Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I flagged two research papers for fake authors and both were accepted as orals

geospatialml.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 181 posts

Re: I flagged two research papers for fake authors and both were accepted as orals

#11

Post by jsrozner »

nneonneo wrote: post #2

At this point, in the field of AI research: - papers are written by AI (as pointed out in this article, and as obvious to anyone who spends a while actually reading recent AI research) - papers are reviewed by AI (NeurIPS is doing an AI assisted review experiment - https://neurips.cc/Conferences/2026/ai-reviewing-experiment - and I feel the trend is moving towards AI reviewers whether we like it or not) - papers are…

Idk if we're automating humans out of the publishing loop as much as rapidly automating the production of crap. I had a very similar experience reviewing for EMNLP recently.

We are nowhere near AI being able to judge the quality of research (in fact, one might reasonably state that even most humans can't really judge the quality of research). Most things in society are not like math: we can't automate (via verification) our way out of noise overwhelming the signal.

Folks are willing to entirely abuse the public resource that is faithful, honest reviewing. (This is unsurprising; the abuse of the commons / public resources has been rising for a long time). There isn't a good solution other than something akin to draconian social scoring to limit access to the reviewing system.

Re: I flagged two research papers for fake authors and both were accepted as orals

#12

Post by WarOnPrivacy »

dghlsakjg wrote: post #5

This is a side effect of academia never taking open accessibility to papers and journals seriously. If all these papers were not gatekept by journals, it would be trivially easy to validate at least the existence of cited papers and quotes.

> This is a side effect of academia never taking open accessibility to papers and journals seriously.

From my perspective, it's a clear manifestation of humanity's most pervasive failing - the one that defines every group, eventually.

    No One Anywhere Wants To Clean Their Own House.

Re: I flagged two research papers for fake authors and both were accepted as orals

#14

Post by jsrozner »

nhinck2 wrote: post #8
dghlsakjg wrote: post #5

This is a side effect of academia never taking open accessibility to papers and journals seriously. If all these papers were not gatekept by journals, it would be trivially easy to validate at least the existence of cited papers and quotes.

It is trivially easy to validate the existence of a cited paper.

I'm sympathetic to the idea: we should have an open, publicly queryable citation graph. Google scholar could very easily offer this at marginal cost near zero, but they won't.

Re: I flagged two research papers for fake authors and both were accepted as orals

#15

Post by touisteur »

WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #12
dghlsakjg wrote: post #5

This is a side effect of academia never taking open accessibility to papers and journals seriously. If all these papers were not gatekept by journals, it would be trivially easy to validate at least the existence of cited papers and quotes.

> This is a side effect of academia never taking open accessibility to papers and journals seriously. From my perspective, it's a clear manifestation of humanity's most pervasive failing - the one that defines every group, eventually. No One Anywhere Wants To Clean Their Own House.

And yet the automation we pour trillions in, is the one that will do anything, including everything I find interesting and will never clean my own house.

Re: I flagged two research papers for fake authors and both were accepted as orals

#16

Post by crote »

dghlsakjg wrote: post #5

This is a side effect of academia never taking open accessibility to papers and journals seriously. If all these papers were not gatekept by journals, it would be trivially easy to validate at least the existence of cited papers and quotes.

Validating existence should already be trivial: virtually all journal already have publicly-available indices which contain at least author information and an abstract. Combine that with DOI citations and you're basically done - even with closed-access journals.

Checking the content is of course a lot more difficult, but that doesn't magically become trivial with open-access journals: you still need to read and interpret what is being said in the paper and compare it to the claims being made in the citation. Granted, these days you could use AI for a first pass, but it's still going to be incredibly tedious work.

Re: I flagged two research papers for fake authors and both were accepted as orals

#17

Post by boplicity »

jsrozner wrote: post #11
nneonneo wrote: post #2

At this point, in the field of AI research: - papers are written by AI (as pointed out in this article, and as obvious to anyone who spends a while actually reading recent AI research) - papers are reviewed by AI (NeurIPS is doing an AI assisted review experiment - https://neurips.cc/Conferences/2026/ai-reviewing-experiment - and I feel the trend is moving towards AI reviewers whether we like it or not) - papers are…

Idk if we're automating humans out of the publishing loop as much as rapidly automating the production of crap. I had a very similar experience reviewing for EMNLP recently. We are nowhere near AI being able to judge the quality of research (in fact, one might reasonably state that even most humans can't really judge the quality of research). Most things in society are not like math: we can't automate (via verificati…

> draconian social scoring

This is a legitimate question: should people have reputations? Should their behavior be made more visible publicly, both good and bad? How?

In a small contained society, where consequences are more directly affecting individuals immedately, these questions don't need to be asked, because they're inherantly answered. We now are a society with billions of people, and dire consequences sometimes deferred for a generation, or more. Part of our general failing is the lack of good answers to the above questions. For many people, there are rarely negative consequences for causing harm to others, and the rewards can be very great indeed.

Re: I flagged two research papers for fake authors and both were accepted as orals

#19

Post by lazide »

nneonneo wrote: post #2

At this point, in the field of AI research: - papers are written by AI (as pointed out in this article, and as obvious to anyone who spends a while actually reading recent AI research) - papers are reviewed by AI (NeurIPS is doing an AI assisted review experiment - https://neurips.cc/Conferences/2026/ai-reviewing-experiment - and I feel the trend is moving towards AI reviewers whether we like it or not) - papers are…

What’s the point?

Re: I flagged two research papers for fake authors and both were accepted as orals

#20

Post by lazide »

touisteur wrote: post #15
WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is a side effect of academia never taking open accessibility to papers and journals seriously. From my perspective, it's a clear manifestation of humanity's most pervasive failing - the one that defines every group, eventually. No One Anywhere Wants To Clean Their Own House.

And yet the automation we pour trillions in, is the one that will do anything, including everything I find interesting and will never clean my own house.

Truly passing the real Turing test.
Post reply on HN