5 ms·

> Our aim is to rival peer-reviewed journals in terms of the rigor and thoughtfulness in how we review research before publication. I can see how this might be

> Our aim is to rival peer-reviewed journals in terms of the rigor and thoughtfulness in how we review research before publication. I can see how this might be frustrating for academics working within Google. The field already has systems in place for peer-review. While I admire the idea of Google holding their research to a certain standard, it also provides a mechanism for dismissing research that paints Google (the corporation) in a bad light. If a paper is good enough to pass an (external) review process, why should it not be published?

iab 6y ago
I think this is the crux, in that google is not academia; so naturally a band-gap would arise if your expectations were that it should behave like an academic institution. From their perspective, what requirement is there to publish work that is not well aligned with their goals (optics, financial, etc)?
- htrp 6y ago
  The problem is also that Google's AI labs are treated more or less as academia, that's one of the big selling points for recruiting. I'm in industry and am not allowed to even talk about the projects I work on, much less publish papers, it kills recruiting conversations with maybe 10% of the people at conferences.
danpalmer 6y ago
> If a paper is good enough to pass an (external) review process, why should it not be published? There are many journals that have a poor track record on peer review, and in fact even those that have a generally good track record often have times that it famously failed. Whether we agree or not, Google want to protect their reputation. Because not every journal will be up to their standards, ensuring that papers do meet a standard is going to be important for them. They could do this by only allowing submission to certain journals, but this would require an understanding of each journal, its processes reputation, etc. Perhaps easier is just to review papers before they are submitted. This does also allow them to protect potentially NDA'd info from being accidentally included in a paper given to external reviewers, which is (whether you agree or not) something they will clearly want to do.
stagger87 6y ago
If your company pays for your research, expect them to review it. This is not surprising and is par for the course in corporate research environments.
mrDmrTmrJ 6y ago
Great question! Here's a scenario, though I don't know if it's the case here: Image that one set of NDA'd data was included in the paper, that painted Google in a bad light, but a different set of NDA'd data was excluded in paper, that painted Google in a good light. I have no idea if that's what's going on here. But if some of the people who objected to publishing the paper thought this was happening, it may explain their objections to publishing the work.

iab 6y ago

I think this is the crux, in that google is not academia; so naturally a band-gap would arise if your expectations were that it should behave like an academic institution. From their perspective, what requirement is there to publish work that is not well aligned with their goals (optics, financial, etc)?

htrp 6y ago
The problem is also that Google's AI labs are treated more or less as academia, that's one of the big selling points for recruiting. I'm in industry and am not allowed to even talk about the projects I work on, much less publish papers, it kills recruiting conversations with maybe 10% of the people at conferences.

danpalmer 6y ago

> If a paper is good enough to pass an (external) review process, why should it not be published? There are many journals that have a poor track record on peer review, and in fact even those that have a generally good track record often have times that it famously failed. Whether we agree or not, Google want to protect their reputation. Because not every journal will be up to their standards, ensuring that papers do meet a standard is going to be important for them. They could do this by only allowing submission to certain journals, but this would require an understanding of each journal, its processes reputation, etc. Perhaps easier is just to review papers before they are submitted. This does also allow them to protect potentially NDA'd info from being accidentally included in a paper given to external reviewers, which is (whether you agree or not) something they will clearly want to do.

stagger87 6y ago

If your company pays for your research, expect them to review it. This is not surprising and is par for the course in corporate research environments.

mrDmrTmrJ 6y ago

Great question! Here's a scenario, though I don't know if it's the case here: Image that one set of NDA'd data was included in the paper, that painted Google in a bad light, but a different set of NDA'd data was excluded in paper, that painted Google in a good light. I have no idea if that's what's going on here. But if some of the people who objected to publishing the paper thought this was happening, it may explain their objections to publishing the work.