It's easy to do fake art criticism; stream together enough pretentious cliches, and you can get published.
It's not much harder in the soft-sciences; I'm sure most any education or psychology department could be suckered by a paper full of double-talk.
But not the hard sciences. Nossirre, they're too serious and rational.
In a victory for pranksters at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a bunch of computer-generated gibberish masquerading as an academic paper has been accepted at a scientific conference.If you love the English Language but fear its gatekeepers, read the whole thing. Posted by Mitch at April 15, 2005 07:33 AM | TrackBackJeremy Stribling said Thursday that he and two fellow MIT graduate students questioned the standards of some academic conferences, so they wrote a computer program to generate research papers complete with "context-free grammar," charts and diagrams.
The trio submitted two of the randomly assembled papers to the World Multi-Conference on Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics (WMSCI), scheduled to be held July 10-13 in Orlando, Florida.
To their surprise, one of the papers -- "Rooter: A Methodology for the Typical Unification of Access Points and Redundancy" -- was accepted for presentation.
Sorry, but I don't define computer science as a hard science. Computer engineering, maybe, but I've known way too many CS types to put in them in the same league as EEs, CEs, physicists, and the like.
That's not to say that you couldn't get some conferences even in the hard sciences to accept most anything, especially if it's from a big name U. I tend to be a tougher reviewer than most when it comes to conference papers, which has meant that I've gotten feedback from conference organizers that I need to be less picky -- you see, they make money when they get folks to go to their conferences...
Posted by: nerdbert at April 15, 2005 09:58 AMAs nerdbert implies, part of the point of that exercise seems to be to expose so-called conferences that exist for no other reason than to collect attendees' money. So you'd expect their acceptance criteria would be pretty minimal.
And they pretty much deserve any randomness they get.
Posted by: Steve Gigl at April 15, 2005 11:52 AMVaticanizations quavers Lateran trends junctions heeling
Posted by: at June 26, 2006 07:06 PMsickest shawl?princely cowslips Abelson collaborated Warburton
Posted by: at June 28, 2006 03:24 PMHolla and Happy Thanksgiving. nokia6630
Posted by: yolonda at July 1, 2006 01:36 AM