pbzcnepu

5 ms·

1.
by pbzcnepu 2y ago
maybe if IEEE wanted to keep students, they could support them, unlike during the 2019 ISCA peer review fraud incident where an IEEE fellow was caught in peer review fraud that lead to a student's death, and essentially it took years
2.
ACM revokes membership to professor from ISCA'19 incident(cacm.acm.org)
3 points by pbzcnepu 5y ago|0 comments
3.
by pbzcnepu 5y ago
you should notice that the professor involved is listed as being on the Program Committee for IEEE S&P 2022 already, meaning he must be well-connected with various higher ups at the conference. This is probably why they are reluctant t
4.
by pbzcnepu 5y ago
if they release a statement as fast as they did for the ISCA'19 peer review fraud case you might be waiting a while (took more or less 2 years)
5.
by pbzcnepu 6y ago
for more details than you possibly want go here: https://pbzcnepu.net/isca/timeline.html though it is more about the ACM/IEEE side of things rather than what was going on in Florida. Many researchers seemed to kno
6.
by pbzcnepu 6y ago
also, at ISCA'19, over half the papers were PC papers, meaning they were papers where one of the authors was on the committee that picked which papers get in. It's probably why the highers ups have been so reluctant to change the
7.
by pbzcnepu 6y ago
ISCA is a particularly horrible "top" conference. We've been trying to reproduce some papers with questionable methodology from ISCA'20 (including using "1 cycle access L1 cache" in simulations, something tha
8.
by pbzcnepu 6y ago
the IEEE probably won't do anything. We've been trying for 2 years to even get an e-mail reply from them on the issue, let alone say anything useful. See the whole story here: https://pbzcnepu.net/isca/timel
9.
by pbzcnepu 6y ago
For a full rundown of the history of this incident see: https://pbzcnepu.net/isca/timeline.html
10.
The ACM/IEEE JIC found evidence of peer-review fraud at ISCA'19(sigarch.org)
5 points by pbzcnepu 6y ago|1 comments
11.
by pbzcnepu 6y ago
it's anecdotal. another anecdote, when first trying to raise awareness of the issue, when mentioning it to members of the community I never got the response "wow, how could this happen in computer architecture?" rather the re
12.
by pbzcnepu 6y ago
> If you don't want cycle-accurate simulator based papers, you'd have to eliminate a large variety of body of work only possible with this approach. yes. Most "cycle-accurate" results are garbage. Do you show error
13.
by pbzcnepu 6y ago
it isn't always that the work is bad, it's just the review process for getting in has always seemed to be easier for people with the right connections. Not necessarily in an overt conspiratorial way like the recent allegations ei
14.
by pbzcnepu 6y ago
well let's take Torrellas. Check out the two papers at ISCA'20 with him as an author. Both use modified "cycle-accurate" simulators for the results. For now let's ignore all the issues with the accuracy of these s
15.
by pbzcnepu 6y ago
there's really not much one can do. In Comp Arch, most of the honest people left the field years ago because they got sick of all this nonsense. Most were happy to let those left behind play their silly peer-review games, but when th
16.
by pbzcnepu 6y ago
The program officers were contacted, leading to the OIG being notified on 6 December 2019 and supposedly an investigation was openened, but we have not heard anything back since then.
17.
by pbzcnepu 6y ago
some of us made a big effort to get anyone at the IEEE or ACM to care about this ISCA'19 incident. The initial investigation by Torrellas was run mostly by ISCA insiders with conflicts of interest, and mostly seemed to be a stall tact
18.
ISCA20 happens despite alleged peer-review fraud and student death at ISCA'19(pbzcnepu.net)
1 points by pbzcnepu 6y ago|0 comments