{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01809954751131222, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.4106280193236715, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Editorial Academic games

Unfortunately, but not unsurprisingly, JoLA is increasingly often stalked by opportunistic academics. The ladder-climbing, pointseeking mentality that is infecting academic institutions across the globe, has now started to effect our journal as well. The ‘publish or perish’ mantra has clearly reached landscape architecture as both young and more established academics alike are pressured to constantly publish in scientific peer-reviewed journals in order to maintain credibility and eventually gain promotions. Indeed, in most European universities for example, publication in such journals is the most assured way in an extremely and increasingly competitive environment to move through the ranks. As the contemporary debate has demonstrated, this system is becoming more and more corrupt. In fields such as architecture and landscape architecture, the situation is even worse than in academia in general because teaching itself, design research or design talent demonstrated by practice and recognized by peers for instance, is seemingly given less and less credibly as time goes by. As most editors, we have been struggling with how to reasonably meet the new realities of academia, while at the same time not compromise the integrity of JoLA. The integrity of JoLA is rooted in two principles: