This is in response to https://sqa.stackexchange.com/questions/7759/sharing-relevant-research-with-the-sqa-community. I don't know that posting a link to a paper in the question box and then discussing it in the answer boxes is what this Stackexchange site is about. How do of other SE sites approach this?
I think referring to recent research could make SQA more interesting and appealing to a wider audience, but we should to do so within Q&A framework. There are plenty of discussion forums for SQA. Our site is not one of them.
Here is an example of how you might refer to research in a question:
Here is a paper on AndroidRipper, a tool for automatically explores the app’s GUI with the aim of exercising the application in a structured manner. Is there published evidence that AndroidRipper could shorten QA cycles relative to using other Android UI automation tools?
Note that the question asks for published evidence, not just speculation. The question might also have asked for first hand experience with AndroidRipper, which would still be more valuable than speculation. Concrete answers backed by evidence are always more valuable than speculation or opinion.
Here is an example of how not to refer to research in a question:
I read a paper on AndroidRipper last night. It sounds cool; I can hardly wait to try it! What do you think?
For that matter, this might be a valuable answer:
Yes, just last month, James Bach published a note in Software Quality Quarterly comparing the effectiveness of two test teams on very similar projects, one using TurboSelenium for Android. and the other using AndroidRipper. Although AndroidRipper had a steep learning curve, the AndroidRipper team produced twice as much code coverage as the other team in the same amount of time. You can find a link to the paper here.
A less valuable answer would be:
No, I've never heard of it, but it sounds awesome. Does anyone know how it compares to Quality Center?