41–50 of 203 posts
Looks 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?
They 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 co…
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…
Really? When I was doing my PhD from 2008-2012, double blind conferences on computer systems and networking usually reveals the authors.
Although double blindness is not perfect: https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/1517480.1517492 (Double-Blind Reviewing — More Placebo Than Miracle Cure?)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Choose your advisor, not your area of focus.
Your advisor single-handedly decides how smoothly your PhD will go, and once you have your PhD, you can decide where your career goes.
Obviously, area of focus does determine a bit of your future, but within that area, optimize for a helpful advisor.
Also, I am sure your university has resources, and ways you could report this behavior, but it's often very difficult to unseat/challenge university faculty, so I totally understand an unwillingness to act. I agree with the other commenter: finish what you started, get out, and focus on doing good work.
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).
So don't get off track - changing schools/advisers/topics can be very disruptive and you can wind up becoming a tenured ("ten-yeared") graduate student. I was forced to change advisor due to my first one leaving and it took me from 'on track to get out quickly' to 'slowest guy in my year to finish'.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 a…
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)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is incredibly sad. I'm not familiar with academic research, was the option to withdraw the paper before publication not available?
His mentor (one of those involved in this fraud) refused to withdraw the paper, according to the translated messages with friends from the same link above.
This 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.
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) is this normal ?