9 ms·
That's not the assertion here. A good researcher should be aware of the current state of the field, and thus mention current efforts to solve a problem when di
by xapata 6y ago
That's not the assertion here. A good researcher should be aware of the current state of the field, and thus mention current efforts to solve a problem when discussing that problem. Regardless of who's doing the work.
- abeppu 6y agoI agree with you that a researcher should be aware of current work relevant to the problem under discussion. Jeff's quoted email states that part of the issue was that Timnit's paper "ignored too much relevant research", without specifically saying whether the unmentioned relevant research was done by Google. But the parent comment to which I responded, and which I quoted, specifically said the problem was to criticize google while working for google, and seemed to approve that this should be judged unacceptable. > I get the impression that she wrote a hit piece on Google and published with Google's name. For me, it's correct they demand a retraction. The "regardless of who's doing the work" part is key, and not all participants in this conversation are on the same page about it.
- xapata 6y ago> not all participants in this conversation are on the same page about it. I don't see anything contradicting, but merely failing to add the "regardless" footer. Admittedly, sometimes I read too quickly.
- kaitai 6y agoThat's what the peer-review process is for, though -- for the peers to suggest that their papers get cited a few more times ;) Seriously. Choosing who to cite is a discussion and a battle. It's not done thoughtlessly.