At MIT we created SCIgen, which generates gibberish science papers that continue to fool academic conferences. Ask us anything!

What do you make of the fact that last month Springer Publishing released a tool that can detect SCIgen papers? Is this a good thing for publishers, or, as Slate suggests, "a tacit admission that even at the most reputable publishing houses, some peer-reviewed journals are incapable of providing even the most minimally competent peer review"?

Jeremy: Yeah, this is pretty standard arms-race stuff. I think it would be trivial to beat that detector, and they could then beat THAT generator, and so on. At some point it's easier just to do "minimally competent peer review", right?

Though as I said in another response, one reasonable use for such a detector is to find people that have already used SCIgen to pad their CVs in the past. It's hard to believe, but such people actually exist! I swear I am not one of them, though some conference rejections I've received might imply otherwise.

I got inspired by this and created my own. I used very basic Markov chains trained on a bunch of paper abstracts. The results seem pretty good if you have good training data.

What is under the hood on scigen?

Jeremy: we explicitly avoided Markov chains or anything else that was technically challenging, in the service of trying to make the papers as funny as possible. With Markov chains, you might get something syntactically correct, but it is likely to be boring.

With SCIgen, we literally sat around for two weeks and just brainstormed buzzwords, clauses, paragraph structures and other paper elements just based on what we thought would be funny. That's the grammar. Then SCIgen itself just goes through the grammar and makes random choices to fill stuff in. That's why you see things like "a testbed of Gameboys" in the evaluation sections sometimes -- we just thought it would be hilarious.

Which are the most prestigious conferences or journals, I mean one that is not ordinarily thought of as a fraudster conference, that has actually accepted one of these auto-generated papers? (especially in CS, but any other fields okay too)

Jeremy: The highest profile ones I know of are the Springer and IEEE journals: http://www.nature.com/news/publishers-withdraw-more-than-120-gibberish-papers-1.14763. Those ones are pretty interesting actually, because I don't think it was the intention of the submitters to expose the journals as fraudulent -- they were just trying to pad their own resumes!

That said, those particular journals are not considered prestigious. They were just using a well-known brand name. Any actual prestigious conferences use peer review, as they should.

Who had the idea to put the author's name in some of the fake citations in order to make it look like they were citing some of their own work? That's my favorite little touch.

Jeremy: I don't remember, but I think that was pretty much a requirement if you're taking on academic papers. It was basically pre-ordained from the start of the project.

What was the best post-SCIgen paper generator you guys heard about? Did the Postmodern Essay Generator come after you guys?

Jeremy: MathGen! http://thatsmathematics.com/mathgen/

Jeremy: I have a vague recollection of POMO from around that time, but I'm pretty sure I didn't know about it when developing SCIgen.

What's your favorite thing about CSAIL? I UROPed there recently and I miss it.

Max here. I'm not sure how much of our experience was specific to CSAIL or to being a grad student in general, but our adult supervisors were pretty hands-off when it came to letting us roam free on this project. We got a few eye rolls every now and then but they gave us the leeway to burn many hours on SCIgen. Cheers to them. And of course there was a huge multiplicative factor on our work, so we as a research group have wasted man-centuries of time that could have been spent reading coherent papers or otherwise contributing to society.

For each of you, what was the most rewarding part of the project: reading the papers? presenting them? writing the grammar? seeing it get accepted in the conference?

Jeremy: putting the fake conference together was probably my favorite part. Setting up shell corporations, getting disguises, tricking the hotel into thinking we had a real purpose there -- it was like we were getting a real taste of what it was like running WMSCI!

That, and the fame and fortune.

Max here: I loved the claim for a while that ROOTER was the most widely-read CS systems paper. I wonder if that is still or was ever true?

To what extent (if any) were you inspired by Alan Sokal?

Jeremy: I will have to plead ignorance on Sokal at the time -- didn't learn about that hoax until I started doing media interviews and got asked about him. But since I have learned of his awesomeness, and considered myself retrospectively inspired.

EDIT: The link was just messed up for me. No conserns for anyone else. I don't know the reason and apologize for the false info.

Did you know that your last link to gist doesn't work? At least in my browser It has extra symbols which are not shown directly in browser, but are in the actual link.

My actual question for you is that has anyone tried to get payback because you created this program, like threaten to sue you or something like that?

Jeremy: weird about the gist. The html of the post looks right, I don't know where the extra symbol is coming from. Anyway, here's the link: https://gist.github.com/strib/c0aa6b1a0f1a39e168d8

As for your question: the worst "payback" we got was when original conference that accepted our paper retracted the acceptance, after the media attention. Boo! And then when we set up our own fake conference next to their conference, they tried to keep their attendees from coming.

We've gotten very little negative feedback for SCIgen in general. I think the anti-SCIgen position is pretty hard to defend.

What's the strangest conference that's accepted a SCIgen paper? Do you know of any non-CS journals that have accepted SCIgen papers?

Jeremy: you can see http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/scigen/#relwork for a few weird ones. Honestly I stopped keeping track of the success stories a while back so it's a bit out of date. I do particularly like the Russian story though: http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/scigen/blog/

(EDIT: original link was broken, sorry.)

Especially since the Russian word for "Rooter" now implies low-quality science. And that was really our goal from the start.

What's your favorite programming language? Who came up with this idea and how long did it take to implement it?

Max here: The original version was programmed in ..... Perl! I ripped the code off from TheSpark.com's high school english paper generator, which was also written in Perl. It's since been modernized. All of the magic is in the grammar rules though. Those are in a DSL, I guess you'd call it nowadays, or in a "data file" as we called it back then.

Actually the SCIgen code -- still available via CVS! -- is still in Perl, and it's a disaster. But the new SCIpher code (https://github.com/strib/scipher) has been upgraded to Python so it can leverage NLTK.

The original SCIgen took about 2 weeks for the three of us. The media frenzy that followed took much longer to deal with.

Is there any kind of software which can catch the paper is created by SCIgen while submitting?

Jeremy: Yes! http://scidetect.forge.imag.fr/

Springer is positioning it as a positive thing, but it seems like just a way for them to avoid having real peer review. I guess one good thing about it is you can use it to catch the resume-padders out there just trying to exploit the system. But besides that, there are better ways to solve the problems exposed by SCIgen than just having a detector.

Max here: it really calls into question the purpose Springer is even serving in a modern world where publishing papers is free and easy, and the editorial oversight is largely provided free of charge by academics working on public research grants.

What's your favorite video game?

Jeremy: http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/547307