CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1Digital Accessibility for DisabilitiesDisability Rights and RepresentationDisability Education and Employment

"I Don't Trust Any Professional Research Tool": A Re-Imagination of Knowledge Production Workflows by, with, and for Blind and Low-Vision Researchers

Open access
Khan, Omar, Seo, JooYoung·2026·Proceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
DOI 10.1145/3772318.3791242

Published version of a preprint

Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Research touts universal participation through accessibility initiatives, yet blind and low-vision (BLV) researchers face systematic exclusion as visual representations dominate modern research workflows. To materialize inclusive processes, we, as BLV researchers, examined how our peers combat inaccessible infrastructures. Through an explanatory sequential mixed-methods approach, we conducted a cross-sectional, observational survey (n=57) and follow-up semi-structured interviews (n=15), analyzing open-ended data using reflexive thematic analysis and framing findings through activity theory to highlight research’s systemic shortcomings. We expose how BLV researchers sacrifice autonomy and shoulder physical burdens, with nearly one-fifth unable to independently perform literature review or evaluate visual outputs, delegating tasks to sighted colleagues or relying on AI-driven retrieval to circumvent fatigue. Researchers also voiced frustration with specialized tools, citing developers’ performative responses and losing deserved professional accolades. We seek follow-through on research’s promises through design recommendations that reconceptualize accessibility as fundamental to successful research and supporting BLV scholars’ workflows.

Verified 2026-10-12 · 12 references not checked yet

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This explanatory sequential mixed-methods study with 57 blind and low-vision (BLV) researchers and 15 follow-up interviews documents how inaccessible research tools force BLV researchers into general-purpose software, workarounds, and dependence on sighted colleagues or AI across the research lifecycle. Using activity theory, the authors frame these as systemic contradictions and recommend accessibility-first design, institutional support, and evaluation reforms.

Key findings

  • BLV researchers consistently chose general-purpose tools (Word, Excel, Google Docs) over specialized research software; nearly one-fifth (17%) reported delegating literature review/management to sighted colleagues or using AI-driven retrieval to circumvent fatigue.
  • Data analysis and visualization ranked as most challenging (mean 2.58/5), followed by literature access (mean 2.80/5); participants described basic accessibility failures in tools such as NVivo and manuscript submission/review platforms.
  • Workarounds included AI/LLMs for inaccessible PDFs, trust networks and contingency planning, and collaborative compromises/task redistribution; these exposed hidden labor and skill-silo risks.
  • Impacts included professional network limitation/degradation, credibility challenges, loss of professional accolades (e.g., P1’s presentation award), and career exclusion (P13 left a PhD two classes and a dissertation short).

Methods

  • Explanatory sequential mixed-methods: cross-sectional observational survey (n=57) via Qualtrics June–July 2025, then semi-structured interviews (n=15) July–August 2025. Inclusion: 18+, legally blind or low vision (20/70 or less), actively/previously engaged in research. Recruitment via BLV advocacy organizations, mailing lists, and snowball sampling.
  • Survey design drew on research stages, Technology Acceptance Model, User Experience Questionnaire, and activity theory; closed-ended analysis used descriptive statistics and Kruskal-Wallis; open-ended survey responses were coded in ATLAS.ti 25 via open, axial, and selective coding aligned to activity theory.
  • Interviews were analyzed with reflexive thematic analysis integrating deductive and inductive coding; quantitative findings shaped interview probes, and qualitative findings explained why stages or tools were problematic. Authors are BLV researchers (first low vision, second totally blind).

Limitations

  • Paper-stated: targeted sample rather than comprehensive cross-section; recruitment through advocacy organizations may introduce selection bias toward more resource-aware researchers; cross-sectional snapshot may evolve; focus primarily on digital tool accessibility in desk-based activities, excluding lab equipment, field sites, conference venues, and physical infrastructure; tool categorization may lose nuance; other disabled researchers face intersecting and distinct barriers warranting separate investigation.
  • Evident from text: sample skews toward social sciences (52.4% of survey) and graduate students (50.0%), limiting generalizability to experimental sciences, fieldwork, and clinical research; data are self-reported.
  • Evident from text: no causal claims; findings describe perceived barriers and strategies, and the authors note some participants declined to discuss specific incidents, which may underreport sensitive experiences.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3772318.3791242

Cites

62 of 85 references verified0 citation errors · 11 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

20 of 55 cited sources checked · 6 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Premisecitation
    § 2.2 Systemic Barriers in Research Activity Systems · p. 4

    Infrastructural barriers compound into epistemic violence, the systematic dismissal of disabled researchers' knowledge claims.

    “These infrastructural barriers then compound into epistemic violence , the systematic dismissal of disabled researchers' knowledge claims [21, 64].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [21] [21] Kristie Dotson. 2011. Tracking Epistemic Violence, Tracking Practices of Silencing. Hypatia 26, 2 (2011), 236-257. https://doi.org/10.1111/j. 1527-2001.2011.01177.x - source

      The passages in our indexed copy concern pig-to-primate cardiac xenotransplantation, despite the source title identifying a review of adult siblings and learning disabilities. Searches for epistemic violence, disabled researchers’ knowledge claims, and barriers to their research found no passage addressing the claim. The supplied passages have no page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.78)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [64] [64] Jackie Leach Scully. 2018. From 'She Would Say That, Wouldn't She?' To 'Does She Take Sugar?' Epistemic Injustice and Disability. IJFAB: International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics 11, 1 (2018), 106-124. - source

      Section 4 (Effects; page unavailable) describes disabled people's knowledge claims being rejected or dismissed, and the section on systemic exclusion in health and social care identifies institutional conditions that make such dismissal more likely. The paper does not specifically say that infrastructural barriers compound into this harm for disabled researchers; it discusses disabled people more broadly and does not frame the process as “epistemic violence.” (LLM, conf=0.86)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Premisecitation
    § 2.2 Systemic Barriers in Research Activity Systems · p. 4

    Transportation limitations and inaccessible fieldwork sites create compounding exclusions, particularly affecting researchers with multiple marginalized identities.

    “Transportation limitations and inaccessible fieldwork sites create compounding exclusions [16, 67], particularly affecting researchers with multiple marginalized identities [11, 30].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim3 of 4 sources checked
    • cites [16] [16] Domenico Chiarella and Grazia Vurro. 2020. Fieldwork and Disability: An Overview for an Inclusive Experience. Geological Magazine 157, 11 (Nov. 2020), 1933-1938. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0016756820000928 - source

      Section 3.1 (page unavailable) says inaccessible field sites can exclude students and notes the physical strain of getting on and off a bus. It does not establish that transportation and site barriers compound one another, or that researchers with multiple marginalized identities are particularly affected; the paper discusses students with disabilities. (LLM, conf=0.85)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [67] [67] Alison Stokes, Anthony D. Feig, Christopher L. Atchison, and Brett Gilley. 2019. Making Geoscience Fieldwork Inclusive and Accessible for Students with Disabilities. Geosphere 15, 6 (Nov. 2019), 1809-1825. https://doi.org/10.1130/GES02006.1 - source
    • cites [11] [11] Aurora H. Brinkman, Gianna Rea-Sandin, Emily M. Lund, Olivia M. Fitzpatrick, Michaela S. Gusman, and Cassandra L. Boness. 2023. Shifting the Discourse on Disability: Moving to an Inclusive, Intersectional Focus. The American journal of orthopsychiatry 93, 1 (2023), 50-62. https://doi.org/10.1037/ort0000653 - source

      The section on other identities disabled people hold says that overlapping marginalized identities can compound exclusion. The Research section also identifies inaccessible research sites as barriers for disabled participants. Neither passage addresses transportation, fieldwork sites, or whether these barriers particularly affect researchers with multiple marginalized identities. (LLM, conf=0.83)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [30] [30] Tina Goethals, Elisabeth De Schauwer, and Geert Van Hove. 2015. Weaving Intersectionality into Disability Studies Research: Inclusion, Reflexivity and Anti-Essentialism. DiGeSt. Journal of Diversity and Gender Studies 2, 1-2 (2015), 75-94. https://doi.org/10.11116/jdivegendstud. 2.1-2.0075 jstor:10.11116/jdivegendstud.2.1-2.0075 - source

      The introduction (p. 2) and Concluding Thoughts (p. 15) discuss intersecting identities and the exclusion of people with disabilities from research, but not transportation or inaccessible fieldwork sites. Searches for transport, mobility, accessibility, and fieldwork found no passage linking those barriers to exclusions affecting researchers with multiple marginalized identities. (LLM, conf=0.75)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Interpretationcitation
    § 2.2 Systemic Barriers in Research Activity Systems · p. 4

    Digital accessibility barriers intersect with physical infrastructure challenges.

    “Moreover, these digital accessibility barriers intersect with physical infrastructure challenges.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [16] [16] Domenico Chiarella and Grazia Vurro. 2020. Fieldwork and Disability: An Overview for an Inclusive Experience. Geological Magazine 157, 11 (Nov. 2020), 1933-1938. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0016756820000928 - source

      Section 3.1 (page unavailable) discusses inaccessible field sites alongside limitations of digital alternatives, including low-resolution 3D maps and the effects of prolonged virtual-environment use. It also describes telepresence as an option when multiple means of physical access cannot be arranged. This supports a connection in the fieldwork context, but the paper does not establish the broader claim that digital accessibility barriers intersect with physical infrastructure challenges. (LLM, conf=0.77)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [67] [67] Alison Stokes, Anthony D. Feig, Christopher L. Atchison, and Brett Gilley. 2019. Making Geoscience Fieldwork Inclusive and Accessible for Students with Disabilities. Geosphere 15, 6 (Nov. 2019), 1809-1825. https://doi.org/10.1130/GES02006.1 - source
  • Premisecitation
    § 2.3 Towards Re-Imagining Equitable Research Participation · p. 5

    Emerging initiatives demonstrate practical pathways, such as accessible lab design, improved PDF remediation, and inclusive conference protocols.

    “Emerging initiatives demonstrate practical pathways, such as accessible lab design that reimagines physical tools and spaces [72], improved PDF remediation that addresses infrastructural inaccessibility [61], and inclusive conference protocols that restructure community norms of academic exchange [43].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim2 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [72] [72] Rebecca Trager. 2024. Visionary Chemistry Is Making Labs Accessible to Blind Students and Researchers. https://www.chemistryworld.com/careers/visionarychemistry-is-making-labs-accessible-to-blind-students-andresearchers/4018758.article. -

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [61] [61] Felix Maximilian Schmitt-Koopmann, Elaine May Huang, Hans-Peter Hutter, and Alireza Darvishy. 2025. Towards More Accessible Scientific PDFs for People with Visual Impairments: Step-by-Step PDF Remediation to Improve Tag Accuracy. In Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '25) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1145/3706598.3713084 - source
    • cites [43] [43] Alla Katsnelson. 2023. These Tools Help Visually Impaired Scientists Read Data and Journals. Nature 615, 7951 (March 2023), 362-363. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-00645-6 - source
  • Interpretationcitation
    § 4.4 Compound Professional Impacts (RQ4) · p. 12

    These quick judgments reflect broader ableist assumptions about BLV researchers' capacity for meaningful research contributions.

    “These quick judgments reflect broader ableist assumptions [51] about BLV researchers' capacity for meaningful research contributions.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [51] [51] Aparajita S Marathe and Anne Marie Piper. 2025. The Accessibility Paradox: How Blind and Low Vision Employees Experience and Negotiate Accessibility in the Technology Industry. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 9, 7 (Oct. 2025), CSCW485:1-CSCW485:25. https://doi.org/10.1145/3757666 - source
  • May combine two claims. 41
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 39
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 2

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 2.3 Towards Re-Imagining Equitable Research Participation · p. 5

    Disabled researchers' innovations surpass conventional approaches in both rigor and insight.

    “Hofmann et al. similarly document how disabled researchers' innovations surpass conventional approaches in both rigor and insight [14, 36].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [14] [14] Mark Anthony Castrodale and Daniel Zingaro. 2015. 'You're Such a Good Friend': A Woven Autoethnographic Narrative Discussion of Disability and Friendship in Higher Education. Disability Studies Quarterly 35, 1 (Feb. 2015). https://doi.org/10.18061/dsq.v35i1.3762 - source

      The Introduction (no page supplied) describes friendship-based inquiry as a way to develop counter-narratives to conventional disability research. The Conclusions say such narratives provide needed perspectives from disabled people in universities. Neither section establishes that disabled researchers’ approaches surpass conventional ones in rigor or insight. (LLM, conf=0.83)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [36] [36] Megan Hofmann, Devva Kasnitz, Jennifer Mankoff, and Cynthia L Bennett. 2020. Living Disability Theory: Reflections on Access, Research, and Design. In Proceedings of the 22nd International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS '20) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3373625.3416996 - source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § 1 INTRODUCTION · p. 1

    Research on academic workflows has highlighted the importance of accessible tools and inclusive practices, especially as the research community becomes increasingly diverse.

    “Separately, research on academic workflows has highlighted the importance of accessible tools and inclusive practices, especially as the research community becomes increasingly diverse [34, 50, 54, 76].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim2 of 4 sources checked
    • cites [34] [34] Aaron C. Hartmann. 2019. Disability Inclusion Enhances Science. Science 366, 6466 (Nov. 2019), 698-698. https://doi.org/10.1126/science. aaz0271 - source
    • cites [50] [50] Ahtsham Manzoor, Murayyiam Parvez, Suleman Shahid, and Asim Karim. 2018. Assistive Debugging to Support Accessible Latex Based Document Authoring. In Proceedings of the 20th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS '18) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 432-434. https://doi.org/10.1145/3234695.3241013 - source
    • cites [54] [54] Mona S. Minkara, Michael N. Weaver, Jim Gorske, Clifford R. Bowers, and Kenneth M. Jr. Merz. 2015. Implementation of Protocols To Enable Doctoral Training in Physical and Computational Chemistry of a Blind Graduate Student. Journal of Chemical Education 92, 8 (Aug. 2015), 1280-1283. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed5009552 - source

      The Advisor and DRC Perspective and Concluding Remarks describe the importance of accommodations, accessible materials, and coordinated support for a blind computational-chemistry graduate student. The Introduction anticipates more low-vision students entering graduate programs, but the paper does not establish that the research community broadly is becoming increasingly diverse. (LLM, conf=0.84)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [76] [76] Lucy Lu Wang, Isabel Cachola, Jonathan Bragg, Evie Yu-Yen Cheng, Chelsea Haupt, Matt Latzke, Bailey Kuehl, Madeleine van Zuylen, Linda Wagner, and Daniel S. Weld. 2021. Improving the Accessibility of Scientific Documents: Current State, User Needs, and a System Solution to Enhance Scientific PDF Accessibility for Blind and Low Vision Users. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2105.00076 arXiv:2105.00076 [cs] - source

      The Discussion (p. 32) calls for systems that support blind and low-vision researchers, and the Conclusion (p. 33) urges designers to account for their needs. These passages support the importance of accessible tools and inclusive practices in research workflows, but they do not establish that the research community is becoming increasingly diverse. (LLM, conf=0.84)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 2.2 Systemic Barriers in Research Activity Systems · p. 4

    Videoconferencing tools undermine BLV professionals' ability to independently facilitate meetings, requiring reliance on sighted co-hosts and potentially compromising perceptions of professional competency.

    “while Akter et al. reveal how videoconferencing tools undermine BLV professionals' ability to independently facilitate meetings, requiring reliance on sighted co-hosts and potentially compromising perceptions of professional competency [3].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [3] [3] Taslima Akter, Yoonha Cha, Isabela Figueira, Stacy M. Branham, and Anne Marie Piper. 2023. 'If I'm Supposed to Be the Facilitator, I Should Be the Host': Understanding the Accessibility of Videoconferencing for Blind and Low Vision Meeting Facilitators. In Proceedings of the 25th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS '23) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3597638.3608420 - source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 2.3 Towards Re-Imagining Equitable Research Participation · p. 5

    Recent scholarship has shifted from accommodation models toward frameworks of interdependence and participatory design, which recognize that all researchers rely on tools, collaborators, and infrastructures, making accessibility a universal rather than special concern.

    “These innovations reflect a fundamental shift in recent scholarship from accommodation models toward frameworks of interdependence and participatory design, which recognize that all researchers rely on tools, collaborators, and infrastructures, making accessibility a universal rather than special concern [8, 74].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [8] [8] Cynthia L. Bennett, Erin Brady, and Stacy M. Branham. 2018. Interdependence as a Frame for Assistive Technology Research and Design. In Proceedings of the 20th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS '18) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 161-173. https: //doi.org/10.1145/3234695.3236348 - source

      Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [74] [74] Maja van der Velden and Christina Mörtberg. 2021. Participatory Design and Design for Values. In Handbook of Ethics, Values, and Technological Design: Sources, Theory, Values and Application Domains , Jeroen van den Hoven, Pieter E. Vermaas, and Ibo van de Poel (Eds.). Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1007/97894-007-6994-6\_33-1 - source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation
    § 5.1 Commercial Tools and Academic Accessibility: A Systemic Crisis · p. 13

    Evaluation criteria privilege visual aesthetics over intellectual contribution, and seemingly neutral academic practices encode ableist assumptions.

    “evaluation criteria privileging visual aesthetics over intellectual contribution, as P1's lost presentation award demonstrates, seemingly neutral academic practices encode ableist assumptions [12].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [12] [12] Nicole Brown and Jennifer and Leigh. 2018. Ableism in Academia: Where Are the Disabled and Ill Academics? Disability & Society 33, 6 (July 2018), 985-989. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2018.1455627 - source

      In “Illnesses, neurodiversity and disabilities in academia” (page unavailable), Brown and Leigh describe ableism as normalised and ingrained in standards of achievement and productivity, supporting the point that academic norms can carry ableist assumptions. The paper does not discuss evaluation criteria privileging visual aesthetics over intellectual contribution; the lost presentation award is presented as the citing author's example, not a finding from this source. (LLM, conf=0.84)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation
    § 5.2 Ableist Assumptions and Epistemic Marginalization · p. 14

    This pattern exemplifies interdependence: collaborative access strategies overcome immediate barriers while potentially creating new dependencies.

    “This pattern exemplifies interdependence [8]: collaborative access strategies overcome immediate barriers while potentially creating new dependencies.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [8] [8] Cynthia L. Bennett, Erin Brady, and Stacy M. Branham. 2018. Interdependence as a Frame for Assistive Technology Research and Design. In Proceedings of the 20th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS '18) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 161-173. https: //doi.org/10.1145/3234695.3236348 - source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation
    § 5.2 Ableist Assumptions and Epistemic Marginalization · p. 14

    When evaluation systems conflate medium with quality, they create hermeneutical injustice: BLV researchers' contributions are undervalued because evaluative frameworks embody ableist assumptions about what recognizing excellence looks like.

    “When evaluation systems conflate medium with quality, they create what Scully describes as hermeneutical injustice [64]: BLV researchers' contributions are undervalued because evaluative frameworks embody ableist assumptions about what recognizing excellence looks like.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [64] [64] Jackie Leach Scully. 2018. From 'She Would Say That, Wouldn't She?' To 'Does She Take Sugar?' Epistemic Injustice and Disability. IJFAB: International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics 11, 1 (2018), 106-124. - source

      In “4. Effects,” Scully describes hermeneutic injustice as excluding stigmatized groups’ knowledge from collective epistemic resources; the same section discusses dominant groups judging disabled people’s claims through their own frameworks. This supports the conceptual connection, but the cited paper does not address evaluation systems conflating medium with quality or the undervaluation of BLV researchers’ work. (LLM, conf=0.84)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § 5.4 Limitations and Future Directions · p. 16

    Recent work has explored variability in usability and accessibility of digital collaborative tools among BLV workers.

    “recent work has explored variability in usability and accessibility of digital collaborative tools among BLV workers [4].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [4] [4] Taslima Akter, Aparajita S Marathe, Darren Gergle, and Anne Marie Piper. 2025. Beyond Accessibility: Understanding the Ease of Use and Impacts of Digital Collaboration Tools for Blind and Low Vision Workers. In Proceedings of the 27th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS '25) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 85, 17 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3663547.3746332 - source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data
    § SYNOPSIS · p. 1

    BLV researchers lose deserved professional accolades.

    “Researchers also voiced frustration with specialized tools, citing developers' performative responses and losing deserved professional accolades.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § SYNOPSIS · p. 1

    BLV researchers delegate tasks to sighted colleagues or rely on AI-driven retrieval to circumvent fatigue.

    “We expose how BLV researchers sacrifice autonomy and shoulder physical burdens, with nearly one-fifth unable to independently perform literature review or evaluate visual outputs, delegating tasks to sighted colleagues or relying on AI-driven retrieval to circumvent fatigue.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § 5.1 Commercial Tools and Academic Accessibility: A Systemic Crisis · p. 13

    Participants described labor-intensive verification strategies: cross-referencing AI outputs with multiple tools, seeking sighted colleague confirmation, and running queries through different systems.

    “Participants described labor-intensive verification strategies: cross-referencing AI outputs with multiple tools, seeking sighted colleague confirmation, and running queries through different systems.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § 4.2 Critical Access Barriers Manifesting Across Research Stages (RQ2) · p. 9

    Data analysis and visualization ranked as the most challenging research stage (mean = 2.58/5), followed by literature access (mean = 2.80/5).

    “data analysis and visualization ranked as most challenging (¯ 𝑥 = 2.58/5), followed by literature access (¯ 𝑥 = 2.80/5).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data
    § 4.1 Research Tool Choices Among BLV Researchers (RQ1) · p. 8

    PDF accessibility was a challenging aspect of literature review.

    “Another challenging aspect of literature review was PDF accessibility , as P2 described:”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § 4.3 Adaptive Strategies Reveal Hidden Labor (RQ3) · p. 10

    BLV researchers develop workarounds that expose both resilience and problematic dependencies.

    “We found that BLV researchers develop workarounds that expose both resilience and problematic dependencies.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § 4.1 Research Tool Choices Among BLV Researchers (RQ1) · p. 7

    Nearly one-fifth (17%) of participants reported either delegating literature review and management tasks to sighted colleagues or using AI-driven retrieval to circumvent fatigue.

    “Particularly in the case of literature review and management, we found that nearly onefifth of participants (17%) reported either delegating these tasks to sighted colleagues or using AI-driven retrieval to circumvent fatigue.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § 6 CONCLUSION · p. 16

    Despite systemic challenges, participants developed alternative workflows, leveraging emerging technologies like AI for transcription and image description, and strategically redistributing collaborative tasks based on accessibility constraints.

    “Despite these systemic challenges, participants developed alternative workflows, leveraging emerging technologies like AI for transcription and image description, and strategically redistributing collaborative tasks based on accessibility constraints.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § 4.1 Research Tool Choices Among BLV Researchers (RQ1) · p. 8

    Multiple participants independently developed workarounds for data analysis and visualization, reflecting pragmatic adaptation rather than preference.

    “For data analysis and visualization, multiple participants independently developed workarounds, reflecting pragmatic adaptation rather than preference.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Findingown data
    § 4.3 Adaptive Strategies Reveal Hidden Labor (RQ3) · p. 10

    Emerging AI tools offer unprecedented workarounds for previously insurmountable barriers.

    “Participants shared how emerging AI tools offer unprecedented workarounds for previously insurmountable barriers.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given
    § 6 CONCLUSION · p. 16

    These adaptations often come at significant costs, requiring additional time, limiting tool choices, affecting networking opportunities, and sometimes forcing researchers to abandon certain ideas entirely.

    “However, these adaptations often come at significant costs, requiring additional time, limiting tool choices, affecting networking opportunities, and sometimes forcing researchers to abandon certain ideas entirely.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Findingnone given
    § 5.3.1 For Tool Developers and Technology Companies. Accessibilityfirst design must become the default, not an add-on. · p. 15

    Institutions rarely account for accessibility considerations in dual-career hiring negotiations, space allocation, or support structures when one partner is BLV.

    “yet institutions rarely account for this in negotiations, space allocation, or support structures.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Findingnone given
    § 5.3.1 For Tool Developers and Technology Companies. Accessibilityfirst design must become the default, not an add-on. · p. 15

    When one partner is BLV, both careers are affected by accessibility considerations.

    “When one partner is BLV, both careers are affected by accessibility considerations”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data
    § C.2 Interview Participants · p. 29

    The interview study had 15 participants.

    “Table 2: Demographics of interview participants (n-15).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data
    § C.1 Survey Participants · p. 28

    Among the 57 survey respondents, 50.0% were graduate students (Master's or Ph.D.).

    “| Graduate student (Master's/Ph.D.) | 50.0 |”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data
    § C.1 Survey Participants · p. 28

    Among the 57 survey respondents, 39.1% were totally blind (no light or shape perception).

    “| Totally blind (no light or shape perception) | 39.1 |”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data
    § C.1 Survey Participants · p. 28

    The survey study had 57 respondents.

    “Table 1: Survey respondent demographics (n=57).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 2.1 Theoretical Framework · p. 4

    Barriers are not personal limitations but structural contradictions requiring redesign of the entire activity system.

    “Barriers are not personal limitations but structural contradictions requiring redesign of the entire activity system.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 2.2 Systemic Barriers in Research Activity Systems · p. 4

    Collaborative writing platforms force BLV academics and professionals to negotiate tool selection, perform invisible labor to maintain awareness through inaccessible features, and balance advocacy for accessibility against potential social penalties.

    “Das et al. document how collaborative writing platforms force BLV academics and professionals to negotiate tool selection, perform invisible labor to maintain awareness through inaccessible features, and balance advocacy for accessibility against potential social penalties [18]”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [18] [18] Maitraye Das, Darren Gergle, and Anne Marie Piper. 2019. "It Doesn't Win You Friends": Understanding Accessibility in Collaborative Writing for People with Vision Impairments. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 3, CSCW (Nov. 2019), 191:1-191:26. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 3359293 - source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 1 INTRODUCTION · p. 1

    Documented evidence shows declining accessibility in scholarly materials and persistent barriers to full participation in research.

    “It is crucial to address this gap given documented evidence of declining accessibility in scholarly materials [45, 66] and persistent barriers to full participation in research.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [45] [45] Anukriti Kumar and Lucy Lu Wang. 2024. Uncovering the New Accessibility Crisis in Scholarly PDFs: Publishing Model and Platform Changes Contribute to Declining Scholarly Document Accessibility in the Last Decade. In Proceedings of the 26th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS '24) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1145/3663548.3675634 - source
    • cites [66] [66] Dalmeet Singh Chawla. 2024. Accessibility Worsens for Blind and Low-Vision Readers of Academic PDFs. Nature (Dec. 2024). https: //doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-03953-7 - source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given
    § 2 RELATED WORK · p. 2

    BLV researchers' methodological innovations not only overcome barriers but also broadly advance research practice.

    “Finally, we explore how BLV researchers' methodological innovations not only overcome these barriers but also broadly advance research practice.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 2.2 Systemic Barriers in Research Activity Systems · p. 4

    BLV researchers do not passively accept exclusion; they actively develop innovations that enable their participation and often enhance research practice for all.

    “While these barriers create significant challenges, BLV researchers do not passively accept exclusion. Instead, as we explore next, they actively develop innovations that not only enable their participation but often enhance research practice for all.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation
    § 2.3 Towards Re-Imagining Equitable Research Participation · p. 5

    Disabled researchers consistently advance methodological rigor through innovation, transforming contradictions within activity systems into opportunities for systemic improvement.

    “Contrary to deficit narratives, disabled researchers consistently advance methodological rigor through innovation, transforming contradictions within activity systems into opportunities for systemic improvement.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Premisenone given
    § 2.2 Systemic Barriers in Research Activity Systems · p. 4

    Seminal HCI works do not explicitly consider usability and accessibility of certain research methods, particularly for practitioners with diverse abilities.

    “While these works are invaluable for understanding underlying epistemological differences between research methods, we posit that they do not explicitly consider usability and accessibility of certain research methods, particularly for practitioners with diverse abilities.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 2.1 Theoretical Framework · p. 3

    Barriers emerge from contradictions between activity system components.

    “This framing reveals how barriers emerge from contradictions between activity system components:”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Premisenone given
    § 2 RELATED WORK · p. 2

    Research infrastructures function as exclusionary gatekeepers.

    “Second, we examine how systemic barriers in research environments specifically impact BLV researchers, revealing how supposedly neutral research infrastructures function as exclusionary gatekeepers.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

    Premisenone given
    § 2 RELATED WORK · p. 2

    Activity theory illuminates these dynamics as systemic contradictions rather than individual challenges.

    “Throughout, we demonstrate how activity theory illuminates these dynamics as systemic contradictions rather than individual challenges.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given
    § 3.5 Data Collection · p. 7

    This study received IRB approval from the University of Illinois.

    “This study received IRB approval from the University of Illinois.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisereasoning
    § 2.3 Towards Re-Imagining Equitable Research Participation · p. 5

    Activity theory provides both a diagnostic lens for identifying systemic barriers and a generative framework for envisioning more inclusive research ecosystems.

    “Activity theory thus provides both a diagnostic lens for identifying systemic barriers and a generative framework for envisioning more inclusive research ecosystems.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 5.2 Ableist Assumptions and Epistemic Marginalization · p. 14

    Institutions rarely have frameworks addressing interdependent requirements for academic couples where one partner is BLV, disadvantaging BLV researchers in hiring negotiations and limiting career-crucial geographic mobility.

    “When one partner in an academic couple is BLV, decisions about dual-career hiring, laboratory space, and institutional support must account for access needs affecting both careers, yet institutions rarely have frameworks addressing such interdependent requirements. These gaps disadvantage BLV researchers in hiring negotiations and limit career-crucial geographic mobility.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § The Most Inaccessible Research Stages Among BLV Researchers · p. 11

    Delegating portions of responsibility to younger colleagues is a pragmatic solution to accessibility barriers, but it limits BLV researchers' ability to sharpen skills needed for promotion.

    “While P14 is likely just as capable (if not more so) to accomplish these tasks, delegating portions of their responsibility to younger colleagues is a pragmatic solution to the accessibility barriers they face. It may help them in the short term, but it also limits their ability to sharpen skills they need to hold themselves in high regard, particularly when seeking promotion.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 4.1 Research Tool Choices Among BLV Researchers (RQ1) · p. 9

    The cascade of contradictions transforms individual accommodation into structural exclusion, where the activity system itself determines who can participate in research.

    “This cascade of contradictions transforms what appears as individual accommodation into structural exclusion - the activity system itself, not individual capability, determines who can participate in research.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § 3.1 Positionality and Reflexivity · p. 5

    The first author has low vision, and the second author is totally blind, providing experiential diversity that enhanced our ability to recognize varied navigation strategies and challenge assumptions about visual access.

    “The first author has low vision, and the second author is totally blind, providing experiential diversity that enhanced our ability to recognize varied navigation strategies and challenge assumptions about visual access.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § 4.2 Critical Access Barriers Manifesting Across Research Stages (RQ2) · p. 9

    Inaccessible tools prevent BLV researchers from completing the objects of their research activities, with ripple effects throughout the activity system.

    “Inaccessible tools prevent BLV researchers from completing the objects of their research activities, which in turn have ripple effects throughout the rest of the activity system.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given
    § 3.6 Data Analysis · p. 7

    All authors collaboratively refined themes through discussion until consensus was reached, resulting in four final themes.

    “All authors collaboratively refined themes through discussion until consensus was reached, resulting in four final themes.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation
    § 5.1 Commercial Tools and Academic Accessibility: A Systemic Crisis · p. 13

    For BLV researchers, AI tools promise independence yet may require more human intervention to verify accuracy, transforming accessibility aids into potential vectors of misinformation.

    “For BLV researchers, this creates a troubling paradox: AI tools promise independence yet may require more human intervention to verify accuracy, transforming accessibility aids into potential vectors of misinformation where accuracy is paramount.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given
    § 5.4 Limitations and Future Directions · p. 15

    The cross-sectional design captures a snapshot that may evolve as technologies develop.

    “Our cross-sectional design captures a snapshot that may evolve as technologies develop.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § 2.3 Towards Re-Imagining Equitable Research Participation · p. 5

    Supporting visually impaired researchers requires systematic infrastructure changes.

    “In the case of BLV researchers, Sahtout argues that supporting visually impaired researchers requires systematic infrastructure changes [60].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [60] [60] Naheda Sahtout. 2020. How Science Should Support Researchers with Visual Impairments. Nature (Sept. 2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/ d41586-020-02627-4 - source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Premisenone given
    § 2.3 Towards Re-Imagining Equitable Research Participation · p. 5

    There is a critical lack of empirical grounding in BLV researchers' actual practices.

    “There is a critical lack of empirical grounding in BLV researchers' actual practices.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § 4.2 Critical Access Barriers Manifesting Across Research Stages (RQ2) · p. 9

    Tool inaccessibility creates systemic contradictions, such as platforms unusable by BLV reviewers necessitating editor intervention, shifting division of labor and conflicting with community expectations of autonomous workflows.

    “P8's experience captures how tool inaccessibility creates systemic contradictions: platforms unusable by BLV reviewers (tool-subject) necessitate editor intervention, shifting division of labor from independent to mediated review while conflicting with community expectations of autonomous workflows.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 5.1 Commercial Tools and Academic Accessibility: A Systemic Crisis · p. 13

    AI's emergence as an accessibility mediator offers both promise and peril.

    “AI's emergence as an accessibility mediator offers both promise and peril.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § 5.2 Ableist Assumptions and Epistemic Marginalization · p. 14

    Ableist assumptions pervade collaborative dynamics and evaluation systems, creating compounding epistemic marginalization across multiple dimensions.

    “Our findings reveal how ableist assumptions pervade collaborative dynamics and evaluation systems, creating compounding epistemic marginalization across multiple dimensions.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 4.3 Adaptive Strategies Reveal Hidden Labor (RQ3) · p. 10

    Using LLMs for inaccessible PDFs requires multiple queries and raises pre-publication confidentiality concerns, but represents progress over previous options.

    “Though requiring multiple queries for tasks sighted researchers accomplish at a glance and raising pre-publication confidentiality concerns, this represents progress over previous options.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 5.4 Limitations and Future Directions · p. 16

    The systemic contradictions identified are not peripheral concerns but fundamental challenges to creating equitable research systems that benefit from the full diversity of human experience and capability.

    “The systemic contradictions we identified are not peripheral concerns but fundamental challenges to creating equitable research systems that benefit from the full diversity of human experience and capability.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data
    § 3.5 Data Collection · p. 6

    All interview participants indicated they were actively engaged in research at the time of their interviews, with research experience ranging from 2 to 40+ years.

    “All interview participants indicated they were actively engaged in research at the time of their interviews, with research experience ranging from 2 to 40+ years.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § 3.5 Data Collection · p. 7

    Given the professional risks of discussing workplace accessibility barriers, we implemented robust confidentiality protections.

    “Given the professional risks of discussing workplace accessibility barriers, we implemented robust confidentiality protections.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 4.4 Compound Professional Impacts (RQ4) · p. 12

    Through activity theory, these findings reveal systemic contradictions: tool-subject contradiction drives adoption of suboptimal alternatives; rules-community contradiction creates invisible disadvantages; division of labor contradiction limits professional development.

    “Through activity theory, these findings reveal not individual failures but systemic contradictions. The tool-subject contradiction drives adoption of suboptimal alternatives. The rules-community contradiction (evaluation metrics ignoring accessibility labor) creates invisible disadvantages. The division of labor contradiction (accessibility-driven task allocation) limits professional development.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 5.2 Ableist Assumptions and Epistemic Marginalization · p. 14

    Without both dimensions (autonomy in participation and equity in evaluation), efforts risk reproducing epistemic marginalization in new forms: either constraining BLV researchers to limited research roles or undervaluing their contributions through biased evaluation criteria.

    “Without both dimensions, efforts risk reproducing epistemic marginalization in new forms: either constraining BLV researchers to limited research roles or undervaluing their contributions through biased evaluation criteria.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data
    § 3.5 Data Collection · p. 6

    Most participants (11/15; 73%) began their research careers after 2010, ensuring our findings predominantly reflect accessibility challenges within modern research ecosystems rather than outdated technologies.

    “Most participants ( 11 15 ; 73%) began their research careers after 2010, ensuring our findings predominantly reflect accessibility challenges within modern research ecosystems rather than outdated technologies.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § 3.5 Data Collection · p. 7

    All participants were assigned pseudonyms, and we removed institution names, specific job titles, and other identifying information from transcripts.

    “All participants were assigned pseudonyms, and we removed institution names, specific job titles, and other identifying information from transcripts.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given
    § 2.3 Towards Re-Imagining Equitable Research Participation · p. 5

    These initiatives remain fragmented and reactive.

    “However, these remain fragmented and reactive.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 4.3 Adaptive Strategies Reveal Hidden Labor (RQ3) · p. 10

    The precarity of accessibility across research tooling has the potential to generate profound psychological burdens.

    “The precarity of accessibility across research tooling has the potential to generate profound psychological burdens.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductcitation
    § 5.4 Limitations and Future Directions · p. 16

    The study acknowledges limitations of grouping research tools into specific categories.

    “We acknowledge limitations of grouping research tools into specific categories [17]”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [17] [17] John W. Creswell and J. David Creswell. 2017. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches . SAGE Publications. -

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § 5.3.1 For Tool Developers and Technology Companies. Accessibilityfirst design must become the default, not an add-on. · p. 15

    Participatory design offers established frameworks for centering disabled users' experiences from inception.

    “Participatory design [74] offers established frameworks for centering disabled users' experiences from inception.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [74] [74] Maja van der Velden and Christina Mörtberg. 2021. Participatory Design and Design for Values. In Handbook of Ethics, Values, and Technological Design: Sources, Theory, Values and Application Domains , Jeroen van den Hoven, Pieter E. Vermaas, and Ibo van de Poel (Eds.). Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1007/97894-007-6994-6\_33-1 - source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 5.3.1 For Tool Developers and Technology Companies. Accessibilityfirst design must become the default, not an add-on. · p. 15

    BLV researchers' experiences reveal fundamental flaws in how research infrastructure operates, offering invaluable insights for transformation.

    “Their experiences reveal fundamental flaws in how research infrastructure operates, offering invaluable insights for transformation.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 5.3.1 For Tool Developers and Technology Companies. Accessibilityfirst design must become the default, not an add-on. · p. 15

    Year-long silences and vague promises erode trust and prevent planning.

    “Year-long silences and vague promises erode trust and prevent planning.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § 5.4 Limitations and Future Directions · p. 16

    Other disabled researchers face intersecting and distinct barriers warranting dedicated investigation.

    “While surfacing BLV researchers' experiences, we recognize that other disabled researchers face intersecting and distinct barriers warranting dedicated investigation.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [36] [36] Megan Hofmann, Devva Kasnitz, Jennifer Mankoff, and Cynthia L Bennett. 2020. Living Disability Theory: Reflections on Access, Research, and Design. In Proceedings of the 22nd International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS '20) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3373625.3416996 - source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data
    § 5.4 Limitations and Future Directions · p. 16

    The study focused primarily on digital tool accessibility in desk-based activities.

    “We focused primarily on digital tool accessibility in deskbased activities.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 5.4 Limitations and Future Directions · p. 16

    This area is in a nascent state and there is an urgent need for sustained HCI investigation.

    “These limitations highlight this area's nascent state and underscore the urgent need for sustained HCI investigation.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data
    § Share and review the informed consent form. · p. 26

    Interview recordings were used only for transcription purposes and were kept confidential.

    “The recording will only be used for transcription purposes and will be kept confidential.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
68 of 68

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Participants' self-reported experiences accurately reflect their actual workflows and barriers.

    “When investigating RQ1, we relied on participants' survey responses for which tool(s) they use during each research stage”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Ableist assumptions pervade research culture.

    “The research community must actively dismantle ableist assumptions pervading research culture.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Accessibility-first design is currently not the default in tool development.

    “Accessibilityfirst design must become the default, not an add-on.”
3 of 3

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Interview acuity label conflicts with the paper's definition

    Minor

    The survey defines "totally blind" as having no light perception, while the interview table describes P8, P12, and P14 as both totally blind and having light perception.

  • P13 described as leaving research despite being an active researcher

    Minor

    The paper concludes that P13 abandoned a research career altogether, but states that all interview participants, including P13, were actively engaged in research when interviewed.

2 of 2

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

23 of the 79 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Khan, O., & Seo, J.
Affiliations
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
ORCID
Venue
Proceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
Publisher
ACM
Published
2026-04-13
Pages
1-24
DOI
10.1145/3772318.3791242
OpenAlex
W7128468307
Semantic Scholar
a7bb32b4fc7f1c57298ee08320ca30a659fb403f
Cited by
1
References
79
FWCI
0.00
Type
conference paper
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Digital Accessibility for Disabilities
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Disability Rights and Representation
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Disability Education and Employment
Keywords
knowledge production, research workflows, activity theory, researcher autonomy, assistive technology, inclusive research design, disability in academia

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-12.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-12.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review