Gorman, Cohen, Bell, and Berman collaboration?

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 [1]. 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.]

5 Responses to “Gorman, Cohen, Bell, and Berman collaboration?”

  1. I think you mean David King, not David Weed.

    And I’m a blogger, remember? What’s a scholarly paper? 🙂

  2. walt says:

    King, Weed, Bell, Cohen: Do last names really matter? Particularly on bogus scholarly papers? (What? You don’t know David Weed’s insightful library weblog? Maybe there isn’t one?)

  3. Greg says:

    Gosh, you had to get MY last name right, didn’t you? Having already been taken to task today for being foolish/naive/oblivious enough to have publicly expressed an opinion, you just had to go and stick your finger in the wound, didn’t you? Didn’t you!?!?! I’m gonna go crawl back in my hole now, like a good public librarian. 😉

  4. I’m afraid you’ll have to work a little harder if you really want my leg to come off when you pull it. That list of authors tripped my BS sensor right away. 🙂

  5. walt says:

    Dorothea–as it was intended to. It’s not April 1, and I didn’t expect anyone to fall for that. On the other hand, I wonder if I couldn’t get that paper accepted in certain IS conferences?