As far as “official” academic publishing is concerned, I’ve been in touch with the editors of IEEE Software’s “Voice of Evidence” column for about a year now, though on an earlier topic—the so-called “10x programmers” studies. The response was positive—i.e. “yes, we’re interested in publishing this”. So far, however, we haven’t managed to hash out a publication schedule.
You’ve said so yourself, I’m making these observations publicly—though on a self-published basis as far as the book is concerned. I’m not sure what more would be accomplished by submitting a publication—but I’m certainly not opposed to that.
It’s a lot more difficult, as has been noted previously on Less Wrong, to publish “negative” results in academic fora than to publish “positive” ones—one of the failures of science-in-general, not unique to software engineering.
What makes you think I haven’t?
As far as “official” academic publishing is concerned, I’ve been in touch with the editors of IEEE Software’s “Voice of Evidence” column for about a year now, though on an earlier topic—the so-called “10x programmers” studies. The response was positive—i.e. “yes, we’re interested in publishing this”. So far, however, we haven’t managed to hash out a publication schedule.
You’ve said so yourself, I’m making these observations publicly—though on a self-published basis as far as the book is concerned. I’m not sure what more would be accomplished by submitting a publication—but I’m certainly not opposed to that.
It’s a lot more difficult, as has been noted previously on Less Wrong, to publish “negative” results in academic fora than to publish “positive” ones—one of the failures of science-in-general, not unique to software engineering.
Then any objection withdrawn!
I commend you for pushing this, and Software is a decently high-impact venue.