arXiv subjects

Bedoor AlShebli

Publications and source records attributed to Bedoor AlShebli.

13 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Media Coverage of War Victims: Journalistic Biases in Reporting on Israel and Gaza

October 7, 2023 marked the start of a war against Gaza, one of the most devastating conflicts in modern history, which quickly produced a stark global attitudinal divide. To examine the role of media bias in shaping public understanding of this asymmetrical war, we analyzed more than 14,000 news articles published during its first year across three major Western outlets (The New York Times, BBC, CNN) and one non-Western English-language outlet (Al Jazeera English). Focusing on media narratives surrounding Israeli and Palestinian victims, we identify three systematic biases in Western coverage: (1) Identifiable Victim Reporting: Israeli victims were substantially more likely to be depicted as identifiable individuals, whereas Palestinian victims were predominantly represented as undifferentiated collectives. (2) Equalization Bias: Despite the profound asymmetry in casualties, displacement, and other forms of suffering, Western reporting repeatedly invoked the October 7 attacks to equalize Israeli and Palestinian victimhood, even in the absence of new Israeli-casualty events. (3) One-sided Doubt Casting: Journalists disproportionately used language that casts doubt on the credibility of casualty figures and the reliability of sources when reporting Palestinian (vs. Israeli) victim counts, selectively undermining trust in information about Palestinian suffering. Across all three phenomena, these patterns were either absent or greatly attenuated in Al Jazeera English. Taken together, our analysis uncovers a coherent set of systematic biases in high-profile Western media coverage of the Gaza war, with implications for how global audiences come to understand and morally evaluate the conflict.

cs.SI↗

arXiv2025

Current policies governing editorial conflicts of interest are ineffective

Research-active editors face a potential conflict of interest (COI) when handling submissions from authors who share the same affiliation or those who recently collaborated with the editor. Since perception of COIs arising from such editor-author associations may erode trust in science, some policies recommend, and others demand, recusal in such incidents. However, the effectiveness of such measures is unknown to date. To fill this gap, we analyze half a million papers from six publishers who specify the handling editor of each paper. We find numerous papers with editor-author associations, and demonstrate that such papers tend to be accepted faster. A quasi-experimental design exploiting policy changes at PNAS and PLOS reveals the limited effectiveness of current COI policies. A network neural embedding model reveals that requiring editors with potential COIs to recuse may compromise the suitability of the handling editor. Finally, an online survey experiment demonstrates that such COIs influence trust in the paper's finding, but public disclosure eliminates this effect.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2025

Disparities in Peer Review Tone and the Role of Reviewer Anonymity

The peer review process is often regarded as the gatekeeper of scientific integrity, yet increasing evidence suggests that it is not immune to bias. Although structural inequities in peer review have been widely debated, much less attention has been paid to the subtle ways in which language itself may reinforce disparities. This study undertakes one of the most comprehensive linguistic analyses of peer review to date, examining more than 80,000 reviews in two major journals. Using natural language processing and large-scale statistical modeling, it uncovers how review tone, sentiment, and supportive language vary across author demographics, including gender, race, and institutional affiliation. Using a data set that includes both anonymous and signed reviews, this research also reveals how the disclosure of reviewer identity shapes the language of evaluation. The findings not only expose hidden biases in peer feedback, but also challenge conventional assumptions about anonymity's role in fairness. As academic publishing grapples with reform, these insights raise critical questions about how review policies shape career trajectories and scientific progress.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

From job titles to jawlines: Using context voids to study generative AI systems

In this paper, we introduce a speculative design methodology for studying the behavior of generative AI systems, framing design as a mode of inquiry. We propose bridging seemingly unrelated domains to generate intentional context voids, using these tasks as probes to elicit AI model behavior. We demonstrate this through a case study: probing the ChatGPT system (GPT-4 and DALL-E) to generate headshots from professional Curricula Vitae (CVs). In contrast to traditional ways, our approach assesses system behavior under conditions of radical uncertainty -- when forced to invent entire swaths of missing context -- revealing subtle stereotypes and value-laden assumptions. We qualitatively analyze how the system interprets identity and competence markers from CVs, translating them into visual portraits despite the missing context (i.e. physical descriptors). We show that within this context void, the AI system generates biased representations, potentially relying on stereotypical associations or blatant hallucinations.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

Characterizing the effect of retractions on publishing careers

Retracting academic papers is a fundamental tool of quality control, but it may have far-reaching consequences for retracted authors and their careers. Previous studies have highlighted the adverse effects of retractions on citation counts and coauthors' citations; however, the broader impacts beyond these have not been fully explored. We address this gap leveraging Retraction Watch, the most extensive data set on retractions and link it to Microsoft Academic Graph and Altmetric. Retracted authors, particularly those with less experience, often leave scientific publishing in the aftermath of retraction, especially if their retractions attract widespread attention. However, retracted authors who remain active in publishing maintain and establish more collaborations compared to their similar non-retracted counterparts. Nevertheless, retracted authors generally retain less senior and less productive coauthors, but gain more impactful coauthors post-retraction. Our findings suggest that retractions may impose a disproportionate impact on early-career authors.

cs.SI↗

arXiv2024

China and the U.S. produce more impactful AI research when collaborating together

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has become a disruptive technology, promising to grant a significant economic and strategic advantage to nations that harness its power. China, with its recent push towards AI adoption, is challenging the U.S.'s position as the global leader in this field. Given AI's massive potential, as well as the fierce geopolitical tensions between China and the U.S., several recent policies have been put in place to discourage AI scientists from migrating to, or collaborating with, the other nation. Nevertheless, the extent of talent migration and cross-border collaboration are not fully understood. Here, we analyze a dataset of over 350,000 AI scientists and 5,000,000 AI papers. We find that since 2000, China and the U.S. have led the field in terms of impact, novelty, productivity, and workforce. Most AI scientists who move to China come from the U.S., and most who move to the U.S. come from China, highlighting a notable bidirectional talent migration. Moreover, the vast majority of those moving in either direction have Asian ancestry. Upon moving, those scientists continue to collaborate frequently with those in the origin country. Although the number of collaborations between the two countries has increased since the dawn of the millennium, such collaborations continue to be relatively rare. A matching experiment reveals that the two countries have always been more impactful when collaborating than when each works without the other. These findings suggest that instead of suppressing cross-border migration and collaboration between the two nations, the science could benefit from promoting such activities.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2024

Where postdoctoral journeys lead

Postdoctoral training is a career stage often described as a demanding and anxiety-laden time when many promising PhDs see their academic dreams slip away due to circumstances beyond their control. We use a unique data set of academic publishing and careers to chart the more or less successful postdoctoral paths. We build a measure of academic success on the citation patterns two to five years into a faculty career. Then, we monitor how students' postdoc positions -- in terms of relocation, change of topic, and early well-cited papers -- relate to their early-career success. One key finding is that the postdoc period seems more important than the doctoral training to achieve this form of success. This is especially interesting in light of the many studies of academic faculty hiring that link Ph.D. granting institutions and hires, omitting the postdoc stage. Another group of findings can be summarized as a Goldilocks principle: it seems beneficial to change one's direction, but not too much.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2023

Perception, performance, and detectability of conversational artificial intelligence across 32 university courses

The emergence of large language models has led to the development of powerful tools such as ChatGPT that can produce text indistinguishable from human-generated work. With the increasing accessibility of such technology, students across the globe may utilize it to help with their school work -- a possibility that has sparked discussions on the integrity of student evaluations in the age of artificial intelligence (AI). To date, it is unclear how such tools perform compared to students on university-level courses. Further, students' perspectives regarding the use of such tools, and educators' perspectives on treating their use as plagiarism, remain unknown. Here, we compare the performance of ChatGPT against students on 32 university-level courses. We also assess the degree to which its use can be detected by two classifiers designed specifically for this purpose. Additionally, we conduct a survey across five countries, as well as a more in-depth survey at the authors' institution, to discern students' and educators' perceptions of ChatGPT's use. We find that ChatGPT's performance is comparable, if not superior, to that of students in many courses. Moreover, current AI-text classifiers cannot reliably detect ChatGPT's use in school work, due to their propensity to classify human-written answers as AI-generated, as well as the ease with which AI-generated text can be edited to evade detection. Finally, we find an emerging consensus among students to use the tool, and among educators to treat this as plagiarism. Our findings offer insights that could guide policy discussions addressing the integration of AI into educational frameworks.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2023

Human intuition as a defense against attribute inference

Attribute inference - the process of analyzing publicly available data in order to uncover hidden information - has become a major threat to privacy, given the recent technological leap in machine learning. One way to tackle this threat is to strategically modify one's publicly available data in order to keep one's private information hidden from attribute inference. We evaluate people's ability to perform this task, and compare it against algorithms designed for this purpose. We focus on three attributes: the gender of the author of a piece of text, the country in which a set of photos was taken, and the link missing from a social network. For each of these attributes, we find that people's effectiveness is inferior to that of AI, especially when it comes to hiding the attribute in question. Moreover, when people are asked to modify the publicly available information in order to hide these attributes, they are less likely to make high-impact modifications compared to AI. This suggests that people are unable to recognize the aspects of the data that are critical to an inference algorithm. Taken together, our findings highlight the limitations of relying on human intuition to protect privacy in the age of AI, and emphasize the need for algorithmic support to protect private information from attribute inference.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2022

Gender inequality and self-publication patterns among scientific editors

Academic publishing is the principal medium of documenting and disseminating scientific discoveries. At the heart of its daily operations are the editorial boards. Despite their activities and recruitment often being opaque to outside observers, they play a crucial role in promoting fair evaluations and gender parity. Literature on gender inequality lacks the connection between women as editors and as research-active scientists, thereby missing the comparison between the gender balances in these two academic roles. Literature on editorial fairness similarly lacks longitudinal studies on the conflicts of interest arising from editors being research active, which motivates them to expedite the publication of their papers. We fill these gaps using a dataset of 103,000 editors, 240 million authors, and 220 million publications spanning five decades and 15 disciplines. This unique dataset allows us to compare the proportion of female editors to that of female scientists in any given year or discipline. Although women are already underrepresented in science (26%), they are even more so among editors (14%) and editors-in-chief (8%); the lack of women with long-enough publishing careers explains the gender gap among editors, but not editors-in-chief, suggesting that other factors may be at play. Our dataset also allows us to study the self-publication patterns of editors, revealing that 8% of them double the rate at which they publish in their own journal soon after the editorship starts, and this behavior is accentuated in journals where the editors-in-chief self-publish excessively. Finally, men are more likely to engage in this behaviour than women.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2020

Traffic networks are vulnerable to disinformation attacks

Disinformation continues to attract attention due to its increasing threat to society. Nevertheless, a disinformation-based attack on critical infrastructure has never been studied to date. Here, we consider traffic networks and focus on fake information that manipulates drivers' decisions to create congestion. We study the optimization problem faced by the adversary when choosing which streets to target to maximize disruption. We prove that finding an optimal solution is computationally intractable, implying that the adversary has no choice but to settle for suboptimal heuristics. We analyze one such heuristic, and compare the cases when targets are spread across the city of Chicago vs. concentrated in its business district. Surprisingly, the latter results in more far-reaching disruption, with its impact felt as far as 2 kilometers from the closest target. Our findings demonstrate that vulnerabilities in critical infrastructure may arise not only from hardware and software, but also from behavioral manipulation.

cs.SI↗

arXiv2019

The Impact of Informal Mentorship in Academic Collaborations

Inspired by the numerous benefits of mentorship in academia, we study "informal mentorship" in scientific collaborations, whereby a junior scientist is supported by multiple senior collaborators, without them necessarily having any formal supervisory roles. To this end, we analyze 2.5 million unique pairs of mentor-protégés spanning 9 disciplines and over a century of research, and we show that mentorship quality has a causal effect on the scientific impact of the papers written by the protégé post mentorship. This effect increases with the number of mentors, and persists over time, across disciplines and university ranks. The effect also increases with the academic age of the mentors until they reach 30 years of experience, after which it starts to decrease. Furthermore, we study how the gender of both the mentors and their protégé affect not only the impact of the protégé post mentorship, but also the citation gain of the mentors during the mentorship experience with their protégé. We find that increasing the proportion of female mentors decreases the impact of the protégé, while also compromising the gain of female mentors. While current policies that have been encouraging junior females to be mentored by senior females have been instrumental in retaining women in science, our findings suggest that the impact of women who remain in academia may increase by encouraging opposite-gender mentorships instead.

cs.SI↗

arXiv2019

How weaponizing disinformation can bring down a city's power grid

Social technologies have made it possible to propagate disinformation and manipulate the masses at an unprecedented scale. This is particularly alarming from a security perspective, as humans have proven to be the weakest link when protecting critical infrastructure in general, and the power grid in particular. Here, we consider an attack in which an adversary attempts to manipulate the behavior of energy consumers by sending fake discount notifications encouraging them to shift their consumption into the peak-demand period. We conduct surveys to assess the propensity of people to follow-through on such notifications and forward them to their friends. This allows us to model how the disinformation propagates through social networks. Finally, using Greater London as a case study, we show that disinformation can indeed be used to orchestrate an attack wherein unwitting consumers synchronize their energy-usage patterns, resulting in blackouts on a city-scale. These findings demonstrate that in an era when disinformation can be weaponized, system vulnerabilities arise not only from the hardware and software of critical infrastructure, but also from the behavior of the consumers.

cs.SI↗