Automatic detection of fake papers is not helpful, probably even counter-productive. In this case, however, I think it would have been really straightforward to handle the situation.
Even if yours does, you have to wonder if it's backdoored by the NSA. To prevent this, make sure you overwrite the image file after you're done with it. If you used a digital camera with an SD card, make sure you overwrite the entire SD card, or better, overwrite it then physically destroy it. This post is about how the significance of this work and their application is interpreted by Springer, more specifically the PR team at Springer who released and signed off this press release. Among the works were, for example, a paper published as a proceeding from the International Conference on Quality, Reliability, Risk, Maintenance, and Safety Engineering, held in Chengdu, China. Try to make the scribbles "dense" so that when we cut the paper into tiny peices, each peice has a mark on it. To get a random number suitable for cryptography, we'd have to toss coins or throw 50 six-sided dice. Of course, that's a highly unethical use of SciGen. They deserve lots of credit to uncover the problem in the first place. Because they're so important, we might wonder if there's an easy extreme-paranoia way to help the computer generate them. It implies that probably thousands or even more papers have never been read by a human. So what does Springer take pride in as a scientific publisher? There are some modest aspects of the presentation that I might change if I were revising the paper.
Security Analysis and Conclusion Okay, I wrote this as a joke, but I think it gives a good "real-world" analogy to some of the difficulties computers have when generating random numbers for cryptographic use.
And to prove this point I think people should keep sending random gibberish to Springer conferences. With SciDetect, Springer probably has made it easier to submit fake papers because they believe they can detect fake papers automatically.
If your adversary finds the image file or learns what orientation the pieces fell in, they'll be able to recover your random number.
Your IP:. If you used a digital camera with an SD card, make sure you overwrite the entire SD card, or better, overwrite it then physically destroy it. Their value is questioned in a world transitioning from print to online journals and and their business model faces an increasing resistance by the scientific community. He said that he first learned of the article when conference organizers notified his university in December ; and that he does not know why he was a listed co-author on the paper. A related program generates random physics manuscript titles on the satirical website arXiv vs. The statement feels so surreal and bizarre that I decided to postpone my original planned post and just publish the text of the press release and add a few comments. The IEEE has now removed the paper. Unfortunately, scientific publishing is not immune to fraud and mistakes, either. Spread them out so each piece is visible, but try not to flip any over, and don't disturb their orientation too much. It's obvious that they take pride in what they do.
Springer has published 8 million papers and only found 18 to be fake. Then cut both long edges off.
Postmodern paper generator
In his view, there is little evidence that open-access publishers — which charge fees to publish manuscripts — necessarily have less stringent peer review than subscription publishers. In this approach, we make our own "coins" out of paper, toss them all at once, then photograph the result to generate a random number. Assume the New York times published random gibberish in their paper. This means things like the user's keystrokes, mouse movements, network packet times, hard drive seek times, and so on. Obvious disclaimer: I'm not a publisher making 1. Springer immediately reached out to Dr. This page now links to the HMC-tech-report version of the paper, which is also available from my department's website. It should actually work, though. Step 3: Photograph and Hash Pour the paper segments out of the container onto a table. Last week, those were also taken down, but the web pages for the removed articles give no explanation for their absence. And to prove this point I think people should keep sending random gibberish to Springer conferences. Go into greater depth on how distinct additive constants for an LCG create multiple streams the paper proves that all streams are distinct but fails to carefully note the ways in which two streams could be distinct but similar.
based on 9 review