Why do people publish in facade journals?

This paper contains two excellent papers on testing non-traditional aspects of software.MobSTer: A model-based security testing framework for web applications, by Michele Peroli, Federico De Meo, Luca Viganò, and Davide Guardini, uses model checking to evaluate security of web applications. (Recommended by Alex Pretschner.) An automated functional testing approach for virtual reality applications, by Alinne C. Corrêa Souza, Fátima L. S. Nunes, and Márcio E. Delamaro, presents a method to test virtual reality applications, a growing area for which testing is quite different from traditional software. (Recommended by Lori Pollock.) I’m happy to say that neither of these papers is published in a facade journal. This editorial completes a series about what I call facade journals. I started by arguing that peer reviews are essential to ensuring quality of published papers [1]. I next introduced the term “facade journals,” which pretend to publish quality science but do not [2]. Others have called these “predatory journals” [3] [4] [5], but as I point out here, many journals that publish papers with little or no scientific quality are not always predatory. Most recently, I gave suggestions for how to recognize facade journals [6]. The classic book Ender’s Game [7] taught me that understanding the competition helps us win. This echoes advice from the great Chinese general, Sun Tzu: “To know your enemy, you must become your enemy.” Before the scientific community can respond to facade journals, we must first understand them. Why do they exist? Why do people publish in them? Let me walk through it. It is hard to be good at research. It takes years of study, and more years of apprenticing to an established scientist. Success requires wisdom to find worthwhile research problems, creativity to invent new solutions, objectivity to evaluate the ideas, communication skills to disseminate the research, resilience to bounce back from failure and criticism, and integrity to avoid shortcuts. Research also takes hard work—many hours in laboratories, libraries, the field, and in front of computers. In many fields (including software engineering), we can make more money with less effort in non-research jobs. With all this, shortcuts are tempting. I use the word “cheat” in a broad sense—stealing, plagiarism, lying, etc. In my experience, a small percentage of people will never cheat, a small percentage will usually cheat, but most are in the middle and will sometimes cheat. Some will cheat if they know they won’t get caught, if the consequences of getting caught are low, or if the benefit is high. But many, maybe most, people will cheat if we think the rules are unfairly stacked against us. How many of us drive faster than the speed limit? The speed limits seem ridiculously low, we probably won’t get caught, and if we do it’s usually a small fine. Paying taxes seems unfair, so many people exaggerate on their tax forms. 30 years of teaching have taught me that if assignments are reasonable, grading is fair, and the professor is skilled and supportive, very few students will cheat. But if they think the system is unfair, many students will cheat. Maybe even most. Publishing in facade journals is a type of cheating. Authors claim credit for scientific publications, when in reality the paper does not advance human knowledge. But why do they publish these papers? Not because they are completely unethical or sociopaths. Most authors publish in facade journals because they think the system is rigged against them! Many universities require professors to publish in international journals and conferences. Positive motivators include raises, bonuses, lower teaching loads, promotion, and other perqs. Negative motivators include reductions in pay, higher teaching loads, and termination. Some universities