Guardian Unlimited | The Guardian | Making a science out of applied idiocy:

I love this story. I am sick of unsolicited emails inviting me to conferences I might be (or usually am not) interested in going to.

And sick of the emails informing me of the good news that the deadline for submission has been extended due to popular demand (oh yes?). This mob are one of the worst. What the hell is a "World Multiconference on Systematics, Cybernetics and Informatics" anyway. This is academic spam. It should be treated like any other kind of spam. Unsolicited invitations to conferences are just as bad as unsolicited invitation to take out a loan, inform me of the result of the Lottery Winners or obtain cheap software. Looking at my spam box I see I've got one entitled "we want you not your money. That sounds like a conference - only they really are after your money. As for the excuse - that it had been accepted without review as the reviewers were late and it would be unfair to reject it - I don't believe a word of it.

Right on to the MIt students.

The research paper was clearly the work of experts. It had a long, baffling title and its authors were familiar with key topics such as "simulated annealing" and "flexible modalities".

Submitted to the World Multiconference on Systematics, Cybernetics and Informatics (WMSCI), a computer science event to be held in Florida in July, it was promptly selected for presentation.

There was just one problem: it was complete gibberish. A random collection of charts, diagrams and obtuse lines such as "We implemented our scatter/gather I/O server in Simula-67", it was generated by a computer program written by three Massachussetts Insitute of Technology students.

Article continues
MIT graduate student Jeremy Stribling, 25, and two friends created the fake paper because they were tired of being sent emails by WMSCI organisers soliciting admissions.

Mr Stribling said he was "definitely surprised" when Rooter: A Methodology for the Typical Unification of Access Points and Redundancy, was accepted, but "we kind of suspected they had low standards". He added: "They ask for submissions, but once you get in you have to pay a $400 (£220) fee to have your paper published."