Case Study: Potentially Charged Terminology

A peer reviewer reads a systems engineering paper describing a distributed database using what was referred to as a “master/slave” model of synchronization and a demonstration version of the software with limited functionality referred to as “crippleware” in the paper. The paper’s diagrams and text repeatedly use these terms seemingly without consideration or use of alternative, more descriptive and less charged terminology.

The reviewer strongly felt that the outdated and potentially offensive technical metaphors reduced the clarity of system design described in the work. Furthermore, the reviewer began to question the authors’ awareness of current best practices in both responsible and inclusive computing and technical documentation.

Due to these concerns, the reviewer read through ACM’s Policy on Inappropriate Content, its associated FAQ, and the guidance prepared by the ACM Diversity and Inclusion Council in Words Matter and decided to detail the reviewer’s concerns in the peer review of the paper.  After reading the reviewer’s critiques and concerns, the handling editor recommended to the EIC a decision of Major Revision which would give the author(s) an opportunity to consider and possibly address any inappropriate and/or charged terminology as well as any significant methodological limitations or other technical concerns raised by the reviewer(s) of the paper. 

Back to course