5 ms·

They seem to summarize it in paragraph four, though I am not clear on what this really means - I think it is that certain authors are able to be "top ranked" an

They seem to summarize it in paragraph four, though I am not clear on what this really means - I think it is that certain authors are able to be "top ranked" and get limited review from colluding peers who may also be co-authors on the paper, but removed themselves to squeeze through review faster and avoid future flags for "conflict of interest" "There is a chat group of a few dozen authors who in subsets work on common topics and carefully ensure not to co-author any papers with each other so as to keep out of each other’s conflict lists (to the extent that even if there is collaboration they voluntarily give up authorship on one paper to prevent conflicts on many future papers). They exchange papers before submissions and then either bid or get assigned to review each other’s papers by virtue of having expertise on the topic of the papers. They give high scores to the papers. If a review raises any technical issues in PC discussions, the usual response is something to the effect that despite the issues they still remain positive; or if a review questions the novelty claims, they point to some minor detail deep in the paper and say that they find that detail to be novel even though the paper itself does not elevate that detail to claim novelty. Our process is not set up to combat such collusion." Also see the link in a sibling comment for what seems to have kicked this all off: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23460336 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23460336

currymj 6y ago
peer review at CS conferences is normally anonymous and double-blind to reviewers and authors. however, the conference organizers themselves know who the reviewers and authors are, and the conference management websites are set up to avoid assigning reviewers to papers where they have a conflict of interest with the author. this is usually something like: anyone whose email address has the same domain as yours, plus anyone you have coauthored any paper with, both of these going back a few years. If you are ethical you will report any additional conflicts that this doesn't catch. so if a cabal wants to make sure they can positively review each others papers, they have to make sure they don't trip those automated filters. this means they must have been at separate institutions for a while, and must avoid publishing any papers together. then, during the review process, they can "bid on" (put themselves forward as a reviewer for) each other's papers and ensure they give only positive reviews.
- the_svd_doctor 6y ago
  In small fields, it's sometimes really not very hard to guess who are the authors, just given the topic and what papers they cite. Even with double blind.
  - qznc 6y ago
    You can often guess who the reviewers are as well. The most obvious tell is "also cite paper X" which is their own 99% of the time.
    - xenonite 6y ago
      "Please update the references to include recent literature" sometimes makes it clear, too.
    - lazyjeff 6y ago
      I don't think this is true from my experience. I've been on several program committees, and have managed a couple as well. Usually if you're above the first-level reviewers (e.g. senior PC, track chair, PC chair), you can see the actual author names and reviewers. Most of the time when an author later says (formally through the review system, or informally in casual conversation) that "I know it's this reviewer who asked me to cite their own paper" they are wrong. Their main evidence is that the reviewer asked them to cite two papers that include the same author. But of course I can't tell them otherwise because of the confidentiality, so they keep on believing that, perpetuating the myth. Perhaps someone can aggregate some statistics on this, but I genuinely believe that authors suggesting their own papers only about 20% of the time, and when they do it's because their paper was highly relevant.
      - ska 6y ago
        I agree, in my experience the request to add citations is usually because there is fairly obvious context missing, and the reviewer wants to make the connection/comparison is made. Sometimes it's the authors own papers, but that's selection bias at work - if they didn't work in the area, they probably wouldn't be reviewing it.
bg24 6y ago
Politics and power plays are everywhere :-(
mcguire 6y ago
Larger conferences, SIGGRAPH for example, are intensely competitive, and conferences are the primary publishing outlets for CS.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ramraj07 6y ago
Extremely sad that this student decided to take their life over this. I have been in a somewhat comparable situation but slightly less extreme. I was minimally able to standup and hold my ground, but partly due to that I'm also out of research now. It's not a fun place at all; you spend years on your projects and professors like these don't take lightly to any objection to what they think is the correct way. This means you truly are jeopardizing your full future after you have already sunk so many productive years of your life in it. Academia in these labs is probably the closest you can get to war zones without actual felonies. This doesn't just happen in CS, it happens everywhere. Academia doesn't progress because it's filled to the brim with vile creatures who are not in it for science or discovery but personal myopic pride.

currymj 6y ago

peer review at CS conferences is normally anonymous and double-blind to reviewers and authors. however, the conference organizers themselves know who the reviewers and authors are, and the conference management websites are set up to avoid assigning reviewers to papers where they have a conflict of interest with the author. this is usually something like: anyone whose email address has the same domain as yours, plus anyone you have coauthored any paper with, both of these going back a few years. If you are ethical you will report any additional conflicts that this doesn't catch. so if a cabal wants to make sure they can positively review each others papers, they have to make sure they don't trip those automated filters. this means they must have been at separate institutions for a while, and must avoid publishing any papers together. then, during the review process, they can "bid on" (put themselves forward as a reviewer for) each other's papers and ensure they give only positive reviews.

the_svd_doctor 6y ago
In small fields, it's sometimes really not very hard to guess who are the authors, just given the topic and what papers they cite. Even with double blind.
- qznc 6y ago
  You can often guess who the reviewers are as well. The most obvious tell is "also cite paper X" which is their own 99% of the time.
  - xenonite 6y ago
    "Please update the references to include recent literature" sometimes makes it clear, too.
  - lazyjeff 6y ago
    I don't think this is true from my experience. I've been on several program committees, and have managed a couple as well. Usually if you're above the first-level reviewers (e.g. senior PC, track chair, PC chair), you can see the actual author names and reviewers. Most of the time when an author later says (formally through the review system, or informally in casual conversation) that "I know it's this reviewer who asked me to cite their own paper" they are wrong. Their main evidence is that the reviewer asked them to cite two papers that include the same author. But of course I can't tell them otherwise because of the confidentiality, so they keep on believing that, perpetuating the myth. Perhaps someone can aggregate some statistics on this, but I genuinely believe that authors suggesting their own papers only about 20% of the time, and when they do it's because their paper was highly relevant.
    - ska 6y ago
      I agree, in my experience the request to add citations is usually because there is fairly obvious context missing, and the reviewer wants to make the connection/comparison is made. Sometimes it's the authors own papers, but that's selection bias at work - if they didn't work in the area, they probably wouldn't be reviewing it.

bg24 6y ago

Politics and power plays are everywhere :-(

mcguire 6y ago

Larger conferences, SIGGRAPH for example, are intensely competitive, and conferences are the primary publishing outlets for CS.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

ramraj07 6y ago

Extremely sad that this student decided to take their life over this. I have been in a somewhat comparable situation but slightly less extreme. I was minimally able to standup and hold my ground, but partly due to that I'm also out of research now. It's not a fun place at all; you spend years on your projects and professors like these don't take lightly to any objection to what they think is the correct way. This means you truly are jeopardizing your full future after you have already sunk so many productive years of your life in it. Academia in these labs is probably the closest you can get to war zones without actual felonies. This doesn't just happen in CS, it happens everywhere. Academia doesn't progress because it's filled to the brim with vile creatures who are not in it for science or discovery but personal myopic pride.