Mark Liberman has an excellent analysis of one of Prof. Callaos' papers.
Prof. Callaos comments on the bogus papers.
Look in the comments of this Blogcritics.org post for Michael Schmidt's summary of this year's WMCSCI reviewing process (note: comment authors' names are before their comments).
Greg Elin at this blog brings up one of my main beefs: that the WMCSCI folks deliberately break their spamference into a host of "sub-spamferences", thus making it harder to determine that they're all bogus. I count 11 "collocated" or "related" conferences on their web site. I'd say that I don't have the time to investigate further, but the truth is I'm just too lazy to bother.