I'm about to reject a review request for a paper entitled: (Coinductive) Natural Semantics for Compiler Verification in Coq
And whose abstract is the following:
(Coinductive) natural semantics is presented as a framework for the verification of total correctness of compilers in Coq (with the feature that a verified compiler can be obtained). In this way, a solution is presented to the problem of having a simple, easy, and intuitive framework; to carry out the verification of a compiler, using a proof assistant in which both cases are considered: terminating and non-terminating computations (total correctness).
If someone who reads this would be interested in reviewing this paper, I can recommend them instead.
Let me know in private message if that's the case.
I don't have time to review this right now (and my knowledge of compilers is lacking), but if someone does, two comparison points might be https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-03359-9_26 and https://lmcs.episciences.org/692
(IIRC "natural semantics" is usually just used as a synonym of a big-step operational semantics)
@Théo Zimmermann Interesting! I got the same request from MDPI. It is a predatory journal. I believe we should contact the authors and suggest another venue. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDPI#Controversies
Thanks @Bas Spitters! I was wondering indeed whether that was a predatory journal. I looked at their website but couldn't tell for sure. The most important clue though was that they promise a quick review & publish cycle, which unfortunately is often only proposed by predatory journals.
hmm, maybe one should also consider the possibility that authors are aware of this
The website is rather well-made, they highlight their impact factor, they do not communicate publicly on their authorship fees... it's easy to fall for this kind of stuff.
at least based on language in abstract, it could be from an institution where authors are rewarded specifically for published papers --- if so, fee-based publishing likely makes the most sense for them. But not necessarily the case, of course.
Yes, that's very possible.
I could find one author on DBLP. A previous version of the paper is available online.
Which on scanning it quickly could be something we could accept for say a coq workshop.
going off on a tangent, but there seems to be a worrying trend towards fee-based publishing, also in CS. Even though some fee-based publishers are based in developed countries and have a pretty polished veneer, once you understand their reviewing practices it's clear they get rid of anything (like bad reviews and uncooperative editors) that stands in the way of getting authors to pay
for example this was an interesting non-CS reviewer experience report for another similar publisher in Switzerland, but probably extrapolates.
@Théo Zimmermann I also got the review request; it is a predatory journal and I don't recommend reviewing it.
Wow! I wonder how many other people they've send it too!
Bounds on SPAM are quite hard to compute :)
Well, I am sure I'm the only one that get regularly offered to be a guest editor for journals I've never heard off... :-)
how do these people get their databases for sending out review requests? Must be arXiv harvesting or similar? I find it a little bit surprising (and disconcerting) that academic spam is so intense
Last updated: Oct 16 2021 at 09:07 UTC