First of all, I would like to remind all netizens to treat it rationally and never make extreme remarks.
Let me introduce these undergraduate competitions to you friends: National College Student Information Security Competition (Work Contest), National University Biology Federation
Internet Competition (Huawei Cup), Computer design competition, software innovation competition.
The entry process for these competitions is roughly the same: submit a work report PPT and defend (all defenses are online in recent years), and the final judges’ scores are mostly displayed through the defense PPT. Score the effect. In addition, each competition has its own focus. For example, the information security competition focuses on "security and privacy", and the Internet of Things competition focuses on "Internet of Everything" (therefore, the same work may appear in a certain competition. Not reaching the finals
But winning a national award in another competition). ?
I recently talked with my classmates. Undergraduate students often submit multiple submissions to these "work competitions". It was only in the past two days that I found out that one work can be submitted to so many submissions. ?
There are so many different competitions. It is very surprising that one work can participate in different competitions by putting it in different contexts.
Similar "one manuscript submitted to multiple submissions" seems to have appeared in competitions and research bonus points in previous years, but I have never heard of it being as serious as this year
Yes, it may be that due to various reasons this year, the competition for research insurance this year is extremely fierce, so the fuse index explosive barrel was ignited.
The person involved has responded to the matter in the question. The works submitted several times, application scenarios, algorithm design, and solution design have been iterated
updated. Putting aside the background of bonus points for research, the focus of this incident lies in the following three points: ?
1. Is there really a phenomenon of "multiple submissions for one manuscript"? That is, have several works in different competitions really undergone major modifications at the algorithm level and application scenario level?
The explanation for this problem lies with the parties themselves. If the parties can disclose the PPT of the defense or some documents, I believe that many people can be silenced. However, such an approach will have a negative impact on the commercial value and intellectual property rights of the product. The impact
is difficult to estimate. ?
2. If it is really "one draft submitted to multiple submissions", does it violate the relevant regulations of the competition? Submitting a manuscript to multiple submissions is serious academic misconduct.
In academia, if an article is submitted to a conference but is not accepted, you can try to "change a story" and submit it to another conference. The same is true in these undergraduate competitions. Almost every competition has provisions related to multiple submissions of one manuscript in the competition regulations, but the regulations of different competitions are different. All the same. For example, some competitions stipulate that "works submitted to this competition cannot be submitted to any other competitions", some competitions only stipulate that "works submitted to this competition cannot be submitted to relevant patents", and some competitions stipulate that "works submitted to this competition cannot be submitted to other national-level projects". Contest". In the several competitions that the parties involved participated in, how to determine whether a manuscript has been submitted to multiple submissions is also a point worthy of discussion.
3. The problem of “one car carrying multiple vehicles”. The so-called "one car with multiple players" means that the same work is submitted to different competitions, and the team members are changed in each competition, so that different students can add points. This point seems to be the most serious point, because it seems to very seriously affect the fairness of the research. Still going back to point 1 above, if the work is indeed not the same project in different competitions (that is, it is not "one draft
multiple submissions"), that is to say, the content in each project is different. , then people with different names for each project can understand. On the contrary, it is a very serious problem. The respondent does not want to discuss too much issues related to the interests of medical research here, and will not expand too much on this point.
To sum up, I hope all netizens will eat melons rationally.
In addition: the instructor, Mr. Li, is not a teacher in the Department of Computing. We hope that starting from next year, the University of Technology and the Department of Computing will strictly investigate multiple submissions. No matter what the outcome of this incident is, it will have a negative impact on the school. The reputation is definitely affected. It seems that this project has also applied for a patent, but it has not yet been approved. It's not clear whether there might be some intellectual property and legal conflicts between the patents and those competitions. In fact, I always thought this was a normal operation before I clicked in... A project can not only participate in multiple competitions in the same year, but can even be passed down from generation to generation, "nourishing" generations of research researchers. .
The source of anxiety in postgraduate research - the conflict between high-mindedness and speculation
A project embodies the hard work of teachers and seniors over the years. It is conceivable that its gold content is high, and It is not difficult to speculate what kind of
talent would have the opportunity to participate in such an ancestral project. I want to say that it is unfair in itself to compare this kind of project with ordinary projects done by novice undergraduates.
Isn’t this the source of anxiety about postgraduate entrance exams? Grade points can be improved at least through hard work. How can we make up for this inequality in participation opportunities?
You are first and I am second. You have competition and I have no competition. Now there is a good project in front of me with one draft and multiple submissions. You ask me to be benevolent and righteous
Morality ?
In fact, participating in ancestral projects and reporting ancestral projects are like two sides of a coin, both for their own benefit. Most of the questioners are also related to interests
In current security research, who would waste time and effort on the sake of so-called fairness among irrelevant people. So I don’t want to talk about whether this approach is fair or academic misconduct. After all, if you look into it, you can’t really define it even if the names are similar and all the content has been changed. When encountering this kind of situation, most people will turn a blind eye if it does not affect their quota for graduate school. But if it affects your ability to obtain the title of insurance researcher
Well, then you still need to fight and follow the procedures for reporting and reporting.
Reflection on the formulation of policy for postgraduate study-raising the threshold for additional points
I think what this incident caused us to reflect on is the importance and rationality of competition settings in postgraduate study. For a long time, we have tacitly accepted that finding a good team in a competition is more important than individual ability. Especially in group competitions such as innovation and entrepreneurship, those who get good projects can ensure "lifelong stability", while those who have no enthusiasm and lack of connections and cannot get good projects can only increase their sorrow. . Before the competition, let us have a deeper understanding of what it means that some things cannot be achieved by hard work alone, and what it means to be warm and gentle in human relationships.
We know everything, but we have forgotten the purpose and original intention of these competitions. We are entangled in these nonsense all day long, and in the end we cannot even concentrate on studying.
These are things that those insurance researchers who got a good hand from the beginning cannot understand.
It is time to correct the "unhealthy trends" in Yizheng Baoyan. Undergraduate students should first lay a solid foundation of knowledge instead of thinking about how to speculate. Therefore, I believe that the evaluation of graduate school quotas should gradually reduce the proportion of competition bonus points and increase the requirements for academic level.
Additional points are available
but they should be reserved for those who are truly skilled, such as publishing a C journal as the first author or winning a national patent as the first person in charge. Awards
etc. The threshold is high and the bonus points are low. Those who continue to participate in the competition after such a policy is issued are believed to be true fans of the competition.
However, universities may not be happy to do this. After all, winning awards in competitions is an important manifestation of the scientific research achievements of universities, and it will not work if no one participates.
Then the school would disclose its key training projects, select talents transparently, and be promoted or eliminated based on ability. This might be more conducive to the development of the project than related households.