"To appear" has a technical meaning in academia, though—it doesn't mean "I hope"; it means "it's been formally accepted but hasn't actually been put in 'print' yet."
That doesn't stop someone from lying about it, but it's not a casual claim, and doing so would probably bring community censure (as well as being easily falsifiable after time).
It is a bit more complicated, since this is a conference paper. Usually, if a conference paper is accepted, it is only published if the presentation was held (so if the speaker cancels, or doesnt show up, the publication is revoked).
Edit: All conference are different, I dont know if it applies to that one.
I'm not holding my breath. I don't think they will pull that paper.
Security research is not always the most ethical branch of computer science, to say it mildly. Those are the people selling exploits to oppressive regimes, allowing companies to sit on "responsibly reported" bugs for years while hand-wringing about "that wasn't in the attacker model, sorry our 'secure whatever' we sold is practically useless". Of course the overall community isn't like that, but the bad apples spoil the bunch. And the aforementioned unethical behaviour even seems widely accepted.
"To appear" has a technical meaning in academia, though—it doesn't mean "I hope"; it means "it's been formally accepted but hasn't actually been put in 'print' yet."
That doesn't stop someone from lying about it, but it's not a casual claim, and doing so would probably bring community censure (as well as being easily falsifiable after time).
"To appear" to me meant; it is under revision by IEEE, otherwise why not just to state paper was accepted by IEEE.
It is a bit more complicated, since this is a conference paper. Usually, if a conference paper is accepted, it is only published if the presentation was held (so if the speaker cancels, or doesnt show up, the publication is revoked).
Edit: All conference are different, I dont know if it applies to that one.
3 replies →
It's a jargon in academia.
I'm not holding my breath. I don't think they will pull that paper.
Security research is not always the most ethical branch of computer science, to say it mildly. Those are the people selling exploits to oppressive regimes, allowing companies to sit on "responsibly reported" bugs for years while hand-wringing about "that wasn't in the attacker model, sorry our 'secure whatever' we sold is practically useless". Of course the overall community isn't like that, but the bad apples spoil the bunch. And the aforementioned unethical behaviour even seems widely accepted.
What are you trying to suggest? It's an accepted paper, the event just hasn't happened yet.