Does anyone have access to the original paper? From the look at this article, I am extremely curious as to how they quantified what they defined as "community smells". From the article:
----
For the study, the authors looked at four types of community smells:
1. Organizational Silos. Groups in the community don’t communicate with each other, except through one or two of their respective members.
2. Black Clouds. Community members are overloaded with information because communication isn’t structured well.
3. Lone Wolves. Defiant, disrespectful contributors won’t listen to others.
4. Bottlenecks. One team member wants to be the only way information moves between sub-communities.
Previous studies have shown that women are fundamental to reducing community smells and avoiding accumulating social debt for teams in other industries. But these studies show that women increase team efficiency and organizational quality on software engineering teams specifically. Teams with no women have 7 mean community smells compared to 3 for teams with at least one woman. These results are statistically significant (p-value < 0.05) and have a large effect size (d=0.68).
Has this been proof-read? There's a grammatical error in the second sentence on the first page.
> we found [...] a strictly connection between gender diversity and communication patterns
Obviously this doesn't necessarily reflect the quality of the research but it is jarring to the reader and makes one question what else about the paper has not been checked over before publication
I'm not sure. I found it by Googling. I think, given there are several authors listed that, yes, it has been proof-read.
Generally I wouldn't consider the occasional typo to be indicative of the quality of the underlying research. Zooming in on a minor detail in an attempt to paint the paper negatively seems needlessly pedantic, but that's just my opinion.
Possibly, but being charitable, this is a preprint written by someone how specializes in software engineering, and it is written in their second language.
A typo seems like a fair mistake in these circumstances.
----
For the study, the authors looked at four types of community smells:
1. Organizational Silos. Groups in the community don’t communicate with each other, except through one or two of their respective members.
2. Black Clouds. Community members are overloaded with information because communication isn’t structured well.
3. Lone Wolves. Defiant, disrespectful contributors won’t listen to others.
4. Bottlenecks. One team member wants to be the only way information moves between sub-communities.
Previous studies have shown that women are fundamental to reducing community smells and avoiding accumulating social debt for teams in other industries. But these studies show that women increase team efficiency and organizational quality on software engineering teams specifically. Teams with no women have 7 mean community smells compared to 3 for teams with at least one woman. These results are statistically significant (p-value < 0.05) and have a large effect size (d=0.68).
----