Bet you never knew that Michael Gorman, Steven M. Cohen, Steven Bell, and Sanford Berman had co-written a scholarly paper–much less a scholarly paper in computer science.
Well, I’ve read such a paper, “Khond: A methodology for the exploration of wide-area networks.” I even have the PDF on my hard drive. Here’s the abstract:
Stochastic algorithms and the World Wide Web have garnered profound interest from both security experts and experts in the last several years . Given the current status of game-theoretic theory, scholars compellingly desire the investigation of the Ethernet, which embodies the technical plrinciples of cryptoanalysis. In this work we disprove that Scheme can be made compact, peer-to-peer, and client-server.
Once you get past the abstract, the paper looks to be somewhat sloppily-edited: a variant form of the same sentence appears twice, and the set of topics being discussed seems curiously helter-skelter.
Would this paper be accepted by a computer science conference?
Well, one with equally good credentials was–and it’s a great story. Some MIT students, apparently upset at what they consider to be meritless conferences within the compsci area, developed a paper generator. They used it to generate a paper, then submitted the paper to a conference. It was accepted.
In case you’re badly irony-impaired and don’t read very well, no, Gorman, Cohen, Bell, and Berman didn’t coauthor a compsci paper. I have the paper–which was generated by the program.
Here’s a link to the paper that was accepted.
And here’s one to generate your own paper, with up to five authors that you supply.
Wouldn’t a good, solid computer science scholarly paper from, say, Chuck Munson, David Weed, Greg Schwartz, and Steven Cohen look good right about now?
(Yes, that’s the only comment I plan to make on today’s library-blog sensation. Particularly with Dave buying into “printed books disappearing.”)
[My apologies: Thanks to Kairosnews for the tip.]