Talk:SCIgen

message: Two years ago the "Rooter" paper was translated into Russian by machine translator and was send to some Russian scientific journal. It was reviewed, and published after minor corrections! The case got high attention of the Russian mass media. You can gen get additional information in the Russian version of the page.195.208.224.130 (talk) 11:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russian story 

message: I deleted the "See also" section, which consisted only of a link to the Sokol Affair.  Since the Sokol article was not randomly generated, and since there is no evidence in this article that SCIgen has ever been used for a similar hoax (that is, with real intent to deceive--the hoax mentioned was 'fessed up right away, and was not for publication), I really don't see any relationship between the two.  Furthermore, the inclusion implies something that is not the case--that the Sokol hoax was as obvious as would be a SCIgen article submitted to a scholarly publication.  On the contrary, Sokol went out of his way to make his hoax believable, which the "Rooter" article did not.  Incidentally, a source should be cited for that information.  Chick Bowen 22:54, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It belongs there.  See also doesn't mean they're exactly the same thing.  Just that maybe you'd like to read about this too.  Which is another hoax used to point fingers at people for sloppy reviewing of academic papers.  If you'd like, you might add a bit explaining the differences between the two hoaxes, but I don't see why an internal link is wrong. NickelShoe 23:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of See also section 

message: I remember reading somewhere that the conference in addition to review papers had a few wild-card slots, and this paper was accepted as a wild card.  That may not be true, but if it is, it should be included in the article.  I just have no idea where I read it--it could have been about a different event.  But if it really was accepted as a wild card, I'd say the conference is off the hook. NickelShoe 23:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, it was accepted as a "non-reviewed" paper.  This information is in the article, though not prominently. SpuriousQ 01:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wild card?

message: This Wikipedia entry gives information about the SCIgen tool and is not about paper
getting accepted at IEEE.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.220.147.28 (talk) 10:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not an IEEE entry 

message: You could include this criticism to the wikipedia 'IEEE' article. This article is about
a software tool for generating random paper and some of the paper which has been accepted.
And please discuss this issue here instead of editing and re-editing all the time. This is a childish behavior.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.78.201.162 (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Criticism concerning publishers' does not fit into the article 

message: I am removing the Wessex Institute of Technology from the list as it is clearly malicious. Firstly, unlike the others institutions on the list citing a specific incident, the entry is written as if all conferences organized by this institute would or have accepted SCIgen papers. The blog posting on the SCIgen site (http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/scigen/blog/index.php?m=07&y=05 <http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/scigen/blog/index.php?m=07&y=05>) lists its creation as 2005 but the source for the Wessex inclusion relates to the VIDEA conference held in 1995, ten years prior to the creation of the program. Therefore, this clearly has no place in this article. Incedently  no spoof paper was either accepted or published by Wessex Institute for the 1995 conference (or any other before or since) which is evident from the published proceedings. Please refere to the Transactions of the Wessex Institute where all the accepted papers for that conference are available on open access. (http://library.witpress.com/pages/listPapers.asp?q_bid=201) --Curuxz (talk) 14:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of institution from “List of works with noticeable acceptance”* 

message: It seems this page has little use other than to attack IEEE conferences, would it not be better served to split the two issues rather than use this backwater article about a minor piece of software to say what can't be said on the more prominent IEEE page? --Curuxz (talk) 19:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page just used to attack IEEE 

message: Xe should be mentioned here, and perhaps at Google scholar as well. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ike Antkare 

message: "John Bohannon
It all started as a prank in 2005. Three computer science Ph.D. students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology—Jeremy Stribling, Max Krohn, and Dan Aguayo—created a program to generate nonsensical computer science research papers. The goal, says Stribling, now a software engineer in Palo Alto, California, was "to expose the lack of peer review at low-quality conferences that essentially scam researchers with publication and conference fees." The program—dubbed SCIgen—soon found users across the globe, and before long its automatically generated creations were being accepted by scientific conferences and published in purportedly peer-reviewed journals. But SCIgen may have finally met its match. Last week, academic publisher Springer released SciDetect, a freely available program to automatically detect automatically generated papers."
HOAX-DETECTING SOFTWARE SPOTS FAKE PAPERS
Science 3 April 2015: 
Vol. 348 no. 6230 pp. 18-19
DOI:10.1126/science.348.6230.18
Dougweller (talk) 11:50, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  New software to detect such hoaxes