Meta FAIR refuses to cite a pre-existing open-source project – to claim novelty
1–10 of 14 posts
Re: Meta FAIR refuses to cite a pre-existing open-source project – to claim novelty
#2They fail to follow scientific ethics by refusing to cite pre-existing art, so that they can claim novelty for their methods.
How many times has this happened? The corporate labs are erasing independent contributors from scientific history, by falsifying it.
Re: Meta FAIR refuses to cite a pre-existing open-source project – to claim novelty
#3[deleted]
Re: Meta FAIR refuses to cite a pre-existing open-source project – to claim novelty
#4[flagged]
Re: Meta FAIR refuses to cite a pre-existing open-source project – to claim novelty
#5I'm not in academia so forgive this for being a naive question: is it expected that if you publish a preprint, and someone comes to you with related work that you haven't studied/considered/used, that you then add a citation to that work?
Re: Meta FAIR refuses to cite a pre-existing open-source project – to claim novelty
#6They fail to follow scientific ethics by refusing to cite pre-existing art, so that they can claim novelty for their methods. How many times has this happened? The corporate labs are erasing independent contributors from scientific history, by falsifying it.
> How many times has this happened?
Not commenting on this specific case, but presenting your work as novel when there is a pile of pre-existing art is pretty common in ML/AI. Some of it is due to trying to get into conferences, but a fair share of it is also due to the sheer number of papers getting published. It can be legitimately difficult to read from the firehose of paper and understand whether your approach was explored in the last 5 years.
EDIT: Reading the blog and looking at the code, it does not pass the smell test for me, he wants them to cite an 8-month old GitHub package (no pre-print/published paper) with 19 stars? This is the equivalent of a patent troll for academic papers. The basic idea is not even novel, using judges to judge your judges goes back to at least a few years.
Re: Meta FAIR refuses to cite a pre-existing open-source project – to claim novelty
#7I'm not in academia so forgive this for being a naive question: is it expected that if you publish a preprint, and someone comes to you with related work that you haven't studied/considered/used, that you then add a citation to that work?
It's not illegal to omit citing existing work, like it isn't illegal to lie. It is highly unethical to knowingly claim to propose a novel approach which has been publicly proposed, and even implemented before though.
In effect this is erasing independent practitioners as inventors of methods from the history of science, and claiming false credit.
Re: Meta FAIR refuses to cite a pre-existing open-source project – to claim novelty
#8They fail to follow scientific ethics by refusing to cite pre-existing art, so that they can claim novelty for their methods. How many times has this happened? The corporate labs are erasing independent contributors from scientific history, by falsifying it.
> How many times has this happened? Not commenting on this specific case, but presenting your work as novel when there is a pile of pre-existing art is pretty common in ML/AI. Some of it is due to trying to get into conferences, but a fair share of it is also due to the sheer number of papers getting published. It can be legitimately difficult to read from the firehose of paper and understand whether your approach wa…
It is almost impossible to proactively find existing art conclusively. However, this wasn't my expectation in this case. I would just like them to correct the facts in their preprint, and add a citation which is missing. They refused to do that.
If you know a reference to an even more prior mention of meta-judges, please let me know. I am happy to add references to the repository.
Very typically authors write "to our knowledge novel method", which is fine, but in this case the authors cannot write even that if they know the method isn't novel now.
Re: Meta FAIR refuses to cite a pre-existing open-source project – to claim novelty
#9Haven’t read the paper (or looked at the code), but not sure there’s a general obligation to cite anything that’s not a pre-print/published. If they knew of and used the code, that would be a different story, but otherwise it seems okay, if understandably frustrating for the person that wrote the code.
This is especially the case for something like this where it’s a relatively obvious idea and the evaluation matters more.
Re: Meta FAIR refuses to cite a pre-existing open-source project – to claim novelty
#10Haven’t read the paper (or looked at the code), but not sure there’s a general obligation to cite anything that’s not a pre-print/published. If they knew of and used the code, that would be a different story, but otherwise it seems okay, if understandably frustrating for the person that wrote the code. This is especially the case for something like this where it’s a relatively obvious idea and the evaluation matters…
I'm not sure if there is obligation to cite anything. It's a question of ethics.
A claim of proposing a novel method should be corrected in a scientific publication if shown false. Otherwise the author is knowingly adding falsehoods into the body of scientific knowledge, and their institution is allowing it.