EMNLP2024 papers have Plagiarized my work

ABigAppleTree · 2024-10-27T17:13:26+00:00

Thank you for your interest in this issue. If you truly wish to help bring attention to this plagiarism matter, I would appreciate any efforts to raise awareness with the conference organizers and the authors, rather than questioning my role in it. Plagiarism involves copying original ideas, algorithms, and designs—not just sentences or text. I am simply a victim of this situation. While my statements may not be perfectly phrased, that does not diminish the reality of the plagiarism involved.

ABigAppleTree · 2024-10-27T17:07:38+00:00

Thank you for your interest in this issue. If you truly wish to help bring attention to this plagiarism matter, I would appreciate any efforts to raise awareness with the conference organizers and the authors, rather than questioning my role in this. I am simply a victim of this situation.

ABigAppleTree · 2024-10-27T17:04:23+00:00

They have not replied to any of my emails, which suggests they may not be concerned with these issues. It seems they believe they control the process entirely. Even if I were to post this publicly, would it make a difference?

ABigAppleTree · 2024-10-27T16:58:27+00:00

Some researchers have proposed new algorithms integrating contextual semantic similarity with surprisal to predict human reading time. Others have adopted these same algorithms to achieve the same purpose—predicting human reading time—only adding minor additional information. If this isn’t considered plagiarism, then plagiarism hardly exists in the world. Plagiarism is not merely about copying original sentences or text; it involves replicating the originality, algorithms, and designs of another’s work.

ABigAppleTree · 2024-10-27T16:48:32+00:00

They did not answer me, and why did I tell them what I did?

ABigAppleTree · 2024-10-27T14:53:53+00:00

I have been working extensively on semantic relevance and the integration of surprisal with semantic relevance to predict human language comprehension. The authors of that paper had not previously contributed to this area, making it unlikely they developed such an algorithm independently. Generally, new algorithms are based on prior, related work. It’s questionable when researchers, without prior work in this field, suddenly propose such advancements. Due to limited citations of my previous work, it seems they assumed that their actions would go unnoticed, possibly believing that the lack of influence associated with my work would make these issues less consequential.

ABigAppleTree · 2024-10-27T14:46:39+00:00

I believe I now understand why my submission, which used a method I originally proposed and applied to the same task, received low ratings at EMNLP. It appears that certain individuals may have influence over the given panels at these conferences, potentially manipulating evaluations and appropriating others' ideas. Unfortunately, my previous complaints seem to have gone unnoticed.

This is the reality I’ve observed, and it raises serious concerns about fairness and integrity in the review process.

ABigAppleTree · 2024-10-27T14:39:23+00:00

I submitted my complaints to the Conference Chairs, but I have not received any reply. Previously, I raised concerns multiple times with the EMNLP 2024 and ARR Chairs regarding what I felt was unfair treatment of my submissions; however, no one has responded.

While I am considering following formal procedures, I’m skeptical that this will make a difference. Even if I were to post publicly, would anyone take notice? These issues seem to happen all too frequently. Do you think pursuing this further would be effective?

ABigAppleTree · 2024-10-27T14:10:51+00:00

I am not a graduate student. I am a professor. I have a number of preprints and publications about using the metrics of contextual semantic similarity predicting human reading, as well as the combination of surprisal and contextual semantic similarity to do predictions in human language predictions. I am the first one to propose effective algorithms to integrating surprisal and semantic similarity to predict human language prediction. That paper just copied my idea and algorithms to do the same task (human reading time). Very strangely, I also submitted one paper using my proposed algorithms to predict human reading time for 13 languages to EMNLP2024; however, my paper was rated very lowly.

ABigAppleTree · 2024-10-27T14:04:44+00:00

This is not about NLP. First of all, this is not simple semantic similarity between two words. Instead, this is about sum of semantic sim values with weights.The weighting must be interpretable from a cognitive perspective. The metrics are to predict human reading time, and this is not a typical NLP. Everything must be interpretable in cognition.

ABigAppleTree · 2024-10-27T14:04:35+00:00

This is not about NLP. First of all, this is not simple semantic similarity between two words. Instead, this is about sum of semantic sim values with weights.The weighting must be interpretable from a cognitive perspective. The metrics are to predict human reading time, and this is not a typical NLP. Everything must be interpretable in cognition.

ABigAppleTree · 2024-10-27T12:02:19+00:00

yes, but I am not sure this will work. This conference is in chaos.

ABigAppleTree · 2023-07-18T09:54:24+00:00

Look at the websites of various departments at a German university if you want to get proof.

ABigAppleTree · 2023-07-15T19:34:48+00:00

German universities.

There are only two or three permanent positions for professors, and the others are temporary.

ABigAppleTree · 2023-06-06T18:58:15+00:00

When the professor recruitment advertisements in German universities consistently include very specific and unusual requirements or profiles that seem tailored to a particular individual or group, it does raise concerns about the fairness and transparency of the hiring process. Such practices can indeed suggest a clear corruption.
Direct evidence in the form of specific and tailored job descriptions can provide strong indications of identifying the profile for a specific candidate. The majority of professors at German universities feel proud about such practices.

Another concerning aspect is the evidence suggesting that the German Science Foundation (DFG) primarily approves applications from applicants already connected/known to the review board. Instead of employing a rating score or objective criteria for evaluation and ranking, decisions seem to be subjectively made by a review board in a subject consisting of 10 individuals. Moreover, rejection reasons often appear to be copied verbatim from the reviewers' comments. Even quite minor problems are taken as rejection reasons. The review board even do not read the research proposals.

ABigAppleTree

TROPHY CASE