Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Preprint |
| Published: |
2026
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.17476 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1866917220852957184 |
|---|---|
| author | Nigatu, Hellina Hailu Shahid, Farhana Sharma, Vishal Oppong, Abigail Thomas, Michaelanne Ahmed, Syed Ishtiaque |
| author_facet | Nigatu, Hellina Hailu Shahid, Farhana Sharma, Vishal Oppong, Abigail Thomas, Michaelanne Ahmed, Syed Ishtiaque |
| contents | 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. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2601_17476 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2026 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | UnWEIRDing Peer Review in Human Computer Interaction Nigatu, Hellina Hailu Shahid, Farhana Sharma, Vishal Oppong, Abigail Thomas, Michaelanne Ahmed, Syed Ishtiaque Human-Computer Interaction 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. |
| title | UnWEIRDing Peer Review in Human Computer Interaction |
| topic | Human-Computer Interaction |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.17476 |