UnWEIRDing Peer Review in Human Computer Interaction

2026-01-24

AI Summary

This study addresses systemic biases in Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) peer review that marginalize theoretical contributions and epistemic legitimacy of scholars from the Global South. Drawing on cognitive oppression as a theoretical framework, the research analyzes data from four focus groups with 16 HCI scholars whose work centers on Global South contexts. It uncovers structural barriers in the review process, including the exclusion of non-Western knowledge systems, the tokenization of cultural expertise, and implicit writing norms rooted in WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic) paradigms. As the first systematic investigation into mechanisms of epistemic injustice in HCI reviewing, this work proposes actionable strategies for de-WEIRDing peer review to foster a more inclusive and equitable knowledge evaluation system.

Technology Category

• Philosophy and Ethics of AI: Bias, Fairness & Equity
• Computer Vision: Bias, Fairness & Privacy
• Humans and AI: Human-Computer Interaction

Application Category

• Economics, Online Markets and Human Computation: Fairness and ethical considerations in crowd work and in human-in-the-loop AI systems
• Social Networks and Social Media: Fairness and bias in social network and social media analysis
• Responsible Web: Human-perceived consequences of algorithmic deployment on the web

Abstract

Peer review determines which scholarship is legitimized; however, review biases often disadvantage scholarship that diverges from the norm. Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) lacks a systemic inquiry into how such biases affect underrepresented Global South (GS) scholarship. To address this critical gap, we conducted four focus groups with 16 HCI researchers studying the GS. Participants reported experiencing reviews that confined them to development research, dismissed their theoretical contributions, and questioned situated knowledge from GS communities. Both as authors and reviewers, participants reported experiencing the epistemic burden of over-explaining why knowledge from GS communities matters. Further, they noted being tokenized as ``cultural experts''when assigned to review papers and pointed out that the hidden curriculum of writing HCI papers often gatekeeps GS scholarship. Using epistemic oppression as a lens, we discuss how review practices marginalize GS scholarship and outline actionable strategies for nurturing equitable epistemological evaluation of HCI scholarship.

Problem

• peer review bias
• Global South scholarship
• epistemic oppression
• Human-Computer Interaction
• equitable evaluation

Innovation

• epistemic oppression
• Global South
• peer review bias
• situated knowledge
• equitable evaluation