<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">Hi Young-ri, Bryan<div><br></div><div>I just wanted to raise a potential concern about some of the submissions in case you haven't noticed or nobody else has brought it up.<br><div><br></div><div>The last three papers that I reviewed -- papers <a href="https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fhotstorage26.hotcrp.com%2fpaper%2f102&c=E,1,e6XcSBUh2lXx0YK7xzYXWOf5jvnoLgv4_enf1qUUTnniRhGQ48NSr0r5yfxM6O7E92fXfAVI6GhvbrVPFycvBV49giJV0ogqlvwPsW76ud38CEtdsaD4wBM,&typo=1" target="_blank">102</a>, <a href="https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fhotstorage26.hotcrp.com%2fpaper%2f197&c=E,1,Ice3HQzEKOXOs_zEWcFWtqHCHMuIioeUVlpu6ITJkG9FHXYx8nUZkmQG-G5PB3oCBsBr0NNmWByOASD_YYrKGmV80Eizri1W2jcG14hMH_e7auWH4HuAu0ZBitA,&typo=1" target="_blank">197</a>, and <a href="https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fhotstorage26.hotcrp.com%2fpaper%2f209&c=E,1,WlCyBqG6PmeFVNBh0hyrclBwnqxS7WDazVALqvL4Vco-mzOUe5dqrF60_dOim79QvLMT2U7e_bIJ3LYIwrWzQczfEdDe4_ZpYgvuJ0QZ0HQkdA,,&typo=1" target="_blank">209</a> -- were strikingly similar. They all describe a similar concept applied to different areas. The papers have similar structure, similar language, and similar flaws. In addition to the papers I've reviewed, at least 4 other papers (based on a quick scan) seem to match the pattern (<a href="https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fhotstorage26.hotcrp.com%2fpaper%2f22&c=E,1,ZpulObutuYh9lsWZPK4XfQDFOMLzsAWwCyhYwYmy9C2wVrugWOphjMZ57zzbSuOf5bYPT-SPyf7spCImuCljctoPCdHj3OVbeEFGbfF9pDNc_tu7Ww,,&typo=1">22</a>, <a href="https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fhotstorage26.hotcrp.com%2fpaper%2f40&c=E,1,wpe7fuwwN_cWaUpFpaJBIXSEk-VO0dfnI-KwyIQiImJ_SkGS5RWy8IyILGHxSSJhIoCuaLIjVeIElhGr5JVNDB4DYnpYgOwT2w8C56twfns8zGAvrFg,&typo=1">40</a>, <a href="https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fhotstorage26.hotcrp.com%2fpaper%2f49&c=E,1,MWzCQxvJqcp6tRrlhdcU7rX1k2O5kSqQbb6gymqkIt8oBDXHyAmQcEyz5ImRzD3e7z_vRf5wvycXXFrL9OkgCqh_GBTAm12KbYWlP3xXCMX1Q3M,&typo=1">49</a>, and <a href="https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fhotstorage26.hotcrp.com%2fpaper%2f117&c=E,1,ihjEoPGpc6SBxfHMXwy7W8dc1iiRj7zCpz62M9Qjddh5T43kgSpiPLYQ8B5MqQi3hRxboYEuF5SHvUi-LLIWYx8M14MO9aZQPUdlSbPyzZywznKnqubcjnoAS0Li&typo=1">117</a>). I can explain the similarities if you want.</div><div><br></div><div>Given the strong similarities I suspect they are all by the same author(s). In this day and age, it seems likely they were largely AI generated, but that's hard to tell, and anyway the ACM <a href="https://www.acm.org/publications/policies/new-acm-policy-on-authorship">author guidelines</a> explicitly say authors can use AI to generate the text of their paper without disclosing that.</div><div><br></div><div>So I don't have reason to believe that the author(s) here have violated the rules. And I'm not asking you all to do something about it (unless something here strikes you as illegitimate). </div><div><br></div><div>Still I wanted to point this out, in case you haven't noticed this. And I would suggest that the Steering Committee might want to consider changes to the submission guidelines for future years. In particular, I'm concerned that it is too easy for authors to spam a workshop like HotStorage with AI generated submissions, since the ACM allows the undisclosed use of AI in writing papers, and a position paper does not need to have original research content (where AI use would have to be disclosed).</div></div><div><br></div><div>Keith</div></div>
</div>