Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
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.
Most fields have an "institutional review board" who evaluates and approves research on ethical grounds. CS is typically exempt from IRB requirements, but most research receives ethics review. You can learn about the IRB at your university here:https://www.washington.edu/research/hsd/
IRBs usually inspect studies involving human subjects.
Nature: https://www.nature.com/nature-research/editorial-policies/ethics-and-biosecurity … Medicine: https://sites.jamanetwork.com/research-ethics/ … Biology: https://plos.org/resource/understanding-scientific-and-research-ethics/ … Biology: https://www.cell.com/heliyon/ethics Sociology: https://www.asanet.org/about/governance-and-leadership/code-ethics … Chemistry: https://pubs.acs.org/userimages/ContentEditor/1218054468605/ethics.pdf …
These do not require ethics sections or ethics review for most papers (and they're very few, and very different from computer science conferences).
Then good for NeurIPS.
I'm amazed to be reading this. Truly. Surely every scientific study you do undergoes ethics review before it even gets to publication? This has been an obvious step for decades. Anyone who doesn't follow that step has no business attending NeurIPS.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
