Potential organized fraud in ACM/IEEE computer architecture conferences
1–10 of 203 posts
Re: Potential organized fraud in ACM/IEEE computer architecture conferences
#2Is there a summary of what the fraud was about? Was it about publishing certain researchers' work?
EDIT: Thanks, I skimmed too much.
Re: Potential organized fraud in ACM/IEEE computer architecture conferences
#3This behavior should be particularly unacceptable in computer science journals. One of the main results computer science give to society is creating secure systems to protect and exchange information, and the fact that a double blind peer review system for a conference that basically deals with the construction of safe reliable systems was broken shouldn't be taken lightly.
Re: Potential organized fraud in ACM/IEEE computer architecture conferences
#4Looks like the (sad) background story is here : https://medium.com/@huixiangvoice/the-hidden-story-behind-th...
Posting here instead of a new submission
Re: Potential organized fraud in ACM/IEEE computer architecture conferences
#5They seem to summarize it in paragraph four, though I am not clear on what this really means - I think it is that certain authors are able to be "top ranked" and get limited review from colluding peers who may also be co-authors on the paper, but removed themselves to squeeze through review faster and avoid future flags for "conflict of interest"
"There is a chat group of a few dozen authors who in subsets work on common topics and carefully ensure not to co-author any papers with each other so as to keep out of each other’s conflict lists (to the extent that even if there is collaboration they voluntarily give up authorship on one paper to prevent conflicts on many future papers). They exchange papers before submissions and then either bid or get assigned to review each other’s papers by virtue of having expertise on the topic of the papers. They give high scores to the papers. If a review raises any technical issues in PC discussions, the usual response is something to the effect that despite the issues they still remain positive; or if a review questions the novelty claims, they point to some minor detail deep in the paper and say that they find that detail to be novel even though the paper itself does not elevate that detail to claim novelty. Our process is not set up to combat such collusion."
Also see the link in a sibling comment for what seems to have kicked this all off: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23460336
Re: Potential organized fraud in ACM/IEEE computer architecture conferences
#6Is there a summary of what the fraud was about? Was it about publishing certain researchers' work? EDIT: Thanks, I skimmed too much.
> There is a chat group of a few dozen authors who in subsets work on common topics and carefully ensure not to co-author any papers with each other so as to keep out of each other’s conflict lists (to the extent that even if there is collaboration they voluntarily give up authorship on one paper to prevent conflicts on many future papers). They exchange papers before submissions and then either bid or get assigned to review each other’s papers by virtue of having expertise on the topic of the papers. They give high scores to the papers. If a review raises any technical issues in PC discussions, the usual response is something to the effect that despite the issues they still remain positive; or if a review questions the novelty claims, they point to some minor detail deep in the paper and say that they find that detail to be novel even though the paper itself does not elevate that detail to claim novelty. Our process is not set up to combat such collusion.
Verbatim from the article.
Re: Potential organized fraud in ACM/IEEE computer architecture conferences
#7Looks like the (sad) background story is here : https://medium.com/@huixiangvoice/the-hidden-story-behind-th... Posting here instead of a new submission
Wow sounds like that was the tip of the iceberg. Super tragic.
Re: Potential organized fraud in ACM/IEEE computer architecture conferences
#8Is there a summary of what the fraud was about? Was it about publishing certain researchers' work? EDIT: Thanks, I skimmed too much.
[deleted]
Re: Potential organized fraud in ACM/IEEE computer architecture conferences
#9Fraud?
Are you kidding me? I have publication in MICRO with a very famous institution in US. (Top 20).
You know how my professor published his paper in MICRO? Relationship! Relationship! Relationship!
As a graduate student coming from a third world country, I totally lost my hope on the system when I saw a venue as famous as MICRO, is only based on relationship.
Don’t judge me, who can I report it? I am graduate student, means losing my supervisor means losing my visa. I am even posting this via anonymous account (thats how scared I am).
Re: Potential organized fraud in ACM/IEEE computer architecture conferences
#10"Conclusion: 99.99% of us are honest but the dishonest 0.01% can cause serious, repeated damage."
Precisely how is this ratio determined?
Given the unreproducable results and plagiarism that we've learned about in recent times I believe there is a lot more fraud than can be accounted for by "the dishonest 0.01%."