Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
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.
Wasting readers’ time is one harm that we try to avoid in the scientific review process, but it need not be the only harm that we try to avoid.
For example, if you publish a trans-phobic paper (e.g., detecting binary sex based on computer vision), that sends a message to the trans community that they are not welcome in ML. That’s a big harm to the scientific community.
Ethics have always been a crucial part of science. Your assertion that ethics reviews are unnecessary is the outlier historically.
On the contrary, NeurIPS is by far the outlier among scientific conferences in requiring ethics sections and ethics reviews for all papers.
I'm so genuinely taken aback by the confusion between "harm" and "ideology"? Is it a political position to vet a car for functioning breaks as not to kill people?
It's unacceptable to reject a paper on better car brakes because you don't like the social implications of drivers going faster.
You can always post the pdf on your blog, you just don’t get the imprimatur that goes with a conference name nor do you get to surf on its reputation.
So it's not actually that you object to line drawing, just where the line is drawn.
If they dont meet ethics approval, they aren't worth anyone's time
Then you misunderstand the function of filter. Ethical considerations ought never be suspended under blanket claim of academic freedom. History of technology ("progress," development, distribution) is horribly racist, ableist, colonializing, destroyed resources irrevocably.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
