Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36967876›Full record

ArticleHeliyon2023

What's next for responsible artificial intelligence: a way forward through responsible innovation.

Heinz Herrmann

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Heliyon, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Heinz HerrmannTorrens University Australia, 17/51 Foveaux St, Surry Hills NSW, 2010, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Industry is adopting artificial intelligence (AI) at a rapid pace and a growing number of countries have declared national AI strategies. However, several spectacular AI failures have led to ethical concerns about responsibility in AI development and use, which gave rise to the emerging field of responsible AI (RAI). The field of responsible innovation (RI) has a longer history and evolved toward a framework for the entire research, development, and innovation life cycle. However, this research demonstrates that the uptake of RI by RAI has been slow. RAI has been developing independently, with three times the number of publications than RI. The objective and knowledge contribution of this research was to understand how RAI has been developing independently from RI and contribute to how RI could be leveraged toward the progression of RAI in a causal loop diagram. It is concluded that stakeholder engagement of citizens from diverse cultures across the Global North and South is a policy leverage point for moving the RI adoption by RAI toward global best practice. A role-specific recommendation for policy makers is made to deploy modes of engaging with the Global South with more urgency to avoid the risk of harming vulnerable populations. As an additional methodological contribution, this study employs a novel method, systematic science mapping, which combines systematic literature reviews with science mapping. This new method enabled the discovery of an emerging 'axis of adoption' of RI by RAI around the thematic areas of ethics, governance, stakeholder engagement, and sustainability. 828 Scopus articles were mapped for RI and 2489 articles were mapped for RAI. The research presented here is by any measure the largest systematic literature review of both fields to date and the only cross-disciplinary review from a methodological perspective.

Indexed as

artificial intelligenceethicsRAIresponsible artificial intelligenceresponsible innovationRRIsystematic reviewsystematic science mapping

Identifiers

PMID36967876
PMCPMC10036946

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.