More than 120 Computer-Generated Papers Removed by Springer and IEEE

formatting link

That takes care of the obviouly fake papers, now to move on to the faux papers, mostly faux Defense related stuff slapped together by faux people.

Reply to
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred
Loading thread data ...

Peer-reviewed!

--
John Larkin                  Highland Technology Inc 
www.highlandtechnology.com   jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com    
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
John Larkin

Looks like it's mostly conference proceedings and they have a different review process, and it's not very strict.

Reply to
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred

"Cyril discovered that most of the computer generated papers were generated using computer program designed by students from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in 2005."

--
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com 
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Jeff Liebermann

As somebody commented, questions should be asked about whoever served as peers for the "peer review" of the garbage papers. The guy who invented "Munchausens By Proxy" Doktor Professor WSir Roy Meadows was caught committing perjury in his expert testimony about the statistics related to cot death (crib death or SIDS in the USA). He claimed that if a family had three babies at different times die of SIDS, they MUST be killing them. This "expert" testimony was used by bureaucratic statist and anti-parent social services people to remove children, destroy families and cause great harm over a period of DECADES. Until the Royal Statistical Society investigated his assertions. But Meadows is MUCH more famous for his creation of the diagnosis for Munchausens By Proxy, also used to cause grievous harm to massive numbers of families. When investigators looked into the historical and ground breaking research that was responsible for MBP, they expected to find the research enshrined in the non-circulating section of a university library. Instead they discovered that this famous and historical PEER REVIEWED research had been shredded. Meadows caused grievous harm to thousands of families and had been KNIGHTED for "saving" so many children from child abuse, but after he was caught at perjury he was not prosecuted for perjury, and his only punishment was that his license to practice medicine was suspended for a year or two. Most of the families aggrieved by this quack were not restored, did NOT have their loved ones returned and did not obtain any punitive financial settlement against Meadows. Munchausens By Proxy became very popular in television and movies and such dramas were used as teaching materials for social services workers throughout the USA. "Child Protection" caseworkers across the USA falsely accused parents of MBP and courts acted on that even though caseworkers are NOT qualified to make such a diagnosis. Most textbooks for psych 101 or other classes for future social workers strongly emphasize MBP even to this day. The psychology and psychiatry diagnostic manual played it down considerably after Meadows big disgrace. Something like MBP does seem to exist but it's extremely rare, NOT hiding behind every door as whole industries pretended for decades. The current case of Justina, a girl claimed to have Mitochondrial Disease is typical of many cases where MBP came up because a doctor did not want to be second guessed by another doctor. In Justina's case, the first doctor has extensive experience and claimed she had Mitochondrial Disease but a young whelp only 7 months out of residency decided to overrule the experienced doctor and her parents by using the Massachusets social services agency to LORD OVER the parents. Somehow the social services agency and their stooge courts have sided with the inexperienced doctor against the experienced doctor and vilified the girl's parents in the process. The court has mostly tried to gag the parents as the girl has dwindled to deaths door in the last year or so. This very real case going on now owes it's legacy to Doctor Professor Sir Roy Meadows, the modern day Mengele of England. They've been very careful not to mention Meadow's diagnosis that served as an expert witness "cottage industry" for him for decades, but nonetheless, Doktor Meadows is partly to blame. I brought this up because not one copy of Meadows MBP research has been found even though it was groundbreaking peer reviewed research. Do you wonder how he could shred all copies of it? Do you wonder who his peers were that reviewed it? Have any of the reviewers come forward? That "research" was done before the internet.

Reply to
Greegor

Obviously, you just need a good IFF system.

--
John
Reply to
quiasmox

formatting link

So, does anyone have a link to one of these computer-generated papers? I'd like to see how bad the mumbo-jumbo is.

Jon

Reply to
Jon Elson

formatting link

OK, no need for anyone to bother. I Googled SCIgen paper, and there is a really nice-looking sample paper there. Read two sentences in, and you realize, it TRULY is gibberish! Geez, doesn't anybody actually READ this stuff? Well, obviously, no, very few people do read it! I thought maybe they had some really clever code that generated something that made some level of sense, but, no, I wrote a program that did almost this good many years ago in machine language on a 12-bit computer. noun phrase - verb phrase - noun phrase (period | exclamation mark \ question mark).

Jon

Reply to
Jon Elson

Irony missed and missed. :-p Papers especially from the softer sciences have been doing that for ages; think of it as modern art, in journal form.

Tim

--
Seven Transistor Labs 
Electrical Engineering Consultation 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Tim Williams

It's called WORD salad! Design to fool the weak and gullible.

Jamie

Reply to
Maynard A. Philbrook Jr.

Then there's this " Earlier some issues were raised with Ike Antkare, Google Scholar, when he was declared as the 21st most-cited scientist in the world, despite he did not published even a single research paper."- LOL- now THAT is funny!

Reply to
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred

I knew that the process had gone to hell a long time ago.

?-)

Reply to
josephkk

Maybe they got Eliza (

formatting link
) as one of the peers ...

Once upon a time there was a "psychoanalyze-pinhead" script included in the Emacs text editor, but then it got screwed up because of some stupid copyright claim. How about a "psychoanalyze-scigen" as a modern replacement?

Dimitrij

Reply to
Dimitrij Klingbeil

The peer-review process is like democracy - a vilely inadequate system, but much better than anything else available. If you know a better scheme, tell us about it.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
Bill Sloman

So how come it didn't fool you? The bar must be set very low.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
Bill Sloman

I gotta say that peer review is impossible for many people - unless you are an established academic, which few of the people here are. So it's just a sham anyway. IOW, if you are at Stanford, they will publish your crap, assuming you haven't made any obvious mistakes.

A better system is don't do any review at all. The online journal Medical Hypotheses was that sort. And since the establishment types are increasingly engaged in corruption, you might as well just invoke free speech.

Another source of corruption, besides the institutional type, is that the "peers" and "editors" generally don't work for free. SO publicly-funded research is then sold to outfits like Springer who charge maybe $40 to see the research that your tax dollars paid for originally.

So Springer, a europeon company, makes money off this system, and the tax-paying public can't even see the research they paid for!

You might try to publish a paper questioning global warming if you think peer review works.

JB

Reply to
haiticare2011

but much better than anything else available. If you know a better scheme, tell us about it.

re an

am

g you

gly

peer

You sure do go on and on with conjecture on subject matter about which you (apparently) know nothing. If the research was sponsored by a government en tity, then the final report is always available to the public in that entit y's archives somewhere. You will appreciate the value of peer review if you ever familiarize yourself with the many government sponsored reports that couldn't make it through peer review- they are total non-informational, dis organized, useless bullsh_t crap.

Reply to
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred

but much better than anything else available. If you know a better scheme, tell us about it.

re

That's not my experience. They published my crap when I was working at Kent Instruments in Luton, which wasn't in the least academic, and refused to p ublish a paper that I submitted when I was a post-doc at the University of Southampton, which was.

Academics do have experience in getting papers published, and my wife did g ive me useful advice on how to respond to editors about referees reports, b ut I'd got stuff published before she'd had a chance to make my responses m ore diplomatic.

Graduate students do get better advice on negotiating the process than regu lar engineers, and may get better advice on what to publish, though I must say that the limited amount of refereeing I've done demonstrated the academ ics can produce truly horrible rubbish.

gly

You are always free to vanity publish where you want. Peer-reviewed journal s exist because nobody has the time to plow through all the un-refereed rub bish (quite a bit of it devoted to proving Einstein wrong).

I doubt if the establishment is "increasingly engaged in corruption". Acade mic publishing was pretty corrupt in the late 19th century, and new chemist ry journals kept on getting set up as the older journals fell into the hand s of some evil professor who would only publish papers by his students and allies.

This has pretty much stopped. The only modern example I can call to mind is when some denialist got to be one of the editors on a climatology journal and accepted a truly rotten paper for publication after it had been rejecte d by four referees. This aroused a lot of outrage, and the complete editori al board resigned when the publisher wouldn't fire the offending editor - which did finally persuade the publisher to fire him. The story is told in Fred Pearce's book "The Climate Files"

formatting link

Since Fred Pearce is a British science journalist with no training in scien ce, he didn't really understand what he was reporting, and thought that the scientists who got the corrupt editor thrown out were being intolerant

The Public Library of Science (PLOS)was set up to deal with that. The catch is that authors have to pay about $1000 per publication to cover the cost of keeping the organisation going.

The Europeans don't like this either, and PLOS had European support from th e start.

formatting link

If the questions were new, valid and interesting, you'd have absolutely no trouble getting it published. Some pretty terrible papers questioning CO2-d riven anthropogenic global warming have made it into the literature, but th ey've all been subsequently demolished.

Richard Lindzen published a more interesting hypothesis than most, but it t oo eventually got cut down by ugly facts.

formatting link

Roy Spencer's support was to be expected, and shouldn't be taken seriously.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
Bill Sloman

Correct, you don't fool me. So where does that put you?

You should stick to something that you're good at, because you aren't winning any races here.

Jamie

Reply to
Maynard A. Philbrook Jr.

te

.

ere

y

in

I don't have to fool you. You jump to your own foolish conclusions without any help from me.

This arena isn't a race track, and we mostly aren't competing. You and krw do seem to be exceptional in competing for the nitwit of the month prize, b ut that isn't a race - more a sort of "low jump" competition to see who can be tripped up by the least demanding cognitive hurdle.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Reply to
Bill Sloman

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.