Live data from Hacker News

Potential organized fraud in ACM/IEEE computer architecture conferences

medium.com

141–150 of 203 posts

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

#141
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…

You should report it to SIGARCH executive. More information on this blog post

https://www.sigarch.org/other-announcements/joint-investigat...

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

#142
post #39

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.

How is questioning the motives of departments of the CCP like Huawei and any other Chinese company Sinophobic? Do you realise we have relatively strong crypto today due to lobbying and pressure on the US government in the 90s, who wanted to keep crypto weak. Why on earth should we not question when China adopts the same tactics via direct or indirect methods?

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

#143

Looks like the (sad) background story is here : https://medium.com/@huixiangvoice/the-hidden-story-behind-th... Posting here instead of a new submission

That suicide is so unfortunate. As someone who was a PhD student, I understand the perceived gravity of the situation for him. It’s unfortunate he had nobody to put it in perspective. This is one of the fields that you can easily leave academia for industry or even switch to another academic institution with ease if things start to go bad. Nobody but your own advisor will realistically care about a retracted paper (e…

"academic politics are so vicious because the stakes are so small"

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

#144
post #13
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…

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.

tbh, it's really not, this is extremely rare (although increasing).

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

#146

Not directly related, but the "sign in to medium.com with Google" dialog on the top right corner with my account name on it is really freaking me out.

It's an iFrame hosted on Google servers, so medium does not directly have access to the iFrame contents. But it is still irritating.

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

#147
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please keep the sinophobia out of HN. Thanks.

How is questioning the motives of departments of the CCP like Huawei and any other Chinese company Sinophobic? Do you realise we have relatively strong crypto today due to lobbying and pressure on the US government in the 90s, who wanted to keep crypto weak. Why on earth should we not question when China adopts the same tactics via direct or indirect methods?

> How is questioning the motives of departments of the CCP like Huawei and any other Chinese company Sinophobic?

Well, if you think that all Chinese companies are departments of the CCP and, by extension, all Chinese nationals working for Chinese companies (so the vast majority) are working for the CCP, and a Chinese company sponsoring OpenSSL wants to keep crypto weak... how is that anything but Sinophobia?

Maybe you think it's justified Sinophobia because of how evil the CCP is... but most evil things the CCP did can be summarized as "they oppress their people" and they oppress their people because they don't have majority support. That's especially true in internationally operating tech companies, where the employees are the most likely to need access to banned foreign websites just to do their job. Most Chinese people don't work for the CCP, they work around them.

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

#148
post #106
post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It's all tragic. If anyone ever finds themselves in a situation like Huixiang Chen, you have integrity that the world needs more of, don't despair. I suggest that your first order of business might be to find trustworthy people who can give give good advice, in confidence. Ideally, you'll eventually find someone with clout, who can take over fixing the problems, but the maybe first is to simply get good advice from t…

1) Crime networks at universities are powerful. If you're at an elite school, whistle-blowing will almost certainly cost you your career, if not more.

2) Trusted sources with both clout and insider knowledge will generally advise you to get out with your hide in tact, and let sleeping dogs lie. That is the strategy I'd also advise to anyone who is not independently wealthy and has a powerful network of allies.

3) Even indication you /might/ whistle blow is enough to trigger blow-back. Be discreet. In particular, don't use university IT equipment for either personal use, or anything related to the situation. If things blow up, the university controls your data. That can give an incredible information asymmetry, as well as leverage.

... and be aware things will get better. At the time, it seems like the world. A few years later, it's old history.

These things won't change without systemic change. Unless universities adopt transparency measures, accountability measures, compensation limits, etc., we'll continue to see corrupt crooks in the admin. And universities shouldn't be able to use NDAs, non-disparage, etc. agreements to cover this stuff up. Simply no.

It's like standing up to a police officers. If you do it, you might get your head blown off. If we change the system, you might not need to worry about getting your head blown off.

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

#149

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 peop…

I can say, from first-hand knowledge, that this is not uncommon. MIT will do this and more against whistleblowers.

Most people back down very fast.

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

#150
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.

1) Reduce competition. Make jobs less desirable to where there might be able to win without cheating. More people at lower salaries would be good here. More research/teaching gets done, and you eliminate subclasses like adjuncts and lifelong postdocs.

2) Ban universities which take federal grants, federal student aid, 501(c)3 status, etc. from using NDA/non-disparage agreements.

3) Put in FOIA/public records-style transparency measures.

4) Open science / open data. Publications should be open too, as should source code. Anyone should be able to replicate scientific research unless it requires $$$ equipment or e.g. builds on personally-identifiable information.

5) Democratic governance processes within universities and salary caps (it doesn't get at this stuff, but it does at a lot of embezzlement).

6) Limit number of grad students per advisor.

Basically, let enough sunshine in that the bad stuff can't stick around.

Post reply on HN