AI 中文总结
该研究分析2024-2025年IEEE VIS的255篇论文，发现涉及人类参与者的论文中仅3.2%完整报告伦理审查情况，呼吁VIS采用标准化伦理报告实践以保护各方。
AI 中文摘要
我们分析了2024年至2025年发表在《IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics》（TVCG）上的255篇IEEE VIS论文中的伦理报告情况。这项分析源于我们作为IEEE VIS论文读者和审稿人的经验——此类报告常常不完整或缺失，也源于我们自身工作中需应对伦理审查质疑的经历。可视化研究自然常涉及人类参与者，但伦理审查和知情同意程序并非总能被明确报告。在我们的样本中，189篇论文（占比74.1%）报告了涉及人类参与者的研究，其中仅6篇（占比3.2%）报告已获得伦理审查批准、批准编号及参与者的知情同意，另有26篇（占比13.8%）至少报告了伦理审查批准和知情同意。这些遗漏并不意味着实证研究不符合伦理或缺乏批准，而是表明当前的报告实践使得伦理批准难以评估。除了这个令人担忧但属实的论文标题，我们希望提高人们对作者可能因未正确报告伦理问题而最终面临风险的认识。我们主张VIS应采用更清晰、更标准化的伦理报告实践，以保护参与者、作者、审稿人和编辑。
英文摘要
We analyzed the ethics reporting in 255 IEEE VIS papers from 2024 and 2025, as published in TVCG. This analysis arose from our experience as readers and reviewers of IEEE VIS papers that such reporting is frequently incomplete or missing, as well as from investigations in which we ourselves had to answer challenges regarding ethics approval in our own work. Visualization research naturally often involves human participants, yet ethics approval and informed-consent procedures are not always explicitly reported. In our corpus, 189 papers (74.1%) reported on work involving human participants. Only 6 of them (3.2%) reported to have obtained ethics approval, an approval identifier, and having received informed consent from the participants, while 26 (13.8%) reported at least ethics approval and informed consent. These omissions do not imply that the empirical work was unethical or lacked approval. They rather show that current reporting practices make ethical approval difficult to assess. Beyond our alarming - yet true - paper title, we wish to raise awareness on how authors themselves may eventually be at risk for not properly reporting ethics. We argue that VIS should adopt clearer and more standardized ethics-reporting practices to protect participants, authors, reviewers, and editors.
