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

121–130 of 181 posts

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

#121

Post by Eddy_Viscosity2 »

ryandrake wrote: post #29
boplicity wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 sometim…

"Consequences and reputations stemming from one's actions" isn't necessarily draconian social scoring. Without a structure for imposing consequences on wrongdoers, we're not a society, we're just monkeys flinging poo at each other.

Even monkeys have society and they tend to only throw poo at those who have done wrong by that society. Monkeys have and try to maintain reputations.

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

#122

Post by [deleted] »

xoa wrote: post #107
ben_w wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Social credit? Or money credit? (Genuine question, I'm not American and don't have any desire to move to the US).

> Social credit? Or money credit? Neither. Above poster is wrong. You don't require anything to own a house or car in the US except your own cash/equiv. If you wish to borrow other people's money or property (in some cases at all when counterparty risk is high enough or buyers competitive enough, in most cases it's more a matter of interest rate), a sufficient credit score is the most standard and easy way to "make t…

[deleted]

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

#123

Post by StableAlkyne »

weiliddat wrote: post #76
ludicrousdispla wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 'named' reviewers typically pass on the review responsibilty to grad students or less-senior colleagues. This is currently a generally accepted and sanctioned/encouraged practice. A social scoring system would need to eliminate that for true accountability.

Yeah it's a well-known secret, and I think any sort of scoring system misses the point. The scentific method (and system, incl. peer reviews) is a public good (like good governance) that requires moral acknowledgement, the necessary social/cultural/political/academic pressures, and discipline of taking care of it by participating parties. If you add a score/metric this incentivizes the wrong thing, like how money, fu…

> If you add a score/metric this incentivizes the wrong thing,

Don't we already have all of these things because academia decided to use H-index as a metric for career impact?

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

#124

Post by skyberrys »

I didn't read carefully enough at the beginning of the article, and at first I thought Caleb and Issac must be two different algorithms for detecting AI in published papers. Eventually I realized they are the names of the two authors who wrote this article (with AI assistance). Anyways, I was wondering how the two of them managed to disagree? Were the papers each human flagged as concerning the same between the two humans? I should keep reading carefully, just thought I would point it out to other humans too, maybe save them from the same mistaken thought.

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

#125

Post by StableAlkyne »

zx8080 wrote: post #53
Sharlin wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn’t work anymore because people would just have ChatGPT generate their reviews and get paid for doing nothing.

So in sum: - it did not work before because greed - will not work anymore because AI Is human science dead?

Nah, people will just come up with different (probably broader) heuristics when reviewing.

We have a past example of this in the US, too. Certain countries have historically had a huge problem with paper mills. Because of this, most people in the US/EU do have a negative bias once they see the author affiliations of those countries. Yes, it isn't fair to researchers who aren't pulling some shenaniganry. But it is a common shortcut; the sixth or seventh time you've spent a few hours reviewing a paper filled with bullshit, you probably would develop it too.

I imagine we will see similar things come up: the most obvious I can think of is, if it's not a well-known institution then it might be bullshit.

Hell, we are already seeing something similar in FOSS, where many high profile projects have completely banned AI contributions due to all the low effort slop PRs.

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

#126

Post by Viliam1234 »

bradley13 wrote: post #84

The next logical step in "publish or perish". Get rid of p-o-p and this problem will also largely disappear. I know managers and administrators want a simple metric, but there is no simple metric for research.

"Publish or perish" in science is like the "lines of code produced" in software development.

Even with the technical debt. We have zillions of papers published, we know that most of them probably won't replicate, we don't know which ones.

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

#127

Post by weiliddat »

StableAlkyne wrote: post #123
weiliddat wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah it's a well-known secret, and I think any sort of scoring system misses the point. The scentific method (and system, incl. peer reviews) is a public good (like good governance) that requires moral acknowledgement, the necessary social/cultural/political/academic pressures, and discipline of taking care of it by participating parties. If you add a score/metric this incentivizes the wrong thing, like how money, fu…

> If you add a score/metric this incentivizes the wrong thing, Don't we already have all of these things because academia decided to use H-index as a metric for career impact?

Yeah exactly. One more metric isn't going to solve it.

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

#128

Post by bell-cot »

knollimar wrote: post #110
somenameforme wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand the desire to argue against this in identity politics terms, which I assume you realize is going to be extremely divisive. There's a far more simple argument that people, independent of ideological framing, would tend to agree upon. And that's what is valuable to one person isn't valuable, to the same degree, to another. For things that are completely illegal, like murder, such a system would be pr…

How do you combat review bombing or someone just being bigoted?

The same ways that you have to combat fudged scientific data and didn't-write-it authors and lazy reviewers and hate from people who are in the opposite school on the whole Alzheimer's Amyloid issue and shite-quality citatations and etc. etc. etc.?

Yes, there can be obvious patterns to money/friends/skin color/gender that should be watched out for. But if you're paying much attention to those, then your science will quickly become a mere side gig to your new Cultural Warrior job.

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

#129

Post by emil-lp »

tgv wrote: post #99
emil-lp wrote: post #80

Earlier 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.

30k papers? What field is that? How do you even select your area of competence from such a haystack? I went to smaller conferences, I suppose, but back then I also had to review papers outside my direct expertise, although nothing too remote. But I didn't know the literature well, obviously. I was able to weed out the sub-par papers (I think), but it was harder to estimate the merits of those that did make sense, as…

AAAI 2026 had a record breaking 27k submissions.

It doesn't scale.

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

#130

Post by NetMageSCW »

inigyou wrote: post #111
ben_w wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Social credit? Or money credit? (Genuine question, I'm not American and don't have any desire to move to the US).

They are the same thing. The Chinese social credit is mostly about money. The USA money credit is affected by social factors. They are the same.

What social factors do you imagine affect your credit score in the US?
Post reply on HN