Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 56798	2005-04-15 08:52:00	Spoof computer conference paper	TonyF (246)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
345182	2005-04-15 08:52:00	Some MIT students, critical of the quality of some papers being offered to computer science conferences, manufactured a spoof one, full of gobbedegook ( or should that be gobbledegeek ?). To their surprise it was accepted. The conference is not due for a couple of months and one concludes there will be some red faces. Shades of the spoof paper dreamed up by Sokal.. The paper is at www.pdos.lcs.mit.edu/scigen/rooter.pdf	TonyF (246)
345183	2005-04-15 09:05:00	Woah. I don't think there's a sentance in there that makes sense! Edit: Maybe this one "However this method is never considered confusing" :D:D	pine-o-cleen (2955)
345184	2005-04-15 10:50:00	Well, I understood it, but then I only read the first line.	Shortcircuit (1666)
345185	2005-04-15 11:21:00	But the good bits were on page 2 ......	TonyF (246)
345186	2005-04-15 22:00:00	I liked the references :) M.	Midavalo (7253)
345187	2005-04-16 12:22:00	Lmao. Just the kind of thing I'd feed to my 12 year old brother when he asks how something I'm making works.....	george12 (7)
345188	2005-04-16 12:53:00	Reminds me of a chapter in one of Richard Dawkins books about psuedoscience (en.wikipedia.org), pretty funny. So I guess you would call this pseudo-computer science.	sal (67)
345189	2005-04-17 03:57:00	I suspect that this has not been "accepted" for a conference, in the sense that it had been refereed. No one with any knowledge reading this would be fooled past the first sentence. It's much more likely to have been submitted as a "poster paper" which is subject to much less scrutiny (probably none) than a paper submitted for formal presentation which would be printed in conference Proceedings. (Poster papers are displayed on boards in the foyer, and people read and discuss them (or not) during the tea breaks. For a conference to be over in a few days, there are extreme pressures on time for actual presentations in front of all the attendees).	Graham L (2)
345190	2005-04-17 05:48:00	I earlier mentioned Sokal. See his paper at www.sablesys.com Could you tell it was nonsense ? And have a look at www.colorado.edu These are seriously held views, but are they nonsense ??	TonyF (246)
345191	2005-04-18 04:49:00	I earlier mentioned Sokal . See his paper at . sablesys . com/sokal . html . " target="_blank">www . sablesys . com Could you tell it was nonsense ? . . . . Sokal's paper deliberately contained obvious "non-physics" . It was less blatantly fake than the MIT one, because it was written by humans, and Sokal afterwards expressed his regret that he had included some sentences which had actual meaning . :( The sociological stuff uses obscure language to disguise the total lack of content . An exploration of the SCIGEN ( . pdos . lcs . mit . edu/scigen/" target="_blank">www . pdos . lcs . mit . edu) pages at MIT shows that the conference used automated methods to handle the paper submission process . After the software showed that no reviews had been received from the referees (who had almost certainly filed the paper in the circular file after reading the first few sentences) the paper was accepted as a "non-reviewed paper", still without any more human intervention . When the word got to the organisers, the paper was rejected, and the registration fees refunded . It looks as if the "conference" hasn't got much credibility, anyway . (SCIGEN is a computer programme which randomly cobbles together buzzwords into a "paper" . ) . . . And have a look at . colorado . edu/English/ENGL2012Klages/Irigaray . html" target="_blank">www . colorado . edu These are seriously held views, but are they nonsense ?? It's not nonsense . It's much worse than that . Richard Dawkins says it much better than I can in one of the essays in A Devil's Chaplain .	Graham L (2)
1