We will investigate the research method and the process by which this research method was approved, determine appropriate remedial action, and safeguard against future issues, if needed. We will report our findings back to the community as soon as practical.
-
-
Show this thread
-
As an outsider to the community, I very much welcome feedback from the participants who brought this to our attention: that's why I tagged
@gregkh. Obviously, we would appreciate any guidance as to how we can get the Univ. of Minnesota contribution ban lifted.Show this thread -
I do work in Social Computing, and this situation is directly analogous to a number of incidents on Wikipedia quite awhile ago that led to that community and researchers reaching an understanding on research methods that are and are not acceptable.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_laboratory …
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
thanks for making this public!
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I appreciate that this is being taken seriously now, but did it really have to come to this? Back in November when this was first made public, AFAIK there was notification to at least the UMN IRB, as well as the editors of the journal. What broke down in the process here?
-
I am particularly concerned that the result of that notification appears to have been a rubber stamp "IRB-exempt" determination. I hope your review will extend to the institutional processes that led to said approval.
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.