A paper is eligible for publishing in reputable journals in general if it satisfies the criteria objectivity, reproducibility and (optionally) novelty.
But why are they not considering Explainability as a criterion? Although the model proposed in the paper satisfies the above mentioned three metrics but not explainability, then how can it be considered as a contribution to field?
PS: Low "explainability" means proving something works without explaining how it works. See also "Interpretability"
No comments:
Post a Comment