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

71–80 of 203 posts

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

#71

Post by currymj »

screye wrote: post #56
justicezyx wrote: post #42

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.

of course it can’t be avoided completely, but you’re supposed to try not to know who the authors are.

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

#72

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#73

Post by mcguire »

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

Holy crap! Those allegations are bad, but the student's suicide makes it much worse.

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

#74

Post by DonaldPShimoda »

screye wrote: post #56
justicezyx wrote: post #42

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.

Depends on the author. Some people don't post to arXiv until after they've submitted, or after they've gotten initial reviews back. Others like to post to arXiv proactively to get feedback prior to submitting. Just depends on the person.

Reviewers are encouraged not to read anything that might be such a paper, though, for whatever that's worth.

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

#75

Post by ISL »

ridv wrote: post #51
Topgamer7 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 determin…

There is an option C): Switch advisors.

As long as the department is sympathetic to the student's complaint, it will accommodate the switch if it can.

Furthermore, there is increasing attention to providing "Faculty Mentors" -- people of faculty rank who are emphatically not the student's advisor, tasked in that capacity with advocating for the student's needs alone. Look within the University for other outlets for your concern.

You're going to be working very closely with your advisor and relying on them for guidance and networking after graduation. If the relationship is toxic and the only options are A or B, think real hard about the upside of B before selecting A.

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

#76

Post by softwaredoug »

jjjjjj__ wrote: post #16
wmf wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In your opinion was your paper good enough to be in MICRO? It's kind of sad, but I think even good science needs help to be seen.

Not at all. The idea maybe was good (in long term with solid work). But none of our code were working, or works right now for that matter. Nothing works . And I am not saying they does not work as research codes tend to be ugly. I am saying that in literal sense of the word. It was totally wishful story glued together with beautiful sentences, published via a serious relationship in MICRO. There are sentences in that…

It does seem the prevailing writing style of academia is a big part of the problem. Papers a lot of time leave the reader feeling stupid. “Surely there’s wisdom here!?” the reader hopes. Maybe if papers taught the underlying concepts in a clearer, more transparent way we’d get better, more reproducible science

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

#77

Post by jasonhansel »

Read the alleged response by Tao Li to the original accusations against him: https://medium.com/@huixiangvoice/help-dr-tao-li-is-threaten...

This is a really shocking threat: he's saying that his school (the University of Florida) will take legal action against people making good-faith allegations of academic misconduct against him, because they have unspecified "ulterior motives."

How is this attempt to silence people an appropriate response to the death of one of his own postdocs? At the very least, the University needs to say whether it finds these threats acceptable and whether it is actually considering legal action.

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

#78

Post by mcguire »

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 need your advisor to graduate and get your first academic or research job. After that, it's all up to you. Get through it and you have many more options.

Changing supervisors is possible, but probably not a good idea.

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

#79

Post by ISL »

hocuspocus wrote: post #70
light_hue_1 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> His future job prospects in academia and to a large extent outside of academia depended on his advisor. 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…

I see in the student's words the same deference to authority that I initially see from some students, often Chinese, with whom I have worked.

It takes a long time for some students to understand and trust that I desperately want them to call me out when I'm wrong. Research is a partnership -- even if you don't know much, it is really essential that you ask probing questions and make sure that everyone in the group is standing on a solid foundation. If we are, we'll be able to answer your question immediately and you'll learn something. If we're not, then all of us are about to learn something important.

To second hocuspocus -- yes, there are always options outside of academia. As a side benefit, they'll probably pay better and will let you interact with more professionals more quickly than inside academia.

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

#80

Post by softwaredoug »

effie wrote: post #59
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 cor…

It does seem like there's sometimes too much inside baseball in grant review/awards. I wonder if there needs to be a notion of a 'stakeholder' in research that can measure/advocate for the general market of the research outcomes
Post reply on HN