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

51–60 of 203 posts

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

#51

Post by ridv »

Topgamer7 wrote: post #21
codezero wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You know how people are protesting the structural policing systems in the US in part because the systems seem like they're built to protect police instead of holding them accountable?

It's been my experience that tenure provides something similar in academia. As a lowly grad student, even in the most outrageous of cases, you aren't likely to succeed in bringing these issues to light. It would take tremendous determination and there's a very good chance you will derail your own academic career.

In most cases you have two options when you run into something like this as a Ph.D. student: A) Stick it out, get the degree. B) Bail.

Unfortunately I don't see folks within the system acknowledging (at least not openly) that the system is broken without extremely tragic events such as this one taking place.

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

#53

Post by effie »

jjjjjj__ wrote: post #9

Fraud? 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 stud…

I wanted to do theoretical science, after few years at the university, seeing how corrupt the system and the people are, and tired of living in such an environment, I wrapped up after master degree. Best decision of my life.

I recommend getting out as soon as reasonable, then get a real job, do science in your free time or as part of a real job. Better work/life balance, higher self-esteem, putting up with and fixing academia corruption is not your problem anymore. Academia does not have exclusive rights on doing science.

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

#54

Post by BurningFrog »

yutopia wrote: post #27

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.

Seems like Peer Review is hopelessly broken. Conflicts of interest galore.

Science did fine without it until ~40 years ago, and it can do so again. I hope.

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

#55

Post by loeg »

anjc wrote: post #48
loeg wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It isn't up to his mentor to withdraw a paper for which he isn't the first author. It doesn't even require a retraction as it wouldn't be published yet, albeit, withdrawing is still frowned upon

It seems like Huixiang did not feel comfortable overriding his mentor's preference. All quoted remarks below are Huixing, except the one explicitly marked "friend."

> (May 22) Withdrawing the paper will cause a big impact to my mentor (Tao Li)

> He asked me that I have to finish it

...

> (May 27, friend) How is the talking with your mentor?

> he refused to withdraw my paper resolutely

> (May 28) He push me to fake, if I can't publish the paper before deadline

> (June 6) I'm done communicating with Tao Li

> The result is he will never withdraw the paper

...

> I had a fight with him. And the police almost came.

> He refused to withdraw the paper resolutely.

...

> My mentor's words are: if I destroy his reputation, he will kill me.

> He said, this is his bottom line.

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

#56

Post by screye »

justicezyx wrote: post #42
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…

> peer review at CS conferences is normally anonymous and double-blind to reviewers and authors 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?)

The concept of Double Blind is gone, because papers are out on Arxiv the second work is done on them. Within a small research domain, everyone knows what the other person is working on.

You don't know the reviewers, but the reviewers often know who the authors are.

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

#57

Post by bg24 »

codezero wrote: post #5

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…

Politics and power plays are everywhere :-(

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

#58

Post by bena »

topspin wrote: post #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%."

You start by thinking: "I feel as if I'm being honest and my intentions are pure, so for the sake of being able to continue doing this, I need to believe that the vast majority are also honest with pure intentions, but I do recognize just how messed up it is and how very easy it would be to abuse."

Then you pick numbers that justify your position.

Then you get your friends to vouch for your numbers that they helped you come to even though they can't admit that because then they can't independently vouch for them.

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

#59

Post by effie »

yutopia wrote: post #27

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.

Current U.S./Europe academia seems unable to change from within. It lives on government money which it itself controls and distributes to those who "play ball" - the others are pushed away. The only way a change can happen here if academia-independent people control and distribute money to individuals who showed talent/potential/results in the past. It will take massive outside interference to fix or supplant the corrupt system.

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

#60

Post by light_hue_1 »

loeg wrote: post #55
anjc wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't up to his mentor to withdraw a paper for which he isn't the first author. It doesn't even require a retraction as it wouldn't be published yet, albeit, withdrawing is still frowned upon

It seems like Huixiang did not feel comfortable overriding his mentor's preference. All quoted remarks below are Huixing, except the one explicitly marked "friend." > (May 22) Withdrawing the paper will cause a big impact to my mentor (Tao Li) > He asked me that I have to finish it ... > (May 27, friend) How is the talking with your mentor? > he refused to withdraw my paper resolutely > (May 28) He push me to fake, i…

You have to remember how academia works both in terms of jobs and funding. His funding depended on his advisor. His future job prospects in academia and to a large extent outside of academia depended on his advisor. Because of this extreme multi-year power imbalance, and near indentured servitude at the hands of most advisors who are borderline abusive to students, senior authors control the publication process. It's true that any author could have stopped publication in theory.. but that doesn't mean anything.
Post reply on HN