Back to the database
Record STMT-W600BA6Advisory

Reporting Robot Ethics for Children-Robot Studies in Contemporary Peer Reviewed Papers

Report Institutional policyGlobaladopted

This academic chapter analyzes 27 peer-reviewed papers involving children-robot studies to examine how robot ethics are described and reported. The authors found that 63% of the analyzed studies failed to state any ethical procedures followed, highlighting problematic applications of robot ethics in research. The outcomes emphasize the necessity for the publishing industry to take stricter actions regarding ethical reporting in publications.

Summary and content fields are drawn from the document text and are pending editorial review.

Who issued it

SpringerIndustry
Publisher
Legal forceAdvisory
Under whose authorityInstitutional policy
Judged fromfull text

Who it governs

Researchers and academicsCompaniesChildren and young people

Researchers, publishers, and academics interested in research ethics and children-robot interaction studies.

Sectors
Research and science · children-robot studies

What the document contains

What's covered

The document investigates whether peer-reviewed papers in children-robot studies report ethical procedures such as gaining children's assent, describing the robot prior to data collection, providing a robot exposure phase, and informing children about a robot's semi-autonomy.

What's missing

Specific regulatory enforcement mechanisms, legally binding frameworks, and comprehensive governance codes for robotics development.

Key takeaways
  • A total of 27 peer-reviewed papers on children-robot studies were analyzed for their reporting of robot ethics.
  • 63% of the studied papers did not state any ethical procedures followed.
  • Only eight studies reported gaining children's assent for experiments, and fewer described robot exposure or autonomy.
  • The findings indicate problematic applications of robot ethics in peer-reviewed journals.
  • The publishing industry needs to consider taking stricter actions regarding ethics reporting in publications.
Issued7 January 2017
Length1,256 words
FormatNot recorded
Scopeglobal

How it scores

Pending review

Each score is backed by a quote verified against the document text. Editorial review has not yet confirmed them.

Accountability

0/5

Clear responsibility for AI outcomes

screening score · 2026-10-23

Fairness

0/5

Non-discrimination and equitable treatment

screening score · 2026-10-23

Human Dignity

2/5

Respect for the inherent worth of persons

In eight studies children gave their assent for the experiment

Abstract

screening score · 2026-10-23

Human Oversight

1/5

Humans remain in control of consequential decisions

informing children about a robot’s semi-autonomy or not

Abstract

screening score · 2026-10-23

Privacy

0/5

Protection of personal data and private life

screening score · 2026-10-23

Transparency

1/5

Openness about how AI systems work and are used

providing a robot’s description prior to data collection

Abstract

screening score · 2026-10-23

Enforcement

2/5

Consequences and compliance mechanisms with real force

the necessity for the publishing industry to consider stricter actions on this aspect of a publication

Abstract

screening score · 2026-10-23

Impact Assessment

0/5

Required assessment of an AI system's risks/impacts before or during use

screening score · 2026-10-23

Topics

robot_ethics children_robot_interaction research_ethics peer_review children_assent