Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×
The Media

Publishers Withdraw More Than 120 Fake Papers 62

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the trolling-journals-for-no-particular-reason dept.
bmahersciwriter writes "Over the past two years, computer scientist Cyril Labbé of Joseph Fourier University in Grenoble, France, has cataloged computer-generated papers that made it into more than 30 published conference proceedings between 2008 and 2013. Sixteen appeared in publications by Springer, which is headquartered in Heidelberg, Germany, and more than 100 were published by the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE), based in New York. Both publishers, which were privately informed by Labbé, say that they are now removing the papers." Looks like journal trolling is really easy.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Publishers Withdraw More Than 120 Fake Papers

Comments Filter:
  • by sexconker (1179573) on Monday February 24, 2014 @09:00PM (#46329965)

    Maybe I should stop right there in case someone gets a bright fucking idea.

    Too late. I already patented the computer-generated patent.

  • by TrollstonButterbeans (2914995) on Tuesday February 25, 2014 @12:40AM (#46331375)
    Most of these computer generated papers have valuable ideas we need to consider.

    Statistics indicate that 1 in 24.3 of these computer generated papers have uniquely valuable scientific advancements. But the real-world ratio is about 1:99.7 --- the 3 sigma rule.

    If these computer-generated papers are exceeding the productivity of the actual papers by a 4 to 1 margin, a big opportunity is being missed and it doesn't matter why.

    A true case of an unintended result exceed the effectiveness of your average deliberate result. Short version: a 4% rate actually exceeds the real-world discovery rate. This should not be ignored, coincidence or not.

Make sure your code does nothing gracefully.

Working...