4 ms·
Jeff's document says she submitted without asking for approval, so the request was to withdraw that unapproved submission. It is reasonable to interpret that a
by xapata 6y ago
Jeff's document says she submitted without asking for approval, so the request was to withdraw that unapproved submission. It is reasonable to interpret that as permission to revise and resubmit. She seems to have had her heart set on this particular conference and submission deadline.
- KittenInABox 6y agoIt's just weird that I'm pretty sure that the reasons for the request to withdraw was for reasons of the scholarly quality of the work, not for corporate reasons like protecting corporate information, which from what I understand is the job of the reviewers of the conferences and not Google. Especially because other people who work in her department have gone on record saying that withdrawal requests purely due to paper quality never happen and internal review is purely for corporate secrecy reasons. None of this is adding up to the process issue Dean is claiming.
- xapata 6y ago> on record You mean spoke to journalists? Or gave a legal deposition?
- dragonwriter 6y ago> You mean spoke to journalists? Non-anonymously, yes, and also non-anonymously on social media and other public venues. > Or gave a legal deposition? There being no lawsuit in which for them to be deposed on the issue, that would be impossible.
- KittenInABox 6y agoI mean their statements are public
- in_cahoots 6y agoThat’s not what it says, though. It says her paper was approved, she submitted, and then a reviewer had a complaint. He seems to be deliberately vague here to make it seem as if she was acting without permission, but as I read it she had a vid reason to submit. This lines up with other people in the thread saying submitting hours before the deadline was risky, but common.
- xapata 6y agoI think the wording was awkward. It sounded like Jeff was saying she approved herself. Life lesson: stop using passive voice.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]