Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Potential organized fraud in ACM/IEEE computer architecture conferences

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 203 posts

Re: Potential organized fraud in ACM/IEEE computer architecture conferences

#21

Post by Topgamer7 »

codezero wrote: post #7
tomato2juice wrote: post #4

Looks 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.

If someone behaves like the mentoring professor did, they aren't a mentor, they are a crux bringing you down. Burn their reputation, your life is worth more than their "research".

I do understand the pressure this person was feeling, unfortunately they didn't see a way out.

Re: Potential organized fraud in ACM/IEEE computer architecture conferences

#22

Post by rscho »

jjjjjj__ wrote: post #18
codezero wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a huge bummer. When I was doing research in physics, I found it easy to get published, even without having a PhD - though it didn't hurt, I think, to be working at a university with a group that had already published in that publication before. With that said, my PIs didn't assist me at all in preparing, submitting, or defending my research, except to inform me of what to prepare for. I was really pleased with…

I am thinking about applying again from the beginning and start Ph.D. all over. Since I am in love with science. And the only reason I left my home country was because I wanted pursue science. (Science is what makes my love beautiful) But I am afraid maybe my next supervisor will be same (let alone if I leave middle way my current supervisor will not give me letter of recommendation).

You are right to be afraid. Get your PhD. first, then do what you want and try to do honest research if you still feel like it. It's like that in every field, apparently. I've been doing medical research for 10 years and I have yet to meet a honest professor. But with time, I got more independent and while I still have to put up with professoral bullshit I now also can conduct honest and independent projects from time to time.

Re: Potential organized fraud in ACM/IEEE computer architecture conferences

#23

Post by rscho »

pvarangot wrote: post #3

This 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.

Come see what's happening in medicine and be really appalled...

Re: Potential organized fraud in ACM/IEEE computer architecture conferences

#24

Post by qznc »

the_svd_doctor wrote: post #17
currymj wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

peer review at CS conferences is normally anonymous and double-blind to reviewers and authors. however, the conference organizers themselves know who the reviewers and authors are, and the conference management websites are set up to avoid assigning reviewers to papers where they have a conflict of interest with the author. this is usually something like: anyone whose email address has the same domain as yours, plus…

In small fields, it's sometimes really not very hard to guess who are the authors, just given the topic and what papers they cite. Even with double blind.

You can often guess who the reviewers are as well. The most obvious tell is "also cite paper X" which is their own 99% of the time.

Re: Potential organized fraud in ACM/IEEE computer architecture conferences

#25

Post by xenonite »

qznc wrote: post #24
the_svd_doctor wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In small fields, it's sometimes really not very hard to guess who are the authors, just given the topic and what papers they cite. Even with double blind.

You can often guess who the reviewers are as well. The most obvious tell is "also cite paper X" which is their own 99% of the time.

"Please update the references to include recent literature" sometimes makes it clear, too.

Re: Potential organized fraud in ACM/IEEE computer architecture conferences

#26

Post by protomyth »

rscho wrote: post #23
pvarangot wrote: post #3

This 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.

Come see what's happening in medicine and be really appalled...

I do wonder if medicine can compete with the various conferences in support of social service programs?

Re: Potential organized fraud in ACM/IEEE computer architecture conferences

#27

Post by yutopia »

Academia has become tremendously cutthroat but it still operates under the assumption that everyone acts honorably.

Perhaps that’s no longer sustainable, but what is the solution? Many of the problems with modern-day academic research can be traced back to increased scale and competition, neither of which is going away.

Re: Potential organized fraud in ACM/IEEE computer architecture conferences

#28

Post by jjjjjj__ »

rscho wrote: post #22
jjjjjj__ wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am thinking about applying again from the beginning and start Ph.D. all over. Since I am in love with science. And the only reason I left my home country was because I wanted pursue science. (Science is what makes my love beautiful) But I am afraid maybe my next supervisor will be same (let alone if I leave middle way my current supervisor will not give me letter of recommendation).

You are right to be afraid. Get your PhD. first, then do what you want and try to do honest research if you still feel like it. It's like that in every field, apparently. I've been doing medical research for 10 years and I have yet to meet a honest professor. But with time, I got more independent and while I still have to put up with professoral bullshit I now also can conduct honest and independent projects from tim…

Thank you for those kind words. I really needed it. A honest person to talk too.

You can imagine how much of a shock it is to my believe system to come from literally other side of the world, in hope of doing genuine research, and turns out, it is based on lies.

Re: Potential organized fraud in ACM/IEEE computer architecture conferences

#29

Post by lazyjeff »

qznc wrote: post #24
the_svd_doctor wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In small fields, it's sometimes really not very hard to guess who are the authors, just given the topic and what papers they cite. Even with double blind.

You can often guess who the reviewers are as well. The most obvious tell is "also cite paper X" which is their own 99% of the time.

I don't think this is true from my experience. I've been on several program committees, and have managed a couple as well. Usually if you're above the first-level reviewers (e.g. senior PC, track chair, PC chair), you can see the actual author names and reviewers.

Most of the time when an author later says (formally through the review system, or informally in casual conversation) that "I know it's this reviewer who asked me to cite their own paper" they are wrong. Their main evidence is that the reviewer asked them to cite two papers that include the same author.

But of course I can't tell them otherwise because of the confidentiality, so they keep on believing that, perpetuating the myth. Perhaps someone can aggregate some statistics on this, but I genuinely believe that authors suggesting their own papers only about 20% of the time, and when they do it's because their paper was highly relevant.

Re: Potential organized fraud in ACM/IEEE computer architecture conferences

#30

Post by [deleted] »

the_svd_doctor wrote: post #17
currymj wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

peer review at CS conferences is normally anonymous and double-blind to reviewers and authors. however, the conference organizers themselves know who the reviewers and authors are, and the conference management websites are set up to avoid assigning reviewers to papers where they have a conflict of interest with the author. this is usually something like: anyone whose email address has the same domain as yours, plus…

In small fields, it's sometimes really not very hard to guess who are the authors, just given the topic and what papers they cite. Even with double blind.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN