@Aaroth
@bhecht
Hmm you may be right. Part of the issue is that some work has no immediate societal consequence.
I do think that papers should include a limitations section tho (which is standard in medicine). studies).
It would help peer review / avoid misunderstandings by journalists etc.
1
0
6
Replies
Key proposal by
@bhecht
in Nature this week:
“The CS community should change its peer-review process to ensure that researchers disclose any possible negative societal consequences of their work in papers, or risk rejection.”
5
49
86
@berkustun
@bhecht
Interesting but not sure how I feel about this. Is there any precedent in e.g. physics or chemistry? Introspection is good, but it is difficult to predict the future, and my guess is that a requirement like this would turn into a pro-forma exercise with little real thought put in
1
0
7
@berkustun
@bhecht
A limitations section is a great idea, and one of the things that Science/Nature style publications get right. (I'm in the middle of writing a limitations section as we speak :-) These help science advance, but are orthogonal to bad societal consequences I think.
0
0
2