The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Ethical Decision-Making and Internet Research: Recommendations from the AoIR Ethics Working Committee
Abstract
The AoIR ethics statement, developed by ethicists and researchers from 11 countries, articulates guiding questions for online research appropriate to the many disciplines—both within the social sciences and the humanities—that undertake such research. These guidelines are characterized by an ethical pluralism—one that acknowledges the legitimacy of a range of possible ethical responses to a given problem, especially as viewed from the perspectives of the diverse national and cultural traditions represented on the Web and the Net as global media. This is an excerpt of the full working document available at http://www.aoir.org/reports/ethics.pdf.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
boyd, D., & Crawford, K. (2012) · Information, Communication & Society · doi:10.1080/1369118x.2012.678878 · Cited by 5,479
Learning Analytics: Ethical Issues and Dilemmas
Slade, S., & Prinsloo, P. (2013) · American Behavioral Scientist · doi:10.1177/0002764213479366 · Cited by 1,078
“But the data is already public”: on the ethics of research in Facebook
Zimmer, M. (2010) · Ethics and Information Technology · doi:10.1007/s10676-010-9227-5 · Cited by 900
(2012) · DSpace (Open University in the Netherlands) · Cited by 754
Automated Text Analysis for Consumer Research
Humphreys, A., & Wang, R. J.-H. (2018) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1093/jcr/ucx104 · Cited by 636
Metadata
- Authors
- Ess, C., & Jones, S.
- Venue
- Readings in Virtual Research Ethics
- Publisher
- IGI Global
- Published
- 2004
- Pages
- 27-44
- OpenAlex
- W2498798074
- Cited by
- 600
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 60.26
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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.
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Ethical Decision-Making and Internet Research: Recommendations from the AoIR Ethics Working Committee. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.4018/978-1-59140-152-0.ch002
- The paper
- Ess, C., & Jones, S. (2004). Ethical Decision-Making and Internet Research: Recommendations from the AoIR Ethics Working Committee. Readings in Virtual Research Ethics. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-59140-152-0.ch002
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
