Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 1 cited by

Mining a Decade of Event Impacts on Contributor Dynamics in Ethereum: A Longitudinal Study

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Ten years of Ethereum data show technical events slow commits, market events speed them.

desk verdict A competent descriptive mining study with a solid data package, but the headline technical-vs-market dichotomy is asserted rather than tested. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.05054 v1 pith:CRNZU6CW submitted 2025-02-07 cs.SE cs.CY

Matteo Vaccargiu , Sabrina Aufiero , Cheick Ba , Silvia Bartolucci , Richard Clegg , Daniel Graziotin , Rumyana Neykova , Roberto Tonelli
show 1 more author
Giuseppe Destefanis
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.SEcs.CY
keywords Ethereumopensourcesoftwaredeveloperactivityeventimpactcommitanalysissurvivalcollaborationnetworkslongitudinalstudy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that major events in Ethereum's history change how its developer community works, and that the direction of change depends on event type. Over ten years and ten repositories, technical upgrades like The Merge draw extra commits before the event and fewer afterward, while market shocks like the COVID-19 crash trigger reactive commit bursts. The authors argue this distinction matters because it reveals whether open-source development is planned or reactive, and because it gives maintainers a concrete 90-day window for expecting disruption. A sympathetic reader would take this as evidence that blockchain open-source communities respond to external shocks in structured, measurable ways.

What carries the argument

The central object is the 90-day pre/post event window, derived from autocorrelation analysis of monthly commit counts and then applied uniformly to all events and metrics. It is paired with a repository-event analysis in which each of ten repositories is treated as an independent experiment group; Wilcoxon signed-rank tests with Benjamini-Hochberg false-discovery correction compare commit distributions before and after each event. For issues, Kaplan-Meier survival curves and log-rank tests compare resolution times; for collaboration, weighted contributor networks are built from co-commenting and examined through motif Z-scores against a configuration-model null. The 90-day window is what carries the argument: it defines the "before" and "after" for every test.

What would settle it

Recompute the commit and issue analyses with event-specific windows selected by change-point detection or by the data itself; if the pre-event build-up and post-event dip for technical events disappears or reverses under variable windows, the central claim fails. Alternatively, a larger random-event control that produced as many significant results as the real event set would falsify the event-driven interpretation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that technical events prompt increased activity before the event, followed by reduced commit rates afterwards, whereas market events lead to more reactive development. The authors find this pattern by comparing 90-day windows before and after ten major events across ten repositories, with statistical tests showing significant commit-activity changes for events such as the Frontier Release, the DAO hack, and the Beacon Chain Launch. They also report that event effects on developer collaboration last about 90 days, that issue resolution times shift significantly around most events, and that technical events tighten collaboration among core teams while the 2020 market crash had the smallest structural impact. If true, the paper establishes a temporal and typological account of how external events perturb developer activity in a cryptocurrency ecosystem.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a single fixed 90-day window captures the full effect of every major event; if effects actually last longer or shorter for some events or repositories, the before/after comparisons built on that window could misstate the impact.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Maintainers should expect roughly three months of altered activity after any major event, with normal patterns returning by the fourth month.
  • For planned technical upgrades, preparation work should be scheduled before the event, since commit rates tend to drop afterward.
  • For market shocks, teams should anticipate reactive commit bursts and allocate review and merge capacity accordingly.
  • Core infrastructure repositories such as Go-Ethereum resolve issues faster and show stronger collaboration tightening during technical events, so they may serve as early indicators of ecosystem stress.
  • Event effects are not random: 100 random events produced no significant commit changes, so the observed patterns are tied to the selected major events.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The fixed 90-day window may conceal event-specific horizons; an event-wise change-point or multi-horizon analysis could reveal that market shocks act faster and technical upgrades linger longer.
  • The pre-event commit build-up pattern could be used as a low-cost leading indicator: a surge in core-repository commits before an announced protocol change may predict where compatibility work will land.
  • The motif analysis suggests a testable extension: if technical events reliably increase closed triads in core repositories, triangle density could be monitored as an early-warning signal for coordination load.
  • Because the data cover one ecosystem, the planned-versus-reactive distinction is best treated as a candidate hypothesis for other token-bearing open-source projects, not a settled law.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes developer activity in 10 Ethereum repositories (129,884 commits, 40,550 issues) over 2014–2024 to examine how ten major events affect commit activity, issue resolution time, and collaboration networks. The authors report a 90-day impact window, pre/post Wilcoxon tests on commit counts, log-rank survival comparisons for issue resolution, and motif-based network analyses. The headline claim distinguishes technical events, said to prompt pre-event activity and post-event slowdowns, from market events, said to induce reactive development. A replication package is provided.

Significance. If the central claims held, the study would offer a useful longitudinal characterization of blockchain OSS dynamics and a practical template for event-window estimation in such ecosystems. The paper has notable strengths: a large multi-repository dataset, a public replication package, multiple complementary analyses, and a random-event control that supports the specificity of the selected events over arbitrary time points. However, the central technical-vs-market dichotomy is never formally tested, and the 90-day window is derived from the same commit series used for the main tests. These issues currently limit the strength of the conclusions.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section VI and Abstract] The central claim that technical events produce pre-event increases and post-event decreases while market events are reactive is not established by the reported tests. RQ2 tests only the pairwise null that the 90-day pre- and post-event commit distributions are equal for each repository-event pair (Section VI, Table IV); no test compares event types or includes an event-type by period interaction. Figure 5 and the narrative in Section VI are used to infer the dichotomy, but the text itself notes that negative r-values are common across event types and that some market events show post-event increases while technical events show decreases. Because market events cluster in 2016–2020 and technical events in 2020–2023, the visual pattern is also confounded with ecosystem growth and maturation. A formal interaction model (e.g., a negative binomial mixed model with event type, period, and their interaction) or an event-level comparison of post-pre differences between technical and market events should be reported before the abstract's headline claim is made.
  2. [Section V] The 90-day impact window is not independently validated and appears to be derived from the same commit series later used to test event effects. The ACF of commits (Fig. 3) shows a significant positive lag at 1 month and a significant negative lag at 4 months; the text states that normal activity resumes by the fourth month, but a negative lag at month four means commit activity is below its baseline at that lag, not that it has normalized. This contradiction is material because the fixed 90-day pre/post window is applied to all events and metrics in RQ2–RQ4, and the random-event control in Section VI only validates that the selected events differ from random periods, not that the window length is correct. The window should be treated as a sensitivity parameter, with results reported for alternative windows (e.g., 30, 60, 120 days) or estimated separately for each event type or repository.
  3. [Section VIII] RQ4's network conclusion is based on three events and qualitative inspection of Z-score plots, with no statistical test reported. Section VIII selects the COVID-19 crash, London Hard Fork, and Arrow Glacier Update and asserts from Fig. 9 that Go-ethereum shows significant drops in open triads and spikes in triangles, but no confidence intervals, significance thresholds, or multiple-comparison corrections are provided for the motif Z-scores. With only three events, the claim that technical events enhance core team collaboration cannot be distinguished from repository-specific or calendar-time effects. Please either report a quantitative comparison across more events or rephrase the RQ4 answer as descriptive rather than causal.
  4. [Section VII] The survival analysis in RQ3 compares cohorts split by issue opening time relative to the event, which does not isolate event effects. Issues opened before an event have longer potential follow-up and are exposed to different repository-management eras than issues opened after; the log-rank test in Table V is therefore sensitive to censoring and global time trends, not only to the event itself. The fact that Go-ethereum shows significant before/after differences for every event in Table V is consistent with a general improvement or backlog-clearing trend over the decade rather than event-specific impacts. A more appropriate design would align issues to event time and compare resolution in symmetric windows, with controls for issue creation rate and repository age, or explicitly model secular trends.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Table I] The description of Hardhat (“Contains the specifications for Ethereum 2…”) appears to be a copy-and-paste of the Consensus-Specs row; Hardhat is a development framework, not a specification repository, so this should be corrected.
  2. [Section V] The sentence “we define the post-event window as the third month after an event” is ambiguous; specify whether the post-event window is days 1–90 or days 61–90 after the event.
  3. [Table IV] Table IV reports only “x” markers for significant Wilcoxon tests; adding p-values and effect sizes for each repository-event pair, or pointing explicitly to the corresponding table in the replication package, would let readers assess magnitude and direction rather than relying on the narrative.
  4. [Figure 5] The caption of Fig. 5 should define how normalized counts are computed and what the circle and cross marks aggregate (e.g., all repositories or per-repository means), because the current figure is difficult to interpret without this information.
  5. [Section VII] The text says “Using the list of the major events from RQ2,” but RQ2 does not produce an event list; the events are defined in Table II, so please cite Table II here.
  6. [Section VIII] The statement that MetaMask is “the largest repository by total activity” is not clearly supported by Table I; Solidity has more commits, and MetaMask has the most issues and comments, so the measure of activity should be defined explicitly.
  7. [Section VI] The effect-size formula r = Z/√N is reported without stating whether N is the number of paired days or the number of commits; please clarify the definition in the text.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

The 90-day impact window is set from the same commit series used for the impact tests, making RQ1's duration answer partly circular; the central technical-vs-market contrast is not itself forced by construction.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section V (RQ1), with the window established in Section IV (Methodology) and reused in Section VI (RQ2)]
    "The analysis reveals significant lags at 1 (positive) and 4 (negative), indicating that high commit activity in one month predicts similar activity the next month, but tends to decrease after four months. ... Through this ACF analysis, we define the post-event window as the third month after an event, when the final effects on commits are observed, with normal activity resuming by the fourth month. For consistency, we consider the 90 days before an event the pre-event and the 90 days immediately following as the post-event."

    RQ1's answer ('The effects of major Ethereum events on developer collaboration are observable for 90 days') is the window the authors themselves define rather than an independent estimate. Section IV states 'we establish a Pre-Event Window covering the 90 days before each event ... and a Post-Event Window covering the 90 days following the event', and Section V repeats that the 90-day window is defined before RQ2 tests anything. The ACF evidence describes global month-to-month autocorrelation in commits, not event-aligned response durations, so the 'third month' cutoff is a modeling choice fit to the same commit series later used to measure event impacts.

full rationale

The 90-day window is the clearest circular element: a parameter of the analysis was derived from the commit series and then reported as an empirical answer to RQ1 and applied throughout RQ2-RQ4. This is partial rather than total circularity because the abstract's main directional claim - technical events concentrate activity before the event and market events trigger reactive bursts - rests on observed pre/post commit differences and a random-event control, not on the window definition alone. The technical-vs-market dichotomy is, however, statistically under-supported: RQ2 only tests within-repository pre/post equality (Table IV), and the event-type comparison is inferred from Fig. 5 by visual inspection rather than by an event-type x period interaction test. That is a correctness/support gap, not a circularity. No load-bearing self-citation or imported uniqueness theorem was found; self-references are confined to related work and the replication package. Overall score 5 reflects one fitted-input-called-prediction step with independent content remaining in the central claim.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical or theoretical entities are introduced. The ledger records the numeric window choice, statistical proxy assumptions, and the independence assumption that the analysis rests on.

free parameters (1)
  • 90-day event impact window = 90 days (3 months)
    Estimated from autocorrelation of commit residuals in Section V, then used to define all pre/post event windows in RQ2-RQ4.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Commenting on the same issue is a valid proxy for developer collaboration.
    Network edges are defined from co-commenting in Section IV; no evidence that co-commenting equals substantive collaboration.
  • domain assumption Repositories can be treated as independent groups for statistical testing.
    Section IV states repositories are independent, but Section VIII reports 15% of authors overlap across repositories, so this independence is approximate.
  • domain assumption Kaplan-Meier and log-rank analyses assume independent censoring.
    Section VII uses censoring for unresolved issues; no check that issue closure is independent of censoring.
  • domain assumption The Configuration Model is an appropriate null model for motif significance.
    Section VIII relies on the Configuration Model to compute Z-scores; it preserves degree distribution but not other network features.
  • ad hoc to paper The 90-day window is a stable impact horizon across events and metrics.
    Derived in Section V from commit ACF and applied universally; this is the main ad hoc modeling choice.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Mining a Decade of Event Impacts on Contributor Dynamics in Ethereum: A Longitudinal Study." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CRNZU6CW

@misc{pith2026250205054,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Mining a Decade of Event Impacts on Contributor Dynamics in Ethereum: A Longitudinal Study},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CRNZU6CW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.05054}
}
read the original abstract

We analyze developer activity across 10 major Ethereum repositories (totaling 129884 commits, 40550 issues) spanning 10 years to examine how events such as technical upgrades, market events, and community decisions impact development. Through statistical, survival, and network analyses, we find that technical events prompt increased activity before the event, followed by reduced commit rates afterwards, whereas market events lead to more reactive development. Core infrastructure repositories like Go-Ethereum exhibit faster issue resolution compared to developer tools, and technical events enhance core team collaboration. Our findings show how different types of events shape development dynamics, offering insights for project managers and developers in maintaining development momentum through major transitions. This work contributes to understanding the resilience of development communities and their adaptation to ecosystem changes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.05054 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Description of the methodology TABLE II: Major Ethereum Events and Their Impact on Development Activity Event Date Significance Impact Frontier Release July 30, 2015 First official Ethereum release, allowing mining and dApp development. Increased development activity and community engagement. The DAO Creation and Hack Jun 17, 2016 Major project built on Ethereum, hacked leading to a hard fork. Led to Ethereum (ETH) … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Analysis for the resolution times of issues [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. ACF function for commits random events in RQ2 confirming the observed patterns. TABLE III: Metrics across repositories Repository Issue resol. time N° of Comments N° of Commits Mean Median Mean Median Mean Median Overall 143.8 16.3 2473.8 2854.0 1006.8 1078.0 MetaMask 146.9 23.9 891.1 733.0 193.8 171.0 Solidity 254.6 33.2 456.4 453.0 192.3 176.5 Go-ethereum 122.5 5.4 438.3 441.0 119.2 82.0 Chainlink 85.8 12.7 323.3 … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Pre vs. Post event commit counts for each repository [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Normalized count pre (circle) and post (cross) event [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: MetaMask’s issue resolution and events a) Issue Opening and Resolution Near Key Events: To examine how issue activity aligns with major Ethereum events, we plotted issue resolution times across all repositories, with each line representing an issue. Resolved issues are…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison of issue resolution patterns in MetaMask [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Go-ethereum repository. The black vertical line marks [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Do Cryptocurrency Markets Differentiate Infrastructure from Regulatory Shocks? A Multi-Moment Event Study with Dependence-Robust Inference

    q-fin.ST 2026-02 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    In 15 negative crypto events (2019–2025), cumulative abnormal returns are statistically indistinguishable between infrastructure failures (−7.6%) and regulatory enforcement (−11.1%), difference +3.6 pp, p=0.81 under e...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Resilience in the open source software community: How pandemic and unemployment shocks influence contributions to others’and one’s own projects

    O. S. Malgonde, T. J. Saldanha, and S. Mithas, “Resilience in the open source software community: How pandemic and unemployment shocks influence contributions to others’and one’s own projects.” MIS Quarterly, vol. 47, no. 1, 2023

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    A survey on blockchain for information systems management and security,

    D. Berdik, S. Otoum, N. Schmidt, D. Porter, and Y . Jararweh, “A survey on blockchain for information systems management and security,” Information Processing and Management , vol. 58, no. 1,

    work page

  3. [3]

    Exploring motivations for contributing to open source initiatives: The roles of contribution context and personal values,

    S. Oreg and O. Nov, “Exploring motivations for contributing to open source initiatives: The roles of contribution context and personal values,” Comput. Hum. Behav. , vol. 24, pp. 2055–2073, 2008

    work page 2008

  4. [4]

    A systematic literature review on blockchain governance,

    Y . Liu, Q. Lu, L. Zhu, H. young Paik, and M. Staples, “A systematic literature review on blockchain governance,” J. Syst. Softw., vol. 197, p. 111576, 2021

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Impact of open-source community on cryptocurrency market price: An empirical investigation,

    M. Petryk, L. Qiu, and P. Pathak, “Impact of open-source community on cryptocurrency market price: An empirical investigation,” Journal of Management Information Systems , vol. 40, pp. 1237 – 1270, 2023

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    The adaptive market hypothesis in the high frequency cryptocurrency market,

    J. Chu, Y . Zhang, and S. Chan, “The adaptive market hypothesis in the high frequency cryptocurrency market,” International Review of Financial Analysis, 2019

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    A framework of blockchain technology adoption: An investigation of challenges and expected value,

    E. Toufaily, T. Zalan, and S. B. Dhaou, “A framework of blockchain technology adoption: An investigation of challenges and expected value,” Information & Management , vol. 58, no. 3, p. 103444, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0378720621000185

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Asymmetric nexus between covid-19 outbreak in the world and cryptocurrency market,

    N. Iqbal, Z. Fareed, G. Wan, and F. Shahzad, “Asymmetric nexus between covid-19 outbreak in the world and cryptocurrency market,” International Review of Financial Analysis , vol. 73, pp. 101 613 – 101 613, 2020

    work page 2020

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    Cryptocurrency ecosystems and social media environments: An empirical analysis through hawkes’ models and natural language processing,

    M. Ortu, S. Vacca, G. Destefanis, and C. Conversano, “Cryptocurrency ecosystems and social media environments: An empirical analysis through hawkes’ models and natural language processing,” Machine Learning with Applications , vol. 7, p. 100229, 2022

    2022

  2. [10]

    Dapps ecosystems: mapping the network structure of smart contract interactions,

    S. Aufiero, G. Ibba, S. Bartolucci, G. Destefanis, R. Neykova, and M. Ortu, “Dapps ecosystems: mapping the network structure of smart contract interactions,” EPJ Data Science , vol. 13, no. 1, 2024, all Open Access, Gold Open Access. [Online]. Available: https://www.scopus.com...

    2024

  3. [11]

    Mindthedapp: a toolchain for complex network-driven structural analysis of ethereum-based decentralised applications,

    G. Ibba, S. Aufiero, S. Bartolucci, R. Neykova, M. Ortu, R. Tonelli, and G. Destefanis, “Mindthedapp: a toolchain for complex network-driven structural analysis of ethereum-based decentralised applications,” IEEE Access, 2024

    2024

  4. [12]

    Development trajectory of blockchain platforms: The role of multirole,

    T. Li and X. Zhang, “Development trajectory of blockchain platforms: The role of multirole,” Information Systems Research , 2023

    2023

  5. [13]

    Analyzing the impact of social attributes on commit integration success,

    M. Soto, Z. Coker, and C. L. Goues, “Analyzing the impact of social attributes on commit integration success,”2017 IEEE/ACM 14th Interna- tional Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR), pp. 483–486, 2017

    2017

  6. [14]

    Unveiling elite developers’ activities in open source projects,

    Z. Wang, Y . Feng, Y . Wang, J. A. Jones, and D. Redmiles, “Unveiling elite developers’ activities in open source projects,” ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM) , vol. 29, pp. 1 – 35, 2019

    2019

  7. [15]

    What makes a good commit message?

    Y . Tian, Y . Zhang, K.-J. Stol, L. Jiang, and H. Liu, “What makes a good commit message?” in Proceedings of the 44th International Conference on Software Engineering , ser. ICSE ’22. New York, NY , USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2022, p. 2389–2401. [Online]. Availa...

    2022

  8. [16]

    The im- pact of continuous integration on other software development practices: A large-scale empirical study,

    Y . Zhao, A. Serebrenik, Y . Zhou, V . Filkov, and B. Vasilescu, “The im- pact of continuous integration on other software development practices: A large-scale empirical study,” in 2017 32nd IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE), 2017, pp. 60–71

    2017

  9. [17]

    An empirical study of speed and communi- cation in globally distributed software development,

    J. Herbsleb and A. Mockus, “An empirical study of speed and communi- cation in globally distributed software development,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering , vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 481–494, 2003

    2003

  10. [18]

    Mining a Decade of Event Impacts on Contributor Dynamics in Ethereum: A Longitudinal Study - MSR 2025,

    M. Vaccargiu, G. Destefanis, D. Graziotin, R. Neykova, S. Bartolucci, S. Aufiero, R. Tonelli, C. Ba, and R. Clegg, “Mining a Decade of Event Impacts on Contributor Dynamics in Ethereum: A Longitudinal Study - MSR 2025,” 1 2025. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.f...

    2025 doi

  11. [19]

    A preliminary study on the assignment of github issues to issue commenters and the relationship with social smells,

    H. Mumtaz, C. Paradis, F. Palomba, D. A. Tamburri, R. Kazman, and K. Blincoe, “A preliminary study on the assignment of github issues to issue commenters and the relationship with social smells,” 2022, Conference paper, p. 61 – 65. [Online]. Available: https://www.scopus.com/i...

    2022

  12. [20]

    Predicting open source contributor turnover from value-related discussions: An analysis of github issues,

    J. Jamieson, N. Yamashita, and E. Foong, “Predicting open source contributor turnover from value-related discussions: An analysis of github issues,” in 2024 IEEE/ACM 46th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE) , 2024, pp. 678–690

    2024

  13. [21]

    Tell me who are you talking to and i will tell you what issues need your skills,

    F. Santos, J. Penney, J. F. Pimentel, I. Wiese, I. Steinmacher, and M. A. Gerosa, “Tell me who are you talking to and i will tell you what issues need your skills,” 2023, Conference paper, p. 611 –

    2023

  14. [22]

    An empirical study of blockchain repositories in github,

    A. Das, G. Uddin, and G. Ruhe, “An empirical study of blockchain repositories in github,” 2022, Conference paper, p. 211 – 220. [Online]. Available: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid= 2-s2.0-85132445747&doi=10.1145%2f3530019.3530041&partnerID= 40&md5=a89ff78af5cf85f...

    2022

  15. [23]

    Understanding the software development practices of blockchain projects: A survey,

    P. Chakraborty, R. Shahriyar, A. Iqbal, and A. Bosu, “Understanding the software development practices of blockchain projects: A survey,” 2018, Conference paper. [Online]. Available: https://www.scopus.com/ inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85061489853&doi=10.1145%2f3239235. 324029...

    2018

  16. [24]

    On comparing software quality metrics of traditional vs blockchain-oriented software: An empirical study,

    M. Ortu, M. Orru, and G. Destefanis, “On comparing software quality metrics of traditional vs blockchain-oriented software: An empirical study,” 2019, Conference paper, p. 32 – 37. [Online]. Available: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri? eid=2-s2.0-85063933789&doi=10.110...

    2019

  17. [25]

    The butterfly “affect

    S. Bartolucci, G. Destefanis, M. Ortu, N. Uras, M. Marchesi, and R. Tonelli, “The butterfly “affect”: Impact of development practices on cryptocurrency prices,” EPJ Data Science , vol. 9, no. 1, p. 21, 2020

    2020

  18. [26]

    On the ethereum blockchain structure: A complex networks theory perspective,

    S. Ferretti and G. D’Angelo, “On the ethereum blockchain structure: A complex networks theory perspective,” Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience , vol. 32, no. 12, p. e5493, 2020

    2020

  19. [27]

    The small-world phenomenon: An algorithmic perspec- tive,

    J. Kleinberg, “The small-world phenomenon: An algorithmic perspec- tive,” in Proceedings of the thirty-second annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing , 2000, pp. 163–170

    2000

  20. [28]

    A game of nfts: Characterizing nft wash trading in the ethereum blockchain,

    M. La Morgia, A. Mei, A. M. Mongardini, and E. N. Nemmi, “A game of nfts: Characterizing nft wash trading in the ethereum blockchain,” in 2023 IEEE 43rd International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS). IEEE, 2023, pp. 13–24

    2023

  21. [29]

    Power laws in software,

    P. Louridas, D. Spinellis, and V . Vlachos, “Power laws in software,” ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM), vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 1–26, 2008

    2008

  22. [30]

    From code to market: Network of developers and correlated returns of cryptocurrencies,

    L. Lucchini, L. Alessandretti, B. Lepri, A. Gallo, and A. Baronchelli, “From code to market: Network of developers and correlated returns of cryptocurrencies,” Science advances, vol. 6, no. 51, p. eabd2204, 2020

    2020

  23. [31]

    Scale-free geometry in oo programs,

    A. Potanin, J. Noble, M. Frean, and R. Biddle, “Scale-free geometry in oo programs,” Communications of the ACM , vol. 48, no. 5, pp. 99–103, 2005

    2005

  24. [32]

    Hierarchical small worlds in software architecture,

    S. Valverde and R. V . Sol ´e, “Hierarchical small worlds in software architecture,” arXiv preprint cond-mat/0307278 , 2003

    2003 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Temporal high-order proximity aware behavior analysis on ethereum,

    X. Ao, Y . Liu, Z. Qin, Y . Sun, and Q. He, “Temporal high-order proximity aware behavior analysis on ethereum,” World Wide Web , vol. 24, pp. 1565 – 1585, 2021

    2021

  26. [34]

    Detailed analysis of ethereum network on transaction behavior, community structure and link prediction,

    A. Said, M. Janjua, S.-U. Hassan, Z. Muzammal, T. Saleem, T. Thaipisu- tikul, S. Tuarob, and R. Nawaz, “Detailed analysis of ethereum network on transaction behavior, community structure and link prediction,” PeerJ Computer Science, vol. 7, 2021

    2021

  27. [35]

    Unusual events in github reposi- tories,

    C. Treude, L. Leite, and M. Aniche, “Unusual events in github reposi- tories,” J. Syst. Softw., vol. 142, pp. 237–247, 2017

    2017

  28. [36]

    Analyzing the impact of covid-19 on github event trends,

    N. Peji ´c, Z. Radivojevi´c, and M. Cvetavnovi ´c, “Analyzing the impact of covid-19 on github event trends,” Sustainability, 2023

    2023

  29. [37]

    An event study of the ethereum transition to proof-of-stake,

    E. Kapengut and B. Mizrach, “An event study of the ethereum transition to proof-of-stake,” SSRN Electronic Journal , 2022

    2022

  30. [38]

    An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples),

    S. S. Shapiro and M. B. Wilk, “An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples),” Biometrika, vol. 52, no. 3-4, pp. 591–611, 1965

    1965

  31. [39]

    Quick and easy im- plementation of the benjamini-hochberg procedure for controlling the false positive rate in multiple comparisons,

    D. Thissen, L. Steinberg, and D. C. Kuang, “Quick and easy im- plementation of the benjamini-hochberg procedure for controlling the false positive rate in multiple comparisons,” Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, vol. 27, pp. 77 – 83, 2002

    2002

  32. [40]

    Controlling the rate of type i error over a large set of statistical tests

    H. Keselman, R. A. Cribbie, and B. Holland, “Controlling the rate of type i error over a large set of statistical tests.” The British journal of mathematical and statistical psychology , vol. 55 Pt 1, pp. 27–39, 2002

    2002

  33. [41]

    Are bullies more productive? empirical study of affective- ness vs. issue fixing time,

    M. Ortu, B. Adams, G. Destefanis, P. Tourani, M. Marchesi, and R. Tonelli, “Are bullies more productive? empirical study of affective- ness vs. issue fixing time,” in 2015 IEEE/ACM 12th Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories . IEEE, 2015, pp. 303–313

    2015

  34. [42]

    Scale-free networks: a decade and beyond,

    A.-L. Barab ´asi, “Scale-free networks: a decade and beyond,” science, vol. 325, no. 5939, pp. 412–413, 2009

    2009

  35. [43]

    Communities, modules and large-scale structure in networks,

    M. E. Newman, “Communities, modules and large-scale structure in networks,” Nature physics, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 25–31, 2012

    2012

  36. [44]

    Early-warning signals of topological collapse in interbank networks,

    T. Squartini, I. Van Lelyveld, and D. Garlaschelli, “Early-warning signals of topological collapse in interbank networks,” Scientific reports, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 1–9, 2013

    2013

  37. [623]

    Available: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri? eid=2-s2.0-85151379625&doi=10.1109%2fMSR59073.2023.00087& partnerID=40&md5=46ea8a7ca5630f4833d777c42c543b75

    [Online]. Available: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri? eid=2-s2.0-85151379625&doi=10.1109%2fMSR59073.2023.00087& partnerID=40&md5=46ea8a7ca5630f4833d777c42c543b75

    2023

  38. [2021]

    Available: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record

    [Online]. Available: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record. uri?eid=2-s2.0-85091792978&doi=10.1016%2fj.ipm.2020.102397& partnerID=40&md5=aca511db5e8bad1f04b73a12aa9a301d

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.