The following FAKE-Paper of ours was accepted at the IARIA-conference ICSNC 2009 (link):

•  Optimizing Throughput by Modified IPv6 Headers (Download PDF)

Most parts of the paper were generated using SCIgen. Great thanks to the authors!

So, we should carefully choose the conferences we publish at! :) We shoulnd't spend public money on these money-driven events.

The full review of the paper (unbelievable, but there were people writing comments about the fake paper!):

---

Dear Gruschenka Steven,

On behalf of the Program Committee, we are happy to inform you that your contribution 20097 ("Optimizing Throughput by Modified IPv6 Headers") has been accepted at ICSNC 2009.

[...]

--------- Comment 1:
While the apper ois interetign, please revisit a lot of fragments that make it "journalisitc'

Please care on the camera-ready and send a version to petre(at)iaria(dot)org [me] for a cross-validation
Danke!


authroship
-- Gruschenka Steven and Uwe Fellensick and EdwinSteinblocker
--> Gruschenka Steven, Uwe Fellensick, Edwin Steinblocker

email
--> preferrably, a corporate email address

-- need
Keywords - ... .
-- Introduction
Too shalow /I am working on IPV6/

-- NEED to move after "Intro" your "Related work' section

" In our research, we make two main contributions. We construct
a system for �ｿｽsmart�ｿｽ symmetries (JUPP), verifying that
the acclaimed autonomous algorithm for the deployment of
context-free grammar by Maurice V. Wilkes [3] runs in (n)
time. We prove not only that link-level acknowledgements and
wide-area networks are generally incompatible, but that the
same is true for Markov models."

this should be in II. Approach

" The rest of this paper is organized as follows. For starters,
we motivate the need for the location-identity split. We place
our work in context with the related work in this area. Finally,
we conclude."
This doesn't look serious. Name the sections by numbers and content!

-- actually fulfill this ambition.
--> waht 'ambition'?

-- This may or may not actually hold in reality.
--> so, why are you writing a paper on it?!

-- Li runs in O(n!) time.
--> give a reference...

-- Similarly, Figure III plots the basic
--> don't go too far on the 3rd page...when explaining...


-- Rather than requesting RAID, our approach
chooses to learn 802.11b. --> why?
--> give references...

-- Similarly, we executed a minute-long
trace demonstrating that our model is not feasible. --> 'similarly' to what?

-- This seems
to hold in most cases. Therefore, the design that Esteem uses
is unfounded.
--> give a reference...
-- This may or may not actually hold in reality.
--> vague, again,...
-- notably Harris et al.),
--> give [x]
-- Section V, very good.



--------- Comment 2:
The paper is quite interesting and seems promising. The references are quite elaborated, but the number of recent routing literature references seems limited.
I personally find that the paper's presentation should be improved. First, there are some details, like the related work section that comes late in the paper, and a very limited conclusion. The language is not always very scientific, and that the authors often make claims, without an elaborated sound argumentation. (sometimes, they might be perceived as arrogant.)



--------- Comment 3:
The paper proposes a new algorithm for improving throughput by modifying the IPv6 header. It's written in standard format and its language is good as well. The strength is the authors read lots of paper and other relevant materials during their work. However problem is not clearly stated and therefore it is difficult to validate conclusions of the results. The authors don't give the specific method to get the graphs which I think somekind of important. It is also difficult to know what are some of the figures contribution to the paper because it is not clearly explained the testing scenario. Some of the figures are not clearly readable (e.g. fig. 4, fig. 5 and fig. 7) and some of them are not correctly referenced (figure V-B is not present). Fig. 1 is broadly known and therefore unnecessary, fig. 2 has something wrong in it and fig. 3 it is not even explained anywhere.