Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

interesting subject, well-written article.

Shortcomings:

1) poorly written abstract, methodology, achievements, novelties are not indicated

2) no undercapped research gap

3) poorly written summary, short and not illustrative of the results.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments,

Reviewer Point P 1.1: poorly written abstract, methodology, achievements, novelties are not indicated

Reply: The abstract has been corrected as a whole. The methodology is refer to A qualitative method is used through interviews involving eight informants from Malaysia's public and private sectors. The objectives of the empirical study are to reveal the current practices of the green software process in the industry, identify software process waste and determine green factors associated with the software process. The analysis is guided by a thematic approach using Atlas.ti 8 software.

Besides, the achievement indicates to the results from the qualitative study that consists of three main themes: best practices of a software process, nine software wastes (building the wrong feature, rework, unnecessarily complex solutions, extraneous cognitive load, psychological distress, waiting, knowledge loss, ineffective communication, delay), and six green factors (resources, people, organisational, technical, environmental, technology).

The novelties relate to the analysis findings indicate that the software industry needs elements of best practices, green practices, and software technologies in each development phase to produce a green and sustainable software process.

Reviewer Point P 1.2: no undercapped research gap

Reply: Abstract- The current green software process models are more focused on the environmental and economic elements and do not integrate with the waste elements in the development phase. Integrating sustainability and waste elements is essential to ensure that the development process complies with the green process standards

Introduction- There is a lack of studies on integration between the dimensions of sustainability and waste reduction [10]. It is supported by [11] that green software can be achieved through sustainable development and waste reduction. Current models in the green software process focus more on environmental and economy elements without incorporating other components of sustainability such as social and technical [10][12].

Reviewer Point P 1.3: poorly written summary, short and not illustrative of the result

Reply: It was improved in the Conclusion. The result revealed three principles of green software processes practices (best practice, green practice, and software development tool) in each development phase, nine significant components of waste, and six green factors in the software process: resource, people, organisation, environmental and technology

Reviewer 2 Report

The Green Software Process Measurements: A Qualitative 2 Study has addressed the problem of green software processes to ensure that software remains up-to-date and has a lower environmental impact. The authors presented the results of an empirical study that revealed current green software process practices in the industry, identified software process wastes, and identified green software process related factors.

The authors reviewed the literature and described in detail the problem of software ecology. The literature is varied, i.e. both over 5 years old and the newest, which affects the appropriate level of problem description. Empirical research was carried out to investigate green software practices, classify software waste in each phase, and identify the factors of the green software process from an industrial perspective. An empirical study conducted in several interview sessions showed that six primary factors contribute to ensuring a green software development process: resources, people, organization, environment, technical and technological. The research was conducted through interviews with industry practitioners and the use of thematic analysis as a qualitative method of data analysis. Interviews were also conducted based on examining the current software development process, identifying software waste and examining the factors of green software. The small group interviewed raise concerns. The question is, would the results be the same or similar with a larger group?

The article, although it does not present the model of ecological software development, is very important in terms of activities on ecological solutions. The subject of the article is very important and may constitute a source of further research. The authors indicate that they are working on the model and it will probably be interesting solutions in this area.

 

My comments to the article:

1. There is no outline of the research results in the abstract.

2. The small group interviewed raise concerns. The question is, would the results be the same or similar with a larger group?

 

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments,

Reviewer Point P 1.1: There is no outline of the research results in the abstract.

Reply: The abstract has been revised and improved. The research result are from the qualitative study that consists of three main themes: best practices of a software process, nine software wastes (building the wrong feature, rework, unnecessarily complex solutions, extraneous cognitive load, psychological distress, waiting, knowledge loss, ineffective communication, delay), and six green factors (resources, people, organisational, technical, environmental, technology). 

Reviewer Point P 1.2: The small group interviewed raise concerns. The question is, would the results be the same or similar with a larger group?

Reply: This study was conducted by interviewing industrial practitioners or software developers. The scope of this study is on the fundamental development process: requirements, design, implementation, and testing. The interview will stop when it reaches the saturation level which means there is no new and additional information.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Abstract

line 14: .....there is. change it to "it is essential"

The abstract contains irrelevant mentions, which distorted the flow of the storyline.

The abstract should be limited to:

1. what: Through light on the study area,

2. Problem. Identify the problem you want to solve using the study.

3. How. Indicate the objective of the study. How do you want to solve the problem, methodology?

4. Findings. Quantify the findings of the study

5. Benefits of the study. Of what benefits are this study/finding?

Introduction

Line 61: recast the sentence : ......has minimal direct and indirect negative harmful to the economy, society.......

line 66: an inappropriate style of citation: Ref [7] discovered that.......

line 69: Previous studies concentrated on hardware ......... (Cite the studies)

line 72: .....with three main dimensions:  economic, social, and environmental

Although an attempt was made to justify this study, the authors did not clearly put up an argument to state the gap(s) and why this study is necessary. The second to the last paragraph in the Introduction can be be improved. 

Secondly, the introduction is devoid of the aim (Objective) and specific objectives of the study. By including these, the storyline and focus of the study would be improved. 

line 82: Background of the Study and Related Works

line 88: guarantees a good software development process... change to: could improve the software development process. 

line 92: change citation style - Ref [12] uncovered the..........

Line 204: to be highlight   highlighted the .........

Tables 2 & 1 are wrongly numbered.

In table 2, recast the statement: Ensuring resources are used more negligible affects the environment

line 323: recast the sentence: ......process of development caused affected......

line 349: recast the sentence ..........waste in software development that idle time................

 

Empirical study

There is no mention of research design in this study, which comes under the methodology. 

Why did the study adopt a qualitative approach?

How did you select the companies and how was the contact made?

How many companies were selected and by what criteria? 

How many probable participants were approached in each company and shown many agreed to take part in the study?

What informed the decision to use an interview? 

Why informed the decision to use semi-structured questions?

How many questions were administered? 

How was the interview conducted and where? 

How was the interview written or recorded? 

What was the duration of the study? 

Line 465: Again table 2 numbering is used.

 

Were the companies that participated in the study anonymously represented as A-G? If yes, it must be indicated. 

Questions referred to in each table must be stated verbatim and enclosed in a quote. 

38.57% of the citations are obsolete and could be replaced with current research. These citations are between 9-22 years. 

Conclusion

The results from this qualitative study will be used to construct the proposed model of the green software process based on sustainability elements to improve the greenness of software project activities. Are you referring to this study? Is the model meant to be in this study? 

General

The findings of the study are not clearly stated. The conclusions are to be derived from the research findings and not a generic statement. 

Research design is not methodically presented and must be improved.

Considering the measurement contained in the topic of this study, what have you measured? They are not reported in the findings. If it is available, it must be quantified. 

 

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments,

Reviewer Point P 1.1: line 14: .....there is. change it to "it is essential"

Reply: The abstract has been revised

Reviewer Point P 1.2: The abstract contains irrelevant mentions, which distorted the flow of the storyline.

Reply: The abstract has been revised and improved

Reviewer Point P 1.3: The abstract should be limited to: what: Through light on the study area.

Reply: Has been improved the abstract.

Reviewer Point P 1.4: Problem. Identify the problem you want to solve using the study.

Reply: Previous studies focused more on models and tools to measure the impact of power consumption and energy efficiency from hardware than on software development studies. the current green software process models are more focused on the environmental and economic elements and do not integrate with the waste elements in the development phase. Integrating sustainability and waste elements is essential to ensure that the development process complies with the green process standards. 

Reviewer Point P 1.5: How. Indicate the objective of the study. How do you want to solve the problem, methodology?

Reply: The objectives of the empirical study are to reveal the current practices of the green software process in the industry, identify software process waste and determine green factors associated with the software process.

Reviewer Point P 1.6: Findings. Quantify the findings of the study

Reply: Findings from the qualitative study that consists of three main themes: best practices of a software process, nine software wastes (building the wrong feature, rework, unnecessarily complex solutions, extraneous cognitive load, psychological distress, waiting, knowledge loss, ineffective communication, delay), and six green factors (resources, people, organisational, technical, environmental, technology).

Reviewer Point P 1.7: Line 61: recast the sentence: ......has minimal direct and indirect negative harmful to the economy, society

Reply: Has been improved “green software has direct and indirect with minimal harm to the economy, society…

Reviewer Point P 1.8: line 66: an inappropriate style of citation: Ref [7] discovered that

Reply: Has been changed accordingly The software engineering methods for development, maintenance, and disposal must be resource-efficient, waste-free, and contribute to long-term development [3] 

Reviewer Point P 1.9: line 69: Previous studies concentrated on hardware ......... (Cite the studies)

Reply: Based on previous works, green studies concentrated on hardware for energy consumption control, analysis, and monitoring that involves essential hardware components [6-8]. 

Reviewer Point P 1.10: line 72: .....with three main dimensions:  economic, social, and environmental

Reply: The line has been deleted

Reviewer Point P 1.11: Although an attempt was made to justify this study, the authors did not clearly put up an argument to state the gap(s) and why this study is necessary. The second to the last paragraph in the Introduction can be improved.

Reply: Has been corrected in At the same time, there is a lack of studies on integration between the dimensions of sustainability and waste reduction [10]. It is supported by [11] that green software can be achieved through sustainable development and waste reduction. Current models in the green software process focus more on environmental and economy elements without incorporating other components of sustainability such as social and technical [10][12].

Reviewer Point P 1.12: Secondly, the introduction is devoid of the aim (Objective) and specific objectives of the study. By including these, the storyline and focus of the study would be improved.

Reply: Has been added and improved in the Introduction. This study aims to conduct an in-depth qualitative analysis to investigate the best practices and green process factors in collaboration with the software industry in Malaysia. The scope of this study focused on the fundamental software development phases: requirement, design, implementation, and testing. The objectives are: 1) investigate the current practices of the green software process in the industry, 2) identify software process waste, and 3) determine green factors associated with the software process.

Reviewer Point P 1.13: line 88: guarantees a good software development process... change to: could improve the software development process. 

Reply: Has been changed to “could improve the software development process”

Reviewer Point P 1.14: line 92: change citation style - Ref [12] uncovered the..........

Reply: Change to According to [11]

Reviewer Point P 1.15: Line 204: to be highlight   highlighted the .........

Reply:

Reviewer Point P 1.16: Tables 2 & 1 are wrongly numbered.

Reply: Table 1 & 2 and so on has been corrected

Reviewer Point P 1.17: In table 2, recast the statement: Ensuring resources are used more negligible affects the environment

Reply: Has been corrected “Several efforts have been attempted to highlight the…

Reviewer Point P 1.18: line 323: recast the sentence: ......process of development caused affected......

Reply: Has been improved .  In the software domain, waste can occur during development activities. The wastes affect the quality and time of delivery of the products.

Reviewer Point P 1.19: line 349: recast the sentence ..........waste in software development that idle time................

Reply: the study revealed that waiting is one of the wastes in software development that contributes to idle time

Reviewer Point P 1.20: There is no mention of research design in this study, which comes under the methodology.

Reply: Has been added to the research design

Reviewer Point P 1.21: Why did the study adopt a qualitative approach?

Reply: Has been added in section Interview Protocol Design 

Reviewer Point P 1.22: How did you select the companies and how was the contact made?

Reply: Has been mentioned in Research Design

Reviewer Point P 1.23: How many companies were selected and by what criteria? 

Reply: It’s not considered by the organisation but it’s selected by individual position

Reviewer Point P 1.24: How many probable participants were approached in each company and shown many agreed to take part in the study?

Reply: The approach can be referred in research design 

Reviewer Point P 1.25: What informed the decision to use an interview?

Reply: It was added in the introduction of empirical study

Reviewer Point P 1.26: Why informed the decision to use semi-structured questions?

Reply: Has been added to the research design 

Reviewer Point P 1.27: How many questions were administered? 

Reply: Has been added in section Interview Protocol Design

Reviewer Point P 1.28: How was the interview conducted and where?

Reply: Has been mentioned in Research Design

Reviewer Point P 1.29: How was the interview written or recorded? 

Reply: Has been mentioned in Research Design

Reviewer Point P 1.30: What was the duration of the study? 

Reply: Has been added in The sampling 

Reviewer Point P 1.31: Line 465: Again table 2 numbering is used.

Reply: 

Has been corrected

Reviewer Point P 1.32: Were the companies that participated in the study anonymously represented as A-G? If yes, it must be indicated.

Reply: The statement has been corrected

Reviewer Point P 1.33: Questions referred to in each table must be stated verbatim and enclosed in a quote. 

Reply: Has been added for each table 3-16

Reviewer Point P 1.34: 38.57% of the citations are obsolete and could be replaced with current research. These citations are between 9-22 years.

Reply: Has been replaced

Reviewer Point P 1.35: The results from this qualitative study will be used to construct the proposed model of the green software process based on sustainability elements to improve the greenness of software project activities. Are you referring to this study? Is the model meant to be in this study?

Reply: Yes, it refers the future works

Reviewer Point P 1.36:  the findings of the study are not clearly stated. The conclusions are to be derived from the research findings and not a generic statement.

Reply: Has been improved

Reviewer Point P 1.37: Research design is not methodically presented and must be improved.

Reply: Has been improved in Research Design

Reviewer Point P 1.38: Considering the measurement contained in the topic of this study, what have you measured? They are not reported in the findings. If it is available, it must be quantified.

Reply: Change the title: The Green Software Process Factors: A Qualitative Study

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The paper focuses on the industry's current green software development practices. The topic is indeed important and fits the scope of the journal. The paper is well-prepared, but there are several flaws concerning the presented material.

The authors conducted the empirical study based on interviews with eight industrial experts. According to the abstract, the "paper describes the results and findings from the qualitative study". However, the presented analysis of the results seems to be rather quantitative (frequency) than qualitative. 

Among the selected eight experts, the frequency of their answers will not be representative for the whole domain. However, the discussion of their answers and approaches, with specific quotes, could give some insight into the approaches and be thought-provoking. Unfortunately, in the paper, the interview questions and quotes from the answers are not presented and discussed (apart from just two quotes).

In the conclusions, the authors claimed, "The findings from the qualitative expert interview are disclosed as discussed in this paper.". Although everything should be disclosed in the paper, readers can expect a summary of the paper and the main ideas/conclusions pointed out in the conclusions. 

According to the title "The Green Software Process Measurements", I would expect much more elaboration on these measurements. Especially how to measure them (and how are measured in the organisations of the interviewees), on which scale, and what the benefits and limitations of these measurements are. 

I also have not found a reference to the authors' previous work, "The Development of Green Software Process Model: A Qualitative Design and Pilot Study", published in the International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications. Therefore, as the titles are similar, the studies' differences should be elaborated. 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 4 Comments,

Reviewer Point P 1.1: The presented analysis of the results seems to be rather quantitative (frequency) than qualitative.

Reply: It has been mentioned in Data Analysis and Finding that the informants' frequency of mentioned keywords was counted and shown in the tables.

Reviewer Point P 1.2: The interview questions and quotes from the answers are not presented and discussed (apart from just two quotes).

Reply: It has been added for each Table 3 until Table 16

Reviewer Point P 1.3: The authors claimed, "The findings from the qualitative expert interview are disclosed as discussed in this paper." Although everything should be disclosed in the paper, readers can expect a summary of the paper and the main ideas/conclusions pointed out in the conclusions. 

Reply: The summary and main findings are added and improved in the Conclusion. The main finding statement is, "The analysis has revealed three principles of green software processes practices (best practice, green practice, and software development tool) in each development phase, nine significant components of waste, and six green factors in the software process: resource, people, organisation, environmental and technology."

Reviewer Point P 1.4: Title "The Green Software Process Measurements", I would expect much more elaboration on these measurements. Especially how to measure them (and how are measured in the organisations of the interviewees), on which scale, and what the benefits and limitations of these measurements are. 

Reply: It has been changed the title: The Green Software Process Factors: A Qualitative Study

Reviewer Point P 1.4: I also have not found a reference to the authors' previous work, "The Development of Green Software Process Model: A Qualitative Design and Pilot Study", published in the International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications. Therefore, as the titles are similar, the studies' differences should be elaborated. 

Reply: The reference is added to the reference list. The difference between this paper is The Development of Green Software Process Model: A Qualitative Design and Pilot Study focused on pilot study results meanwhile this paper aims the real interview and analysis of the whole collected data.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The aim of the study mentioned in the abstract is in contrast with line 771. Delete line 771.

 

Author Response

Reviewer 3,

Reviewer Point P 1.1: The aim of the study mentioned in the abstract is in contrast with line 771. Delete line 771.

Reply: It has been deleted in the last sentences (Conclusion)

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors have improved the paper according to the suggestions. I would also suggest considering gathering all the questions from the interviews in a more coherent and compact way as an appendix.

Author Response

Reviewer 4,

Reviewer Point P 1.1: Considering gathering all the questions from the interviews in a more coherent and compact way as an appendix.

Reply: It has been added in the Abstract A