Thoth 2.0: Advancing an RSL Tool for Enhanced Snowballing Support
Resumo
Thoth is an open-source, web-based tool designed to support researchers in conducting Systematic Literature Reviews (SLRs) by automating critical phases of the review process. Currently in its final testing and refinement stage, the tool introduces an advanced Snowballing module that systematically identifies relevant studies through backward and forward citation analysis, integrated with the CrossRef API for reliable metadata retrieval. By automating repetitive tasks, including study selection, quality assessment, and data extraction, Thoth 2.0 significantly reduces manual effort while minimizing human error. Its user-friendly interface supports collaborative workflows, enabling geographically dispersed teams to coordinate SLRs seamlessly. As a freely available solution, Thoth 2.0 addresses key limitations of existing SLR tools, offering a unified platform that combines automation, rigorous methodology, and adaptability to diverse research needs. Its Snowballing module, in particular, extends literature coverage with minimal researcher intervention, demonstrating the tool’s potential to enhance the efficiency and reproducibility of evidence synthesis. Thoth demo video: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15493167
Palavras-chave:
Thoth, SLR Tool, SMS, Snowballing, Software
Referências
David Budgen and Pearl Brereton. 2006. Performing Systematic Literature Reviews in Software Engineering. SIGSOFT - Special Interest Group on Software Engineering (2006), 1051–1052. DOI: 10.1145/1134285.1134500
Claudio Bustos Navarrete, María Gabriela Morales Malverde, Pedro Salcedo Lagos, and Alejandro Díaz Mujica. 2018. Buhos:Aweb-based systematic literature review management software. SoftwareX 7 (2018), 360–372. DOI: 10.1016/j.softx.2018.10.004
Thiago Prado De Campos, Eduardo Filgueiras Damasceno, and Natasha Malveira Costa Valentim. 2022. Porifera: A Collaborative Tool to Support Systematic Literature Review and Systematic Mapping Study. In Proceedings of the XXXVI Brazilian Symposium on Software Engineering (, Virtual Event , Brazil , ) (SBES ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 452–457. DOI: 10.1145/3555228.3555273
Christian A. Candela-Uribe, Luis E. Sepúlveda-Rodríguez, Julio C. Chavarro-Porras, John A. Sanabria-Ordoñez, José Luis Garrido, Carlos Rodríguez-Domínguez, and Gabriel Guerrero-Contreras. 2022. SMS-Builder: An adaptive software tool for building systematic mapping studies. SoftwareX 17 (2022), 100935. DOI: 10.1016/j.softx.2021.100935
Fabienne Charles. 2022. A study on the perception to usability of the thoth tool. Master’s thesis. Universidade Federal do Pampa, Alegrete, RS, Brazil. 137p. Dissertação (Mestrado Profissional em Engenharia de Software).
Diego dos Santos Comis. 2025. Mapeamento Sistemático da Literatura. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.14865918
Luyi Feng, Yin Kia Chiam, and Sin Kuang Lo. 2017. Text-Mining Techniques and Tools for Systematic Literature Reviews: A Systematic Literature Review. In 2017 24th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference (APSEC). 41–50. DOI: 10.1109/APSEC.2017.10
Docker Inc. 2024. Docker Documentation. [link] Acesso em: 14 dez. 2024.
Burak Karakan. 2021. Tool support for systematic literature reviews: analyzing existing solutions and the potential for automation. B.S. thesis. University of Stuttgart. [link]
Liz Kellermeyer, Ben Harnke, and Shandra Knight. 2018. Covidence and rayyan. Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA 106, 4 (2018), 580. DOI: 10.5195/jmla.2018.513
Barbara Kitchenham, Rialette Pretorius, David Budgen, O. Pearl Brereton, Mark Turner, Mahmood Niazi, and Stephen Linkman. 2010. Systematic literature reviews in software engineering – A tertiary study. Information and Software Technology 52, 8 (2010), 792–805. DOI: 10.1016/j.infsof.2010.03.006
Christian Kohl, Emma J. McIntosh, Stefan Unger, Neal R. Haddaway, Steffen Kecke, Joachim Schiemann, and Ralf Wilhelm. 2018. Online tools supporting the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and systematic maps: A case study on CADIMA and review of existing tools. Environmental Evidence 7, 1 (2018). DOI: 10.1186/s13750-018-0115-5 Cited by: 179; All Open Access, Gold Open Access, Green Open Access.
Laravel and Tailwind CSS. 2024. Livewire Documentation. [link] Acesso em: 14 dez. 2024.
Luciano Marchezan, Guilherme Bolfe, Elder Rodrigues, Maicon Bernardino, and Fábio Paulo Basso. 2019. Thoth: AWeb-based Tool to Support Systematic Reviews. In 2019 ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM). 1–6. DOI: 10.1109/ESEM.2019.8870160
Christopher Marshall, OP Brereton, and B Kitchenham. 2018. Tool features to support systematic reviews in software engineering–a cross domain study. e-Informatica Software Engineering Journal (2018). [link]
Moritz Messerschmidt, Samantha Chan, Elliott Wen, and Suranga Nanayakkara. 2022. Toro: A Web-based Tool to Search, Explore, Screen, Compare and Visualize Literature. SIGHCI 2022 (2022). [link]
Taylor Otwell. 2024. Laravel Documentation. [link] Acesso em: 14 dez. 2024.
Mourad Ouzzani, Hossam Hammady, Zbys Fedorowicz, and Ahmed Elmagarmid. 2016. Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Systematic reviews 5 (2016), 1–10. [link]
Kai Petersen, Sairam Vakkalanka, and Ludwik Kuzniarz. 2015. Guidelines for conducting systematic mapping studies in software engineering: An update. Information and Software Technology 64 (2015), 1–18. DOI: 10.1016/j.infsof.2015.03.007
Rens Van De Schoot, Jonathan De Bruin, Raoul Schram, Parisa Zahedi, Jan De Boer, Felix Weijdema, Bianca Kramer, Martijn Huijts, Maarten Hoogerwerf, Gerbrich Ferdinands, et al. 2021. An open source machine learning framework for efficient and transparent systematic reviews. Nature machine intelligence 3, 2 (2021), 125–133. [link]
Claes Wohlin. 2014. Guidelines for snowballing in systematic literature studies and a replication in software engineering. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering (London, England, United Kingdom) (EASE ’14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 38, 10 pages. DOI: 10.1145/2601248.2601268
Claudio Bustos Navarrete, María Gabriela Morales Malverde, Pedro Salcedo Lagos, and Alejandro Díaz Mujica. 2018. Buhos:Aweb-based systematic literature review management software. SoftwareX 7 (2018), 360–372. DOI: 10.1016/j.softx.2018.10.004
Thiago Prado De Campos, Eduardo Filgueiras Damasceno, and Natasha Malveira Costa Valentim. 2022. Porifera: A Collaborative Tool to Support Systematic Literature Review and Systematic Mapping Study. In Proceedings of the XXXVI Brazilian Symposium on Software Engineering (
Christian A. Candela-Uribe, Luis E. Sepúlveda-Rodríguez, Julio C. Chavarro-Porras, John A. Sanabria-Ordoñez, José Luis Garrido, Carlos Rodríguez-Domínguez, and Gabriel Guerrero-Contreras. 2022. SMS-Builder: An adaptive software tool for building systematic mapping studies. SoftwareX 17 (2022), 100935. DOI: 10.1016/j.softx.2021.100935
Fabienne Charles. 2022. A study on the perception to usability of the thoth tool. Master’s thesis. Universidade Federal do Pampa, Alegrete, RS, Brazil. 137p. Dissertação (Mestrado Profissional em Engenharia de Software).
Diego dos Santos Comis. 2025. Mapeamento Sistemático da Literatura. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.14865918
Luyi Feng, Yin Kia Chiam, and Sin Kuang Lo. 2017. Text-Mining Techniques and Tools for Systematic Literature Reviews: A Systematic Literature Review. In 2017 24th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference (APSEC). 41–50. DOI: 10.1109/APSEC.2017.10
Docker Inc. 2024. Docker Documentation. [link] Acesso em: 14 dez. 2024.
Burak Karakan. 2021. Tool support for systematic literature reviews: analyzing existing solutions and the potential for automation. B.S. thesis. University of Stuttgart. [link]
Liz Kellermeyer, Ben Harnke, and Shandra Knight. 2018. Covidence and rayyan. Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA 106, 4 (2018), 580. DOI: 10.5195/jmla.2018.513
Barbara Kitchenham, Rialette Pretorius, David Budgen, O. Pearl Brereton, Mark Turner, Mahmood Niazi, and Stephen Linkman. 2010. Systematic literature reviews in software engineering – A tertiary study. Information and Software Technology 52, 8 (2010), 792–805. DOI: 10.1016/j.infsof.2010.03.006
Christian Kohl, Emma J. McIntosh, Stefan Unger, Neal R. Haddaway, Steffen Kecke, Joachim Schiemann, and Ralf Wilhelm. 2018. Online tools supporting the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and systematic maps: A case study on CADIMA and review of existing tools. Environmental Evidence 7, 1 (2018). DOI: 10.1186/s13750-018-0115-5 Cited by: 179; All Open Access, Gold Open Access, Green Open Access.
Laravel and Tailwind CSS. 2024. Livewire Documentation. [link] Acesso em: 14 dez. 2024.
Luciano Marchezan, Guilherme Bolfe, Elder Rodrigues, Maicon Bernardino, and Fábio Paulo Basso. 2019. Thoth: AWeb-based Tool to Support Systematic Reviews. In 2019 ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM). 1–6. DOI: 10.1109/ESEM.2019.8870160
Christopher Marshall, OP Brereton, and B Kitchenham. 2018. Tool features to support systematic reviews in software engineering–a cross domain study. e-Informatica Software Engineering Journal (2018). [link]
Moritz Messerschmidt, Samantha Chan, Elliott Wen, and Suranga Nanayakkara. 2022. Toro: A Web-based Tool to Search, Explore, Screen, Compare and Visualize Literature. SIGHCI 2022 (2022). [link]
Taylor Otwell. 2024. Laravel Documentation. [link] Acesso em: 14 dez. 2024.
Mourad Ouzzani, Hossam Hammady, Zbys Fedorowicz, and Ahmed Elmagarmid. 2016. Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Systematic reviews 5 (2016), 1–10. [link]
Kai Petersen, Sairam Vakkalanka, and Ludwik Kuzniarz. 2015. Guidelines for conducting systematic mapping studies in software engineering: An update. Information and Software Technology 64 (2015), 1–18. DOI: 10.1016/j.infsof.2015.03.007
Rens Van De Schoot, Jonathan De Bruin, Raoul Schram, Parisa Zahedi, Jan De Boer, Felix Weijdema, Bianca Kramer, Martijn Huijts, Maarten Hoogerwerf, Gerbrich Ferdinands, et al. 2021. An open source machine learning framework for efficient and transparent systematic reviews. Nature machine intelligence 3, 2 (2021), 125–133. [link]
Claes Wohlin. 2014. Guidelines for snowballing in systematic literature studies and a replication in software engineering. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering (London, England, United Kingdom) (EASE ’14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 38, 10 pages. DOI: 10.1145/2601248.2601268
Publicado
22/09/2025
Como Citar
COMIS, Diego; RODRIGUES, Elder de Macedo.
Thoth 2.0: Advancing an RSL Tool for Enhanced Snowballing Support. In: SIMPÓSIO BRASILEIRO DE ENGENHARIA DE SOFTWARE (SBES), 39. , 2025, Recife/PE.
Anais [...].
Porto Alegre: Sociedade Brasileira de Computação,
2025
.
p. 1010-1016.
ISSN 2833-0633.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5753/sbes.2025.11616.
