Cited by 10Ethics and Social Impacts of AIArtificial Intelligence ApplicationsDigitalization, Law, and Regulation

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Developing a conceptual framework for identifying the ethical repercussions of artificial intelligence: A mixed method analysis

Saheb, Tahereh, Jamthe, Sudha, Saheb, Tayebeh·2022·Journal of AI, Robotics & Workplace Automation

Abstract

Given that the topic of artificial intelligence (AI) ethics is novel, and many studies are emerging to uncover AI’s ethical challenges, the current study aims to analyse and visualise the research patterns and influential elements in this field. This paper analyses 1,646 Scopus-indexed publications using bibliometric analysis and cluster content analysis. To classify the most prominent elements and delineate the intellectual framework as well as the emerging patterns and gaps, we utilised keyword co-occurrence analysis and bibliographic coupling analysis and network visualisation of authors, countries, sources, documents and institutions. In particular, we detected nine major applications of AI in which ethics of AI is highly discussed, 24 ethical categories and 66 ethical concerns. Using the VOSviewer software, we also identified the general ethical concerns with the greatest total link strength regardless of their cluster associations. Then, focusing on the most recent articles (2020–21), we performed a cluster content analysis of the identified topic clusters and ethical concerns. This analysis guided us in detecting literature gaps and prospective topics and in developing a conceptual framework to illustrate a comprehensive image of ethical AI research trends. This study will assist policymakers, regulators, developers, engineers and researchers in better understanding AI’s ethical challenges and identifying the most pressing concerns that need to be tackled.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.69554/ffzo4203

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Still being checked.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Saheb, T., Jamthe, S., & Saheb, T.
Affiliations
  • Tarbiat Modares University (IR)
  • Technology Futurist
Venue
Journal of AI, Robotics & Workplace Automation
Published
2022-06-01
Volume
1
Issue
4
Pages
371
ISSN
  • 2633-562X (ISSN-L)
  • 2633-5638
OpenAlex
W4400997436
Cited by
10
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 1
FWCI
2.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of AI, robotics & workplace automation. (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence Applications
  • Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
Keywords
AI ethics, conceptual framework, research trends, artificial intelligence applications, ethical categories, research gaps, AI regulation

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