61–70 of 203 posts
Looking at the screenshots ... "video recognition in future 5G technology". Is that just straight up word salad? It sounds like the industry horseshit I hear in snippets ... "the convergence of machine learning and IoT". Does the phrase "video recognition in future 5G technology" have _any_ meaning whatsoever?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
"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%."
Looking at the screenshots ... "video recognition in future 5G technology". Is that just straight up word salad? It sounds like the industry horseshit I hear in snippets ... "the convergence of machine learning and IoT". Does the phrase "video recognition in future 5G technology" have _any_ meaning whatsoever?
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.
Required reproduction of the result could be a step forward, but only for cheap research.
If no one is going to publish names, nothing is going to happen.
I've seen fraud at IEEE ICDCS '98, but that conference was a mess, and smaller IEEE regional conferences are sewers, but nothing especially improper.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I ended up dropping out of graduate school, but the advice I was given before entering was this: 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 univer…
Absolutely this.
Worked on my master's dissertation with my initial supervisor. He went off to try and find funding for a year or two to get me to come back for PhD.
Turned up, he passed me an ACM magazine article and asked me to have a look and see if anything stuck. Got hooked. He knows I like weird and trippy stuff ;)
I'm in a bit of rubbish situation as he left his position here for greener pastures. Totally fair decision on his part from what I've gathered of the back story
Now supervised by someone else and it's just not the same. Have to go over old ground quite often.
So yeah, choose your supervisor wisely. If they "get you" then they'll get what you're interested in. Then they'll be able to work with you find an interesting area to study.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
In academia, you're absolutely right. But outside, sorry, no.
I can perfectly understand how a PhD student under an abusive advisor would feel they're trapped. And I'm gonna sound racist, but I've seen the kind of toxicity there is among Chinese researchers in Western universities, and that's probably making this kind of situations even worse.
But I've worked in the industry, and then in academia (as technical staff, never researcher), and now I'm back in the industry, in a team where more than half the people have a PhD (or better).
Outside academia, people either don't give a damn, or know very well how fucked up it can be. Unless you're extremely unlucky and the hiring manager is somehow in the close network of your advisor, nobody will bat an eye if you, as a job candidate, say "academia was not for me, I dropped out of my PhD."
So please, if you read this and feel like you have no options, don't believe that.