4 ms·
> Though Bender asked us not to publish the paper itself because the authors didn’t want such an early draft circulating online Should not you avoid submitting
by ethical-ai 6y ago
> Though Bender asked us not to publish the paper itself because the authors didn’t want such an early draft circulating online
Should not you avoid submitting early drafts which are not good enough to be published yet?
- dash2 6y agoNo, it was submitted to a conference, that’s what they’re for. Not the same as submitting for publication.
- ethical-ai 6y agoIn AI research conferences are main way to publish, if I understand you correctly. It is generally considered to be a bad practice to submit "such an early draft" for peer review. Moreover, if it was accepted, it would be "circulating online" in conference proceedings. Why is anyone surprised that the draft which is considered not good enough to share with public by authors themselves is banned from sharing (in form of conference publication) by internal review?
- CydeWeys 6y agoThere's a lot of speculation going on here. The version of the paper I read did not feel like an early draft at all, but a final one. This is just the excuse Emily Bender is using to avoid providing Technology Review with a copy of the paper. You're right; they wouldn't have submitted an early rough draft for peer review at a conference (these aren't amateurs we're talking about here!). The real reason I suspect she didn't want the paper published is that the other 4 colleagues are still employees at Google and could get in trouble, seeing as how Google doesn't want it published and all.