Hacker News Reader

Comment by powersnail | Hacker News Reader

While there hasn't been enough evidence to fully condemn either side, I disagree that this is just poor communication.

Unless Google deliberately changed the enforcement of the policy just to mess with her, she should have known the policy. It doesn't seem to be a complicated process, and 2 weeks is a reasonably short time to wait.

On the other side, Google has been in this game long enough, that they must know a paper can be updated in this case. So there wouldn't be a misunderstanding there, either.

What exactly happened is unclear so far. But I doubt it will come down to just a series of misunderstanding.

On a side note, I suspect that working research for a company with a conflicting interest in the same area is generally a bad idea. At some point, the dilemma of either leaving or stopping caring about it would present itself.

View on HN

I will say that having many processes, selectively enforced is a common cover for disparate treatment.

That’s a good point. How many other Google researchers have submitted papers to conferences without waiting for the 2 week internal review to complete? What happened in those cases if the paper failed the internal review? Without more context it’s impossible to tell if this was a case of discrimination or just a case a researcher not following Google’s internal policies and suffering the consequences.

I don't have stats, but when I tried to do this it was made quite clear that I needed to submit 2 weeks early because nobody who reviews can drop their day work to do a priority review for anything less than a superpaper. Most of the people doing paper reviews (just like in academia) are busy and doing them in their "spare time" (evenings, weekends).

I don't think we even need data on this. One or two day prior is unthinkable, just per common sense. Although data points would be valuable and appreciated but we don't really need data to understand the one or two day is just not enough time for anyone or anything.

It's not like there are a bunch of dedicated reviewers, it's always other researchers who review. I don't think some of the most valued papers like MapReduce or BigTable would be reviewed in just a day or two. It's just not a reasonable amount of time in any condition in terms of reviewing research papers.

I worked as a run-of-the-mill engineer at Google and was involved in publishing a paper externally. We couldn't do it the first time around because we finished only 3 days before the external deadline and there wasn't enough time to get it approved internally. This seemed to be very standard around me. People were actually submitting well ahead of time and to me it seems like that Gebru expected the rules to be bent for her if she realistically believed a single day would be enough. Let me just point out that this is a standard practice even in academic research at universities when larger teams are involved.

Having worked at three large academic institutions and been part of the submission process for about a dozen manuscripts, I have never seen or heard of a requirement for an internal administrative approval.

IRB approval for study designs, yes, admin submission of grants, yes, but never an authorization that the results and manuscript could be submitted to a journal or conference

Are you serious? Every large collaboration in e.g. physics has those. You simple cannot create a splinter cell within the organization and publish whatever you want. You have to coordinate with everybody because the work is never truly yours. In case of e.g. CERN, literally thousands of people helped you in some way and they do not want you to potentially tarnish their reputation. Industry AI labs are like that as well. I know this for a fact at least in the organizations I worked at.

It sounds like we’re confusing two things.

What you’re describing in this comment sounds like a consortium. These often an embargo on publication of independent manuscripts until the primary paper(s) have been published. However, once the data’s out, each investigator is free to publish whatever secondary analysis they like.

I understood the Google process to be an _administrative_ approval, based on the conclusions of the paper and unrelated to the quality of the science. This I have never heard of at an academic institution. The final call that a manuscript is ready for publication has always been made by the corresponding/senior authors, not admin.

In any large company there are lots of process rules and internal deadlines that are unrealistic for whatever reason and don't get followed in practice, leading to many last-minute exceptions. I don't know about the specific case of research papers, but if would not surprise me at all if "one day before the deadline" were a common submission timeframe at Google. Of course that not ideal and probably sucks for the team in charge of reviewing these things, but in that context it wouldn't be such a "damning" piece of evidence against her and the other researchers.

Submitting for an internal review a day before the deadline is not a common thing in Google Research at all. I worked there and actually was not able to submit a paper to an external conference because the internal deadline was only 3 days away and it was likely we wouldn't be able to get the internal approval ahead of time. The rules were clear and as far as I understood it, people did follow them. If there was any selective enforcement, it would be in her favor if she expected a single day to be enough.

A lot of process rules are unrealistic, but that doesn't mean this one is, and that can't be used to conclude that all internal processes are unrealistic and wouldn't be followed. It's an quite unrealistic statement to make. Most places rely on internal processes to work, and it would be extremely rare for any case of exception.

> Most places rely on internal processes to work, and it would be extremely rare for any case of exception.

That's a pretty broad statement with no supporting evidence. In fact, I'd argue that most large organizations rely on internal processes to be ignored or bypassed just as often as they rely on other processes to be followed.

I've been on teams that required "every feature" to go through a design review. Guess what? Suddenly a lot of what we were already working on stopped being "features" and started being "small bug fixes". Approvals for launches are often sought from the last few approvers just before launch because the list of required approvers is so long, and the VP of engineering isn't going to approve until everyone else has already approved etc... This kind of shit is par for the course at a large company because the alternative is basically a "work to rule" strike.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com