You're factually wrong. I was literally able to view her paper, and it's approved status, in the internal tool where papers are approved for publication.
This directly contradicts what Jeff Dean wrote: “A cross functional team then reviewed the paper as part of our regular process and the authors were informed that it didn’t meet our bar for publication” (emphasis mine).
Which makes it more likely to be the truth, not less likely. It would be very foolish to write that if it were demonstrably false, as was claimed above. And I have to assume their lawyers aren’t very foolish.
But this is all another deflection. Whether the paper was rejected by a regular process or an irregular process, it doesn’t condone her actions that followed.
> Whether the paper was rejected by a regular process or an irregular process, it doesn’t condone her actions that followed
This is where we'll have to agree to disagree.
As you can see in this thread, she was treated unfairly. Someone confirmed to you that this is the case, and you're still arguing that her subsequent behavior was unjustifiable.
I think her subsequent behavior was a result of the unfair treatment. I'm not sure how I would've reacted in her place, and I have a lot of empathy for a scientist who is being scrutinized outside of normal policies.
Her paper was anodyne. No one would've blinked if it was published. And I think you keep saying that it's okay for a research department to stop publication of scientific work regardless of whether the paper was mistaken or not.
You've said that it needs revisions. I work in ML. It seemed not to need any revisions, as far as I could tell. Google's reaction seemed far out of proportion for what the paper claimed.
You can say "Well, that's life. Google didn't do anything wrong." The former is true, but I'm skeptical of the latter.
"As you can see in this thread, she was treated unfairly. S"
This is not true.
The fact that she may or may not have had extra scrutiny than others, within regular policy or not is completely besides the point.
If a company, for whatever reason, wants to have 'another review' of the paper, it's completely within their purview.
"Her paper was anodyne. No one would've blinked if it was published."
Our view of whether it was notable or not is irrelevant. If the company wanted to put the brakes on it, especially because it related to Google, then that's their choice.
It's hugely arrogant for her to make the claims she did - let alone publicly (!) - by all right she should have been fired for that, she was luckily the conditions enabled her to even try to establish the premise of her own resignation.
A company being legally allowed to do something doesn't implicitly make that thing fair or ethical.
You can simultaneously believe that Google has the right to quash any paper, and believe that doing so arbitrarily is unfair. So yes, she was treated unfairly. And that's absolutely relevant to people's decision making. Like, what do you think it's irrelevant in relation to?
Its not clear what you mean by publicly, nothing was done outside of Google until after she was fired.
