Slashdot Mirror
Software-Generated Paper Accepted At IEEE Conference
schlangemann writes "Check out the paper Towards the Simulation of E-commerce by Herbert Schlangemann, which is available in the IEEEXplor database (full article available only to IEEE members). This generated paper has been accepted with review by the 2008 International Conference on Computer Science and Software Engineering (CSSE). According to the organizers, 'CSSE is one of the important conferences sponsored by IEEE Computer Society, which serves as a forum for scientists and engineers in the latest development of artificial intelligence, grid computing, computer graphics, database technology, and software engineering.' Even better, fake author Herbert Schlangemann has been selected as session chair (PDF) for that conference. (The name Schlangemann was chosen based on the short film Der Schlangemann by Andreas Hansson and Björn Renberg.)"
They probably used automated reviewing software - the computers are conspiring against us! Next thing you know we'll have autogenerated legislation and automated reviews for congressmen to vote on. How long till we have automaton congressmen voting for autogenerated legislation with pork provisions for "free storage enhancement" for their cronies?? OMG! :)
"In the end, there is simply no weapon more devastating than the truth, delivered in just the right way." - tnk1
...that peer reviewed journals (at least in computer science) are crap. 1) peer review is an old boys network, 2) people don't look at substance, they look for fancy buzzwords of the month and equations that look hard (you're rewarded for the more convoluted your paper is!), and 3) the way the system is setup, 99% of what is published is crap...people at universities and labs are forced to produce as many publications as possible to get promoted. It would be unfair of me to say that all of it is useless, but it's definitely inefficient. Look at where the great ideas in computer science and software development come today...they come from the community through things like open source (e.g. Linux, BitTorrent, etc). The academic community just rides on their coattails...
One may suspect that the original submission was heavily edited. (read: merely an inspiration for a real idea) That said, this should be in "idle."
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
Let me be the first to say that random material implies a review board that is not at odds with itself. Interestingly, researchers are able to better understand material used in conjunction with algorithmic development and first principles engineering, which does not suggest a relationship between the reader and any given node.
Furthermore, citations may be employed to enhance this phenomenon when used together with LaTeX and multiples of knowledge.
FYI:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair
This SCIgen system quite resembles how many undergrads I have seen write papers for many of their classes, not just computer science.
When asked to comment on the news story, the paper's author is quoted as saying: "How does Software-Generated Paper Accepted At IEEE Conference make you feel?"
As we seek the preponderance of false results loosely coupling the precipitate with the bandwidth, we limit latency at all costs.
.. Blub falls right in the middle of the abstractness continuum. -- Paul Graham
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Scigen
Does this program pass the Turing Test?
Colorless green Cthulhu waits dreaming furiously.
The links from the wikipedia article aren't quite safe for work. Anyone watching the short film Der Schlangemann at work should at least turn down the volume, or not watch at all. Lucky for me my boss would probably just laugh.
I For One.. Do not welcome our new computer-generated overlords.
... our new computer-generated overlords do not welcome you.
Again? Didn't they come out with software to detect this sort of thing last time it happened?
The last time I checked, there were more than half a million papers on arxiv. The number of scientific papers in the world is increasing with the rate of increase in researchers looking for jobs, not with the rate at which problems are being discovered or solved.
Since the currency of the research community is number of publications, and since administrative sections of universities have little or no competence in judging an academic's competence save statistics on papers published, why is it surprising to find that people publish low-quality work?
I am reminded of the joke about string theory, `The number of papers in string theory is increasing faster than the speed of light. This is not a problem, though, since no information is actually transferred.'
Title: Decoupling Vacuum Tubes from Web Services in Evolutionary Programming
Author: Hans Blitzkrieg
Abstract: Redundancy and operating systems, while confirmed in theory, have not until recently been considered intuitive. We leave out these algorithms for now. After years of theoretical research into DHCP [1], we verify the exploration of B-trees, which embodies the appropriate principles of networking [2]. In our research we use game-theoretic algorithms to disprove that SMPs and write-back caches are always incompatible.
...does this mean that those who are supposed to review such things are either incompetent or don't bother with their job, or that many "professional science" papers are actually pure bullshit, so you can't tell the difference?
This is kind-of an IEEE conference. There are core IEEE conferences, which are run by the IEEE, which this isn't. Then there are other conferences (lots of them), which the IEEE sponsors in one way or another, and indexes the proceedings of. They often see the latter as a free (or at least cheap) way of getting their name associated with something that might take off. On the other hand, as this shows, it can get their name associated in the other sort of manner as well.
This seems to be a conference in China that was just founded, which leads me to believe the IEEE (like many stock investors) was duped in a rush to get their foot in the door of the Next Big Thing In China.
Lots of organizations do something vaguely like that, although the IEEE does seem to be worse than most. Even if you look only at their own, "branded" journals (IEEE Transactions on Foo), they seem to be founding new ones ever other week, which range in quality all the way from well respected in their field, to kooky. If they aren't careful, they're going to start getting an Elsevier-level reputation.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Actually, if you look at the details, this "paper" was accepted into the poster session for the conference. I've been on enough technical program committees to know that the standards for poster acceptance vary quite wildly.
At some conferences, acceptance is done first and then papers are sorted into posters and presentations purely on the basis of what mode is most suitable to the material.
In others conferences, all the rejected papers are automatically accepted as posters. Why? Because conferences have expenses and to recover expenses they need attendees. Many institutions only pay for travel and registration if their employees have papers accepted at the event. So, to allow people to attend, they have to accept more papers than they might want to. With the rise of for-profit conference organizing companies, there is even a profit motive in some cases.
There is a vigorous debate within the IEEE whether such "pity accept" papers should be allowed into IEEE Xplore -- the long term archive of papers maintained for posterity. The decision is left to the conference organizers with the idea that including obvious junk in the archive actually has relatively low social cost since nobody would ever cite it or rely on it. So who cares. Others are embarrassed to have such crap in the company of more important work.
Sokal, a professor of physics at New York University, submitted a paper for publication in Social Text, as an experiment to see if a journal in that field would, in Sokal's words: "publish an article liberally salted with nonsense if (a) it sounded good and (b) it flattered the editors' ideological preconceptions."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair
-- http://ninthagenda.com/
Maybe the really pathetic thing about this story isn't the fake paper getting through, but rather the inane nature of the other real papers.
What's up with this box everyone has to think inside of or outside of? Why does there have to be a box?
A grad student wouldn't even be hired as a tenure-track professor with only 3 top-tier publications at most institutions in CS. This is partly because CS mainly uses a conference publication model, not a journal model: you distribute your work in 6- to 10-page bite-sized pieces. You might sometimes collect some of these into a 30-page journal article, but often people skip that step entirely (why bother re-writing-up your research when it's already out there in some form).
A grad student looking to be competitive as a hire at a top-tier research university typically is expected to have 4-5 publications in top-tier conferences or journals (journals don't actually usually get more cache; in some areas, they get less). This is somewhat mitigated if you're in an area that only has one, very competitive top conference: so a graphics grad student obviously doesn't need 5 SIGGRAPH papers to be a competitive candidate. But an AI student should have a good smattering of AAAI and IJCAI papers, plus a few in the top tier conference of their specific area (ICML, IUI, AAMAS, etc.). A professor looking to get tenure at a top institution typically will have 10-30 publications at such venues.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
This sounds like a good way to filter journals which are lax with their standards. It might also weed out peers who are too lazy (or stupid) to contribute to the process.
So I for one welcome our new document-producing computer overlords, which is just as well as they already seem to be used as part of Slashdot's editorial process.
Recent advances in cooperative technology and classical communication are based entirely on the assumption that the Internet and active networks are not in conflict with object-oriented languages. In fact, few information theorists would disagree with the visualization of DHTs that made refining and possibly simulating 8 bitarchitectures a reality, which embodies the compelling principles of electrical engineering. In this work we better understand how digital-to-analog converters can be applied to the development of e-commerce.
The first person to show me how digital-to-analog converters can be applied to the development of e-commerce wins an Internet.
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
I do not personally know this conference, I've never attended or tried to get something published there. But I am a computer scientist, working in academia, and I always write my papers for conferences that are specific to my specialization (computer/graphics, CAD etc). This conference is so general in the topics that it accepts, I would expect the quality of papers (and therefore the review process) to be quite low. This is a conference you would send your paper to if you cannot get it accepted at a better conference.
I think it would be much harder to get computer generated bla bla accepted at a conference on a specific topic.
Why does IEEE sponsor such crap conferences? Because it's big business. Easy money. Other have said it here already: that's the problem with science these days, it's all about quantity, not quality. Hit your university board over the head with this stuff.
assignment != equality != identity
These seem to be testing different things. One of Sokal's claims, which he intended to demonstrate, was that gibberish and "postmodernist" academic writing are indistinguishable, even by people in the field. This was done especially through the wordplay connections of e.g. the "axiom of choice" with pro-choice politics, which is a fairly common but kind of weird tactic in a certain subset of that milieu. He more or less demonstrated that claim by his experiment especially the fact that at least one of the journal editors, months later, refused to believe that it was actually a hoax: he suggested instead that Sokal had been pressured/embarrassed into retroactively claiming a legitimate paper was a hoax, in order to avoid ridicule by the conservative physics establishment.
This paper, on the other hand, demonstrates a different academic flaw: the proliferation of low-quality, minimal-to-no-review computer-science conferences. It is quite likely that nobody actually read this paper, and that the conference was not really run as a legitimate attempt to foster academic discourse, but as a way to either get money for someone, or pad a CV line for some editors/organizers, or both.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
.. was found on Wikipedia and is really awesome. It seems that somebody with no idea about computer science wrote this.
"This paper presents cooperative technology and classical Communication. In conclusion, the result shows that though the much-touted amphibious algorithm for the refinement of randomized algorithms is impossible, the well-known client-server algorithm for the analysis of voice-over- IP by Kumar and Raman runs in _(n) time. The authors can clearly identify important features of visualization of DHTs and analyze them insightfully. It is recommended that the authors should develop ideas more cogently, organizes them more logically, and connects them with clear transitions"
I am so glad that someone has gone ahead and done this to expose what an embarrassment the IEEE review system really is. A few months ago, I submitted a paper to the Wireless Communications and Networking Conference (http://www.ieee-wcnc.org/) which is also an IEEE conference. Since I had entered my research interests and since I had submitted a paper here, naturally I was also assigned some papers to review. Most of the papers I got were of extremely poor quality. By that I mean that besides the content being absolute rubbish, the authors could not even make their papers to conform to submission standards. In contrast, the paper we had written had gone through 4 stages of internal review and aside from me (the PhD student), the other three authors were very respected members of the community. I am not lying when I say that our paper was several orders of magnitude better than any of the ones I was given to review. Yet, when the deadline of notification for acceptance came, our paper had been rejected. All of us were shell-shocked when we saw the reviews. Three of the reviewers had not written a single comment but had just given haphazard grades. One of the reviewers seemed to be pissed off for some reason. I quote: "this paper is lying" was one of his scientific opinions of our paper. Out of 7 reviews, only one contained comments that were coherent, to the point and sensible. Another thing is that you can see when the reviewer was assigned the paper and when he reviewed it. Three of my reviewers literally took around 2 minutes to review my paper. How can you assess months of someone's work in 2 minutes. It just makes me so angry thinking about it! The problem with IEEE conferences is that they receive so many papers that the academics who are assigned to review them delegate them to their PhD and master's students. PhD students are fine, but anything lower than that is a complete travesty. The system itself is fundamentally flawed. If they could just reject papers that do not conform to the submission guidelines, IEEE could save themselves at least a third of the work. This way, people would have less papers to review thus being able to give each paper more of their attention. After all, this is someone's career here.
The event will in part about the latest development in artificial intelligence, and that paper could be a good (or very bad) sample on that topic.
Or at least what an artificial intelligence (or natural stupidity) have to say about it.
To me this is a clear result of the topic picked itself, as all the 'e-commerce'.. and commerce in general , is just vapor... smelly ideas to support the wealth of few, so it's not uncommon that a totally fake (you could easily spot it from the abstract...- polygen anyone?) and meaningless text is a perfectly good 'biz talk' for these 'experts'. Humanity should move ahead....
Even if you look only at their own, "branded" journals (IEEE Transactions on Foo), they seem to be founding new ones ever other week, which range in quality all the way from well respected in their field, to kooky.
Don't criticize it, legalize it. Why not have an IEEE conference on Software-Generated Papers?
It may sound wacky, but it will probably solicit plenty of entries.
Hmmm ... so then the peer reviewers would also have to be Software-Generated. And Software-Generated attendees?
I can see the host convention center manager saying, "These computer folks seem to get kookier every day."
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
It is enough to check the abstract (or better, just its last phrease is enough):
Recent advances in cooperative technology and classical communication are based entirely on the assumption that the Internet and active networks are not in conflict with object-oriented languages. In fact, few information theorists would disagree with the visualization of DHTs that made refining and possibly simulating 8 bitarchitectures a reality, which embodies the compelling principles of electrical engineering. In this work we better understand how digital-to-analog converters can be applied to the development of e-commerce.
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot
HOW DA CONVERTERS CAN BE APPLIED TO E-COMMERCE?!?!?!?
For the layman, this abstract reads like this: "We know that corn dogs are built with the assumption that Obama is the next president of the US and not of China. In fact, most scholars believe that children should not be given a lawn mower in school. Now we study how banana peels can be used to paint your house"
how long until
Here's another factor to consider: skilled scientists do not appear out of the ether. Nor do they emerge fully formed from the head of Zeus. More often than not, they're smart (but inexperienced) young folks. They may not be native English speakers, either.
Workshops and conferences can fill a nurturing role. Poster sessions play a big role: a little encouragement and hopefully some productive feedback during the session will help them become better researchers. Of course, recognizing substantial research contributions is extremely important, but the two goals are not in conflict.
(slightly off-topic rant): The press likes to complain about how millions of dollars go to fund "ridiculous" research... like studying the DNA of bears in Alaska. From their depiction, you might think the money was being distributed to the bears by being covered with honey and shoved into hollowed trees. No, that money is going to fund graduate students, creating the next generation of researchers who will be there to drive our technology forward. The study of bear DNA might actually be really interesting, but even if it turns out to be unremarkable, those dollars still helped produce new researchers.
Any coincidence that the unintelligible paper submitted from CHINA got accepted? Is the West so culturally biased against itself that it throws out good judgement?
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
I'm serious. I've had three papers rejected by IEEE, and they except one that came out of a hidden markov model? That seriously pisses me off.
Did you get the memo about this?
I pronounced that "meme-oh" in my mind...waaay too much /. for me...
Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
I guess this is one of those times I'm glad IEEE has a paywall.
Towards the Singularity.
Another thing that makes it different is that this is a no-name startup conference in China with editors and a program committee nobody has ever heard of, whereas Sokal got his paper accepted to a well-known journal in the field, edited by some of its luminaries. If this paper had gotten accepted to say, Communications of the ACM, and fooled Donald Knuth into thinking it was genuine, it would've been more analogous.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
er.. where do you get this stat of 'around 500 papers'? In what field(s)? Over what time period? As an example, Steven Weinberg, a nobel physicist has 211 papers listed in the SPIRES database. He got his PhD in 1957. This is not to say that SPIRES is the all encompassing authority on his published papers, but is is likely to be reasonably close.
It seems we have a candidate that has passed the Turing test. This work was judged as being of human origin by a panel of experts, to the point of invitation. Is this a failure of academia, the test or humanity in general?
Obligatory paprika
e whirlwind of recycled paper was a sight to see. It was like computer graphics. That I don't support Technicolor parfaits and snobby petit bourgeois is common knowledge in Oceania! Now is the time to return home to the blue sky! The confetti will dance around the shrine gates. The mailbox and the refrigerator will lead the way! Anyone who cares about expiration dates will not get in the way of the glory train! They need to fully realize the liver of the triangle rulers! Now, this festival was decided by the third grade class with the telephoto camera! Move forward! Come together! I am the ultimate governor!
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
How terribally bad were the legitimate papers that got rejected?
"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing" - not all conferences work as you describe.
And most likely, this paper was never peer reviewed before accepting it to the conference.
I tried to find out some info about CSSE, and apparently the 2008 conference was the first conference ever. This conference takes place in China, and even though it calls itself an "international conference", it is not very international, and most presenters are either from china or a neighboring country.
Furthermore, it has a very wide list of subjects, too wide ... probably any subject in computer science. It close to impossible to get reviewers for one conference that would be qualified to review any possible subject.
My guess is: this conference was either not reviewed at all, or its review process was a joke and everything got accepted (probably less submissions than what they expected). I've looked at the paper and it is sufficient to read the abstract in order to understand this paper is a fake.
First, this publication was not accepted to a Journal. It was accepted to a conference. That is a big difference both in the acceptance process and the quality expected.
Second, read the Journal of Functional Programming or the proceedings of the International Conference on Functional Programming. I dare anyone who knows what they are talking about to call that 99% crap. (I choose these because I'm familiar with them; specialist in other CS areas may choose other publications.)
How hard is it to write AI that puts everyone on the review board into the list of references?
This is why I only go to conferences that contain heavy concentrations of drunk hackers.
Should not be +5 Interesting. The above post is filled with so much unsupported assumptions and conflicts of interest, that it lacks any sort of credibility. The poster may have a point, but the facts used to back it up are so flimsy that it doesn't support his argument. The only thing I can conclude is that there is some sort of anti-academic vibe taking over slashdot which is strange considering that (I assume) most slashdot readers are more educated than the rest of the populous.
This is the solution, you're exactly right! Use generated papers as the way to score whether reviewers are doing their job well or not. A short write-up on the idea; it shouldn't be too hard to automate since most submissions are electronic nowadays.
But if the computer generated paper is good, all the reviewers might treat the submission as favorable, with very few corrections needing to be made...
Well I don't know for sure, but it looks like a cousin of what we're talking about here, that is, a program that lets you substitute the name of a person or organization into a "complaint letter" that's so general in its content that it could apply to anything or anybody. Its advantage is that it lets you send a negative letter to someone--a congressman, for example--that doesn't really have anything to do with reality and doesn't require any real work on the part of the sender. You may want to Google: "Complaint-letter generator" for more details.
Hic iacet Arthurus, rex quondam rexque futurus.
It's short for meme-random.
DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Sed dignissim massa eu odio. Ut augue enim, tempus auctor, sagittis scelerisque, varius nec, lectus. Suspendisse tempor, eros eu ullamcorper viverra, nisl sem cursus diam, et pretium pede leo sit amet mauris. Ut turpis turpis, vestibulum eu, aliquam a, lacinia ac, purus. Ut vitae dui at velit dapibus hendrerit. Nunc justo mauris, consequat eu, congue eu, laoreet vitae, nulla. Aliquam erat volutpat. Nam rhoncus gravida magna. Aliquam quis erat a erat cursus imperdiet. Morbi venenatis, purus in volutpat rhoncus, risus augue interdum lorem, sit amet mollis lectus augue et velit. Duis ultrices dapibus lacus. Fusce ornare, enim vitae accumsan dapibus, augue tortor fermentum tortor, nec consectetur nibh magna eu nisl. Aenean venenatis tempus felis. Aenean viverra. Mauris blandit velit et sem.
Integer tempor augue vitae tortor. Nulla facilisi. Donec tellus turpis, lacinia a, fermentum dictum, ullamcorper euismod, leo. Curabitur auctor mi eu justo. Vestibulum quis neque. Phasellus et dolor. Nullam quis sapien. Etiam vel purus. Nam aliquet sagittis tellus. Cras pulvinar porta erat.
Vivamus luctus dui eu augue. Morbi mattis arcu nec ante. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. In dolor risus, malesuada eu, elementum eget, accumsan a, justo. Sed pretium mauris at mauris. Aliquam in velit iaculis urna porttitor imperdiet. Duis sagittis sollicitudin lectus. Donec ut tortor. Proin vitae pede in mauris sollicitudin volutpat. Integer fringilla. Curabitur faucibus luctus urna. Pellentesque laoreet. Proin pulvinar, risus sed ultrices rhoncus, purus urna sollicitudin lectus, in scelerisque massa augue sit amet tortor. Ut pretium sapien sit amet nunc. Aenean lacus turpis, scelerisque non, sollicitudin ac, hendrerit at, turpis.
Nunc interdum cursus lectus. Aenean tempor magna sed enim feugiat fringilla. Sed leo tellus, gravida eu, auctor vitae, mollis sed, diam. Nam erat pede, rutrum quis, elementum id, tincidunt at, lacus. Vivamus ut sem. Phasellus consequat bibendum risus. Pellentesque habitant morbi tristique senectus et netus et malesuada fames ac turpis egestas. Suspendisse vestibulum porttitor magna. Nullam ante arcu, fermentum condimentum, congue vel, gravida eu, elit. Etiam sem mauris, molestie eget, suscipit sed, gravida at, urna. Mauris non sem. Curabitur porttitor, orci non sollicitudin laoreet, lorem nulla suscipit nulla, sit amet sagittis diam dui id odio. Maecenas convallis lobortis purus. Morbi euismod ipsum eu lectus. Suspendisse laoreet purus at elit.
DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
if you give the Internet away as a prize to anyone who'll answer your question, what will the Internet elders say?
Just make sure that they don't drop the bloody thing, or reception may be permanently damaged.
You can't handle the truth.
You can tell that Slashdot has human editors because there are too many MISPELINGS and GRAMMER errors.
Layne
Anyone read the paper? Perhaps the auto-generation software is so good that it actually came up with something...
The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can swim.
see also: Bogdanov Affair http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogdanov_Affair
When I was writing my master's thesis, I soon became painfully aware that most CS papers are written very hastily, contain loads of errors and sometimes just simply plain don't make sense.
At least CS is not quite as degenerate as the humanities -- recently I read this "PhD thesis" that was actually approved with lowest grade on a technicality after it was already initially rejected after a defense that was supposedly successful.
I am sort of ashamed of my university knowing that someone can call himself "Doctor" after submitting something like that.
I want to play Free Market with a drowning Libertarian.
The best phrase from this paper is:
"Continuing with this rationale, we removed more 2GHz Intel 386s from the KGB's game-theoretic
cluster to understand our desktop machines."
It's good to know that, in the study of e-commerce simulation, one can always depend on 2 GHz 386s from the KGB game-theory cluster. This was clearly needed to understand a desktop.
I'll find out soon enough if the IEEE watermarks the PDFs with the username and IP of the original downloader - since here's a download link.
Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays,
Satan Claws.
The abstract is incomprehensible gibberish with no common thread except "we love non sequiturs". I doubt the rest of the article is much better.
As someone who has served on lots of program committees for research-oriented conferences, I thought that it might be useful to try to explain what makes a conference important. Here goes:
So the goal is to get your work published in the best journals and conferences. You send your best work to the "A" conferences, recognizing that there are "B" and "C" conferences every week of the year (with the exception of this week and next). If a lower quality conference is being held in a location that you very much want to visit, then you dash off a paper of lesser quality, knowing that even a software-generated paper is likely to be accepted. You don't even have to put it on your CV, and it's a pretty safe bet that your colleagues won't see it.
Who can actually claim copyright on it anyway? Didn't a fictitious author sign the forums?
-The world would be a better place if everyone had a hoverboard
This does not excuse them! What you are saying is that they have a model which is so broken that it accepts ANY paper sent to them. You would expect them to figure out that the results of such a model will be to drag the conference into disrepute due to submission of crazy papers like this one.
http://diehimmelistschoen.blogspot.com/
"Your search cannot be processed at this time. Please try again later. We apologize for any inconvenience. Reference Message #VErr2005" Maybe they have heard of it and wanted to stop the bad publicity...
IEEE Racism Some years ago a Professor in Belgium with the name: Michel GEVERS , Prof. of Automatic Control in the Universite Catholique de Louvain, published a series of articles on the Web about * Racism of IEEE * Various Financial Frauds of IEEE Officers Michel Gevers was born in Antwerp, Belgium, in 1945. He obtained an Electrical Engineering degree from the Université Catholique de Louvain, Belgium, in 1968, and a Ph.D. degree from Stanford University, California, in 1972. He is a Fellow of the IEEE, a Distinguished Member of the IEEE Control Systems Society, and he holds a Honorary Degree (Doctor Honoris Causa) from the University of Brussels. He has been President of the European Union Control Association (EUCA) from 1997 to 1999, and Vice President of the IEEE Control Systems Society in 2000 and 2001. In 2004, he initiated a petition against the IEEE Racism gathering more than 5000 signatures. After being IEEE Felow he removed these Web Pages. However the site: www.anti-plagiarism.org in its earlier version published it Here is the GEVER's petition before IEEE elavated him in the "IEEE Fellow rank" We, the undersigned, state unequivocally that discrimination on the basis of nationality or country of residence goes against the principles of an international scientific organization. Failure to cease this discrimination jeopardizes the future of the IEEE as an international organization. List of Academicians that protest against the IEEE racism : http://iaria-highsci.blogspot.com/2009/01/list-of-academicians-that-protest.html