The article cites some scientific papers, but I'm quite skeptical about them. How do they define "good" and "bad" identifiers? In the end, what's a good naming convention for one person or actor may be not good for another. For a human actor `getBase` is an undoubtedly better identifier than `sdfjkjlfsdkjfdskjsdfkjfs`; for a computer, though, there is no much difference between both. For somebody from the UK `getBehaviour` is better than `getBehavior`; for an American it's vice versa. Those papers take some arbitrary naming convention and postulate that it's either "good" or "bad". Postulating something unless absolutely necessary is not how science is supposed to work.
DISCLAIMER: I may be wrong because my judgment of those scientific papers is based only on this article. If they do define "good" and "bad" in some meaningful way, then it's the article's fault for not pointing it out.
That's not how references work in scientific articles: you're expected to read the referenced papers (or at least the abstract) & understand the implications/conclusions, or get someone else to summarise it for you.
DISCLAIMER: I may be wrong because my judgment of those scientific papers is based only on this article. If they do define "good" and "bad" in some meaningful way, then it's the article's fault for not pointing it out.