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

181–190 of 203 posts

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

#181

Post by dbancajas »

pbzcnepu wrote: post #169
obmelvin wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just want to thank you for your actions and ask if you have any advice for career paths to do something about this type of academic bullshit. My GF is currently pursuing a PhD in biochem but very interested in pursuing science policy so that she can do something about all the injustice one witnesses as a graduate student. As someone who received both their B.S. and M.S. at UIUC, I'm honestly disgusted at how variou…

there's really not much one can do. In Comp Arch, most of the honest people left the field years ago because they got sick of all this nonsense. Most were happy to let those left behind play their silly peer-review games, but when the student suicide happened it was like a call to action. It is easier to fight things from the outside, as the internal higher-ups have less power to mess up your life. It's interesting y…

is this true? Can you expound on this? which suspect papers are there?

I know there are a lot of solid professors in UIUC like Joseph Torellas, Sarita Adve (C++ consistency models), Vikram Adve (who is the adviser of Chris Lattner - creator of LLVM). This is really bothersome and I hope it's not from one of those professors.

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

#182

Post by dbancajas »

idoeestuff wrote: post #170

i would like add some discussions. when i say "i", you can either read "i" as i am a pc or external reviewer, or maybe im a grad student. 1. i dont want say anything which gets me trouble, but hotcrp was set up wrong by the chair in that year ISCA. i know pc members were able to download the whole paper submission list. i personally saw _all_ papers and _all_ reviewer comments on anything i did not submit. it is like…

> ld years ago because they got sick of all this nonsense. Most were happy to let those left behind play their silly peer-review games, but when the student suicide happened it was like a call to action.

> It is easier to fight things from the outside, as the internal higher-ups have less power to me

Why don't you start it here? Since you are already anonymous anyways?

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

#183

Post by idoeestuff »

dbancajas wrote: post #182
idoeestuff wrote: post #170

i would like add some discussions. when i say "i", you can either read "i" as i am a pc or external reviewer, or maybe im a grad student. 1. i dont want say anything which gets me trouble, but hotcrp was set up wrong by the chair in that year ISCA. i know pc members were able to download the whole paper submission list. i personally saw _all_ papers and _all_ reviewer comments on anything i did not submit. it is like…

> ld years ago because they got sick of all this nonsense. Most were happy to let those left behind play their silly peer-review games, but when the student suicide happened it was like a call to action. > It is easier to fight things from the outside, as the internal higher-ups have less power to me Why don't you start it here? Since you are already anonymous anyways?

seems you wanted reply to another person

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

#184

Post by pbzcnepu »

dbancajas wrote: post #181
pbzcnepu wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

there's really not much one can do. In Comp Arch, most of the honest people left the field years ago because they got sick of all this nonsense. Most were happy to let those left behind play their silly peer-review games, but when the student suicide happened it was like a call to action. It is easier to fight things from the outside, as the internal higher-ups have less power to mess up your life. It's interesting y…

is this true? Can you expound on this? which suspect papers are there? I know there are a lot of solid professors in UIUC like Joseph Torellas, Sarita Adve (C++ consistency models), Vikram Adve (who is the adviser of Chris Lattner - creator of LLVM). This is really bothersome and I hope it's not from one of those professors.

well let's take Torrellas. Check out the two papers at ISCA'20 with him as an author.

Both use modified "cycle-accurate" simulators for the results. For now let's ignore all the issues with the accuracy of these simulators.

Let's validate how "solid" the work is. Drop an e-mail to Torrellas and ask for the code they used so you can see if you can reproduce their work. Hopefully things have changed and they'll send you the code but in my experience they'll just say no.

So they got two papers in which are unverifiable, and none of the reviewers ever saw the code involved. This bothers some people, but it's not unusual at ISCA.

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

#185

Post by pbzcnepu »

idoeestuff wrote: post #175
pbzcnepu wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

there's really not much one can do. In Comp Arch, most of the honest people left the field years ago because they got sick of all this nonsense. Most were happy to let those left behind play their silly peer-review games, but when the student suicide happened it was like a call to action. It is easier to fight things from the outside, as the internal higher-ups have less power to mess up your life. It's interesting y…

can you expand? i know the clique, but at least for the specific work i follow, the work isn't bad recently. of course, nothing surprises me.

it isn't always that the work is bad, it's just the review process for getting in has always seemed to be easier for people with the right connections. Not necessarily in an overt conspiratorial way like the recent allegations either.

The reason people have latched on to the current set of allegations is there seems to be actual concrete proof of misconduct that can be acted on.

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

#186

Post by monkeya »

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…

I wonder if the code was not working, how you plot the results?

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

#187

Post by monkeya »

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 feel sorry for you. And I understand it is a very difficult situation. If you speak up and report it with evidence, yes you should have evidence, it will be really good for the community. And I believe there are good professors will support you and would like to advice you because you're as honest as them.

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

#188

Post by DreamScatter »

yorwba wrote: post #147
indemnity wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 yo…

It is well known that large companies in China get assigned a CCP delegate. They are then made extensions of the CCP.

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

#189

Post by taneq »

fdupress wrote: post #173
taneq wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is a reviewer asking an author to cite their own paper not a massive conflict of interest in itself?

Only if it's irrelevant. If it's relevant, it's a necessary correction.

Who decides whether it’s relevant?

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

#190

Post by ialsodoeestuff »

pbzcnepu wrote: post #185
idoeestuff wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

can you expand? i know the clique, but at least for the specific work i follow, the work isn't bad recently. of course, nothing surprises me.

it isn't always that the work is bad, it's just the review process for getting in has always seemed to be easier for people with the right connections. Not necessarily in an overt conspiratorial way like the recent allegations either. The reason people have latched on to the current set of allegations is there seems to be actual concrete proof of misconduct that can be acted on.

> it's just the review process for getting in has always seemed to be easier for people with the right connections

What is this insinuation based on? Do you have data on how many papers by "people with the right connections" are rejected, for example?

Post reply on HN