UnWEIRDing Peer Review in Human Computer Interaction

TL;DR

The paper tackles the problem of WEIRD biases in HCI peer review that marginalize Global South scholarship. It employs four focus groups with 16 GS-focused researchers and analyzes experiences through the lens of epistemic oppression, drawing on Dotson's first-, second-, and third-order framework. The authors provide a nuanced account of how reviews constrain GS research, including tokenization of GS scholars as cultural experts and the hidden curriculum of writing, then propose concrete, multi-level reforms and accountability mechanisms. The work advances beyond diagnosis by offering practical, actionable strategies for authors, reviewers, and conferences to unWEIRDing HCI peer review and invites the SIGCHI community to implement inclusive practices with tangible impacts on knowledge production.

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.