Wednesday, 1 February 2012

IEEEXplore e-library has published from time to time more than 50 fake SCIgen papers.

As you could see here
an anonymous commentor of our blog reports that the IEEEXplore library does not have a tool to check the plagiarism. Our commentor has the evidence of this.

We agree with our commentor. IEEEXplore e-library has published from time to time more than 50 fake SCIgen papers.



From: EButterfield@computer.org
to: EButterfield@computer.org
cc: ABurgess@computer.org,
John Walz: , Reisman, Sorel" , AStickley@computer.org, TBaldwin@computer.org, r.sterritt@ulster.ac.uk
date Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 4:03 AMsubject Confidential: Important CPS Message Regarding Fraudulent Machine-Generated Paper Submissions

TO: CPS Clients FROM: Evan Butterfield, Director of Products and Services RE: Fraudulent Machine-Generated Paper Submissions (CONFIDENTIAL) DATE: 16 January 2009
The IEEE Computer Society (CS) has evidence that multiple (IEEE) conferences are receiving machine-generated papers. In two cases, conferences have actually accepted an obviously fraudulent submission. This is a serious issue that threatens the credibility of your conference, the quality of the digital library, and the reputation of both the IEEE and CS. It requires your immediate attention. Please take this opportunity to ensure that your peer review processes are being followed, and adapt to any new requirements that may be communicated by the IEEE or the Computer Society. No conference published by CPS should rely on an abstract review. It is very important that you review carefully the full text of all papers submitted to your conference. If you have already accepted papers, your program committee should review the full text again. While CPS staff will be conducting random spot-checks of conference papers in the publishing queue, we are relying on you to authenticate the content of your proceedings. Any papers that were not actually presented at your conference need to be brought to our attention, and should receive close review. In known cases, the machine-generated origin is obvious from a reading of the first few paragraphs of the paper; the abstracts are human-generated and do not indicate the quality of the paper itself. In the past, papers have been submitted by “Herbert Schlangemann,” but be mindful that the perpetrator of this fraud will change the approach over time. In the event you discover any evidence of questionable content or behavior, please communicate that to us immediately along with an action plan for addressing the problem. Thank you for your help in maintaining the quality of our products.

END OF IEEE EMAIL

1 comment:

  1. I share some of my experience.

    In short: I have worked in academia until about 8 months ago, eventually decided it simply wasn't for me and quit. I do not intend to pursue an academic career so I guess I can be fairly objective. I also don't have much experience in academia (it's only been about two years), so I might not be entirely spot on; I'll just try to describe what I've seen. If you folks need it, I can provide some verification data about the papers I've published so that you can ensure I'm not posting bogus stuff.

    In short:

    - One of the professors I worked with on a side-project had some papers published at IEEE conferences. They actually take place -- as in people actually gather and hold their presentations.

    - The overall quality of the material is laughable at best. The paper we published included absolutely no experimental or simulation data; in short, there was no proof that our approach was valid. Given my position, I couldn't just tell my professor to take my name out of that crap -- all I could do was drop one of my names from it (my parents blessed me with two besides my family name) and list another e-mail address, so that it wouldn't get indexed as such.

    - There seems to be an entire network of research activity around IEEE; and again, its quality is deplorable. Some of the people involved are actually of good quality and at least try to hold some decent standards. Most of them are simply incredibly incompetent and the money getting shoved into them is utterly wasted.

    - There is no reviewing process. Simple as that. The paper we submitted was full of editing and grammar mistakes because the two main contributors didn't speak English too well. It claimed things for which it offered no proof and basically brought nothing new. If I had reviewed it, I'd have rejected it without much consideration.

    - People also help each other; my professor actually told me that some of the people simply agree to publish each others' work in the conferences they chair in exchange for a place on the author list. This probably explains the incredible productivity of some of the people involved with IEEE.

    ReplyDelete

Follow by Email