Certain news and social media sites have expertise in detecting voting rings. Maybe they could help...
Potential organized fraud in ACM/IEEE computer architecture conferences
31–40 of 203 posts
Re: Potential organized fraud in ACM/IEEE computer architecture conferences
#32The paper file listing [1] from the PC in question shows predictable [conference][year]-paper[incrementing-number] file name pattern. Rather than "insider help" [2], could this be explained via a "leaky endpoint/api" that got scraped? I hope I'm missing something. [1] https://miro.medium.com/max/1400/1*sNC6SuC1v8peYmw6KEcz3g.pn... [2] Quote: "HotCRP does not show you your own submission even if you are a PC member, s…
It's possible, but there are only a few reviewing systems that are commonly used and their permission systems are robust as far as I know. I think a simpler explanation is that someone in the fraud group has a "higher permission role" than a first-line reviewer, so has access to these. This could be someone who is a general chair, program committee chair, track chair or area chair if the conference is big enough, and often even senior PC members (the metareviewers). All they have to do is perform an export and put it on Dropbox or Google Drive.
Re: Potential organized fraud in ACM/IEEE computer architecture conferences
#33In a time when the main purpose of a conference were academic exchange and moving forward a scientific field, there was little incentive to engage in fraud. When, as is standard practice today, your scientific career hinges on how many papers you published at top venues, the story changes drastically.
Accounts of how groups of inter-connected high-profile researchers game the review system for their own advantage are deeply concerning.
Re: Potential organized fraud in ACM/IEEE computer architecture conferences
#34"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%."
I think the same. I mean, it's widely known that academic incentives are completely broken all across the board. And yet somehow those broken incentives are not producing dishonest research at scale? Doesn't add up, really.
Re: Potential organized fraud in ACM/IEEE computer architecture conferences
#35I have always imagined higher level academia would be rife with inner circle politics (corruption).
"higher level X would be rife with inner circle politics" - sadly seems to be in line with human nature.
FWIW, anecdotally, in my interactions with academia involved parties have mostly been surprisingly respectable - which is more that I can say for industry.
Re: Potential organized fraud in ACM/IEEE computer architecture conferences
#36The bigger question is, what do we do about it?
It's inevitable that when you do research on a very niche topic, you'll probably know a lot of people who are qualified to review your paper.
How do we prevent this kind of corruption when the communities are so small?
Re: Potential organized fraud in ACM/IEEE computer architecture conferences
#37Looks like the (sad) background story is here : https://medium.com/@huixiangvoice/the-hidden-story-behind-th... Posting here instead of a new submission
This is incredibly sad. I'm not familiar with academic research, was the option to withdraw the paper before publication not available?
Re: Potential organized fraud in ACM/IEEE computer architecture conferences
#38This was a long time coming. A quick look at the historical DNS records for IEEE.org shows there have been strange things going on for some time. Recently, OpenSSL unveiled a new "notification" policy that gave massive preference to Huawei and Smartisans [1]. They are OpenSSL's largest donors. The process by how this was done was kind of laughably deceptive, which of course aroused further suspicion. Many things have…
[deleted]
Re: Potential organized fraud in ACM/IEEE computer architecture conferences
#39This was a long time coming. A quick look at the historical DNS records for IEEE.org shows there have been strange things going on for some time. Recently, OpenSSL unveiled a new "notification" policy that gave massive preference to Huawei and Smartisans [1]. They are OpenSSL's largest donors. The process by how this was done was kind of laughably deceptive, which of course aroused further suspicion. Many things have…
Please keep the sinophobia out of HN. Thanks.
Re: Potential organized fraud in ACM/IEEE computer architecture conferences
#40Does anyone know which other SIG is implicated? Or where I might be able to find out?