Replication Package for Paper: Micro Frontends: Definition, Classifications, Challenges, Implementation Approaches and Communication Methods

Overview This dataset contains the replication package and complete qualitative extraction artifacts generated during our Systematic Mapping Study (SMS) on the state-of-the-art of Micro Frontends (MFA). To ensure maximum reproducibility, transparency, and compliance with Open Science practices, all data is consolidated within a single, multi-sheet spreadsheet (Replication Package.xlsx). The paper is also available in this replication package. Objective The primary goal of this systematic mapping is to establish an evidence-based conceptualization, a multidimensional taxonomy, and a comprehensive catalog of challenges, implementation approaches, and communication methods in the Micro Frontend paradigm. The qualitative extraction and synthesis were guided by six main research axes: Formal Definitions: How research formally defines the Micro Frontend pattern. Characteristics & Principles: The core properties required for an architecture to be classified as MFA (e.g., modularity, independence, agnosticism). Classifications & Taxonomies: Multi-axial categorizations (Division, Composition, Integration, and Communication). Architectural Challenges: Recurrent technical, organizational, and operational hurdles (e.g., complexity, dependency management, UX consistency). Implementation Approaches: The technical mechanisms used to realize MFA (e.g., Web Components, Module Federation, Iframes). Communication Methods: The protocols used to establish secure and efficient communication among micro frontends. Methodology The study followed a rigorous systematic mapping protocol. Primary studies were selected using automated search queries executed across four major digital libraries: IEEE Xplore, ACM Digital Library, Scopus, and ScienceDirect. After duplicate removal and a double-blind, two-stage screening process (Title/Abstract and Full-Text analysis) based on strict inclusion/exclusion criteria, 30 primary studies were selected. To mitigate extraction bias and build a reliable consensus, all qualitative coding was led by the primary researcher and audited by the second researcher, resolving discrepancies through iterative discussion. Dataset Structure (Workbook Sheets) The replication package is structured into seven specialized sheets representing different steps of the systematic mapping pipeline: 1. Sources Provides the complete bibliographical metadata for the 30 primary studies selected for qualitative synthesis. Columns: Id (A1 to A30), Title, Authors, DOI, and Year. 2. Quality Assessment Details the evaluation scores of each selected study against five rigorous quality assessment (QA) questions, scored on a scale of 0 to 1 (with 0.5 for partial fulfillment). Columns: Study (Study ID), QAQ1, QAQ2, QAQ3, QAQ4, QAQ5, and Total score. Quality Evaluation Criteria Mapped: QAQ1: Are the research objectives and the study’s context clearly defined and easy to follow? QAQ2: Does the study provide a comprehensive and up-to-date literature review that justifies the research gap? QAQ3: Does the study present a critical synthesis of the findings rather than a purely descriptive summary? QAQ4: Does the study discuss findings in the context of the current state of practice, referencing industry-standard frameworks/tools? QAQ5: Are findings supported by empirical evidence (e.g., case studies, experiments, or Proofs of Concept)? 3. Definitions Contains raw qualitative conceptualizations of Micro Frontends extracted from the primary studies. Columns: Article (Study ID), Excerpt (Verbatim definition), and Page (Location in the original text). 4. Codes (Codebook) The complete qualitative codebook of our thematic analysis, displaying the abstraction process from raw literature excerpts to high-level conceptual categories. It maps 189 initial raw codes refined into 83 final consolidated/grouped codes. Columns: Initial Codes, Initial Codes Papers (studies where the raw code was found), Grouped Codes, Grouped Codes Papers (studies mapped to the consolidated code), and Obs (qualitative notes on coding decisions and sub-code hierarchies). Legend (Thematic Categories): Characteristics, Classifications, Challenges, Implementations, Communication Methods, and Origin. 5. Characteristics Documents qualitative claims highlighting the structural properties and principles expected in MFA. Columns: Article, Excerpt (Verbatim quote), Characteristics (Conceptual tags), and Page. 6. Categorizations Maps architectural and design decisions along our proposed four taxonomic axes: Division, Composition, Integration, and Communication. Columns: Article, Excerpt, Categorization (Thematic axis), Values (Specific classification), and Page. 7. Challenges Catalogs the design and operational hurdles, complexities, and architectural trade-offs reported by researchers and practitioners. Columns: Article, Excerpt, Challenge (Specific hurdle tags), and Page. Purpose and Open Science Transparency This dataset is made available to guarantee the transparency, verifiability, and extensibility of our research. Researchers can use this unified qualitative dataset and our structured codebook to replicate our findings, trace our qualitative synthesis step-by-step, or expand the taxonomy as the Micro Frontend field continues to evolve.