Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
Hi Pedro, I helped create the NeurIPS ethical review process. Looks like there's a healthy discussion going on here already, but let me know if I can answer any specific questions. Up front, I should say that the ethical reviewers gave feedback; they did not accept/reject papers.
Hi Raia, my point is that papers are being rejected based on this "ethical review", and I object to that. The papers' ethics should be evaluated by the readers, not pre-emptively by what is effectively a censorship board.
My point is that papers are being rejected based on this “scientific review”, and I object to that. The papers’ scientific merits should be evaluated by the readers, not pre-emptively by what is effectively a censorship board.
The purpose of a program committee is to save readers time by filtering out papers that are not worth their time, not to filter them out based on ideology. I welcome the first and reject the second, and I hope you do as well.
How would readers address a lack of informed participant consent, ethically questionable methodologies, or ends? By the time of publication, the damage is already done. “An experiment is ethical or not at its inception; it does not become ethical post hoc” - Beecher 1966
As your quote says, that is to be decided at inception time, not publication time.
People whose PII is exposed, whose data is being used without consent, or who could be hurt by publication have less power than researchers. ACM's code of ethics' *first* section tells us that they are our priority. Publishing papers that violate this code is unethical
The NeurIPS guidelines for ethics review go way beyond PII and consent. As for people who could be hurt by publication, that can be a cover for almost anything - and that's the problem.
I'm going to go back to the Tuskegee example that I already used replying to you before: "if doctors don't like the way that study was conducted, they can just ignore the results!" Throw Mengele in there for good measure too
No, certainly not a 'censorship board', unless you consider the regular review process to be censorship too. Evaluating some papers requires multiple experts. Getting better feedback on, say, the legality of a dataset or the risks of a ML-driven criminal justice app is important!
What would a reader do, or be able to do, if they find a paper unethical? Nothing, right? Is that kinda your point?
In Medicine (journals & conferences) you either need an IRB approval or a waiver of an IRB, when working with human subjects or their data. It's the norm and your papers will get rejected without it. IRBs have come to existence for a reason. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_review_board …pic.twitter.com/q97RRsLySa
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
