Editorial: how to get your paper rejected from STVR
Jeff Offutt · Software Testing Verification and Reliability · 2014
This issue contains three deep and compelling papers on modeling software and generating tests.The first, An improved Pareto distribution for modeling the fault data of open source software, by Luan and Huang, presents a new model, based on the traditional Pareto distribution, that accurately describes the distribution of faults in open-source software.(Recommended by Min Xie.)The second, Extending model checkers for hybrid system verification: The case study of SPIN, by Gallardo and Panizo, studies an unusual type of system, hybrid systems.The authors have developed an extension to model checking that allows engineers to accurately model the behavior of this complex type of software.(Recommended by Paul Ammann.)The third, Search-based testing using constraint-based mutation, by Malburg and Fraser, addresses the key problem of test value generation.They propose and evaluate a hybrid form of test value generation that combines search-based techniques with constraint-based techniques.(Recommended by Mark Harman.)This editorial is based on a talk I gave at the ICST PhD symposium in April 2014.I had fun giving the talk and hope you enjoy reading this summary.First, I want to make it clear that I am highly qualified to give advice on getting papers rejected.I have well over 100 rejections in my time and may well be the most rejected software testing researcher of all time.As examples, let me share some quotes from reviewers: 'As usual, Offutt got it wrong.'-TSE1993.(The paper was accepted on the second revision with two accepts and one reject vote, and currently has over 150 citations.)'A study like this should have been published in about 1980.'-TAV1989.'The presentation needs considerable improvement.'-TAV1989.(This was the complete review; no details were given.)'We are sorry to say your paper has been REJECTED.'-Letterfrom editor, and yes, that word was capitalized and in bold face.'Better than average American academic paper, below the standard of papers written by European (non-English) academics.'-FTCS1990.(This comment, by the way, was about the writing as opposed to the research results.)In this editorial, I assume that your goal is to get your paper rejected.My first concrete piece of advice is to be courteous to the reviewers.Reviewing is hard work so you should try to make it easy for the reviewers to reject your paper.Here is how.The most effective strategy is the only one on this list I have not used-plagiarize!This not only gets the current paper rejected, but future papers.Merriam-Webster [1] defines plagiarism as follows:'To use the words or ideas of another person as if they were your own words or ideas.'To make this easier, I have collected a few specific types of plagiarism: Complete copying of an entire paper Copying key results Copying unpublished workCopying auxiliary text such as related work or background Copying figures Improper quoting