While I understand what are you trying to say (the manuscript in question exhibits low empiricism), I don't think you fully understand different kinds of resear

While I understand what are you trying to say (the manuscript in question exhibits low empiricism), I don't think you fully understand different kinds of research that exist (you don't have to agree with it, but more helpful would be to take it appropriately according to how serious the study is). Please take a look at (Wieringa, R., Maiden, N., Mead, N., & Rolland, C. (2005). Requirements engineering paper classification and evaluation criteria: A proposal and a discussion. Requirements Engineering, 11(1), 102–107) available here: http://www.cse.chalmers.se/~feldt/advice/wieringa_2006_re_paper_classification_and_eval_criteria.pdf http://www.cse.chalmers.se/~feldt/advice/wieringa_2006_re_pa... Specifically read the section 3 (which is on p. 4). There you will find that research in software engineering can be broadly grouped into the following categories: Evaluation research, Proposal of solution, Validation research, Philosophical papers, Opinion papers, Personal experience papers. While I agree that the usual way to deal with the criticism of the work is to redo the work with better evaluation (and thus, more strongly supported arguments), I think that in any ethics research you'd need more than just publications that fall under Evaluation research (which is what you are likely referring to as "true AI research").