Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
there has been substantial discussion about this for years now, for instance, see https://acm-fca.org/2018/03/29/negativeimpacts/ … … reality is review has always been about more than some pure notion of "science", communities should set standards for their scholarship
This is a controversial proposal, as you know. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
That proposal only argued we should mention negative impacts along w/ the positive. That it was so controversial was revealing. Relevance to your post is that somehow we entrust reviewers to judge positive things; once it’s about negative things, suddenly we’re on a road to hell.
No, it's more than that. It said that all papers should be required to consider broader impacts. But, as I said in a previous tweet, it's absurd to (e.g.) require all papers about speeding up gradient descent to consider the broader impacts of faster gradient descent.
I'm pretty sure the road to hell is well paved with things that avoided ethical review.
It's interesting that you're using the adage "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" here. If your paper is being flagged by an ethics review then maybe you should reflect on what road you're on and what your intentions are.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
