UnWEIRDing Peer Review in Human Computer Interaction

TL;DR

This paper investigates how peer review biases in HCI marginalize Global South scholarship, revealing systemic issues and proposing strategies for more equitable evaluation practices.

Contribution

It provides a qualitative analysis of review biases against GS scholarship in HCI and introduces actionable strategies to promote epistemic equity.

Findings

Review biases confine GS research to development topics.

Reviewers often dismiss GS theoretical contributions.

Participants experience epistemic burden and tokenization.

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.