[2] The annual WMSCI Conference started in Baden-Baden, Germany in 1995 as ISAS (Information Systems Analysis and Synthesis).
Until 2005, WMSCI allowed about 15% of non-reviewed submissions, based on the importance of the topic or the potential presenter's curriculum vitae.
Consequently, WMSCI 2005 general chair, Dr. Nagib Callaos, stated that since the conference is multi-disciplinary, he saw no problem with accepting for presentation (not necessarily publication) 15% of non-reviewed submissions, in order to follow the standards of other disciplines like those represented by the International Federation of Operations Research Societies (IFORS), Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences (INFORMS, the International Federation of Operations Research Societies (IFORS), the American Mathematical Society, etc.
According to the organizers, "this systemic approach stimulates cross-fertilization among different disciplines, inspiring scholars, originating new hypothesis, supporting production of innovations and generating analogies, which is ... a fundamental aim in cybernetics".
[7] Objectives of the conference include identification of synergetic relationships among Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics, and establishing communication channels among academic, professional, and business worlds.
[7] Their mission statement is as "a forum for focusing into specific disciplinary research, as well as for multi, inter and trans-disciplinary studies and projects".
In 2005, Jeremy Stribling, Daniel Aguayo, and Maxwell Krohn, three computer-science graduate students at MIT, submitted to WMSCI the paper Rooter: A Methodology for the Typical Unification of Access Points and Redundancy, generated by SCIgen, software they had developed to create nonsense papers in Computer Science.
Motivating their previous acceptance policy, based on 15% of non-refereed presentation which respective papers might be published if they are selected as the best of the respective sessions, the organization says: In a survey made by the National Cancer Institute where "active, resilient, generally successful scientist researchers" were interviewed, just 17.7 percent of them disagreed with the statement "reviewers are reluctant to support unorthodox or high-risk research"...
Motivating their acceptance policy,[14] the organizers cite Ernst et al.[15] who showed that the same paper was rated from "unacceptable" to "excellent" according to 6 out of 9 measures by 45 field experts.