4 ms·

I just read that IEEE statement, I'm glad someone else has started noticing the paper was bullshit in addition to unethical: > Investigation of these patches r

I just read that IEEE statement, I'm glad someone else has started noticing the paper was bullshit in addition to unethical: > Investigation of these patches revealed that the description provided by the authors in the paper is ambiguous and in some cases misleading. The experiments do not provide convincing evidence to substantiate the main claims in the paper and the technical contributions of the work need to be revisited. Interesting that they list ethical considerations added to the review process, but are not adding content quality considerations to the review process. I think that's at least as embarrassing to PC. You can say that they erred in assuming the uni covered the ethics review, but what are they doing if they're accepting papers without checking that the papers support their own claims?

rcxdude 5y ago
Yeah, the most hilarious part of the TAB report is that one of the hypocrite commits which was supposed to be incorrect was in fact accidentally correct because the authors failed to understand how the code worked. This was also the only commit which got accepted. This makes the conclusions and way data was presented in the paper extremely questionable.
- consp 5y ago
  > This makes the conclusions and way data was presented in the paper extremely questionable. This makes them invalid. Their entire claim is based on malicious code entering the kernel, not anonymous/fake name commits (which is a separate issue). If you take that away there is no actual paper, just a hypothesis which everyone already knew and thus does not warrant this much fanfare. They added nothing to the research field, bothered people with it while contributing to no-one but themselves. This is what we around here now call "Diederik Stapelen" (since he is a infamous example here): faking you data, using people to do/in your work, presenting it as true and gaining from it. It is omnipresent in some fields and in my opinion should be met with severe repercussions as it damages everyone else who was not part of it.
Ar-Curunir 5y ago
Err the PC is already supposed to vet for quality. That they failed to do so adequately is not because the policies omitted that requirement, but probably more because Oakland receives many many submissions
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

rcxdude 5y ago

Yeah, the most hilarious part of the TAB report is that one of the hypocrite commits which was supposed to be incorrect was in fact accidentally correct because the authors failed to understand how the code worked. This was also the only commit which got accepted. This makes the conclusions and way data was presented in the paper extremely questionable.

consp 5y ago
> This makes the conclusions and way data was presented in the paper extremely questionable. This makes them invalid. Their entire claim is based on malicious code entering the kernel, not anonymous/fake name commits (which is a separate issue). If you take that away there is no actual paper, just a hypothesis which everyone already knew and thus does not warrant this much fanfare. They added nothing to the research field, bothered people with it while contributing to no-one but themselves. This is what we around here now call "Diederik Stapelen" (since he is a infamous example here): faking you data, using people to do/in your work, presenting it as true and gaining from it. It is omnipresent in some fields and in my opinion should be met with severe repercussions as it damages everyone else who was not part of it.

Ar-Curunir 5y ago

Err the PC is already supposed to vet for quality. That they failed to do so adequately is not because the policies omitted that requirement, but probably more because Oakland receives many many submissions

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]