In general I have been a little scathing about writers who invent the name of a "publisher", obfuscating that their book is self-published. I have seen many cases where the identity of the press is further shored up by accepting submissions from other authors. Often followed by less than deft editing, packaging and promotion--leading eventually to disappointment, acrimony and threats of legal action.
But then I came across rare but legitimate stories such as Maggie Anton's (author of the Rashi's Daughters books) where the front press opened the door to mainstream success. And I find myself reading opinions such as the following by Christopher J. Jarmick with more of an open mind.
"....you don't have to come right out at tell them it is a self-published book and if you have been reviewed in Publisher's Weekly, Kirkus, Library Journal etc.. and the book looks as if it was published by a quality small press, then omitting that detail will give you a chance of getting a review."
Especially as it is followed by:
"If a book editor contacts you and asks you point blank if it is a self-published book, then you must decide if you want to lie and risk pissing off the book editor or worse... "
So what do other authors think about misdirection and lies of omission to avoid the roadblocks normally faced by self-published books?