Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Publishers Withdraw More Than 120 Fake Papers

Unknown Lamer posted about 5 months ago | from the trolling-journals-for-no-particular-reason dept.

The Media 62

bmahersciwriter writes "Over the past two years, computer scientist Cyril Labbé of Joseph Fourier University in Grenoble, France, has cataloged computer-generated papers that made it into more than 30 published conference proceedings between 2008 and 2013. Sixteen appeared in publications by Springer, which is headquartered in Heidelberg, Germany, and more than 100 were published by the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE), based in New York. Both publishers, which were privately informed by Labbé, say that they are now removing the papers." Looks like journal trolling is really easy.

cancel ×

62 comments

Spambots just blazing a trail (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46329707)

For artificial intelligence to actually say something

Good news and bad news (1)

cbhacking (979169) | about 5 months ago | (#46329743)

Well, it's great to hear that the algorithms are getting so good! That's awesome progress in AI.

Too bad our AIs are apparently now smarter than our journal reviewers/editors. Well, at least in the specific domain of the jobs these people have probably been doing every day for years....

Re:Good news and bad news (1)

rmdingler (1955220) | about 5 months ago | (#46330133)

Too bad our AIs are apparently now smarter than our journal reviewers/editors. Well, at least in the specific domain of the jobs these people have probably been doing every day for years....

Thank Goodness we never have a problem like that on the green line site.

Re:Good news and bad news (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46330409)

The good news is if the world governments would jail and terminate faggots.

Re: Good news and bad news (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46331371)

Then you would be "terminated". Watch what you wish for!

Re:Good news and bad news (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46330621)

The AIs aren't smarter than the reviewers. The reviewers are just lazy.

A few years ago my advisor submitted the first paper in a series and in his words "I had more problems with it than the reviewer did." We recently resubmitted the second in the series after the reviewer's several pages of thoughtful criticism and suggestions provoked two months of editing. I don't expect to be that lucky on a routine basis...

Re:Good news and bad news (1)

N0Man74 (1620447) | about 5 months ago | (#46334769)

Well, it's great to hear that the algorithms are getting so good! That's awesome progress in AI.

Obviously, this AI should be given tenure!

Science is doomed. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46329753)

Turn to God, He will care for you. His Son died and was resurrected so that you may live eternally.

Re:Science is doomed. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46331205)

Turn to God, He will care for you. His Son died and was resurrected so that you may live eternally.

Yes, let us Worship the Zombie Lord. Show your devotion through a weekly ritual where we act out the the ancient steps of eating human flesh and drinking human blood. All Hail the Great Cannibal Savior!

UJF (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46329763)

Fun fact - Joseph Fourier University is named after the dude that came up with the Fourier transform, something that many of us use everyday in our work.

Re:UJF (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46329807)

Liar. That's not a fact. Are you trying to be ironic?

Re:UJF (1)

sexconker (1179573) | about 5 months ago | (#46329835)

Liar. That's not a fact. Are you trying to be ironic?

Facts don't have to be true. They just have to be objective statements.

Re:UJF (1)

Belial6 (794905) | about 5 months ago | (#46340513)

That is a fact that is missed on most people.

after_birth_abortion_the_pro_choice_case (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46329837)

Oh yes this is real. after-birth abortion.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2012/03/after_birth_abortion_the_pro_choice_case_for_infanticide_.html

I just want to see you socialist jerks fall all over yourselves trying to justify this.

Go for it.

"[W]hen circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible. [W]e propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide,’ to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk."

Re:after_birth_abortion_the_pro_choice_case (-1, Offtopic)

sexconker (1179573) | about 5 months ago | (#46329951)

Oh yes this is real. after-birth abortion.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2012/03/after_birth_abortion_the_pro_choice_case_for_infanticide_.html

I just want to see you socialist jerks fall all over yourselves trying to justify this.

Go for it.

"[W]hen circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible. [W]e propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide,’ to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk."

The only thing in there that upsets me is calling it "after-birth abortion" instead of calling it infanticide.

Computer Generated Patent applications? (2)

Rinikusu (28164) | about 5 months ago | (#46329895)

Maybe I should stop right there in case someone gets a bright fucking idea.

Re:Computer Generated Patent applications? (3, Funny)

sexconker (1179573) | about 5 months ago | (#46329965)

Maybe I should stop right there in case someone gets a bright fucking idea.

Too late. I already patented the computer-generated patent.

EXCEPT --- It's worse than THAT! (4, Funny)

TrollstonButterbeans (2914995) | about 5 months ago | (#46331375)

Most of these computer generated papers have valuable ideas we need to consider.

Statistics indicate that 1 in 24.3 of these computer generated papers have uniquely valuable scientific advancements. But the real-world ratio is about 1:99.7 --- the 3 sigma rule.

If these computer-generated papers are exceeding the productivity of the actual papers by a 4 to 1 margin, a big opportunity is being missed and it doesn't matter why.

A true case of an unintended result exceed the effectiveness of your average deliberate result. Short version: a 4% rate actually exceeds the real-world discovery rate. This should not be ignored, coincidence or not.

Re:Computer Generated Patent applications? (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 5 months ago | (#46332931)

No no, we should develop one ourselves and deploy it immediately! Generate millions of patents to grind the system to a halt and make sure there is always prior art in some bizarrely worded patent to break everything already issued.

Maybe he could submit some news to slashdot! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46329897)

Assuming he hasn't already...

Re:Maybe he could submit some news to slashdot! (2)

plover (150551) | about 5 months ago | (#46330661)

Assuming he hasn't already...

He obviously hasn't. His algorithms are too good to produce all the dupes we see here.

science has no defense against hooliganism (3, Insightful)

fermion (181285) | about 5 months ago | (#46329923)

I recall when someone went down my block and the window of every car parked on the street. It was a crime, but really there was no easy way to catch the perp, and we just replaced the glass. We continued to park on the street, did not pay for huge security expense, and it never really happened again. Some kids probably just goofing off. No real profit in the crime. Just hooliganism.

Which is what this seems like. The process of science is not going to jeopardize itself just because some board kids want to vandalize the walls and get attention. If we change the process not to improve it, but just to defend against the Justin Beibers of the world, what good would that do?

As it is there are safeguards in place. As much as people deride the cost of publishing, this reduces the incentive of hooligans to publish purely fake papers. Peer review, which does not protect against purposeful fraudulent papers, does keep a reign on the problem. Then there is simple principle that a single paper is just that, a single paper. It is one data point, and even if referenced widely, is in no way fact.

This also makes me recall the 'confusing' health debate. Like what to eat, what not to eat, etc. The problem is that many people read a popular media report based on a single piece of research and think it is true. This misconception indicates the problem with science education in America. That one result is meaningful. That our basic principles of science were developed fully in one paper, with no background, and no adjustment as more data was taken. For instance, relativity was based on at least hundred years of research. Einstein pretty much observed single discrepancy in the magnetic/electrical field and formulated a correction.

Re:science has no defense against hooliganism (3, Insightful)

Obfuscant (592200) | about 5 months ago | (#46330129)

Just hooliganism. Which is what this seems like.

This. Someone found a system that was based on trust and decided to try to beat it. Yawn.

Conferences are not journals. The peer-review comes during the presentation, not when the abstract is submitted. If the session moderator doesn't know the submitter, maybe he'll look at the abstract a bit more closely, but he's not going to send the abstract out to three other people in the field to vet it. So it gets published.

A very long time ago someone did this as a joke at a conference I went to. The talk was about "a hole in the bottom of the ocean. There's a log in the hole in the bottom of the ocean. There's a frog on the log in the hole in the bottom of the ocean..." OMG! How awful. A bit of fun on the session moderator's part. Nobody got shot or fired. We all survived.

Re:science has no defense against hooliganism (3, Informative)

pz (113803) | about 5 months ago | (#46330489)

Conferences are not journals. The peer-review comes during the presentation, not when the abstract is submitted. If the session moderator doesn't know the submitter, maybe he'll look at the abstract a bit more closely, but he's not going to send the abstract out to three other people in the field to vet it. So it gets published.

Depends on the field. Some conferences are very hard to get into, and there is a rigorous peer-review process (I can think of two of the conferences in my field with acceptance rates at or below 30%). Others accept essentially anything and everything (like those semi-scam conferences in China I keep getting invited to). I'd wager, however, that the majority of meetings are somewhere in the middle, accepting most submissions that sound reasonable, as the organizers trust that the cost of attending and presenting is sufficient disincentive to trolls.

Re:science has no defense against hooliganism (1)

Vadim Makarov (529622) | about 5 months ago | (#46330995)

I've never been to a conference with a junk submission accepted, or a junk presentation. Many conferences in my field reject submissions that are real but low-quality, even for a poster session. Talks are always competitive. I chaired a conference last year. We rejected some submissions that were uninteresting or poorly written. For most of those, the submission was read by two professors before rejecting it. We received no computer-generated submissions.

I sometimes get spammed or "invited" by suspiciously looking conferences. I never go to these. Why would anyone attend a conference that is lower-quality? There always are good conferences around. You have a choice.

Re:science has no defense against hooliganism (1)

AthanasiusKircher (1333179) | about 5 months ago | (#46330277)

Peer review, which does not protect against purposeful fraudulent papers, does keep a reign on the problem.

I love ironic mistakes with homophones. In some small disciplines, which are controlled by a small number of people in a particular paradigm, this might actually be a true statement.

Re:science has no defense against hooliganism (2)

enzo1 (931050) | about 5 months ago | (#46330311)

Peer review, which does not protect against purposeful fraudulent papers

We aren't talking about fraudulent papers; we're talking about joke papers that aren't even reviewed, so much as proofread and rubber-stamped.

Re:science has no defense against hooliganism (1)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about 5 months ago | (#46330415)

But we are assured that the scientific process will not support such blatantly false outcomes. When something is proven, then it is Science and anyone who opposes it is evil, insane or a denialist. Obviously peers will review the science and reject it if it is false. Moreover, if science cannot be repeated, then it must be false as well.

These papers should all have been rejected. They weren't. This opens a big can of worms - what other false science has led us in the wrong direction? Who can say? It was subject to these exact same processes.

Re:science has no defense against hooliganism (2)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 5 months ago | (#46331111)

These papers should all have been rejected. They weren't. This opens a big can of worms

It doesn't. This is a known problem. It's accounted for in two ways. One, most of those papers will never be cited by anyone. Two, if they are cited by anyone, it increases the chances that people with brains will read them and decide they are bullshit; they may even try to reproduce the results.

Re:science has no defense against hooliganism (1, Interesting)

JoeMerchant (803320) | about 5 months ago | (#46330705)

I think this is a perfect example of peer review NOT working - were any of these papers supposed to be peer reviewed? If they were, the reviewers should lose their reviewer status for letting the CG papers through.

The peer review system should be continually challenged by this sort of input - at least 10% of the papers submitted should be clearly bogus - it doesn't waste significant reviewers' time - they should be spending hours reviewing a genuine submission, one of these fakes should be detectable within seconds.

Re:science has no defense against hooliganism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46331115)

I think this is a perfect example of peer review NOT working - were any of these papers supposed to be peer reviewed? If they were, the reviewers should lose their reviewer status for letting the CG papers through.

In my experience the reviewers are volunteers (or voluntolds). If the worst that could happen is that they lose their reviewer status, many of them would hardly care.

The peer review system should be continually challenged by this sort of input - at least 10% of the papers submitted should be clearly bogus - it doesn't waste significant reviewers' time - they should be spending hours reviewing a genuine submission, one of these fakes should be detectable within seconds.

One suggestion that has been talked about in the past is to include the reviewer's name on the paper so that everyone can clearly see who the yutz was that let it get into publication.

^^ It's HIM! (1)

TrollstonButterbeans (2914995) | about 5 months ago | (#46331411)

At first he was randomly generating papers! Then articles!

Now he's randomly generating Slashdot comments!

Turn the program OFF! NAO!! You've been caught RED-HANDED!

You thought you could get away with it and dodge detection by using an English sounding name, but it didn't work and you are SO BUSTED.

Re:science has no defense against hooliganism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46331855)

I think this is a perfect example of peer review NOT working

Right, but it's not an example of science not working. You're not supposed to take a paper and just believe it's true because it passed peer review. The next step is to actually reproduce the results, and publish another paper stating this, which also passes peer review. The peer review process isn't meant to validate the science, it's meant to help people avoid wasting their time trying to reproduce the results in junk papers, and in these examples it doesn't take much time for someone to say "this is a pile of bullshit". So in the end it's not really harming anyone.
The problem is that science MEDIA loves to take something which is published and then treat it as if it's iron-clad scientific Law just because it showed up in a journal. And that the general public are so fucking stupid when it comes to science that they'll believe damn near anything which supports the views they already hold. When you present them with 'evidence' which contradicts their pre-held assumptions, they tend to dig in like Mules even when the science IS valid and overwhelming.
This is exactly why many journals have traditionally tried to keep things within the established scientific/academic community and not just give access to the general public and media. It's often viewed as "elitism" but that's really not the reason, it's to keep idiots from completely misunderstanding how things work and running around spreading bullshit.

Re:science has no defense against hooliganism (1)

IRWolfie- (1148617) | about 5 months ago | (#46334503)

The sort of places these are published in have no standards in the first place. There are always predatory journals and also good quality journals. The issue here is that IEEE and Springer have low standards about what journals they allow.

Re:science has no defense against hooliganism (1)

stenvar (2789879) | about 5 months ago | (#46333331)

science has no defense against hooliganism

Science does have a defense against hooliganism, and you point it out: time and replication.

This misconception indicates the problem with science education in America. That one result is meaningful.

That's not a "misconception", it's something that's actively promoted politically because it can be used to justify political agendas in areas such as social policy, economics, climate, health, and drugs. The current administration has taken that kind of misuse of science to a new low.

Maybe if academic departments valued quality. (4, Insightful)

hey! (33014) | about 5 months ago | (#46330271)

I recently did some literature research into ontology technology, and was shocked by how many papers were pot-boilers that disguised trivial ideas with inflated language. These were papers that had absolutely no discernible academic value other than to pad a resume, and collect but a smattering of citations, mostly from similar papers. In comparison the seminal papers, the ones that get tons of citations for years to come are robust, thought-provoking and well-written.

Granted the well-written part probably has something to do with attracting future citations, but I think the trivial nature of the useless papers probably has something to do with their obscure style.

Re:Maybe if academic departments valued quality. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46330475)

Resume inflation means more money! Academic departments like money; it's their only reason for existing. Meanwhile scientists are ruining science for their own personal aggrandizement. Everybody wins! except anyone who values knowledge.

Re:Maybe if academic departments valued quality. (1)

plover (150551) | about 5 months ago | (#46330805)

Publish or perish is a quantity driver, not a quality driver. As long as you can deliver the numbers to your department, it doesn't seem to matter if you work your butt off, get a program to generate them for you, or if you have a grad student puff up the quadratic equation into 20 pages of fluffery.

Re:Maybe if academic departments valued quality. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46332363)

Unfortunately, ontology technology and related fields seem to be an area in science where a lot of badly thought-out, poor quality, repetitive papers are published. I've seen stuff that by any means should never have passed the review process, often due to contrived and predecided conclusions, really bad spelling, or self-plagiarism.

This applies to both Open Access and subscription-only journals, but perhaps more often in the former.

The key here is "Conference Proceedings" (4, Informative)

JoshuaZ (1134087) | about 5 months ago | (#46330325)

In many fields conference proceedings have little to no oversight. These papers don't get noticed at all or cited and for most purposes don't exist. The only real issue I can see here is that a large fraction of these are apparently coming from China and this is consistent with prior reports of serious problems with academic quality coming from China. It is possible that people are using these essentially fake papers to boost their publication counts which may give them some advantages as long as no one looks closely, but any institution that is a serious institution will look at everything one has published. I actually found this point more interesting:

Labbé emphasizes that the nonsense computer science papers all appeared in subscription offerings. In his view, there is little evidence that open-access publishers — which charge fees to publish manuscripts — necessarily have less stringent peer review than subscription publishers.

Considering how many complaints there are about low-quality open-access journals, this suggests that that isn't nearly as much of an issue as some people are claiming.

Re:The key here is "Conference Proceedings" (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46330879)

In CS, well-refereed conference proceedings often exceed journal publications in their contemporaneous impact and prestige value to authors. CS journals typically take 2 years to process a manuscript to publication. Way too slow for a fast-moving field. Good conferences will have a 20% manuscript acceptance rate (been there, done that, as author and reviewer, many times) with only useful papers presented and put into proceedings, only a few months after research results have been written up.

I had the privilege of educating a dean about the value of selectively-refereed conference proceedings for academic computer scientists. It worked. Also educated about the adjunct value of releasing research software to the specialized communities, if the usage and impact can be documented.

Re:The key here is "Conference Proceedings" (2)

don.g (6394) | about 5 months ago | (#46331343)

I have no mod points, so take this as a "me too". CS conferences have prestige and a high impact value -- and the papers in the proceedings are full papers, not just abstracts.

In some other fields (a friend of mine tells me this is what biology is like), conference talks may be submitted with just an abstract, and the proceedings may not contain much more than Powerpoint slides. I've never seen a CS conference where that would be considered remotely acceptable practice.

Re:The key here is "Conference Proceedings" (1)

coolsnowmen (695297) | about 5 months ago | (#46336639)

2 years? jesus. Perhaps you should start a competing journal. Both other scientific fields I'm familiar with take a few months to get the first round of reviews back.

Re:The key here is "Conference Proceedings" (1)

Tom (822) | about 5 months ago | (#46331943)

This.

I've spoken at a couple conferences, and due to that I still get invitations to send in papers to this or that conference about every other month. From the tone of those mails, they sound very much desperate for papers and I'm fairly sure I could pretty up some crap I'd otherwise post to a blog and send it in and it would get published.

Re:The key here is "Conference Proceedings" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46332213)

Considering how many complaints there are about low-quality open-access journals, this suggests that that isn't nearly as much of an issue as some people are claiming.

You quote does not demonstrate (or even necessarily suggest) this. Think about it for a second: if you're going to try to publish an automatically-generated paper (for fun, or to prove a point or whatever reason), where would you do it:

1) random open-access publisher that, scammy or not, high-quality or not, will invariably charge you a significant amount of money (often more than 500 USD) for publication;

OR

2) random subscription-based publisher (e.g. Elsevier) that, scammy or not, high-quality or not, will publish your automatically-generated paper for free, as long as you manage to convince the reviewers that it's scientifically-sound.

The fact that, when given these options, people will generally choose the second, does NOT necessarily imply that shitty and scammy open-access journals are a myth. In fact, if you are anywhere near academia (i.e. if your email is present in a single peer-reviewed paper), you are (100% SURE) right now receiving on your email invitations to publish in the most obscure (and outside of your field) publications ever. You just need to pay attention to your "spam" folder. Right now, between this type of academic spam and Chinese manufacturers trying to sell me custom peptides, 90% of my spam is covered. YMMV.

Re:The key here is "Conference Proceedings" (1)

supercrisp (936036) | about 5 months ago | (#46332853)

Some institutions intentionally don't look too closely. The university at which I work, a state university in the southeastern US, will take a person with a degree from the University of Phoenix or even with an honorary degree. Doesn't matter, just as long as you have the right political connections. The Tennessee Board of Regents actually passed a resolution or made a statement, I forget the correct terms, that a degree is a degree. This is when a basketball coach was found to have a diploma mill degree. And then there are all the faculty who are found to have completely lied about their degrees.... So, no, I think sometimes this sort of publication credential gaming is just one part of a larger and very corrupt system. (And this may draw fire: I think this has gotten worse and worse as university administrations have become heavier and heaver and costlier and costlier AND as those posts have come to be filled, at least at mid-level schools by people with no real academic credentials, among which I'd include business and education degrees.)

Dice lists Fake Jobs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46330483)

When is Dice going to withdraw all those fake job listings?

Not that computers recurse well... (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 5 months ago | (#46330537)

These stories of journals being trolled are on the increase. I wonder how long until the first fake paper is published about fake papers being published.

Re:Not that computers recurse well... (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about 5 months ago | (#46331187)

If you submit it to the right journal, they might accept it even knowing that it is fake.

I came to slashdot after reading about fake papers (1)

stoundmire (2648215) | about 5 months ago | (#46330605)

It's called SCIgen.

Reject this Crap (3, Insightful)

DrNico (691592) | about 5 months ago | (#46330689)

As someone who reviews papers (by humans) for conferences and regularly says "reject this crap" (politely, and with reasons) only to see the paper accepted, I'm not too surprised.

Re:Reject this Crap (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46341095)

Yes, well, as someone who's taken part in organising those conferences, I'm not surprised either.

Gotta fill the time with something, otherwise we'd have to cancel the conference. Then the delegates would be pissed, the venue would be out of pocket, the two or three people who actually had worthwhile papers to present would be out of luck, and most importantly I'd be out of a job. Not gonna happen.

So to call some of the material "marginal" would be, frankly, flattering.

It's a consequence of the model we use to finance - well, everything, really. A free market - in science as in every other field - is incredibly wasteful, and puts incentives in incredibly stupid places. We've always known that, and I for one would be delighted to abandon it just as soon as someone comes up with a better model.

wink wink (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46331073)

" I will have more flexibility after my re-election"

-B.O.

Next step is getting citations :) (2)

jopsen (885607) | about 5 months ago | (#46331529)

Next step must be to make computer generated papers that gets citations... :)

Re:Next step is getting citations :) (2)

StripedCow (776465) | about 5 months ago | (#46332605)

Well, just produce a paper-generator that adds citations to previously generated papers.

Publishing mafia is the real problem (1)

dutchwhizzman (817898) | about 5 months ago | (#46331973)


The real problem is that universities demand publication of your paper in a "renown" magazine. These magazines know you need to get published and thus are willing to publish anything, as long as you pay the hefty fee required. These magazines have no incentive to check for the quality of the submissions, since relatively very few people actually read the magazines and skip the publications that don't interest them. Give your publication an uninteresting title and people will most likely skip it.

If Universities would set up a peer reviewed web site system themselves and allow their students to publish there free of charge, these magazines have no other way to survive than to pay for good submissions. Students wins and science wins in that case. Even better, getting copies of your paper to interested people does no longer require you to purchase expensive prints of the magazine, since *they* hold the copyright and you can't even publish anywhere else. The few magazine publishers that won't be able to get a third home in the Caymans and won't be able to get a bigger yacht might complain, but they brought it on themselves with their greed.

Not the governments call (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46332407)

What's the size of the U.S.Army got to do with the American governernment ?

The corporations who use and control the army to go and steal things from brown skinned people will decide on it's size and deployment. The American government has no say in the matter.

Studies show... (1)

sudon't (580652) | about 5 months ago | (#46332991)

What a shame they used a computer to create fake papers! My god, one-hundred and twenty! Incidentally, did you know eating bananas prevents cancer? Yes! I read it in a study. Thank god people are producing thousands upon thousands of real studies!

peer review (1)

stenvar (2789879) | about 5 months ago | (#46333257)

Remember: this is the same peer review that many of the scientific results that government policies are justified with are based on.

Both science and peer review are a good thing, but you can only start trusting scientific results after decades have passed and after they have been replicated numerous times.

Proceedings are not articles (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46333407)

... cataloged computer-generated papers that made it into more than 30 published conference proceedings between 2008 and 2013.

To be fair, there's a big difference between conference proceedings and journal articles - for one thing, conference papers are normally not peer reviewed. The idea of a conference proceeding is to report preliminary work or summarize work that's been published elsewhere.

The proceeding isn't supposed to be a substitute for the real article, and thus is held to lower standards. That's why academic CV's (like mine) don't even bother to list conference proceedings (only the tenure reivew board will get to see them :-)).

-JS

Somebody swiped my CS papers! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46335057)

Many years ago I used the linked CS Paper Generator to make a handful of fake papers and I posted them on my website. When I did a Google search on my name I found wesbites that linked to my PDF documents on my website but I also found a few some unscrupulous people have taken my papers and are hosting them on docstoc.com so he can collect fees for the downloads.

Ha! Good luck to people paying to read my nonsense papers. Try getting your money back.

This one guy has collected (stolen) over 1,700 documents from around the Internet:
http://www.docstoc.com/profile/oym20829

I can tell the fakes in my field (1)

peter303 (12292) | about 5 months ago | (#46335317)

which a branch of computational physics. They just would not work. However I dont have the time nor possibly the expertise to patrol the myraid of other field out there. 20 years from now most are in the dustbin.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...