Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm from there. AMA
The USA, right?
[dead]
I flagged two research papers for fake authors and both were accepted as orals
171–180 of 180 posts
Re: I flagged two research papers for fake authors and both were accepted as orals
#172Re: I flagged two research papers for fake authors and both were accepted as orals
#173Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is your area? I publish in AI (mainly IJCAI/AAAI, MLJ and some smaller conferences) and had one of my rejected papers copy/pasted into a new submission to a different conference without my consent. When I asked for the copy to be retracted a new paper was written, also based on my paper, to replace the copy of my paper without telling the conference. When I complained to the conference the new paper was sent to…
> Plagiarism brings a slap on the wrist unless the case is very high profile, like the example posted by azan_20 in the sibling where the plagiarising academic had many accolades and a big reputation. If the target or source of plagiarism is not famous it's like stealing bikes. I'd like to clarify - the very high profile case did not even get wrist slap and Cambridge is actually defending him.
That's right. At least there's reporting in the lay press which can cause a scandal and that may finally convince Cambridge to do something, although I'm not holding my breath.
Re: I flagged two research papers for fake authors and both were accepted as orals
#174This 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.
Where can I do that? Do I have to manually extract each citation from a paper and then individually look each up? Can I validate quoted text without a subscription? Is it the same system for every paper in every journal or do I have to have fluency in multiple databases.
Yeah. It’s trivial to do for one paper while sitting at a computer in a university library. How trivial is it to validate the hundreds of sources and quotes that appear in any given volume of a journal?
Re: I flagged two research papers for fake authors and both were accepted as orals
#175Earlier quoted context omitted.
this reminds me of an episode of the TV show. the Orville that I recently watched where they stumbled upon a planet that had the social credit scoring system and everybody had little badges with literal upvote and down vote buttons on them. and when your grandma buys you ice cream and you're a little kid you say thank you and you hit the upvote button and she likes you even more because you hit the upvote button then…
> regardless, it got me thinking about some kind of a potential implementation of a formal social reputation system that essentially mirrors what goes on informally now, but makes it visible and makes the actions of affecting somebody's reputation visible. In general you can already get this by asking and taking feedback from others. I've seen a lot more people shoot or ignore the messenger in those cases then actual…
Yes, absolutely. and I'm reminded immediately of the XKCD comic where somebody decides that it's time to rewrite the laws of relationships and social interaction and the third panel is the obvious chaos ensued result.
which makes me think that these kinds of systems are interesting to talk about and possibly productive. but when anybody gets a serious idea to start implementing them, I think it runs into the same problem that everybody that got really excited about Corey Doctorow's wuffie. while not an original idea, his description of it really catapulted the concept of social currency into the nerdosphere. at the same time that Reddit karma was becoming a thing. and so people were understandably irrationally exuberant.
at any rate, they figured out like many before them that trying to automatically manage reputation at scale is a socially difficult problem to solve, before even getting to the technical issues.
and yes it is one of those things that as I get older I just have to take a step back and use those kinds of people as an example of how not to be. I think AI psychosis as talked about when it was called chatgpt psychosis is maybe more properly classified as main character syndrome level 11 or something. I am not a psychologist. and it makes me wonder if that kind of main character syndrome is some kind of a social contagion. because in the modern incarnation that is everywhere it seemed to really get a foothold in podcast-o-sphere. though, like everything else, I'm sure that could easily be mapped into. people with opinions have high opinions of their own opinions and it inflates their egos and that has been going on since one person got in a room with themselves and started thinking.
Re: I flagged two research papers for fake authors and both were accepted as orals
#176Earlier quoted context omitted.
> regardless, it got me thinking about some kind of a potential implementation of a formal social reputation system that essentially mirrors what goes on informally now, but makes it visible and makes the actions of affecting somebody's reputation visible. In general you can already get this by asking and taking feedback from others. I've seen a lot more people shoot or ignore the messenger in those cases then actual…
Yes, absolutely. and I'm reminded immediately of the XKCD comic where somebody decides that it's time to rewrite the laws of relationships and social interaction and the third panel is the obvious chaos ensued result. which makes me think that these kinds of systems are interesting to talk about and possibly productive. but when anybody gets a serious idea to start implementing them, I think it runs into the same pro…
[dead]
Re: I flagged two research papers for fake authors and both were accepted as orals
#177it should be entirely acceptable to filter out factually incorrect or unverifiable submissions without human intervention
Re: I flagged two research papers for fake authors and both were accepted as orals
#178Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have been rolling over the idea of “reasoning deserts” in my head, akin to food deserts. Places where economic calculations lead to only a facsimile of the real thing being provided, without the actual components necessary for human health, wellbeing and flourishing.
I'm from there. AMA
I'm sorry your comments keep getting flagged. a bit ironic given the content. I suppose its not really inline with the decorum of HN. Or maybe HN moderation know better and this is bot account. Anyway. In case that this was a human, thanks for the poetry, and be careful to not become too too disassociated.
Re: I flagged two research papers for fake authors and both were accepted as orals
#179“…because conferences have made it mandatory to review 4-5 papers if you submit to them.” Is that really a thing? So if I submit a legit paper it is being reviewed forcefully by a bunch of random people from god knows where?
Speaking for the *ACL conferences, they are not "random people" in the sense that they must have "(a) at least two papers in main ACL events or Findings, plus (b) at least one more paper in the ACL Anthology or a major ML/AI venue" [1]. So they are published authors. As for it "being a thing": sadly yes. The number of papers has been steadily increasing over the years and the number of volunteer authors is simply not…
Ok but what you described is very different than being forced to review if you submit. If anyone who submits a paper has to review that is just ridiculous. There is no requirement for submitting a paper.
Re: I flagged two research papers for fake authors and both were accepted as orals
#180Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's correct. And 4–5 is low-balling. I was forced to review 7 papers. Now, how are these papers chosen for you? You get to bid on which to review. Bid on 30 papers out of 30,000. I got none of those, and I had to review 7 papers I wasn't really competent enough to review.
For me at that point it's OK to give the paper a quick read, write a few words on what it's about and whether the paper looks well written and so on, explain it's outside my area of expertise and give a weak accept with low confidence. So basically leave it up to the Area Chair. It still helps them a bit that you give the paper a quick once over and flag it up if it's somehow complete crap. The problem is that I'm pr…
Here is my suggestion: scale the “difficulty” to the same rate as the submissions. Instruct the reviewers like this: “this year we had 10x the average submissions of the last 5 years, so be 10x stricter than you would normally.”
Another idea: make it less about the written word and more about artifacts. Require more proof, more protocols, more spreadsheets, more code, etc.
And stop caring about the words so much, as they really don’t mean anything anymore. Larger papers should be punished instead of rewarded; the shorter the paper (in terms of words) the higher the chance to be published. Every word should be backed up by data, code, etc. Any paragraph that doesn’t pair with proof should mean rejection.