Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37185917›Full record

ArticleScience and engineering ethics2023

Research Ethics in the Age of Digital Platforms.

José Luis Molina, Paola Tubaro, Antonio Casilli, Antonio Santos-Ortega

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Science and engineering ethics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

4 authors.

José Luis MolinaGRAFO-Department of social and Cultural Anthropology, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra, Spain. joseluis.molina@uab.cat.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2932-2690
Paola TubaroLaboratoire Interdisciplinaire Des Sciences du Numérique (LISN), Centre National de La Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Université Paris-Saclay, Inria, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1215-9145
Antonio CasilliSchool of Telecommunications, Institut Polytechnique de Paris, Telecom Paris, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2025-1627
Antonio Santos-OrtegaDepartment of Sociology and Social Anthropology, Universitat de València, Valencia, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1849-8623

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Scientific research is growingly increasingly reliant on "microwork" or "crowdsourcing" provided by digital platforms to collect new data. Digital platforms connect clients and workers, charging a fee for an algorithmically managed workflow based on Terms of Service agreements. Although these platforms offer a way to make a living or complement other sources of income, microworkers lack fundamental labor rights and basic safe working conditions, especially in the Global South. We ask how researchers and research institutions address the ethical issues involved in considering microworkers as "human participants." We argue that current scientific research fails to treat microworkers in the same way as in-person human participants, producing de facto a double morality: one applied to people with rights acknowledged by states and international bodies (e.g., the Helsinki Declaration), the other to guest workers of digital autocracies who have almost no rights at all. We illustrate our argument by drawing on 57 interviews conducted with microworkers in Spanish-speaking countries.

Indexed as

CrowdsourcingEthics, ResearchHelsinki DeclarationHumansAmazon mechanical TurkCrowdsourcingDigital platformsMicroworkResearch ethics

Identifiers

PMID37185917
PMCPMC10127972

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.