The Role of Protocol Papers, Scoping Reviews, and Systematic Reviews in Responsible AI Research

IF 1.9 4区工程技术 Q3 ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC

IEEE Technology and Society Magazine Pub Date : 2025-03-07 DOI:10.1109/MTS.2025.3558666

Calvin Hillis;Ebrahim Bagheri;Zack Marshall

{"title":"The Role of Protocol Papers, Scoping Reviews, and Systematic Reviews in Responsible AI Research","authors":"Calvin Hillis;Ebrahim Bagheri;Zack Marshall","doi":"10.1109/MTS.2025.3558666","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Research protocol papers, scoping reviews, and systematic reviews are important tools for ensuring transparency, methodological rigor, accountability, and reproducibility in scholarly research. While widely adopted in disciplines such as medicine and social sciences, these practices remain underutilized in computer science and engineering, particularly within responsible AI research. This article explores the critical role that scoping and systematic reviews play in synthesizing knowledge, identifying gaps, and guiding future research in responsible AI. It also examines how research protocol papers—especially those developed for structured reviews—can improve the credibility, clarity, and replicability of responsible AI studies. By outlining the benefits and challenges of these methods, we argue for their greater adoption in AI ethics and responsible AI research. We conclude with recommendations to support the institutional, editorial, and cultural shifts necessary to integrate these rigorous methodological tools into responsible AI scholarship.","PeriodicalId":55016,"journal":{"name":"IEEE Technology and Society Magazine","volume":"44 2","pages":"72-76"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"IEEE Technology and Society Magazine","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10989601/","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Research protocol papers, scoping reviews, and systematic reviews are important tools for ensuring transparency, methodological rigor, accountability, and reproducibility in scholarly research. While widely adopted in disciplines such as medicine and social sciences, these practices remain underutilized in computer science and engineering, particularly within responsible AI research. This article explores the critical role that scoping and systematic reviews play in synthesizing knowledge, identifying gaps, and guiding future research in responsible AI. It also examines how research protocol papers—especially those developed for structured reviews—can improve the credibility, clarity, and replicability of responsible AI studies. By outlining the benefits and challenges of these methods, we argue for their greater adoption in AI ethics and responsible AI research. We conclude with recommendations to support the institutional, editorial, and cultural shifts necessary to integrate these rigorous methodological tools into responsible AI scholarship.

查看原文本刊更多论文

协议文件、范围审查和系统审查在负责任的人工智能研究中的作用

研究方案文件、范围审查和系统审查是确保学术研究透明度、方法严谨性、问责制和可重复性的重要工具。尽管这些实践在医学和社会科学等学科中被广泛采用，但在计算机科学和工程领域，尤其是在负责任的人工智能研究领域，仍未得到充分利用。本文探讨了范围界定和系统评价在综合知识、识别差距和指导未来负责任的人工智能研究中所起的关键作用。它还研究了研究方案文件——特别是那些为结构化审查而开发的研究方案文件——如何提高负责任的人工智能研究的可信度、清晰度和可重复性。通过概述这些方法的好处和挑战，我们主张在人工智能伦理和负责任的人工智能研究中更多地采用它们。最后，我们提出了一些建议，以支持将这些严格的方法论工具整合到负责任的人工智能学术中所必需的制度、编辑和文化转变。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

IEEE Technology and Society Magazine 工程技术-工程：电子与电气

CiteScore

3.00

自引率

13.60%

发文量

审稿时长

>12 weeks

期刊介绍： IEEE Technology and Society Magazine invites feature articles (refereed), special articles, and commentaries on topics within the scope of the IEEE Society on Social Implications of Technology, in the broad areas of social implications of electrotechnology, history of electrotechnology, and engineering ethics.