REVIEW 2 cited by
It's Time to Do Something: Mitigating the Negative Impacts of Computing Through a Change to the Peer Review Process
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
The computing research community needs to work much harder to address the downsides of our innovations. Between the erosion of privacy, threats to democracy, and automation's effect on employment (among many other issues), we can no longer simply assume that our research will have a net positive impact on the world. While bending the arc of computing innovation towards societal benefit may at first seem intractable, we believe we can achieve substantial progress with a straightforward step: making a small change to the peer review process. As we explain below, we hypothesize that our recommended change will force computing researchers to more deeply consider the negative impacts of their work. We also expect that this change will incentivize research and policy that alleviates computing's negative impacts.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Understanding the LLM-ification of CHI: Unpacking the Impact of LLMs at CHI through a Systematic Literature Review
A systematic review of 153 CHI papers shows LLMs are used across ten domains, mostly as system engines and in empirical or artifact contributions, with widespread validity and reproducibility concerns.
-
[Extended] Ethics in Computer Security Research: A Data-Driven Assessment of the Past, the Present, and the Possible Future
A full-year census of top security papers plus 24 interviews shows ethics reporting is inconsistent and skewed toward compliance, with little deep harm-benefit deliberation.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.