ACM Transactions on

Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM)

Latest Articles

Test-Equivalence Analysis for Automatic Patch Generation

Automated program repair is a problem of finding a transformation (called a patch) of a given incorrect program that eliminates the observable... (more)

Recommending Who to Follow in the Software Engineering Twitter Space

With the advent of social media, developers are increasingly using it in their software development activities. Twitter is one of the popular social... (more)


Call for EiC Nominations.
The term of David Rosenblum, the current Editor-in-Chief (EiC) of TOSEM, is coming to an end, and the ACM Publications Board has set up a nominating committee to assist the Board in selecting the next EiC. The deadline is has been extended to September 20. READ MORE

ACM TOSEM welcomes three new Associate Editors to the Editorial Board. Welcome to Elisabetta Di Nitto, Massimilliano Di Penta, and Sam Malek.

2015-2016 Distinguished Referees Recognized. Full list available here.

Digital Library. For more information, visit the ACM Author Rights webpage.



The Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM) is part of the family of journals produced by the ACM, the Association for Computing Machinery.

TOSEM publishes one volume yearly. Each volume is comprised of four issues, which appear in January, April, July and October.

read more
Forthcoming Articles
The State of Empirical Evaluation in Static Feature Location

This paper presents systematic literature review that enquires into the maturity of FLTs evaluation in terms of baseline comparison, homogeneity of empirical designs and finally, the reproducibility of FLTs and their evaluation. It identifies different issues that substantially affect the ability of researchers and practitioners when trying to identify the best-of-breed FLT or, in the case of researchers, when trying to replicate existing FLT-evaluation studies. The results show that a 95% of the existing research in this field present novel FLTs, and that only just over half of the examined FLTs have been evaluated through formal empirical methods. In addition, only 8% of the studies compared the FLT to openly available, baseline techniques. Another characteristic of the reviewed literature is the 255 different subject systems, 60 metrics, 210 benchmarks and plethora of user input formats in FLT evaluations, which also negatively affects the comparability of FLTs. Finally, there is a lack of reproducible FLTs in the field, disallowing researchers from re-creating the FLT for comparison studies. Cumulatively, these conditions make it difficult to find answers to questions like which are the best FLTs?". Paper concludes by providing guidelines for empirical evaluation of FLTs that may help towards empirical standardization.

All ACM Journals | See Full Journal Index

Search TOSEM
enter search term and/or author name