3 ms·

I would be happy to see if you have any citations of dubious peer-reviewed articles or conference proceedings to the extent of the infamous Tsai integration pap

I would be happy to see if you have any citations of dubious peer-reviewed articles or conference proceedings to the extent of the infamous Tsai integration paper. The idea that you overreach on the veracity of journals from the SPIE is just highly strange as you make overarching claims of dubiousness to the point of fraud...

quietbritishjim 6y ago
> I would be happy to see if you have any citations of dubious peer-reviewed articles or conference proceedings to the extent of the infamous Tsai integration paper. I was making a general point that citation count is not a measure of article quality, not that there are any specific SPIE papers that are quite as bad as that example. There are plenty of other cases where low quality (but not as bad) articles have lots of citations but higher quality articles have fewer. I raised it because you used citation count as a proof of article quality in your previous comment, but I don't find it to be evidence of anything. (For the record, I just checked and the citation count is only 406 according to Google, not "thousands" as I claimed. The paper in question is "A Mathematical Model for the Determination of Total Area Under Glucose Tolerance and Other Metabolic Curves" by Mary M Tai.) As it happens I have seen articles in SPIE that do have a similar flavour: a well-established existing area of mathematics that has been re-"discovered" in a more limited form in another context without acknowledgement. But it's nowhere near as bad as the trapezium rule paper: in fairness, that area is something you wouldn't learn about even in a typical undergraduate mathematics degree, and the articles were not limited to SPIE journals (but I think it reflects equally badly on those other journals). I'm afraid I'm not willing to name names in this case, both to protect my own identity (it might give away my field) avoid mudslinging at a particular individual. > The idea that you overreach on the veracity of journals from the SPIE is just highly strange as you make overarching claims of dubiousness to the point of fraud... I'm sorry, I couldn't quite untangle this sentence. Are you saying that I'm approaching the point of fraud because of my accusations against SPIE? (The "as" in the middle doesn't quite fit with this interpretation.) I've told you, I'm going on genuine articles I've seen and even contributed to. I have no connection to SPIE or any other competing journal and no personal reason to discredit them. Do you have any personal connection to SPIE yourself?
- hellosire 6y ago
  > As it happens I have seen articles in SPIE that do have a similar flavour: a well-established existing area of mathematics that has been re-"discovered" in a more limited form in another context without acknowledgement. Again, citation needed. Not once have I ever seen this occur. But if you post one, I would be happy to concede as it is the integrity of the peer-review process I am concerned with. If you deem it unworthy and someone claiming a re-discovery, then it would be wise of you to write a letter to the editors to point out the error, or even better publish an erratum. > I'm sorry, I couldn't quite untangle this sentence. Are you saying that I'm approaching the point of fraud because of my accusations against SPIE? Your examples of GPT3 text being accepted would be an act of fraud, of which SPIE journals are more than competent (and it would be impossible to be in any way a coherent article) to reject. Tai's model, while not fraud, is a failure of the editors, of which there has been no similar cases that I am aware of. Again, I would be happy to concede for the sake of scientific integrity if you showed specific citations. The point I am making is to defend this organization as it is honest and trustworthy in my field. I want to dispel any notion of impressionable people on HN that are susceptible to know-it-all-ism that it is in no way predatory or allows "crank" science. While you think articles by companies in industry may be dubious, I think you also have a misunderstanding of the difference between conference proceedings and peer-review in this particular field and venue, which is why I doubt the extent of your involvement in this field of research. Where is your line? If articles are not up to your research standards, then that is a different case. There is no need to bring up cases of GPT3 text or the dubiousness of Tai's model as they are examples that cannot be applied here.

quietbritishjim 6y ago

> I would be happy to see if you have any citations of dubious peer-reviewed articles or conference proceedings to the extent of the infamous Tsai integration paper. I was making a general point that citation count is not a measure of article quality, not that there are any specific SPIE papers that are quite as bad as that example. There are plenty of other cases where low quality (but not as bad) articles have lots of citations but higher quality articles have fewer. I raised it because you used citation count as a proof of article quality in your previous comment, but I don't find it to be evidence of anything. (For the record, I just checked and the citation count is only 406 according to Google, not "thousands" as I claimed. The paper in question is "A Mathematical Model for the Determination of Total Area Under Glucose Tolerance and Other Metabolic Curves" by Mary M Tai.) As it happens I have seen articles in SPIE that do have a similar flavour: a well-established existing area of mathematics that has been re-"discovered" in a more limited form in another context without acknowledgement. But it's nowhere near as bad as the trapezium rule paper: in fairness, that area is something you wouldn't learn about even in a typical undergraduate mathematics degree, and the articles were not limited to SPIE journals (but I think it reflects equally badly on those other journals). I'm afraid I'm not willing to name names in this case, both to protect my own identity (it might give away my field) avoid mudslinging at a particular individual. > The idea that you overreach on the veracity of journals from the SPIE is just highly strange as you make overarching claims of dubiousness to the point of fraud... I'm sorry, I couldn't quite untangle this sentence. Are you saying that I'm approaching the point of fraud because of my accusations against SPIE? (The "as" in the middle doesn't quite fit with this interpretation.) I've told you, I'm going on genuine articles I've seen and even contributed to. I have no connection to SPIE or any other competing journal and no personal reason to discredit them. Do you have any personal connection to SPIE yourself?

hellosire 6y ago
> As it happens I have seen articles in SPIE that do have a similar flavour: a well-established existing area of mathematics that has been re-"discovered" in a more limited form in another context without acknowledgement. Again, citation needed. Not once have I ever seen this occur. But if you post one, I would be happy to concede as it is the integrity of the peer-review process I am concerned with. If you deem it unworthy and someone claiming a re-discovery, then it would be wise of you to write a letter to the editors to point out the error, or even better publish an erratum. > I'm sorry, I couldn't quite untangle this sentence. Are you saying that I'm approaching the point of fraud because of my accusations against SPIE? Your examples of GPT3 text being accepted would be an act of fraud, of which SPIE journals are more than competent (and it would be impossible to be in any way a coherent article) to reject. Tai's model, while not fraud, is a failure of the editors, of which there has been no similar cases that I am aware of. Again, I would be happy to concede for the sake of scientific integrity if you showed specific citations. The point I am making is to defend this organization as it is honest and trustworthy in my field. I want to dispel any notion of impressionable people on HN that are susceptible to know-it-all-ism that it is in no way predatory or allows "crank" science. While you think articles by companies in industry may be dubious, I think you also have a misunderstanding of the difference between conference proceedings and peer-review in this particular field and venue, which is why I doubt the extent of your involvement in this field of research. Where is your line? If articles are not up to your research standards, then that is a different case. There is no need to bring up cases of GPT3 text or the dubiousness of Tai's model as they are examples that cannot be applied here.