
The “Others” group includes conferences not individually listed.
Citations from named conference venues; “Others” is shown in the table but omitted from the ranked chart.
11 rows
| Conference | 2008–2015 | 2016–2026 | Total citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE) | 35 | 19 | 54 |
| ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC) | 22 | 8 | 30 |
| Brazilian Symposium on Software Engineering (SBES) | 10 | 6 | 16 |
| Workshop on Requirements Engineering (WER) | 9 | 5 | 14 |
| Software Product Line Conference (SPLC) | 12 | 0 | 12 |
| International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE) | 7 | 0 | 7 |
| MODELS | 3 | 3 | 6 |
| SEKE | 5 | 0 | 5 |
| CAiSE | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Conceptual Modeling (ER) | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Others / not associated with a named conference | 235 | 140 | 375 |
Most frequent citing journals
The top journal overall is ACM SIGAPP Applied Computing Review (86 citations).
Top ten journal titles by total citations; the table includes all 25 titles listed in V15.
25 rows
| Journal | 2008–2015 | 2016–2026 | Total citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| ACM SIGAPP Applied Computing Review | 78 | 8 | 86 |
| Information and Software Technology | 27 | 7 | 34 |
| IEEE Access | 12 | 20 | 32 |
| Requirements Engineering | 19 | 12 | 31 |
| Journal of Systems and Software | 17 | 10 | 27 |
| Software & Systems Modeling | 15 | 2 | 17 |
| Journal of Software: Evolution and Process | 9 | 5 | 14 |
| Empirical Software Engineering | 10 | 3 | 13 |
| Software Quality Journal | 5 | 3 | 8 |
| Journal of Software Engineering Research and Development | 5 | 1 | 6 |
| IEICE Transactions on Information and Systems | 4 | 1 | 5 |
| Software: Practice and Experience | 4 | 1 | 5 |
| ACM Transactions on Autonomous and Adaptive Systems | 2 | 3 | 5 |
| ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes | 5 | 0 | 5 |
| Automated Software Engineering | 2 | 3 | 5 |
| Computers & Security | 4 | 0 | 4 |
| International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications | 4 | 0 | 4 |
| Computers | 4 | 0 | 4 |
| IET Software | 3 | 1 | 4 |
| IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering | 1 | 3 | 4 |
| Applied Sciences | 0 | 4 | 4 |
| CLEI Electronic Journal | 4 | 0 | 4 |
| ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology | 1 | 3 | 4 |
| International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering | 4 | 0 | 4 |
| International Journal of Information System Modeling and Design | 4 | 0 | 4 |
Venue classification updated
Earlier spreadsheet values placed 714 works under conferences and 71 under books. V15 reclassifies 134 P1 and 59 P2 items from conference to book-series/book-volume venues. The corrected totals are 521 conferences and 264 books; together with journals and other venues, they sum to 1,588.
RESEARCH QUESTION 07
Trends in Requirements Engineering
What are the trends in RE presented at the track?
The manuscript groups editions into biennia to reduce year-to-year fluctuation and retains the original 2016 study’s first four windows.
Trend figures are provisional
The RQ7 time-series worksheet does not consistently reconcile with the RQ2 aggregate table or the narrative in V15. Examples include Elicitation (9 occurrences in the workbook series versus 14 in RQ2), Design/Software Architecture (5 versus 6 in P2), and the separate NFR, Quality, Natural Language and LLM/Generative AI rows. The plotted series below intentionally expose the current workbook values for review; do not treat them as publication-ready until the topic codes are reconciled.
V15 describes a shift away from the model-centered topics prominent in the early editions. GORE, behavioral models, use cases, variability, and some design topics lose weight; NFR/Quality, elicitation, agile RE, security, ethics and law, and language-model-related work receive more attention. The 2026/2027 biennium contains only the 2026 edition (five items) and must be read as an initial signal, not a stable trend.
GORENFRDesign/Software ArchitectureMDDSPL or Feature Models or VariabilityUse Cases
Raw counts from the source workbook RQ7_tendencias tab. Counts are provisional and not reconciled with the RQ2 topic aggregates.
LLM / Generative AI (NEW - validar)ElicitationAgile RE (NEW - validar)SecurityPrivacy / Ethics / Law (NEW - validar)
Raw counts as recorded in the source workbook; gaps indicate periods where a topic was not coded in the original series. Several rows do not add up to the current manuscript’s aggregate topics.
V15 identifies NFR/Quality as the leading P2 topic (17 papers; 25.4%). Its biennium breakdown still needs reconciliation.
The aggregate table reports 14 P2 papers (20.9%); the detailed time-series tab currently sums to nine.
V15 reports 12 P2 papers and four of five items in 2026 addressing the topic; the series labels need alignment with the broader category.
Inspect the complete biennium series from the workbook 31 source rows
This table is included for data review. Source values and the P1/P2 totals are shown as recorded, without silently altering them to match the article prose.
31 rows
| Topic | 08/09 | 10/11 | 12/13 | 14/15 | 16/17 | 18/19 | 20/21 | 22/23 | 24/25 | 26/27* | P1 total | P2 total | Overall | Workbook trend |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Goal-Oriented RE (GORE) | 4 | 8 | 6 | 6 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 24 | 9 | 33 | cai |
| Design/Software Architecture | 6 | 2 | 5 | 4 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 17 | 5 | 22 | cai |
| Behavioral models | 3 | 1 | 5 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 0 | 11 | cai |
| Model-Driven Development (MDD) | 2 | 1 | 6 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 11 | 3 | 14 | cai |
| SPL / Feature Models / Variability | 1 | 2 | 5 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 11 | 2 | 13 | cai |
| Use Cases or Scenarios | 5 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 1 | 12 | cai |
| Non-Functional Requirements (NFR) | 1 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 10 | 10 | 20 | estavel |
| Traceability | 2 | 0 | 5 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 9 | 3 | 12 | cai |
| Verification & Validation | 4 | 0 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 2 | 11 | cai |
| Aspects | 1 | 4 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 0 | 8 | cai |
| Business Process | 5 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 0 | 8 | cai |
| Requirements Analysis | 1 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 8 | 8 | 7 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 8 | 28 | 36 | cresce |
| Natural Language | 2 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 4 | 11 | estavel |
| Tools | 2 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 6 | 6 | 12 | estavel |
| UML | 2 | 0 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 8 | 1 | 9 | cai |
| Empirical Studies | n/d | n/d | n/d | n/d | 11 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 6 | 3 | n/d | 41 | 41 | n/d (sem serie 2008-2015) |
| LLM / Generative AI (NEW - validar) | n/d | n/d | n/d | n/d | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 4 | n/d | 11 | 11 | n/d (sem serie 2008-2015) |
| Elicitation | n/d | n/d | n/d | n/d | 4 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | n/d | 9 | 9 | n/d (sem serie 2008-2015) |
| Agile RE (NEW - validar) | n/d | n/d | n/d | n/d | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | n/d | 8 | 8 | n/d (sem serie 2008-2015) |
| Security | n/d | n/d | n/d | n/d | 1 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | n/d | 6 | 6 | n/d (sem serie 2008-2015) |
| Quality | n/d | n/d | n/d | n/d | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | n/d | 4 | 4 | n/d (sem serie 2008-2015) |
| Ontology or Conceptual Models | n/d | n/d | n/d | n/d | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | n/d | 4 | 4 | n/d (sem serie 2008-2015) |
| Creativity | n/d | n/d | n/d | n/d | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | n/d | 3 | 3 | n/d (sem serie 2008-2015) |
| Computer-supported collaborative work | n/d | n/d | n/d | n/d | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | n/d | 2 | 2 | n/d (sem serie 2008-2015) |
| AHP / Prioritization | n/d | n/d | n/d | n/d | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | n/d | 2 | 2 | n/d (sem serie 2008-2015) |
| Privacy / Ethics / Law (NEW - validar) | n/d | n/d | n/d | n/d | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | n/d | 2 | 2 | n/d (sem serie 2008-2015) |
| Reuse | n/d | n/d | n/d | n/d | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | n/d | 2 | 2 | n/d (sem serie 2008-2015) |
| Usability | n/d | n/d | n/d | n/d | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | n/d | 2 | 2 | n/d (sem serie 2008-2015) |
| Embedded or Context-sensitive Systems | n/d | n/d | n/d | n/d | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | n/d | 1 | 1 | n/d (sem serie 2008-2015) |
| Specification | n/d | n/d | n/d | n/d | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | n/d | 1 | 1 | n/d (sem serie 2008-2015) |
| Stakeholders' Preferences | n/d | n/d | n/d | n/d | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | n/d | 1 | 1 | n/d (sem serie 2008-2015) |
i
Interpretation safeguard. The final window includes 2026 only. The absence of the 2027 edition means its value should not be extrapolated to predict future publication patterns.
REPLICATION MATERIAL
Download the dataset
A machine-readable export of the results and source tables.
The download is a long-format CSV designed to work with spreadsheets, databases, and analysis scripts.
database.cvs
2,236 data records · UTF-8 with BOM · Comma-separated values
Includes annual output, participation, topics, validation, contributions, RE phases, citation rankings, venue classifications, complete workbook trend rows, and data-quality annotations.
Format Long-formDelimiter CommaEncoding UTF-8Updated V15
The file is also available with the standard CSV extension: database.csv.
CSV columns
research_question, dataset, item, metric, period, value, source_version, status, notes, and metadata_json.
Source and versioning
The current headline results follow Manuscript V15. Workbook V2 rows that were superseded are retained with an explicit superseded status to make the update auditable. RQ7 time-series records are labelled provisional_reconcile.
Method in brief
The study follows a scoping-study approach and reuses the seven research questions and classification schemes from the 2016 retrospective. P1 covers 2008–2015 (eight editions); P2 covers 2016–2026 (eleven editions). Citations are based on OpenAlex and Crossref data collected in late September/early October 2026. Author, institution, country and topic results should be read with the manuscript’s threats-to-validity caveats in mind.
Reference: 20 Years of the Requirements Engineering Track at SAC: Retrospective, Relevance, and Trends, Manuscript V15.