Dear all,

if anybody is interested in reviewing the TOSEM paper below, let me kow. I would then just put your name as a recommendation and give it back to the hands of the handling editor.

Best, Timo

-------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht -------- Betreff: TOSEM-2025-1161 - Invitation to Review Datum: Mon, 22 Dec 2025 09:03:02 +0000 Von: Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology onbehalfof@manuscriptcentral.com Antwort an: abhik@nus.edu.sg An: timo.kehrer@unibe.ch Kopie (CC): xxm@nju.edu.cn, abhik@nus.edu.sg

22-Dec-2025

Dear Professor Kehrer,

I am writing to you on behalf of the Editorial Board of the ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM) regarding the following manuscript, which has been submitted to TOSEM as a Registered Report:

An Empirical Study on the Effectiveness and Limitations of Fault Injection Tools for CPS Simulink Models TOSEM-2025-1161 authored by Yadav, Drishti; Mandrioli, Claudio; Bianculli, Domenico

The Associate Editor in charge of the paper, Professor Xiaoxing Ma, has identified you as a potential reviewer of the submission.

**Important information:** Registered Papers follow a different publication model, which is described here at https://dl.acm.org/journal/tosem/registered-papers, together with reviewer guidance.

The review process consists of two stages, and we expect to have the same reviewers for both stages. However, reviewing for the Registered Papers track is generally not much more time-consuming than reviewing a regular TOSEM paper, as in the second stage the reviewers only check that the agreed methodology has been followed and results correctly interpreted.

**This Registered Report has been approved by the EIC for a Fast-Impact Track status and workflow for which the turnaround time for a first decision must be completed within 90 days. This status guarantees authors a timely review and, if the paper is accepted, high visibility of top quality papers presenting novel ideas. For additional information about Fast-Impact Track papers please see: https://tosem.acm.org/fastimpacttrackpapers.cfm.

Improving turnaround time for TOSEM submissions is a high priority for the Board, immediately behind our continuing focus on publishing extraordinarily high-quality papers.

If you can do the review, we expect to receive your report by four weeks from today. If you anticipate needing some additional time to do the review, please provide us with a firm date so that we can decide if that is satisfactory. Our confirmation letter will provide details on how to download the paper and submit your review through Manuscript Central (http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tosem).

Your rights and responsibilities as a reviewer (https://www.acm.org/publications/policies/roles-and-responsibilities#reviewe...) include your right to limit the number of reviews you do over the course of a year, as well as your responsibility to report any possible conflicts of interest. If we have asked you to review an excessive amount for TOSEM, we would greatly appreciate any suggestions for other qualified referees. If there is a conflict of which we were unaware, please decline to review the manuscript.

Please respond within three working days via the links below:

*** PLEASE NOTE: This is a two-step process. After clicking on the link, you will be directed to a webpage to confirm. *** Agreed: https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tosem?URL_MASK=abf218da5f8a42f1b489883fd6ce...

Declined: https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tosem?URL_MASK=c5f8cb9d15e14c35b502a1c88f41...

If you are available to submit a review but require additional time (more than four weeks), please email your request to atemplet@gmail.com.

High-quality peer-reviewed journals like TOSEM cannot exist without reviews from high-quality peers like yourself. Regardless of whether you can review for TOSEM this time, I personally appreciate your contributions to TOSEM and software engineering research.

Sincerely,

Abhik Roychoudhury Editor-in-Chief ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology

------------------------------- ABSTRACT

Cyber-Physical Systems (CPS) are deployed in domains where failures can have severe consequences, such as automotive and aerospace. Fault Injection (FI) is a widely used approach to evaluate CPS resilience by perturbing models and observing their behavior under faulty conditions. Simulink, the de facto standard for CPS modeling, has inspired the development of several FI tools; yet existing work has largely focused on presenting individual tools in isolation. To date, no comprehensive empirical evaluation of state-of-the-art FI tools exists. In this stage-one registered report, we first provide an abstract description of Simulink models that allows the rigorous classification of the types of FI. Second, we use this classification to characterize the fault types available in state-of-the-art tools. Third, we report on the research plan for the first systematic evaluation of its kind. This study will allow the quantification of how well FI tools for Simulink support the injection of diverse faults, while preserving model syntax, semantics, and observability. By characterizing their strengths and weaknesses, our study aims to establish a baseline for assessing tool effectiveness and to provide guidance for the design of more effective FI techniques for CPS.

-------------------------------