The paper discusses the methodology and application of systematic mapping studies in software engineering, contrasting them with systematic reviews. Systematic mapping studies aim to provide a structured overview of research topics and methods within a field, while systematic reviews focus on evaluating the quality and evidence of empirical studies. The authors define a systematic mapping process, including defining research questions, conducting searches, screening papers, keywording abstracts, and data extraction and mapping. They compare this process with systematic reviews, highlighting differences in goals, breadth, depth, and validity. The paper also provides guidelines for conducting systematic maps, emphasizing the importance of visualizing results and using complementary methods. The authors conclude that both systematic maps and reviews should be used collaboratively to complement each other, with systematic maps providing a broad overview and systematic reviews delving into specific topics.The paper discusses the methodology and application of systematic mapping studies in software engineering, contrasting them with systematic reviews. Systematic mapping studies aim to provide a structured overview of research topics and methods within a field, while systematic reviews focus on evaluating the quality and evidence of empirical studies. The authors define a systematic mapping process, including defining research questions, conducting searches, screening papers, keywording abstracts, and data extraction and mapping. They compare this process with systematic reviews, highlighting differences in goals, breadth, depth, and validity. The paper also provides guidelines for conducting systematic maps, emphasizing the importance of visualizing results and using complementary methods. The authors conclude that both systematic maps and reviews should be used collaboratively to complement each other, with systematic maps providing a broad overview and systematic reviews delving into specific topics.