3 ms·
This is awful: > Based on the overall positive reviews and the recommendation of all reviewers to accept the work, the PC did not discuss this paper during the
by kuu 5y ago
This is awful:
> Based on the overall positive reviews and the recommendation of all reviewers to accept the work, the PC did not discuss this paper during the online PC meeting; [...] When, after acceptance, the authors tweeted the abstract of the work in November 2020, several people expressed concerns about human-subject research featured in this work. At that time, the PC chairs discussed these concerns [...]. As a result of these discussions, the PC chairs asked the authors to clarify the experiments with the University of Minnesota Institutional Review Board (IRB). We now acknowledge that this offer was a mistake
Basically: they did not review it and once it was published and people complained, they reacted. What's the point of the PC then?
- neatze 5y agoWhat really happened (to the best of my understanding): - Researchers submitted paper to IEEE. - Researcher twitter about it. - Tweet was deleted, because people pointed out it was bad humans subject researcher. (consent and deception) - Other researchers not from UNM, filled complaints to IEEE. - Researcher mislead (so far seems like) IRB, arguably IRB failed to do a job and just rubber stamped human subject research exemption, after research was conducted ... - Paper got accepted to IEEE. - Researchers push more patches to Linux kernel. - Plonk email from Greg. - UNM response latter indirectly blaming only researchers but not IRB. - Paper get retracted from IEEE - IEEE Response letter. - We are here.