Mapping Research on AI Ethics and Human Rights: A Bibliometric Study with a TCCM-Based Agenda

Mapping Research on AI Ethics and Human Rights: A... | F1000Research "use strict";function _typeof(t){return(_typeof="function"==typeof Symbol&&"symbol"==typeof Symbol.iterator?function(t){return typeof t}:function(t){return t&&"function"==typeof Symbol&&t.constructor===Symbol&&t!==Symbol.prototype?"symbol":typeof t})(t)}!function(){var t=function(){var t,e,o=[],n=window,r=n;for(;r;){try{if(r.frames.__tcfapiLocator){t=r;break}}catch(t){}if(r===n.top)break;r=r.parent}t||(!function t(){var e=n.document,o=!!n.frames.__tcfapiLocator;if(!o)if(e.body){var r=e.createElement("iframe");r.style.cssText="display:none",r.name="__tcfapiLocator",e.body.appendChild(r)}else setTimeout(t,5);return!o}(),n.__tcfapi=function(){for(var t=arguments.length,n=new Array(t),r=0;r 3&&2===parseInt(n[1],10)&&"boolean"==typeof n[3]&&(e=n[3],"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]("set",!0)):"ping"===n[0]?"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]({gdprApplies:e,cmpLoaded:!1,cmpStatus:"stub"}):o.push(n)},n.addEventListener("message",(function(t){var e="string"==typeof t.data,o={};if(e)try{o=JSON.parse(t.data)}catch(t){}else o=t.data;var n="object"===_typeof(o)&&null!==o?o.__tcfapiCall:null;n&&window.__tcfapi(n.command,n.version,(function(o,r){var a={__tcfapiReturn:{returnValue:o,success:r,callId:n.callId}};t&&t.source&&t.source.postMessage&&t.source.postMessage(e?JSON.stringify(a):a,"*")}),n.parameter)}),!1))};"undefined"!=typeof module?module.exports=t:t()}(); dataLayer = dataLayer || []; // Standard GTM initialization - Google Consent Mode handles consent automatically (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start': new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0], j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src= 'https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl+ '>m_auth=hzk0Vc3qFsQYhCrIoHz68A>m_preview=env-1>m_cookies_win=x';f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f); })(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-MWFK8L5J'); ;window.NREUM||(NREUM={});NREUM.init={distributed_tracing:{enabled:true},privacy:{cookies_enabled:true},ajax:{deny_list:["bam.nr-data.net"]}}; ;NREUM.loader_config={accountID:"438030",trustKey:"438030",agentID:"772317073",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073"} ;NREUM.info={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073",sa:1} ;/*! For license information please see nr-loader-spa-1.236.0.min.js.LICENSE.txt */ (()=>{"use strict";var e,t,r={5763:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P_:()=>l,Mt:()=>g,C5:()=>s,DL:()=>v,OP:()=>T,lF:()=>D,Yu:()=>y,Dg:()=>h,CX:()=>c,GE:()=>b,sU:()=>_});var n=r(8632),i=r(9567);const o={beacon:n.ce.beacon,errorBeacon:n.ce.errorBeacon,licenseKey:void 0,applicationID:void 0,sa:void 0,queueTime:void 0,applicationTime:void 0,ttGuid:void 0,user:void 0,account:void 0,product:void 0,extra:void 0,jsAttributes:{},userAttributes:void 0,atts:void 0,transactionName:void 0,tNamePlain:void 0},a={};function s(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");if(!a[e])throw new Error("Info for ".concat(e," was never set"));return a[e]}function c(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");a[e]=(0,i.D)(t,o),(0,n.Qy)(e,a[e],"info")}var u=r(7056);const d=()=>{const e={blockSelector:"[data-nr-block]",maskInputOptions:{password:!0}};return{allow_bfcache:!0,privacy:{cookies_enabled:!0},ajax:{deny_list:void 0,enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},distributed_tracing:{enabled:void 0,exclude_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_tracecontext_headers:void 0,allowed_origins:void 0},session:{domain:void 0,expiresMs:u.oD,inactiveMs:u.Hb},ssl:void 0,obfuscate:void 0,jserrors:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},metrics:{enabled:!0},page_action:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30},page_view_event:{enabled:!0},page_view_timing:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30,long_task:!1},session_trace:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},harvest:{tooManyRequestsDelay:60},session_replay:{enabled:!1,harvestTimeSeconds:60,sampleRate:.1,errorSampleRate:.1,maskTextSelector:"*",maskAllInputs:!0,get blockClass(){return"nr-block"},get ignoreClass(){return"nr-ignore"},get maskTextClass(){return"nr-mask"},get blockSelector(){return e.blockSelector},set blockSelector(t){e.blockSelector+=",".concat(t)},get maskInputOptions(){return e.maskInputOptions},set maskInputOptions(t){e.maskInputOptions={...t,password:!0}}},spa:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10}}},f={};function l(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");if(!f[e])throw new Error("Configuration for ".concat(e," was never set"));return f[e]}function h(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");f[e]=(0,i.D)(t,d()),(0,n.Qy)(e,f[e],"config")}function g(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");var r=l(e);if(r){for(var n=t.split("."),i=0;i {r.d(t,{D:()=>i});var n=r(50);function i(e,t){try{if(!e||"object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires an object as input");if(!t||"object"!=typeof t)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires a model to set its initial properties");const r=Object.create(Object.getPrototypeOf(t),Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors(t)),o=0===Object.keys(r).length?e:r;for(let a in o)if(void 0!==e[a])try{"object"==typeof e[a]&&"object"==typeof t[a]?r[a]=i(e[a],t[a]):r[a]=e[a]}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occurred while setting a property of a Configurable",e)}return r}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting a Configurable",e)}}},6818:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Re:()=>i,gF:()=>o,q4:()=>n});const n="1.236.0",i="PROD",o="CDN"},385:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{FN:()=>a,IF:()=>u,Nk:()=>f,Tt:()=>s,_A:()=>o,il:()=>n,pL:()=>c,v6:()=>i,w1:()=>d});const n="undefined"!=typeof window&&!!window.document,i="undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator),o=n?window:"undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis),a=""+o?.location,s=/iPad|iPhone|iPod/.test(navigator.userAgent),c=s&&"undefined"==typeof SharedWorker,u=(()=>{const e=navigator.userAgent.match(/Firefox[/\s](\d+\.\d+)/);return Array.isArray(e)&&e.length>=2?+e[1]:0})(),d=Boolean(n&&window.document.documentMode),f=!!navigator.sendBeacon},1117:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{w:()=>o});var n=r(50);const i={agentIdentifier:"",ee:void 0};class o{constructor(e){try{if("object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("shared context requires an object as input");this.sharedContext={},Object.assign(this.sharedContext,i),Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,r]=e;Object.keys(i).includes(t)&&(this.sharedContext[t]=r)}))}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting SharedContext",e)}}}},8e3:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{L:()=>d,R:()=>c});var n=r(2177),i=r(1284),o=r(4322),a=r(3325);const s={};function c(e,t){const r={staged:!1,priority:a.p[t]||0};u(e),s[e].get(t)||s[e].set(t,r)}function u(e){e&&(s[e]||(s[e]=new Map))}function d(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:"",t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:"feature";if(u(e),!e||!s[e].get(t))return a(t);s[e].get(t).staged=!0;const r=[...s[e]];function a(t){const r=e?n.ee.get(e):n.ee,a=o.X.handlers;if(r.backlog&&a){var s=r.backlog[t],c=a[t];if(c){for(var u=0;s&&u {let[t,r]=e;return r.staged}))&&(r.sort(((e,t)=>e[1].priority-t[1].priority)),r.forEach((e=>{let[t]=e;a(t)})))}function f(e,t){var r=e[1];(0,i.D)(t[r],(function(t,r){var n=e[0];if(r[0]===n){var i=r[1],o=e[3],a=e[2];i.apply(o,a)}}))}},2177:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{c:()=>f,ee:()=>u});var n=r(8632),i=r(2210),o=r(1284),a=r(5763),s="nr@context";let c=(0,n.fP)();var u;function d(){}function f(e){return(0,i.X)(e,s,l)}function l(){return new d}function h(){u.aborted=!0,u.backlog={}}c.ee?u=c.ee:(u=function e(t,r){var n={},c={},f={},g=!1;try{g=16===r.length&&(0,a.OP)(r).isolatedBacklog}catch(e){}var p={on:b,addEventListener:b,removeEventListener:y,emit:v,get:x,listeners:w,context:m,buffer:A,abort:h,aborted:!1,isBuffering:E,debugId:r,backlog:g?{}:t&&"object"==typeof t.backlog?t.backlog:{}};return p;function m(e){return e&&e instanceof d?e:e?(0,i.X)(e,s,l):l()}function v(e,r,n,i,o){if(!1!==o&&(o=!0),!u.aborted||i){t&&o&&t.emit(e,r,n);for(var a=m(n),s=w(e),d=s.length,f=0;fn,p:()=>i});var n=r(2177).ee.get("handle");function i(e,t,r,i,o){o?(o.buffer([e],i),o.emit(e,t,r)):(n.buffer([e],i),n.emit(e,t,r))}},4322:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>o});var n=r(5546);o.on=a;var i=o.handlers={};function o(e,t,r,o){a(o||n.E,i,e,t,r)}function a(e,t,r,i,o){o||(o="feature"),e||(e=n.E);var a=t[o]=t[o]||{};(a[r]=a[r]||[]).push([e,i])}},3239:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{bP:()=>s,iz:()=>c,m$:()=>a});var n=r(385);let i=!1,o=!1;try{const e={get passive(){return i=!0,!1},get signal(){return o=!0,!1}};n._A.addEventListener("test",null,e),n._A.removeEventListener("test",null,e)}catch(e){}function a(e,t){return i||o?{capture:!!e,passive:i,signal:t}:!!e}function s(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;window.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}function c(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;document.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}},4402:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Ht:()=>u,M:()=>c,Rl:()=>a,ky:()=>s});var n=r(385);const i="xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-yxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx";function o(e,t){return e?15&e[t]:16*Math.random()|0}function a(){const e=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let t,r=0;return e&&e.getRandomValues&&(t=e.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31))),i.split("").map((e=>"x"===e?o(t,++r).toString(16):"y"===e?(3&o()|8).toString(16):e)).join("")}function s(e){const t=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let r,i=0;t&&t.getRandomValues&&(r=t.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31)));const a=[];for(var s=0;s {r.d(t,{Bq:()=>n,Hb:()=>o,oD:()=>i});const n="NRBA",i=144e5,o=18e5},7894:(e,t,r)=>{function n(){return Math.round(performance.now())}r.d(t,{z:()=>n})},7243:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{e:()=>o});var n=r(385),i={};function o(e){if(e in i)return i[e];if(0===(e||"").indexOf("data:"))return{protocol:"data"};let t;var r=n._A?.location,o={};if(n.il)t=document.createElement("a"),t.href=e;else try{t=new URL(e,r.href)}catch(e){return o}o.port=t.port;var a=t.href.split("://");!o.port&&a[1]&&(o.port=a[1].split("/")[0].split("@").pop().split(":")[1]),o.port&&"0"!==o.port||(o.port="https"===a[0]?"443":"80"),o.hostname=t.hostname||r.hostname,o.pathname=t.pathname,o.protocol=a[0],"/"!==o.pathname.charAt(0)&&(o.pathname="/"+o.pathname);var s=!t.protocol||":"===t.protocol||t.protocol===r.protocol,c=t.hostname===r.hostname&&t.port===r.port;return o.sameOrigin=s&&(!t.hostname||c),"/"===o.pathname&&(i[e]=o),o}},50:(e,t,r)=>{function n(e,t){"function"==typeof console.warn&&(console.warn("New Relic: ".concat(e)),t&&console.warn(t))}r.d(t,{Z:()=>n})},2587:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>c,T:()=>u});var n=r(2177),i=r(5546),o=r(8e3),a=r(3325);const s={stn:[a.D.sessionTrace],err:[a.D.jserrors,a.D.metrics],ins:[a.D.pageAction],spa:[a.D.spa],sr:[a.D.sessionReplay,a.D.sessionTrace]};function c(e,t){const r=n.ee.get(t);e&&"object"==typeof e&&(Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,n]=e;void 0===u[t]&&(s[t]?s[t].forEach((e=>{n?(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,e,r):(0,i.p)("block-"+t,[],void 0,e,r),(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+t,[Boolean(n)],void 0,e,r)})):n&&(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,void 0,r),u[t]=Boolean(n))})),Object.keys(s).forEach((e=>{void 0===u[e]&&(s[e]?.forEach((t=>(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+e,[!1],void 0,t,r))),u[e]=!1)})),(0,o.L)(t,a.D.pageViewEvent))}const u={}},2210:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>i});var n=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty;function i(e,t,r){if(n.call(e,t))return e[t];var i=r();if(Object.defineProperty&&Object.keys)try{return Object.defineProperty(e,t,{value:i,writable:!0,enumerable:!1}),i}catch(e){}return e[t]=i,i}},1284:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n});const n=(e,t)=>Object.entries(e||{}).map((e=>{let[r,n]=e;return t(r,n)}))},4351:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P:()=>o});var n=r(2177);const i=()=>{const e=new WeakSet;return(t,r)=>{if("object"==typeof r&&null!==r){if(e.has(r))return;e.add(r)}return r}};function o(e){try{return JSON.stringify(e,i())}catch(e){try{n.ee.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}}},3960:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{K:()=>a,b:()=>o});var n=r(3239);function i(){return"undefined"==typeof document||"complete"===document.readyState}function o(e,t){if(i())return e();(0,n.bP)("load",e,t)}function a(e){if(i())return e();(0,n.iz)("DOMContentLoaded",e)}},8632:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{EZ:()=>u,Qy:()=>c,ce:()=>o,fP:()=>a,gG:()=>d,mF:()=>s});var n=r(7894),i=r(385);const o={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net"};function a(){return i._A.NREUM||(i._A.NREUM={}),void 0===i._A.newrelic&&(i._A.newrelic=i._A.NREUM),i._A.NREUM}function s(){let e=a();return e.o||(e.o={ST:i._A.setTimeout,SI:i._A.setImmediate,CT:i._A.clearTimeout,XHR:i._A.XMLHttpRequest,REQ:i._A.Request,EV:i._A.Event,PR:i._A.Promise,MO:i._A.MutationObserver,FETCH:i._A.fetch}),e}function c(e,t,r){let i=a();const o=i.initializedAgents||{},s=o[e]||{};return Object.keys(s).length||(s.initializedAt={ms:(0,n.z)(),date:new Date}),i.initializedAgents={...o,[e]:{...s,[r]:t}},i}function u(e,t){a()[e]=t}function d(){return function(){let e=a();const t=e.info||{};e.info={beacon:o.beacon,errorBeacon:o.errorBeacon,...t}}(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.init||{};e.init={...t}}(),s(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.loader_config||{};e.loader_config={...t}}(),a()}},7956:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>i});var n=r(3239);function i(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1],r=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,i=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;return void(0,n.iz)("visibilitychange",(function(){if(t)return void("hidden"==document.visibilityState&&e());e(document.visibilityState)}),r,i)}},1214:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{em:()=>v,u5:()=>N,QU:()=>S,_L:()=>I,Gm:()=>L,Lg:()=>M,gy:()=>U,BV:()=>Q,Kf:()=>ee});var n=r(2177);const i="nr@original";var o=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty,a=!1;function s(e,t){return e||(e=n.ee),r.inPlace=function(e,t,n,i,o){n||(n="");var a,s,c,u="-"===n.charAt(0);for(c=0;c 2?n-2:0),o=2;o {r(A[T],e,w),r(E[T],e,w)})),r(l._A,"fetch",y),t.on(y+"end",(function(e,r){var n=this;if(r){var i=r.headers.get("content-length");null!==i&&(n.rxSize=i),t.emit(y+"done",[null,r],n)}else t.emit(y+"done",[e],n)})),t}const O={},j=["pushState","replaceState"];function S(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("history")}(e);return!l.il||O[t.debugId]++||(O[t.debugId]=1,s(t).inPlace(window.history,j,"-")),t}var P=r(3239);const C={},R=["appendChild","insertBefore","replaceChild"];function I(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("jsonp")}(e);if(!l.il||C[t.debugId])return t;C[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=/[?&](?:callback|cb)=([^&#]+)/,o=/(.*)\.([^.]+)/,a=/^(\w+)(\.|$)(.*)$/;function c(e,t){var r=e.match(a),n=r[1],i=r[3];return i?c(i,t[n]):t[n]}return r.inPlace(Node.prototype,R,"dom-"),t.on("dom-start",(function(e){!function(e){if(!e||"string"!=typeof e.nodeName||"script"!==e.nodeName.toLowerCase())return;if("function"!=typeof e.addEventListener)return;var n=(a=e.src,s=a.match(i),s?s[1]:null);var a,s;if(!n)return;var u=function(e){var t=e.match(o);if(t&&t.length>=3)return{key:t[2],parent:c(t[1],window)};return{key:e,parent:window}}(n);if("function"!=typeof u.parent[u.key])return;var d={};function f(){t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}function l(){t.emit("jsonp-error",[],d),t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}r.inPlace(u.parent,[u.key],"cb-",d),e.addEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.addEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1)),t.emit("new-jsonp",[e.src],d)}(e[0])})),t}var k=r(5763);const H={};function L(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("mutation")}(e);if(!l.il||H[t.debugId])return t;H[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=k.Yu.MO;return i&&(window.MutationObserver=function(e){return this instanceof i?new i(r(e,"fn-")):i.apply(this,arguments)},MutationObserver.prototype=i.prototype),t}const z={};function M(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("promise")}(e);if(z[t.debugId])return t;z[t.debugId]=!0;var r=n.c,o=s(t),a=k.Yu.PR;return a&&function(){function e(r){var n=t.context(),i=o(r,"executor-",n,null,!1);const s=Reflect.construct(a,[i],e);return t.context(s).getCtx=function(){return n},s}l._A.Promise=e,Object.defineProperty(e,"name",{value:"Promise"}),e.toString=function(){return a.toString()},Object.setPrototypeOf(e,a),["all","race"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){let i=!1;[...e||[]].forEach((e=>{this.resolve(e).then(a("all"===r),a(!1))}));const o=n.apply(this,arguments);return o;function a(e){return function(){t.emit("propagate",[null,!i],o,!1,!1),i=i||!e}}}})),["resolve","reject"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){const r=n.apply(this,arguments);return e!==r&&t.emit("propagate",[e,!0],r,!1,!1),r}})),e.prototype=a.prototype;const n=a.prototype.then;a.prototype.then=function(){var e=this,i=r(e);i.promise=e;for(var a=arguments.length,s=new Array(a),c=0;c e())),t};function m(e,t){i.inPlace(t,["onreadystatechange"],"fn-",E)}function b(){var e=this,t=r.context(e);e.readyState>3&&!t.resolved&&(t.resolved=!0,r.emit("xhr-resolved",[],e)),i.inPlace(e,f,"fn-",E)}if(function(e,t){for(var r in e)t[r]=e[r]}(o,p),p.prototype=o.prototype,i.inPlace(p.prototype,J,"-xhr-",E),r.on("send-xhr-start",(function(e,t){m(e,t),function(e){h.push(e),a&&(y?y.then(A):u?u(A):(w=-w,x.data=w))}(t)})),r.on("open-xhr-start",m),a){var y=c&&c.resolve();if(!u&&!c){var w=1,x=document.createTextNode(w);new a(A).observe(x,{characterData:!0})}}else t.on("fn-end",(function(e){e[0]&&e[0].type===d||A()}));function A(){for(var e=0;e {r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.ajax},6660:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{A:()=>i,t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.jserrors,i="nr@seenError"},3081:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{gF:()=>o,mY:()=>i,t9:()=>n,vz:()=>s,xS:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.metrics,i="sm",o="cm",a="storeSupportabilityMetrics",s="storeEventMetrics"},4649:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageAction},7633:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Dz:()=>i,OJ:()=>a,qw:()=>o,t9:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewEvent,i="firstbyte",o="domcontent",a="windowload"},9251:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewTiming},3614:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BST_RESOURCE:()=>i,END:()=>s,FEATURE_NAME:()=>n,FN_END:()=>u,FN_START:()=>c,PUSH_STATE:()=>d,RESOURCE:()=>o,START:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.sessionTrace,i="bstResource",o="resource",a="-start",s="-end",c="fn"+a,u="fn"+s,d="pushState"},7836:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BODY:()=>A,CB_END:()=>E,CB_START:()=>u,END:()=>x,FEATURE_NAME:()=>i,FETCH:()=>_,FETCH_BODY:()=>v,FETCH_DONE:()=>m,FETCH_START:()=>p,FN_END:()=>c,FN_START:()=>s,INTERACTION:()=>l,INTERACTION_API:()=>d,INTERACTION_EVENTS:()=>o,JSONP_END:()=>b,JSONP_NODE:()=>g,JS_TIME:()=>T,MAX_TIMER_BUDGET:()=>a,REMAINING:()=>f,SPA_NODE:()=>h,START:()=>w,originalSetTimeout:()=>y});var n=r(5763);const i=r(3325).D.spa,o=["click","submit","keypress","keydown","keyup","change"],a=999,s="fn-start",c="fn-end",u="cb-start",d="api-ixn-",f="remaining",l="interaction",h="spaNode",g="jsonpNode",p="fetch-start",m="fetch-done",v="fetch-body-",b="jsonp-end",y=n.Yu.ST,w="-start",x="-end",A="-body",E="cb"+x,T="jsTime",_="fetch"},5938:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{W:()=>o});var n=r(5763),i=r(2177);class o{constructor(e,t,r){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.aggregator=t,this.ee=i.ee.get(e,(0,n.OP)(this.agentIdentifier).isolatedBacklog),this.featureName=r,this.blocked=!1}}},9144:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{j:()=>m});var n=r(3325),i=r(5763),o=r(5546),a=r(2177),s=r(7894),c=r(8e3),u=r(3960),d=r(385),f=r(50),l=r(3081),h=r(8632);function g(){const e=(0,h.gG)();["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease","addPageAction","setCurrentRouteName","setPageViewName","setCustomAttribute","interaction","noticeError","setUserId"].forEach((t=>{e[t]=function(){for(var r=arguments.length,n=new Array(r),i=0;i 1?r-1:0),i=1;i {e.exposed&&e.api[t]&&o.push(e.api[t](...n))})),o.length>1?o:o[0]}(t,...n)}}))}var p=r(2587);function m(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:{},m=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,v=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0,{init:b,info:y,loader_config:w,runtime:x={loaderType:m},exposed:A=!0}=t;const E=(0,h.gG)();y||(b=E.init,y=E.info,w=E.loader_config),(0,i.Dg)(e,b||{}),(0,i.GE)(e,w||{}),(0,i.sU)(e,x),y.jsAttributes??={},d.v6&&(y.jsAttributes.isWorker=!0),(0,i.CX)(e,y),g();const T=function(e,t){t||(0,c.R)(e,"api");const h={};var g=a.ee.get(e),p=g.get("tracer"),m="api-",v=m+"ixn-";function b(t,r,n,o){const a=(0,i.C5)(e);return null===r?delete a.jsAttributes[t]:(0,i.CX)(e,{...a,jsAttributes:{...a.jsAttributes,[t]:r}}),x(m,n,!0,o||null===r?"session":void 0)(t,r)}function y(){}["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease"].forEach((e=>h[e]=x(m,e,!0,"api"))),h.addPageAction=x(m,"addPageAction",!0,n.D.pageAction),h.setCurrentRouteName=x(m,"routeName",!0,n.D.spa),h.setPageViewName=function(t,r){if("string"==typeof t)return"/"!==t.charAt(0)&&(t="/"+t),(0,i.OP)(e).customTransaction=(r||"http://custom.transaction")+t,x(m,"setPageViewName",!0)()},h.setCustomAttribute=function(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2];if("string"==typeof e){if(["string","number"].includes(typeof t)||null===t)return b(e,t,"setCustomAttribute",r);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nNon-null value must be a string or number type, but a type of was provided."))}else(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nName must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.setUserId=function(e){if("string"==typeof e||null===e)return b("enduser.id",e,"setUserId",!0);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setUserId.\nNon-null value must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.interaction=function(){return(new y).get()};var w=y.prototype={createTracer:function(e,t){var r={},i=this,a="function"==typeof t;return(0,o.p)(v+"tracer",[(0,s.z)(),e,r],i,n.D.spa,g),function(){if(p.emit((a?"":"no-")+"fn-start",[(0,s.z)(),i,a],r),a)try{return t.apply(this,arguments)}catch(e){throw p.emit("fn-err",[arguments,this,"string"==typeof e?new Error(e):e],r),e}finally{p.emit("fn-end",[(0,s.z)()],r)}}}};function x(e,t,r,i){return function(){return(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/"+t+"/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),i&&(0,o.p)(e+t,[(0,s.z)(),...arguments],r?null:this,i,g),r?void 0:this}}function A(){r.e(439).then(r.bind(r,7438)).then((t=>{let{setAPI:r}=t;r(e),(0,c.L)(e,"api")})).catch((()=>(0,f.Z)("Downloading runtime APIs failed...")))}return["actionText","setName","setAttribute","save","ignore","onEnd","getContext","end","get"].forEach((e=>{w[e]=x(v,e,void 0,n.D.spa)})),h.noticeError=function(e,t){"string"==typeof e&&(e=new Error(e)),(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/noticeError/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),(0,o.p)("err",[e,(0,s.z)(),!1,t],void 0,n.D.jserrors,g)},d.il?(0,u.b)((()=>A()),!0):A(),h}(e,v);return(0,h.Qy)(e,T,"api"),(0,h.Qy)(e,A,"exposed"),(0,h.EZ)("activatedFeatures",p.T),T}},3325:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n,p:()=>i});const n={ajax:"ajax",jserrors:"jserrors",metrics:"metrics",pageAction:"page_action",pageViewEvent:"page_view_event",pageViewTiming:"page_view_timing",sessionReplay:"session_replay",sessionTrace:"session_trace",spa:"spa"},i={[n.pageViewEvent]:1,[n.pageViewTiming]:2,[n.metrics]:3,[n.jserrors]:4,[n.ajax]:5,[n.sessionTrace]:6,[n.pageAction]:7,[n.spa]:8,[n.sessionReplay]:9}}},n={};function i(e){var t=n[e];if(void 0!==t)return t.exports;var o=n[e]={exports:{}};return r[e](o,o.exports,i),o.exports}i.m=r,i.d=(e,t)=>{for(var r in t)i.o(t,r)&&!i.o(e,r)&&Object.defineProperty(e,r,{enumerable:!0,get:t[r]})},i.f={},i.e=e=>Promise.all(Object.keys(i.f).reduce(((t,r)=>(i.f[r](e,t),t)),[])),i.u=e=>(({78:"page_action-aggregate",147:"metrics-aggregate",242:"session-manager",317:"jserrors-aggregate",348:"page_view_timing-aggregate",412:"lazy-feature-loader",439:"async-api",538:"recorder",590:"session_replay-aggregate",675:"compressor",733:"session_trace-aggregate",786:"page_view_event-aggregate",873:"spa-aggregate",898:"ajax-aggregate"}[e]||e)+"."+{78:"ac76d497",147:"3dc53903",148:"1a20d5fe",242:"2a64278a",317:"49e41428",348:"bd6de33a",412:"2f55ce66",439:"30bd804e",538:"1b18459f",590:"cf0efb30",675:"ae9f91a8",733:"83105561",786:"06482edd",860:"03a8b7a5",873:"e6b09d52",898:"998ef92b"}[e]+"-1.236.0.min.js"),i.o=(e,t)=>Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(e,t),e={},t="NRBA:",i.l=(r,n,o,a)=>{if(e[r])e[r].push(n);else{var s,c;if(void 0!==o)for(var u=document.getElementsByTagName("script"),d=0;d {s.onerror=s.onload=null,clearTimeout(h);var i=e[r];if(delete e[r],s.parentNode&&s.parentNode.removeChild(s),i&&i.forEach((e=>e(n))),t)return t(n)},h=setTimeout(l.bind(null,void 0,{type:"timeout",target:s}),12e4);s.onerror=l.bind(null,s.onerror),s.onload=l.bind(null,s.onload),c&&document.head.appendChild(s)}},i.r=e=>{"undefined"!=typeof Symbol&&Symbol.toStringTag&&Object.defineProperty(e,Symbol.toStringTag,{value:"Module"}),Object.defineProperty(e,"__esModule",{value:!0})},i.j=364,i.p="https://js-agent.newrelic.com/",(()=>{var e={364:0,953:0};i.f.j=(t,r)=>{var n=i.o(e,t)?e[t]:void 0;if(0!==n)if(n)r.push(n[2]);else{var o=new Promise(((r,i)=>n=e[t]=[r,i]));r.push(n[2]=o);var a=i.p+i.u(t),s=new Error;i.l(a,(r=>{if(i.o(e,t)&&(0!==(n=e[t])&&(e[t]=void 0),n)){var o=r&&("load"===r.type?"missing":r.type),a=r&&r.target&&r.target.src;s.message="Loading chunk "+t+" failed.\n("+o+": "+a+")",s.name="ChunkLoadError",s.type=o,s.request=a,n[1](s)}}),"chunk-"+t,t)}};var t=(t,r)=>{var n,o,[a,s,c]=r,u=0;if(a.some((t=>0!==e[t]))){for(n in s)i.o(s,n)&&(i.m[n]=s[n]);if(c)c(i)}for(t&&t(r);u {i.r(o);var e=i(3325),t=i(5763);const r=Object.values(e.D);function n(e){const n={};return r.forEach((r=>{n[r]=function(e,r){return!1!==(0,t.Mt)(r,"".concat(e,".enabled"))}(r,e)})),n}var a=i(9144);var s=i(5546),c=i(385),u=i(8e3),d=i(5938),f=i(3960),l=i(50);class h extends d.W{constructor(e,t,r){let n=!(arguments.length>3&&void 0!==arguments[3])||arguments[3];super(e,t,r),this.auto=n,this.abortHandler,this.featAggregate,this.onAggregateImported,n&&(0,u.R)(e,r)}importAggregator(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:{};if(this.featAggregate||!this.auto)return;const r=c.il&&!0===(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"privacy.cookies_enabled");let n;this.onAggregateImported=new Promise((e=>{n=e}));const o=async()=>{let t;try{if(r){const{setupAgentSession:e}=await Promise.all([i.e(860),i.e(242)]).then(i.bind(i,3228));t=e(this.agentIdentifier)}}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("A problem occurred when starting up session manager. This page will not start or extend any session.",e)}try{if(!this.shouldImportAgg(this.featureName,t))return void(0,u.L)(this.agentIdentifier,this.featureName);const{lazyFeatureLoader:r}=await i.e(412).then(i.bind(i,8582)),{Aggregate:o}=await r(this.featureName,"aggregate");this.featAggregate=new o(this.agentIdentifier,this.aggregator,e),n(!0)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Downloading and initializing ".concat(this.featureName," failed..."),e),this.abortHandler?.(),n(!1)}};c.il?(0,f.b)((()=>o()),!0):o()}shouldImportAgg(r,n){return r!==e.D.sessionReplay||!1!==(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"session_trace.enabled")&&(!!n?.isNew||!!n?.state.sessionReplay)}}var g=i(7633),p=i(7894);class m extends h{static featureName=g.t9;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];if(super(r,n,g.t9,i),("undefined"==typeof PerformanceNavigationTiming||c.Tt)&&"undefined"!=typeof PerformanceTiming){const n=(0,t.OP)(r);n[g.Dz]=Math.max(Date.now()-n.offset,0),(0,f.K)((()=>n[g.qw]=Math.max((0,p.z)()-n[g.Dz],0))),(0,f.b)((()=>{const t=(0,p.z)();n[g.OJ]=Math.max(t-n[g.Dz],0),(0,s.p)("timing",["load",t],void 0,e.D.pageViewTiming,this.ee)}))}this.importAggregator()}}var v=i(1117),b=i(1284);class y extends v.w{constructor(e){super(e),this.aggregatedData={}}store(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,r,i);return o.metrics=function(e,t){t||(t={count:0});return t.count+=1,(0,b.D)(e,(function(e,r){t[e]=w(r,t[e])})),t}(n,o.metrics),o}merge(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,n,i);if(o.metrics){var a=o.metrics;a.count+=r.count,(0,b.D)(r,(function(e,t){if("count"!==e){var n=a[e],i=r[e];i&&!i.c?a[e]=w(i.t,n):a[e]=function(e,t){if(!t)return e;t.c||(t=x(t.t));return t.min=Math.min(e.min,t.min),t.max=Math.max(e.max,t.max),t.t+=e.t,t.sos+=e.sos,t.c+=e.c,t}(i,a[e])}}))}else o.metrics=r}storeMetric(e,t,r,n){var i=this.getBucket(e,t,r);return i.stats=w(n,i.stats),i}getBucket(e,t,r,n){this.aggregatedData[e]||(this.aggregatedData[e]={});var i=this.aggregatedData[e][t];return i||(i=this.aggregatedData[e][t]={params:r||{}},n&&(i.custom=n)),i}get(e,t){return t?this.aggregatedData[e]&&this.aggregatedData[e][t]:this.aggregatedData[e]}take(e){for(var t={},r="",n=!1,i=0;i t.max&&(t.max=e),e 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,r,j.t,n),c.il&&((0,t.OP)(e).initHidden=Boolean("hidden"===document.visibilityState),(0,N.N)((()=>(0,s.p)("docHidden",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee)),!0),(0,O.bP)("pagehide",(()=>(0,s.p)("winPagehide",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee))),this.importAggregator())}}var P=i(3081);class C extends h{static featureName=P.t9;constructor(e,t){let r=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,P.t9,r),this.importAggregator()}}var R,I=i(2210),k=i(1214),H=i(2177),L={};try{R=localStorage.getItem("__nr_flags").split(","),console&&"function"==typeof console.log&&(L.console=!0,-1!==R.indexOf("dev")&&(L.dev=!0),-1!==R.indexOf("nr_dev")&&(L.nrDev=!0))}catch(e){}function z(e){try{L.console&&z(e)}catch(e){}}L.nrDev&&H.ee.on("internal-error",(function(e){z(e.stack)})),L.dev&&H.ee.on("fn-err",(function(e,t,r){z(r.stack)})),L.dev&&(z("NR AGENT IN DEVELOPMENT MODE"),z("flags: "+(0,b.D)(L,(function(e,t){return e})).join(", ")));var M=i(6660);class B extends h{static featureName=M.t;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,M.t,i),this.skipNext=0;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}const o=this;o.ee.on("fn-start",(function(e,t,r){o.abortHandler&&(o.skipNext+=1)})),o.ee.on("fn-err",(function(t,r,n){o.abortHandler&&!n[M.A]&&((0,I.X)(n,M.A,(function(){return!0})),this.thrown=!0,(0,s.p)("err",[n,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee))})),o.ee.on("fn-end",(function(){o.abortHandler&&!this.thrown&&o.skipNext>0&&(o.skipNext-=1)})),o.ee.on("internal-error",(function(t){(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee)})),this.origOnerror=c._A.onerror,c._A.onerror=this.onerrorHandler.bind(this),c._A.addEventListener("unhandledrejection",(t=>{const r=function(e){let t="Unhandled Promise Rejection: ";if(e instanceof Error)try{return e.message=t+e.message,e}catch(t){return e}if(void 0===e)return new Error(t);try{return new Error(t+(0,D.P)(e))}catch(e){return new Error(t)}}(t.reason);(0,s.p)("err",[r,(0,p.z)(),!1,{unhandledPromiseRejection:1}],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}),(0,O.m$)(!1,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),(0,k.gy)(this.ee),(0,k.BV)(this.ee),(0,k.em)(this.ee),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}onerrorHandler(t,r,n,i,o){"function"==typeof this.origOnerror&&this.origOnerror(...arguments);try{this.skipNext?this.skipNext-=1:(0,s.p)("err",[o||new F(t,r,n),(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(t){try{(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(e){}}return!1}}function F(e,t,r){this.message=e||"Uncaught error with no additional information",this.sourceURL=t,this.line=r}let U=1;const q="nr@id";function G(e){const t=typeof e;return!e||"object"!==t&&"function"!==t?-1:e===c._A?0:(0,I.X)(e,q,(function(){return U++}))}function V(e){if("string"==typeof e&&e.length)return e.length;if("object"==typeof e){if("undefined"!=typeof ArrayBuffer&&e instanceof ArrayBuffer&&e.byteLength)return e.byteLength;if("undefined"!=typeof Blob&&e instanceof Blob&&e.size)return e.size;if(!("undefined"!=typeof FormData&&e instanceof FormData))try{return(0,D.P)(e).length}catch(e){return}}}var X=i(7243);class W{constructor(e){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.generateTracePayload=this.generateTracePayload.bind(this),this.shouldGenerateTrace=this.shouldGenerateTrace.bind(this)}generateTracePayload(e){if(!this.shouldGenerateTrace(e))return null;var r=(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier);if(!r)return null;var n=(r.accountID||"").toString()||null,i=(r.agentID||"").toString()||null,o=(r.trustKey||"").toString()||null;if(!n||!i)return null;var a=(0,_.M)(),s=(0,_.Ht)(),c=Date.now(),u={spanId:a,traceId:s,timestamp:c};return(e.sameOrigin||this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useTraceContextHeadersForCors())&&(u.traceContextParentHeader=this.generateTraceContextParentHeader(a,s),u.traceContextStateHeader=this.generateTraceContextStateHeader(a,c,n,i,o)),(e.sameOrigin&&!this.excludeNewrelicHeader()||!e.sameOrigin&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useNewrelicHeaderForCors())&&(u.newrelicHeader=this.generateTraceHeader(a,s,c,n,i,o)),u}generateTraceContextParentHeader(e,t){return"00-"+t+"-"+e+"-01"}generateTraceContextStateHeader(e,t,r,n,i){return i+"@nr=0-1-"+r+"-"+n+"-"+e+"----"+t}generateTraceHeader(e,t,r,n,i,o){if(!("function"==typeof c._A?.btoa))return null;var a={v:[0,1],d:{ty:"Browser",ac:n,ap:i,id:e,tr:t,ti:r}};return o&&n!==o&&(a.d.tk=o),btoa((0,D.P)(a))}shouldGenerateTrace(e){return this.isDtEnabled()&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)}isAllowedOrigin(e){var r=!1,n={};if((0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"distributed_tracing")&&(n=(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier).distributed_tracing),e.sameOrigin)r=!0;else if(n.allowed_origins instanceof Array)for(var i=0;i 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,Z.t,i),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(this.dt=new W(r),this.handler=(e,t,r,n)=>(0,s.p)(e,t,r,n,this.ee),(0,k.u5)(this.ee),(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),function(r,n,i,o){function a(e){var t=this;t.totalCbs=0,t.called=0,t.cbTime=0,t.end=E,t.ended=!1,t.xhrGuids={},t.lastSize=null,t.loadCaptureCalled=!1,t.params=this.params||{},t.metrics=this.metrics||{},e.addEventListener("load",(function(r){_(t,e)}),(0,O.m$)(!1)),c.IF||e.addEventListener("progress",(function(e){t.lastSize=e.loaded}),(0,O.m$)(!1))}function s(e){this.params={method:e[0]},T(this,e[1]),this.metrics={}}function u(e,n){var i=(0,t.DL)(r);i.xpid&&this.sameOrigin&&n.setRequestHeader("X-NewRelic-ID",i.xpid);var a=o.generateTracePayload(this.parsedOrigin);if(a){var s=!1;a.newrelicHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("newrelic",a.newrelicHeader),s=!0),a.traceContextParentHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("traceparent",a.traceContextParentHeader),a.traceContextStateHeader&&n.setRequestHeader("tracestate",a.traceContextStateHeader),s=!0),s&&(this.dt=a)}}function d(e,t){var r=this.metrics,i=e[0],o=this;if(r&&i){var a=V(i);a&&(r.txSize=a)}this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.listener=function(e){try{"abort"!==e.type||o.loadCaptureCalled||(o.params.aborted=!0),("load"!==e.type||o.called===o.totalCbs&&(o.onloadCalled||"function"!=typeof t.onload)&&"function"==typeof o.end)&&o.end(t)}catch(e){try{n.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}};for(var s=0;s 1?e[1]=i:e.push(i)}else e[0]&&e[0].headers&&s(e[0].headers,n)&&(this.dt=n);function s(e,t){var r=!1;return t.newrelicHeader&&(e.set("newrelic",t.newrelicHeader),r=!0),t.traceContextParentHeader&&(e.set("traceparent",t.traceContextParentHeader),t.traceContextStateHeader&&e.set("tracestate",t.traceContextStateHeader),r=!0),r}}function x(e,t){this.params={},this.metrics={},this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.dt=t,e.length>=1&&(this.target=e[0]),e.length>=2&&(this.opts=e[1]);var r,n=this.opts||{},i=this.target;"string"==typeof i?r=i:"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof Y?r=i.url:c._A?.URL&&"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof URL&&(r=i.href),T(this,r);var o=(""+(i&&i instanceof Y&&i.method||n.method||"GET")).toUpperCase();this.params.method=o,this.txSize=V(n.body)||0}function A(t,r){var n;this.endTime=(0,p.z)(),this.params||(this.params={}),this.params.status=r?r.status:0,"string"==typeof this.rxSize&&this.rxSize.length>0&&(n=+this.rxSize);var o={txSize:this.txSize,rxSize:n,duration:(0,p.z)()-this.startTime};i("xhr",[this.params,o,this.startTime,this.endTime,"fetch"],this,e.D.ajax)}function E(t){var r=this.params,n=this.metrics;if(!this.ended){this.ended=!0;for(var o=0;o 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,we.t,r),this.importAggregator()}}new class{constructor(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:(0,_.ky)(16);c._A?(this.agentIdentifier=t,this.sharedAggregator=new y({agentIdentifier:this.agentIdentifier}),this.features={},this.desiredFeatures=new Set(e.features||[]),this.desiredFeatures.add(m),Object.assign(this,(0,a.j)(this.agentIdentifier,e,e.loaderType||"agent")),this.start()):(0,l.Z)("Failed to initial the agent. Could not determine the runtime environment.")}get config(){return{info:(0,t.C5)(this.agentIdentifier),init:(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier),loader_config:(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier),runtime:(0,t.OP)(this.agentIdentifier)}}start(){const t="features";try{const r=n(this.agentIdentifier),i=[...this.desiredFeatures];i.sort(((t,r)=>e.p[t.featureName]-e.p[r.featureName])),i.forEach((t=>{if(r[t.featureName]||t.featureName===e.D.pageViewEvent){const n=function(t){switch(t){case e.D.ajax:return[e.D.jserrors];case e.D.sessionTrace:return[e.D.ajax,e.D.pageViewEvent];case e.D.sessionReplay:return[e.D.sessionTrace];case e.D.pageViewTiming:return[e.D.pageViewEvent];default:return[]}}(t.featureName);n.every((e=>r[e]))||(0,l.Z)("".concat(t.featureName," is enabled but one or more dependent features has been disabled (").concat((0,D.P)(n),"). This may cause unintended consequences or missing data...")),this.features[t.featureName]=new t(this.agentIdentifier,this.sharedAggregator)}})),(0,T.Qy)(this.agentIdentifier,this.features,t)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Failed to initialize all enabled instrument classes (agent aborted) -",e);for(const e in this.features)this.features[e].abortHandler?.();const r=(0,T.fP)();return delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.api,delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.[t],delete this.sharedAggregator,r.ee?.abort(),delete r.ee?.get(this.agentIdentifier),!1}}}({features:[J,m,S,class extends h{static featureName=oe;constructor(t,r){if(super(t,r,oe,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;const n=this.ee;let i;(0,k.QU)(n),this.eventsEE=(0,k.em)(n),this.eventsEE.on(se,(function(e,t){this.bstStart=(0,p.z)()})),this.eventsEE.on(ae,(function(t,r){(0,s.p)("bst",[t[0],r,this.bstStart,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),n.on(ce+ne,(function(e){this.time=(0,p.z)(),this.startPath=location.pathname+location.hash})),n.on(ce+ie,(function(t){(0,s.p)("bstHist",[location.pathname+location.hash,this.startPath,this.time],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)}));try{i=new PerformanceObserver((t=>{const r=t.getEntries();(0,s.p)(te,[r],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),i.observe({type:re,buffered:!0})}catch(e){}this.importAggregator({resourceObserver:i})}},C,xe,B,class extends h{static featureName=de;constructor(e,r){if(super(e,r,de,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;if(!(0,t.OP)(e).xhrWrappable)return;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}let n,i=0;const o=this.ee.get("tracer"),a=(0,k._L)(this.ee),s=(0,k.Lg)(this.ee),u=(0,k.BV)(this.ee),d=(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),f=this.ee.get("events"),l=(0,k.u5)(this.ee),h=(0,k.QU)(this.ee),g=(0,k.Gm)(this.ee);function m(e,t){h.emit("newURL",[""+window.location,t])}function v(){i++,n=window.location.hash,this[ve]=(0,p.z)()}function b(){i--,window.location.hash!==n&&m(0,!0);var e=(0,p.z)();this[pe]=~~this[pe]+e-this[ve],this[ye]=e}function y(e,t){e.on(t,(function(){this[t]=(0,p.z)()}))}this.ee.on(ve,v),s.on(be,v),a.on(be,v),this.ee.on(ye,b),s.on(ge,b),a.on(ge,b),this.ee.buffer([ve,ye,"xhr-resolved"],this.featureName),f.buffer([ve],this.featureName),u.buffer(["setTimeout"+le,"clearTimeout"+fe,ve],this.featureName),d.buffer([ve,"new-xhr","send-xhr"+fe],this.featureName),l.buffer([me+fe,me+"-done",me+he+fe,me+he+le],this.featureName),h.buffer(["newURL"],this.featureName),g.buffer([ve],this.featureName),s.buffer(["propagate",be,ge,"executor-err","resolve"+fe],this.featureName),o.buffer([ve,"no-"+ve],this.featureName),a.buffer(["new-jsonp","cb-start","jsonp-error","jsonp-end"],this.featureName),y(l,me+fe),y(l,me+"-done"),y(a,"new-jsonp"),y(a,"jsonp-end"),y(a,"cb-start"),h.on("pushState-end",m),h.on("replaceState-end",m),window.addEventListener("hashchange",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("load",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("popstate",(function(){m(0,i>1)}),(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}}],loaderType:"spa"})})(),window.NRBA=o})(); window.jQuery || document.write(' ') CKEDITOR_BASEPATH='https://f1000research.com/js/vendor/ckeditor/' window.reactTheme = 'research'; window.MathJax = { CommonHTML: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, 'HTML-CSS': { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, SVG: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, AuthorInit: function() { MathJax.Hub.Register.MessageHook('End Process', function () { let timeout = false; // holder for timeout id const delay = 250; // delay after event is "complete" to run callback const reflowMath = function() { const dispFormulas = document.querySelectorAll('.disp-formula.panel'); if (!dispFormulas) { return; } for (const dispFormula of dispFormulas) { const child = dispFormula.querySelector('.MathJax_Preview').nextSibling.firstChild; const isMultiline = MathJax.Hub.getAllJax(dispFormula)[0].root.isMultiline; if (dispFormula.offsetWidth < child.offsetWidth || isMultiline) { MathJax.Hub.Queue(['Rerender', MathJax.Hub, dispFormula]); } } }; window.addEventListener('resize', function() { clearTimeout(timeout); // clear the timeout timeout = setTimeout(reflowMath, delay); // start timing for event "completion" }); }); }, }; if (window.location.hash == '#_=_'){ window.location = window.location.href.split('#')[0] } !function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s){if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function() {n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)} ;if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n; n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0';n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window, document,'script','https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js'); fbq('init', '1641728616063202'); fbq('track', "PixelInitialized", {}); (function(h,o,t,j,a,r){ h.hj=h.hj||function(){(h.hj.q=h.hj.q||[]).push(arguments)}; h._hjSettings={hjid:2318163,hjsv:6}; a=o.getElementsByTagName('head')[0]; r=o.createElement('script');r.async=1; r.src=t+h._hjSettings.hjid+j+h._hjSettings.hjsv; a.appendChild(r); })(window,document,'https://static.hotjar.com/c/hotjar-','.js?sv='); search file_upload Submit your research search menu close search Browse Gateways & Collections How to Publish Submit your Research My Submissions Article Guidelines Article Guidelines (New Versions) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines Open Data and Accessible Source Materials Guidelines (HSS) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines (PSE) Prepublication Checks Production Process Posters and Slides Guidelines Document Guidelines Article Processing Charges Peer Review Finding Article Reviewers About How it Works For Reviewers Our Advisors Policies Glossary FAQs For Developers Newsroom Contact My Research Submissions Content and Tracking Alerts My Details Sign In file_upload Submit your research { "@context": "https://schema.org", "@type": "ScholarlyArticle", "mainEntityOfPage": { "@type": "WebPage", "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/15-59" }, "headline": "Mapping Research on AI Ethics and Human Rights: A Bibliometric Study with a TCCM-Based Agenda", "datePublished": "2026-01-14T09:23:18", "dateModified": "2026-01-14T09:23:18", "author": [ { "@type": "Person", "name": "Jageshwar Nath Singh" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Siddharth Thapliyal" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Sandeep Kumar" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Sachchidanand Sharan Das" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Sanjay Singh Rawat" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Vimal kumar Jha" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Ritesh Chaudhary" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Raju Kumar Bhagat" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Smriti Raturi Sharma" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Amitesh Anand" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Akhilesh Kumar Pandey" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Ahtshamuddin Ansari" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Vasim Ahmad" } ], "publisher": { "@type": "Organization", "name": "F1000Research", "logo": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 480, "width": 60 } }, "image": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 1200, "width": 150 }, "description": " Background The fast-paced acceptance of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies in various sectors of society, such as health, the judiciary, and education, has had several socio-ethical, legal, and human rights consequences. While AI technologies allow for more efficiency and specialization in decision-making processes, the use of such technologies in very sensitive spheres of social life brings with it great potential dangers, such as bias, discrimination, and violation of privacy. Methods The analysis was performed using Biblioshiny, which is the web interface of the Bibliometric R-package and VOSviewer, to ascertain trends in publication rates, citation impact, keyword development, concentration of journals, institutional affiliations, and inter-country contributions. A co-word and cluster analysis was also performed to show the current dominant and emerging themes of the literature and the thematic evolution from 2018 to 2025. The (theo–context–characteristics–methodology TCCM () framework was applied to analyze the theoretical, contextual, characteristic, and methodological gaps in the literature. Results Most of the heavier hits and influential research are found in only a small number of journals and institutions, mainly located in the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia. There is a predominance of the themes of AI ethics, governance, and data protection. New themes, such as AI governance and algorithmic accountability, have become apparent in recent years. Conclusions This study contributes to the research in the area in that it provides a comprehensive overview of the developments in AI ethics and human rights and also notes the major gaps in this area. A future agenda for research using the TCCM framework is presented, whereby a call is made for the integration of formal ethical theories into the sphere, a move to empirical methodologies, and enhancement of the geographic and sectoral spread of research. " } { "@context": "http://schema.org", "@type": "BreadcrumbList", "itemListElement": [ { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "1", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/", "name": "Home" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "2", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/browse/articles", "name": "Browse" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "3", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/15-59/v1", "name": "Mapping Research on AI Ethics and Human Rights: A BibliometricStudy..." } } ] } Home Browse Mapping Research on AI Ethics and Human Rights: A BibliometricStudy... ALL Metrics - Views Downloads Get PDF Get XML Cite How to cite this article Singh JN, Thapliyal S, Kumar S et al. Mapping Research on AI Ethics and Human Rights: A Bibliometric Study with a TCCM-Based Agenda [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2026, 15 :59 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.173404.1 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. Close Copy Citation Details Export Export Citation Sciwheel EndNote Ref. Manager Bibtex ProCite Sente EXPORT Select a format first Track Share ▬ ✚ Systematic Review Mapping Research on AI Ethics and Human Rights: A Bibliometric Study with a TCCM-Based Agenda [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations] Jageshwar Nath Singh 1 , Siddharth Thapliyal 1 , Sandeep Kumar 1 , [...] Sachchidanand Sharan Das 2 , Sanjay Singh Rawat 3 , Vimal kumar Jha 4 , Ritesh Chaudhary https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8670-1497 5 , Raju Kumar Bhagat 6 , Smriti Raturi Sharma https://orcid.org/0009-0005-3587-137X 7 , Amitesh Anand 8 , Akhilesh Kumar Pandey 9 , Ahtshamuddin Ansari 8 , Vasim Ahmad https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7782-7722 10 Jageshwar Nath Singh 1 , Siddharth Thapliyal 1 , [...] Sandeep Kumar 1 , Sachchidanand Sharan Das 2 , Sanjay Singh Rawat 3 , Vimal kumar Jha 4 , Ritesh Chaudhary https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8670-1497 5 , Raju Kumar Bhagat 6 , Smriti Raturi Sharma https://orcid.org/0009-0005-3587-137X 7 , Amitesh Anand 8 , Akhilesh Kumar Pandey 9 , Ahtshamuddin Ansari 8 , Vasim Ahmad https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7782-7722 10 PUBLISHED 14 Jan 2026 Author details Author details 1 College of Legal Studies, COER University, Roorkee, Uttarakhand, India 2 Faculty of Law, Centre for Juridical Studies, Dibrugarh University, Dibrugarh, Assam, India 3 School of Legal Studies, Jigyasa University, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India 4 Jagannath Vishwa Law College, Dehradun, Veer Madho Singh Bhandari, Uttarakhand Technical University, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India 5 Department of Journalism and Mass Communication, Swami Vivekanand Subharti University, Meerut, UP, India 6 Department of Law, Netaji Subhas University, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand, India 7 Asian Law College, Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India 8 College of Law, IIMT University Meerut, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, India 9 Alard School of Law, ALARD University, Pune, Maharashtra, India 10 Uttaranchal Institute of Management, Uttaranchal University, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, 248007, India Jageshwar Nath Singh Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Investigation Siddharth Thapliyal Roles: Methodology Sandeep Kumar Roles: Investigation Sachchidanand Sharan Das Roles: Investigation Sanjay Singh Rawat Roles: Data Curation, Writing – Review & Editing Vimal kumar Jha Roles: Software Ritesh Chaudhary Roles: Supervision Raju Kumar Bhagat Roles: Conceptualization Smriti Raturi Sharma Roles: Validation Amitesh Anand Roles: Visualization Akhilesh Kumar Pandey Roles: Conceptualization Ahtshamuddin Ansari Roles: Supervision Vasim Ahmad Roles: Formal Analysis, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing OPEN PEER REVIEW DETAILS REVIEWER STATUS This article is included in the Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning gateway. This article is included in the Uttaranchal University gateway. Abstract Background The fast-paced acceptance of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies in various sectors of society, such as health, the judiciary, and education, has had several socio-ethical, legal, and human rights consequences. While AI technologies allow for more efficiency and specialization in decision-making processes, the use of such technologies in very sensitive spheres of social life brings with it great potential dangers, such as bias, discrimination, and violation of privacy. Methods The analysis was performed using Biblioshiny, which is the web interface of the Bibliometric R-package and VOSviewer, to ascertain trends in publication rates, citation impact, keyword development, concentration of journals, institutional affiliations, and inter-country contributions. A co-word and cluster analysis was also performed to show the current dominant and emerging themes of the literature and the thematic evolution from 2018 to 2025. The (theo–context–characteristics–methodology TCCM () framework was applied to analyze the theoretical, contextual, characteristic, and methodological gaps in the literature. Results Most of the heavier hits and influential research are found in only a small number of journals and institutions, mainly located in the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia. There is a predominance of the themes of AI ethics, governance, and data protection. New themes, such as AI governance and algorithmic accountability, have become apparent in recent years. Conclusions This study contributes to the research in the area in that it provides a comprehensive overview of the developments in AI ethics and human rights and also notes the major gaps in this area. A future agenda for research using the TCCM framework is presented, whereby a call is made for the integration of formal ethical theories into the sphere, a move to empirical methodologies, and enhancement of the geographic and sectoral spread of research. READ ALL READ LESS Keywords AI Ethics, Human Rights, TCCM Framework, AI Governance, Ethical Theories Corresponding Author(s) Vasim Ahmad ( [email protected] ) Close Corresponding author: Vasim Ahmad Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information: The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work. Copyright: © 2026 Singh JN et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. How to cite: Singh JN, Thapliyal S, Kumar S et al. Mapping Research on AI Ethics and Human Rights: A Bibliometric Study with a TCCM-Based Agenda [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2026, 15 :59 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.173404.1 ) First published: 14 Jan 2026, 15 :59 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.173404.1 ) Latest published: 14 Jan 2026, 15 :59 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.173404.1 ) 1. Introduction The rapid expansion of artificial intelligence (AI) across domains such as governance, healthcare, financial services, education, public safety, and social welfare has transformed the relationship between technological innovation and the exercise of fundamental human rights ( Fjeld et al., 2020 ). Algorithmic decision-making can interfere with autonomy, increase bias and discrimination, violate privacy and dignity, and undermine accountability mechanisms ( Mpinga et al., 2022 ). Because these technologies become entangled in institutional practices, their impact on rights and justice calls for systematic scholarly investigation. The area of AI ethics has grown tremendously over the past ten years resulting in a plethora of normative guidelines, regulatory frameworks, and interdisciplinary analyses ( Tahaei et al., 2023 ). For instance, a meta-analysis of more than 200 AI ethics guidelines issued worldwide identified no fewer than 17 recurring principles ( Mantelero & Esposito, 2021 ). Nonetheless, despite the volume of discourse, the field remains characterized by conceptual diffusion, disciplinary silos, and geographic asymmetries. Indeed, normative reflection, empirical investigation, and legal rights-based analysis often proceed in parallel rather than in a truly integrative manner ( Constantinides et al., 2024 ; Fulton et al., 2024 ). One particularly salient gap lies in the intersection of AI and human rights. Although the human rights consequences of digital technologies are increasingly recognized, the systematic integration of human rights norms (such as non-discrimination, privacy, freedom of expression, due process, and participation) into AI ethics scholarship remains uneven ( Constantinides et al., 2024 ). Empirical research suggests that much of the influential scholarship originates in the Global North, with a limited representation of voices, contexts, and constraints from the Global South ( Mpinga et al., 2022 ). The result is a literature base that may underrepresent how AI systems operate in resource-constrained, regulatory-thin, culturally diverse environments, and thus may lack global normative applicability ( Pi et al., 2025 ; Hernández, 2024 ). From a methodological perspective, the field has also leaned heavily on normative or descriptive reviews, rather than systematic structural mapping ( Sridhar, 2025 ). Bibliometric and science-mapping techniques provide an opportunity to visualize and quantify the architecture of scholarship by tracking publication trends, citation networks, thematic clusters, and geographic institutional contributions ( Valdez et al., 2024 ). However, descriptive mapping alone does not suffice to advance the normative agenda: a conceptual scaffold is needed to bridge empirical mapping with theory, context, and methods to identify strategic research fronts rather than merely cataloguing activity ( Stephanidis et al., 2025 ; Kijewski et al., 2024 ). To address these gaps, this study employs a dual-level approach. First, it conducts a bibliometric science-mapping exercise covering the period from 2018 to 2025 to chart the structural contours of the literature on AI ethics and human rights, including publication volumes, citation trends, leading institutions, countries, and journals, and the evolution of thematic clusters. Second, it utilizes the TCCM (Theory–Context–Characteristics–Methodology) model as an analytical lens to organize the review of literature, and to assess and evaluate the literature ( Wang & Zhang, 2025 ); ‘Theory’ examines how the literature on AI ethics is informed by normative and human rights theory; ‘Context’ examines the contextual, geographical, institutional and legal frameworks in which the literature was produced; ‘Characteristics’ examines the characteristics of the AI systems studied and the resultant impact on rights; whilst ‘Methodology’ examines the methodologies used to empirically/quantitatively assess those impacts ( Raza et al., 2025 ; Ligot, 2024 ). Thus, by positioning the outputs from bibliometrics within this conceptual framework, this research aims to move beyond a descriptive stage to the formulation of a systematic and forward-looking research agenda ( Li, 2023 ; John et al., 2024 ). As such, the research also has a hybrid methodology and, therefore, has four research objectives: (i) Chart the patterns of publication and citation in AI ethics and human rights from 2018 to 2025. (ii) To identify the leading countries, institutions, authors, and journals of AI ethics and human rights. (iii) To study the dominant and forthcoming themes in the literature by employing co-word and clustering analysis of little-used author words. (iv) To assess the conceptual, contextual, and methodological gaps in the literature and propose a future research agenda using the TCCM framework. By fusing bibliometric mapping with TCCM-based conceptual synthesis, this article helps our understanding in three main ways. This study provides the first empirically grounded and temporally based analysis of the development of both AI ethics and human rights as subfields of international relations that also gives researchers a bird’s-eye view of what is happening in terms of the development of the field of AI ethics and human rights ( Hernández, 2024 ; Elia et al., 2025 ; Manheim et al., 2024 ). Second, the study contributes to the field of AI ethics and human rights by providing an analysis of how human rights issues are constructed, implemented, and geographically located in the field of AI ethics and human rights, which will contribute to ongoing normative debates regarding how human rights can be effectively protected in relation to AI ( Radanliev, 2025 ). Third, the study provides a comprehensive and coherent framework for future research on AI ethics and human rights that is inclusive across the globe, theoretically rigorous, methodologically diverse, and sensitive to the complexity of deploying AI in multiple empirical contexts ( Tabbakh et al., 2024 ; Jedličková, 2024 ; Pi et al., 2025 ). This study will ultimately support the transition of the field from a primarily descriptive mapping process to an integrated, rights-based, global research architecture. 2. Methodology 2.1. Research design and approach A combination of a templated-bibliometric approach was used in this study to assess the thematic progression, intellectual structure, and gaps in the human rights literature on the ethics of artificial intelligence (AI) through the use of both bibliometric and templated approaches to examine the development and current state of the literature on AI and human rights ( Radanliev et al., 2024 ; Sharma et al., 2025 ; Wankhade et al., 2025 ). Bibliometric analysis is an analytical method that can be utilized to create visual representations of science and to analyze the frequency of publication, citation rates, and relationships among authors and researchers, providing evidence of trends within the scientific community ( Mbiazi et al., 2023 ; Nasir et al., 2024 ). In addition to the creation of a visual representation of the literature, the methodology employed in this study allows for the identification of conceptual associations between various authors, researchers, journals, and studies, along with the ability to determine clusters of related themes throughout the literature ( Tettey et al., 2025 ; Greif et al., 2024 ; Nastoska et al., 2025 ). Additionally, the theory–context–characteristics–methodology (TCCM) framework ( Bolgouras et al., 2025 ) will also serve as a meta-analytic lens for assessing the current state of the literature and identifying theoretical, contextual, and methodological shortcomings in the existing literature, and subsequently provide a systematic and structured foundation for developing a future research agenda ( Rees & Müller, 2022 ; Ibitoye et al., 2025 ). This dual approach of quantitative bibliometric methods paired with the qualitative synthesis of the framework provides analytical rigor and theoretical engagement ( Mökander et al., 2021 ; Ibitoye et al., 2025 ). 2.2. Data collectionand search strategy Data for the bibliometric research were drawn from Scopus, given its multidisciplinary coverage, accuracy of metadata, and compatibility with bibliometric software. In January 2025, the search was undertaken using the Boolean string: (“Ethics of artificial intelligence” OR “AI ethics”) AND (“Data protection” OR “privacy law” OR “Digital rights” OR “Legal framework” OR “Human rights” OR “AI governance”). This provided a search string that facilitated the identification of peer-reviewed articles that specifically addressed ethical considerations arising from AI and human rights elements ( Brogle et al., 2025 ). The search yielded initial 312 documents ranging from to 2018-2025. To achieve as accurate a result as possible, the documents identified have been peer-reviewed journal articles, conference papers, and book chapters, while discarding duplicates, editorials, and other forms of non-academic commentary. The period from 2018 to 2025 was chosen to coincide with the emergence of significant ethical and regulatory structures such as the European Union High-level Expert Group on AI and the Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy ( Hermann et al., 2023 ; Rees & Müller, 2022 ). Recommendations on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence have had a significant impact on global academic discourse on the subject ( Cihon et al., 2021 ). 2.3. Data screening and PRISMA protocol All relevant documents were arranged in a systematic data-screening process according to the PRISMA 2020 protocol as illustrated in Figure 1 below ( Lam et al., 2024 ; Avin et al., 2021 ). All retrieved documents were subjected to manual screening for relevance by two independent reviewers according to title, abstract, and keyword analysis. The inclusion criteria were as follows: (a) directly dealt with issues of the legal, ethical, or human rights implications of AI; (b) was written in English; and (c) was listed as a peer-reviewed document in Scopus. After duplication and exclusion of other non-relevant documents, the final list comprised 191 relevant documents. The metadata of the documents, including the names of the authors, titles, authors’ affiliations, sources of publication, citations, and keywords, were extracted from. CSV format. Figure 1. Prisma framework (Source: Author). 2.4. Data extraction and processing tools The study utilized the following combination of tools for all stages of data extraction, organization, and analysis: RStudio (Bibliometrix and Biblioshiny Packages), VOSviewer (v1.6.20.) and Microsoft Excel 2021 ( Lam et al., 2024 ; Avin et al., 2021 ). • Microsoft Excel was used at the initial stages of the procedure for cleaning of the data, table production and normalization of the metadata are concerned ( Ayling & Chapman, 2021 ; Akula & Garibay, 2021 ), such as the standardization of author names and terms, keywords (the merging of, for example, “AI” and “artificial intelligence”), authors’ journal abbreviations. It has also enabled the production of basic descriptive statistics (such as frequency counts, growth rates, average citations per document) as well and the production of media for intermediate visual summaries ( Ema et al., 2023 ; Mökander & Floridi, 2021 ). • RStudio with Biblioshiny was utilized to produce quantitative bibliometric calculations of annual scientific production in terms of collaboration indices, sources of impact, Lotka’s law distribution, and the generation of keyword co-occurrence matrices ( Laine et al., 2024 ; Ugwudike, 2021 ). • VOSviewer assisted in visualizing the various bibliometric networks in co-authorship, co-citation, and co-word analyses. The scale parameters were set such that the minimum occurrence of keywords was set at five and ten citations for sources to generate good interpretive robust observations ( Corrêa et al., 2023 ; Akula & Garibay, 2021 ). 2.5. Analytical procedures The bibliometric and visualization procedures consisted of the following five analytical constructs: 1. Descriptive bibliometrics: These include the investigation of the annual growth of publications, citation patterns, and collaboration indices to generate an overview of the evolution in time of the production of academic articles ( Falco et al., 2021 ; Raji et al., 2022 ). 2. Source and author impact evaluations: This, through the analyses of Bradford and Lotka, sought to document the distribution of important journals and authors with a view of producing an impression of the most effective source of publication on an impact basis source of publication ( Akula & Garibay, 2021 ). 3. Keyword co-occurrence and thematic mapping: Through co-word analysis, thematic clusters and themes were generated that were observed in the research results. Maps of thematic evolution were generated to document how key terms such as AI governance, algorithmic accountability, and human rights have developed in the course of the periods studied ( Chellappan, 2024 ; Oesterling et al., 2024 ). 4. Network Visualization: VOSviewer was employed to create co-authorship, institutional, and country-level collaboration networks ( Manheim et al., 2025 ). 5. Cluster Validation: Thematic clusters were validated against previous bibliometric findings ( Herrera-Poyatos et al., 2025 ; Goodman & Trehu, 2022 ) to ensure conceptual consistency. 2.6. Application of the TCCM framework Following bibliometric analysis, the TCCM framework was applied for interpretive synthesis: • Theory (T): Identification of ethical theories (deontology, consequentialism, and virtue ethics) and legal paradigms (human rights law and constitutional principles) underpinning the literature. • Context (C): Examination of the geographic distribution of research, particularly Global North–South asymmetry and institutional concentration. • Characteristics (C): Evaluation of the thematic orientation of AI applications, such as fairness, accountability, transparency, privacy, and bias. • Methodology (M): Assessment of research designs, with emphasis on the predominance of conceptual versus empirical studies. This qualitative layer facilitated the translation of quantitative bibliometric insights into a structured research agenda that highlights gaps and future trajectories in AI ethics and human rights scholarship ( Verma et al., 2025 ; Schiff et al., 2024 ). 3. Results and Discussion Table 1 indicates the temporal coverage running from 2018 to 2025, containing 191 documents from 112 different outlets. This indicates that there is a moderate spread of academic output over a variety of journals or conference proceedings, meaning that the thematic area is being dealt with in a number of different outlets and is not concentrated in a few academic journals. A total of 615 writers gave an average of approximately 3.2 authors per document. This degree of collaboration is representative of the typical author co-authorship patterns found in several academic areas and indicates a balance between individual approaches to research and groups of writers working on the same research problem. Table 1. Basic information. Time period 2018-2025 Number of documents 191 Number of Sources 112 Annual growth rate 80.33% Authors 615 International co-authorship 19.9% References 1580 Average citations per document 7.461 Figure 2 compares the figures on two indicators between the years 2018 and 2025, the number of publications generated each year, and the average number of citations received by this document in that year. From 2018 to 2019, there was no registered scientific production, which is also in accordance with the data in Table 2 . The first publications cropped up in 2020, from which it can be said that there is measurable activity. The number of documents, in turn, increases annually from 2020, appreciably from 2023, and the expected maximum in 2025. Figure 2. Annual scientific production vs Average citations (Source: Biblioshiny). Table 2. Year-wise publications and citations. Year AI AND SOCIETY CEUR WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS JOURNAL OF INFORMATION, COMMUNICATION AND ETHICS IN SOCIETY LECTURE NOTES IN NETWORKS AND SYSTEMS STUDIES IN SYSTEMS, DECISION AND CONTROL 2018 0 0 0 0 0 2019 0 0 0 0 0 2020 1 0 0 0 0 2021 1 0 0 0 0 2022 1 1 0 1 0 2023 3 2 0 1 0 2024 4 2 0 2 0 2025 6 3 3 3 3 However, the average number of citations per document shows another trend. Although there is a regular increase in production volume, the average number of citations does not increase significantly. Normally the previous years (years 2020-2021) have much higher average citations that the number of documents than for their part the superior years of the 2,024-2,025. It is evident that it is very punctual because previous publications have had more time to increase the number of citations, while they are still not in circulation, those too recent for that (2024 and 2025). This inverse pattern between volume and citations highlights the time-lag effect in citation accumulation. This does not imply that recent publications are less relevant or lower in quality but simply that citation metrics are delayed indicators of impact. Table 2 captures the growth in research activity over time, with a clear expansion in both output volume and source variety after 2021. (Source: Author) Figure 3 . highlights journals and proceedings with the highest number of publications in the dataset. Figure 3. Highly pertinent sources (Source: Biblioshiny). Figure 4 shows the most frequently contributing institutions based on author affiliations across the dataset. The leading affiliation is the O.P. Jindal Global University (India), which appears in five publications, making it the most active contributor. This suggests a concentrated research initiative or coordinated publishing effort from a specific department or faculty member within the university. Following this, both Universität Wien (Austria) and Tashkent State University of Law (Uzbekistan) contributed to three publications each. These two institutions show moderate but continued engagement to a lower degree. A few others, including the University of Toronto (Canada), Royal Institute of Technology (Sweden), Lovely Professional University (India), and IBM Research (USA), occurred in two documents each. This distribution suggests that the database has contributions from a number of research and academic institutions in a number of different countries, both public and private research bodies. Figure 4. Most relevant affiliations (Source: Biblioshiny). Despite the existence of some international institutions, a rather flat distribution is seen in the data after the top affiliation, with no entity except O. P. Jindal, who has issued more than three publications. This indicates that the research is not centralized to a few aggressively active academic centers but is rather diffused in its contributors. Furthermore, it is apparent that although there are international institutions, earlier data have shown that the percentage of international co-authorship is quite low (19.9%), so these affiliations are probably with independently authored papers, save for cooperative efforts. Overall, it shows a moderately diverse institutional picture with distinct regional clusters and a small number of highly active centers. The existence of industrial research bodies such as IBM Research is clearly pleasing from the point of view of playability; however, in view of degree, their research participation made by them is of a very small order. In order to enhance cooperative strength and long-term impact, future research activities should derive benefits from building lasting institutional relationships and trans-border cooperation. The total number of publications is illustrated in Figure 5 , broken down per source for the entire period, 2018-2025. This provides a clear idea of which journals or a series of conference proceedings are employed the most throughout this dataset. Figure 5. Source production over time (Source: Biblioshiny). The greatest contributor is AI and Society, with six publications, making it the most frequently employed outlet. This suggests that this is the preferred medium of publication for academic authors working in this field or in this research group. It also indicates thematic concordance, as this journal focuses specifically on the social impact of technology. It would also confirm that publication outputs are concentrated in a few recurring outlets, with AI and Society being the only sources that are positively multiyear with its output. Other outlets are sporadic in nature, with most being present only once or twice. While the breadth of the outlets indicates diversity, it also indicates fragmentation. Table 3 outlines the five most prolific journals publishing outputs on AI, software patenting, and ethics in the analyzed corpus. It typically shows journal name, number of publications, total citations, and average citations per paper. Table 3. Top 5 Journals. S.No. Journal No. of citations Authors 1 Journal of Business Research 124 Brey (2022) , Ryan (2022) , Andreou (2022) , Macnish (2022) , Stahl (2022) , Zicari (2022) 2 Journal of Data and Information Quality 90 Bertino (2020) , Kundu (2020) , Sura (2020) 3 Machine Learning and Knowledge Extraction 75 Hariri et al. (2021) , Fanaei Sheikhobiasi (2021) , Khosravi (2021) , Zhang (2021) , Al-Fuqaha (2021) 4 AI and Society 63 Quintarelli (2020) , Biju (2020) , Knight (2020) , Stahl (2020) , Coeckelbergh (2020) , Szpak (2020) 5 Computer Law and Security Review 53 Rodrigues (2021) , Santiago (2021) , Macnish (2021) , Kuner (2021) , Lahlou (2021) , B.C. (2021) In Figure 6 , the United States produces the most output (55), but also leads in citations (874), indicating both a large number of articles and a large number of citations. India ranks second in output (48 publications), but has a disproportionately low number of total citations (81), indicating high output but low visibility or research impact per paper. This situation indicates that much of this input may be going to low-impact or unindexed locations. In contrast, the picture for countries such as the U.K., Australia, and Germany is very different, having much lower outputs but much higher citations per article. For instance, the U.K. has only 20 publications but has a total of 489 citations, giving an average of over 24 citations per paper, showing a much higher quality of research or wider international relevance. Saudi Arabia and China are moderately proportionate in this, having also moderate output figures and citations. Countries such as Canada, Italy, and Spain fall into the median range of both output and impact. Figure 6. Countries citation wise vs publication wise (Source: VosViewer). Generally, the data show a great incongruence between the number of publications and a greatly varying impact between countries. The U.S., the U.K., and Australia constitute both. In other countries, especially India and Saudi Arabia, there is a difference in citation impact; however, these countries are frequent publishers. The figures highlight the need not just to publish more, but also to publish in places that are more conducive to academic visibility and citation leverage. The 124 times cited document is from 2021 and concerns artificial intelligence for human flourishing. The article is characterized by, if not its unique, conceptual framing, at least a cross-disciplinary appeal. A 2019 article on blockchain and AI ethics followed (90 citations). This article has had more time to collect citations, but clearly demonstrates early engagement with basic questions of ethical concern. A high proportion of documents, those from 2020 to 2022, collect this together so that the important contributions in the data file are accounted for in a three-year window, a period in which the field saw a large increase in both interest and impactful publications engendered. Two of the 2023 articles already appear in the top 10, with 75 and 46 citations, respectively. These offer a strong record of citations early on, as they appear to be relatively recently published. This is indicative of their timeliness, rather than their relevance to current scholarly discussions. Most of the titles look at central concerns of ethics, transparency, human rights, regulation, etc., which serve to confirm that impact in this dataset models the close interrelation between socially relevant governmental areas in AI with which the social actor can be justifiably concerned. The top 10 documents model both the thematic focus and the temporal impact of papers as presented in Figure 7 . The most influential was written between 2019 and 2022, with a small number of entrants representing early 2023, rising quickly. The ethical, regulatory, and human-centered perspectives on AI dominate the high-impact section of academic journal articles in connection with AI, demonstrating that future work aspiring to visibility in this sector should address ethical, regulatory, and human-centered aspects in a clear and relevant manner. Figure 7. Top 10 global cited documents (Source: Biblioshiny). The leading term by a considerable distance, “AI ethics,” was found 75 times as visually presented in Figure 8 pointing to the fact that the focus of the datasets is on ethical frameworks, dilemmas and legislation pertaining to artificial intelligence technology. This is borne out by many of the most cited publications in the datasets, many of which deal with ethics, regulations, and human rights. The next most common terms were “artificial intelligence” and” ethics,” confirming the emphasis laid (in the datasets) on normative and conceptual themes. The frequent occurrence of “human rights” (20 times) and “privacy” (18 times) suggests that many publications have a legal or humanity-focus, suggesting that the technology area is focused on human accountability with respect to the method of application of technology. Terms like “AI governance,” “data protection” and “AI regulation” appeared to have roughly the same frequency of occurrence (10-14 occurrences each) suggestive that there is an increasing pre-occupation with the problem of regulation and institutional control. The mention of phrases like “responsible AI,” “generative AI” and “transparency” indicates that new sub-discussions are developing under the category of ethical discussion. Again, the occurrence of both “AI” and ‘Artificial Intelligence (AI)’ as separate headings stresses the fact that the authors have been inconsistent in their heading usage, which may slightly distort the frequency analysis. It would certainly be beneficial to reach uniformity in terms of usage in future analyses. Regarding the tree map, it appears that there is a concentrated theme being followed in more or less all AI research publications on the themes of ethics, governance, privacy, and regulation. The pre-eminence of words like “AI ethics” and “human rights” demonstrates that the players are having their drive shaped more by social legal and policy considerations than by purely technical issues. These findings can be better recognized from the fact that they are illustrated in both the most cited papers and in the source distribution across various interdisciplinary journals. Figure 8. Tree map (keywords) (Source: Biblioshiny). Figure 9 illustrates how often relevant keywords for authors are reflected in publications from 2018 to 2025. These data are based on the occurrence of the ten most commonly used keywords within the dataset, including words such as AI ethics, artificial intelligence, privacy, ethics, human rights, and AI governance. Relevant keywords were first used in 2018, with comments such as AI ethics, artificial intelligence, and privacy discussed separately on one occasion only. Thus, it appears that at this stage of development, ethical and privacy issues relating to AI systems were beginning to develop on a limited scale. In 2019, the frequency of the occurrence of such keywords started to increase, albeit slightly. Ethics and privacy appeared three times, indicating a growing interest in substantial ethical themes and data protection legislation. However, the use of relevant keywords is still applied to a limited number of papers. Figure 9. Words’ frequency over time (Source: Biblioshiny). An increase in mention is seen in the years subsequent to (2020–2023), being reflected in a considerably larger occurrence of AI ethics, human rights, AI governance, and responsible AI. This, in turn, coincides with the widespread increase in the volume of publications, which was being made and indicative of a larger and more concentrated approach to the social and legal aspects of AI. By 2023, keywords such as AI ethics, responsible AI, and generative AI appeared more frequently, indicating a more substantial approach in sub-headings, particularly those relating to more novel technology and the new applied systems of governance. It also reflects the total involvement of the worldwide debate on the regulation of AI and ethics in the field, which developed rapidly during this time. It may be concluded from the data that although there were sporadic mentions of important keywords during the first years (2018–2019), a much more considerable and widespread allusion of relevant ethical keywords appeared to be taken only in the years 2020 and subsequently to 2025. Accordingly, this would indicate that there is a growing inquiry to be subjoined not merely in the development of AI systems, but also the more serious consideration of such to their ethical aspects, the regulation under which they will place on their creation, or the laws affected by such and their effect on society. Figure 10 provides a combined view of the evolution of the core research themes over time and their relative conceptual relationships within the dataset. The first part, the topic trends diagram, shows the temporal emergence and frequency of usage of the selected key terms from 2019 to 2025. Lines correspond to each thematic term and the size of the dot corresponds to the frequency of usage of the term in each given year. These terms, including artificial intelligence, AI ethics, and ethical technology, show consistent and high-frequency use from approximately 2022 until 2025. This indicates consistent and growing attention to these topics in the recent literature. The terms previously appearing, such as privacy, human rights, and data protection, began to appear prominently around 2020 but remain regularly important topics. These keywords suggest important legal and ethical themes that created the foundation for early work in the field. By contrast, terms such as legal frameworks, international law, and AI technology have emerged recently, primarily after 2023. This indicates a widening of the research from general ethical considerations to more specific discussions concerning regulations, implementation, and international policy structures. Topics such as general data protection regulations (GDPR) and philosophical aspects were discussed actively in earlier years, but do not show up in the same consistency or growth of usage, which suggests that they may tend to indicate foundational discussions that have since become subsumed under more specific topics. The second part of the figure illustrates the keyword co-occurrence network. This network shows how often these terms appear concurrently within the same documents, providing an idea of the thematic structure of a research field. The center of the network focuses on artificial intelligence, which connects heavily to terms such as ethics, data privacy, machine learning, and AI ethics. These strong connections provide evidence that AI is the superordinate term from which most research themes emanate. A very dense cluster adjoining the terms ethics, privacy, transparency, and philosophical aspects indicates that there is a frequent co-occurrence of ethical and conceptual themes, producing a core discourse around AI and normative considerations. A different area of connectedness produces a cluster of co-occurring terms such as AI ethics, ethical technology, AI regulation, legal frameworks, and international law. This cluster shows a clear but developing focus on governance, compliance, and legal considerations, indicating a fledging area of discussion in the field of structured regulatory questions. More peripheral terms, such as public policy, emerging technologies, and generative AI, are indicated, but remain marginal in the network, to an extent, indicating either newer areas of research or less closely integrated sub-fields. The appearance of large language models and generative AI in the same cluster as ethics and privacy clearly suggests that these emergent technologies are quickly becoming socially arranged within the existing ethical discourses. It also suggests a maturing into the field of research that has evolved from general consensus with regard to ethical matters to a much more detailed engagement with governance, law, and societal implications. The ethical discourse remains core, but this is now in conjunction with, and in some instances driven by, the regulatory, legal, and political questions that AI development poses. The patterns shown indicate that these topics are not isolated, but are increasingly interrelated, forming a densely interconnected and evolving thematic structure. Figure 10. Trend of topics Co-occurrence network (Source: Biblioshiny). Figure 11 illustrates the triadic relationship among journals, keywords, and countries, allowing a geographic and outlet distribution of the concentration of specific research themes of interest. The data reveal the frequency of each of the dominant keyword-couplet/country pairs to be indicated in the journal publications of interest, suggesting research thematic output and geographic regional areas of study. The largest cluster appeared in the International Journal of Medical Informatics, Saudi Arabia, for which the following keywords, being unique but related in theme, were found most frequently in usage (22 times each): ethical considerations, artificial intelligence (AI), resource allocation, mass gatherings (MGs), health care, and data security. The high frequency of this clustering of keywords would suggest a directed, perhaps institutional research project addressing itself in large part to the ethical and specified logistical aspects of health data and AI use for health technologies applied to large mass gathering events, such as Hajj. The correlation of the many high-frequency keywords in use centered around one journal country pair indicates a directed and closely allied thematic output from one national context. Another remarkable cluster appears from the Conference on Human Factors and Computing Systems, whereby the United States is related to such words as AI ethics, responsible AI, and human-centered AI, each being 10 times. This suggests a large concentration of research directing itself from institutions in the United States to human - AI interactions and the ethical design of systems in usage, being allied under trending directions for U.S. institutions to be moving, such as in ethical, responsible innovation, or participatory design. Figure 11 also indicates that the themes involved in the research work do not discriminate against either national or journal series reaches. Instead, keyword clusters were of recognizable discriminatory context, both in national and journal names, suggesting both institutional priorities and regional predominance. For example, Saudi Arabian publications are heavily inclined toward subjects surrounding AI in health care and public infrastructure, while the U.S. has subjects assigned to it with a tendency toward ethics and human-centered design. In contrast, Australia and Austria show more distinctive subject areas of a conditionally sociotechnical or contextual nature. Taken together, the field appears to be globally populated but also regionally spawned, with research themes conditioned by national priorities and disciplinary stress. Figure 11. Journal-keyword-country three field plot (Source: Biblioshiny). Figure 12 illustrates the network that visualizes conceptual relationships between AI ethics and software patenting research, where large nodes denote the most frequently used terms, edges signify the strength of co-occurrence strength, while the clusters correspond to the larger thematic area’s ethical governance, privacy and accountability, and patentability and legal methods, indicating how the deliberation of AI ethics and intellectual property matures into interconnected subfields. Figure 12. Co-occurrence of keywords (Source: VosViewer). Table 4 shows the results of the thematic cluster analysis of research on AI ethics and human rights. Five clusters were identified as the major clusters of analysis in the wider research area. These clusters were assigned according to the keywords used and themes identified in academic literature ( Waltersdorfer et al., 2024 ). Table 4. Cluster analysis. Cluster No. (color) Cluster category Dominant associated keywords Brief description Gaps C1 – Red Core AI Ethics & Theory AI ethics, artificial intelligence, ethics, responsible AI, artificial intelligence (AI) Central cluster focusing on ethical foundations and theoretical dimensions of AI. Emphasizes normative concerns and philosophical grounding in AI system design. Limited cross-domain theoretical integration; most studies remain abstract with limited application to specific regulatory or governance models. C2 – Blue Governance & Regulation AI governance, AI regulation, transparency, GDPR, regulatory compliance, law, regulation Addresses institutional, legal, and policy responses to AI technologies. Concentrates on how governance structures adapt to emerging AI risks and global regulations. Lacks comparative regulatory studies across regions; limited empirical validation of governance effectiveness and legal compliance outcomes. C3 – Green Privacy & Data Rights Privacy, data protection, data privacy, cybersecurity Focused on individual rights, data privacy, and security. Closely linked to GDPR, consent management, and surveillance implications of AI deployment. Most research remains conceptual; need for sector-specific privacy risk modelling and real-world implementation outcomes. C4 – Yellow Human Rights & Ethics Human rights, governance, ethical AI, algorithmic bias Explores intersections of AI deployment with human dignity, fairness, bias mitigation, and social justice, framed under international human rights discourse. Underexplored in developing country contexts; minimal integration of human rights law with AI deployment case studies. C5 – Purple Emerging AI Technologies Generative AI, ChatGPT, explainability, large language models, explainable AI (XAI) Focused on fast-evolving technologies like generative AI and LLMs. Emphasizes explainability, transparency, and ethical design of next-gen AI systems. Empirical validation is scarce; interpretability and transparency models lack standardization; little regulatory preparedness for generative technologies. 3.1 TCCM framework analysis Future Research Agenda Based on the TCCM Framework Future research agendas for the field of AI ethics and human rights can be organized using the TCCM framework, which assumes the following key dimensions: Theory, Context, Characteristics and Methodology. The results of this bibliometric analysis indicate several specific gaps across each of the four dimensions, which need to be addressed in future studies to advance both academic knowledge and practical deployment in this domain. The Figure 13 below summarizes the TCCM framework to categorize the research gaps and future directions. Figure 13. TCCM framework overview (Source: Author). Theory Development (T) From a theoretical perspective, the literature reviewed is largely descriptive and policy-oriented with limited interaction with formal ethical and legal theory. Although terms such as ethics, artificial intelligence ethics, and human rights appear frequently in author keywords or co-occurrence networks, the documents examined rarely subscribe to systematic models of ethical theory such as deontology, consequentialism, or international law on human rights ( Cihon et al., 2021 ; Corrêa et al., 2023 ). This lack of theoretical depth limits the generalizability of the findings and weakens the normative underpinnings in the field. Future research must remedy this situation by explicitly including ethical models and legal theorizing in the analysis. For example, research could drive the application of rights theories to the specific harms created by artificial intelligence in different settings or investigate how the ethical impact of artificial intelligence technologies is mediated by institutional contexts using sociotechnical systems theory. Context (C) In terms of context, publication and citation data reveal considerable imbalance. The large body of highly cited work seems to reside in the USA, UK, and Australia, while a significant number of publications with low citation impact are produced in countries such as India, Saudi Arabia, and a number of global southern regions. This finding suggests a geographical concentration of influence and visibility. Future research must expand the dimensions of the inquiry by including those areas where influence is under-represented, in particular those areas confronted by specific challenges in the area of artificial intelligence legislation, such as low regulatory capacity or autocratic political systems. Comparative cross-country studies examining how different legal systems understand the ethical principles governing the use of AI would add most insights ( Faveri et al., 2025 ; Goodman & Trehu, 2022 ). In addition, non-English publications and region-specific datasets must be considered by researchers to prevent linguistic and epistemic bias. Characteristics (C) In the dimension of characteristics, the dataset shows that and invoke vague themes like AI ethics, privacy, or human rights, but does not distinguish between the various types of AI systems or the various uses to which they are put. Statistics provided on such things as words and their trends and the co-occurrence of words show that modern themes such as AI governance, generative AI, and automated decision-making are just beginning to reveal themselves. There is considerable demand for future research to focus on the risks related to specific domains and the specific characteristics of systems ( Hariri et al., 2021 ; Mpinga et al., 2022 ). For instance, ethical problems related to facial recognition in public surveillance through AI are radically different from those posed in connection with AI-assisted hiring or medical triage systems. The implications of technologies on specific rights, such as privacy, the right against discrimination, and the right to due process, should be studied by researchers in relation to various sectors, such as law enforcement, education, and the healthcare sector. Methodologies (M) Finally, the methodology employed in most studies is predominantly conceptual or literature based. Papers that conduct empirical investigations are rare, and audits of the evaluated systems should be almost non-existent. There is a dearth of evidence as to how human beings are affected by AI systems or how they are governed in practice. To this end, the way forward should entail empirical research, such as stakeholder interviews, surveys, case studies, and algorithm audits. It would be particularly useful to employ a mixed-method approach that couples traditional legal analysis with an analysis of systems so that the gap between normative statements or claims and the visible effect can be closed. Encouraging interdisciplinary cooperation between legal scholars and political scientists involved with AI, scientists, and social scientists is vital in the pursuit of robust methodologies needed to understand the ethical and operational issues surrounding AI systems ( Rodrigues, 2021 ). The TCCM framework elucidates that the question of how to take the AI ethics and human rights question forward is not simply a question of discussion. 4. Contribution Through a bibliometric analysis of peer-reviewed publications for the respective period of 2018–2025, this study systematically maps the academic field of AI ethics by presenting the key trends in publications, citation impact and thematic development of this area of research. Through this mechanism, the paper will map a thorough overview of the development that AI ethics research has gone through, from its inception and subsequent concerns regarding algorithmic accountability, data privacy, and governance of AI. A key contribution of this study is the application of the TCCM framework (,) which highlights how the research gaps that remain have been structured and how precisely an agenda for future research has been made available to scholars engaged in the field ( Raji et al., 2022 ). The study also highlights important theoretical issues such as the lack of formal integration of ethical models and legal frameworks within AI ethics research. It highlights the geographical disparity of research being conducted in this area, particularly concerning the lack of representation of perspectives from the Global South and the need for regionally focused research in this field. Furthermore, the study highlights the lack of research concerning the specific ethical issues emerging from different AI technologies and applications, such as facial recognition technology, generative AI, and automated decision making. Finally, the study encourages the use of empirical research methodologies, such as algorithmic audits and stakeholder interviews, to complement the normative and conceptual work that has been done in this area. Ultimately, this paper serves to provide both a diagnostic view of the current status of AI ethics and human rights research, as well as a strategic overview of work to be conducted in the future. Through an examination of the theoretical, geographical, and methodological gaps in the field, it provides a platform for work that is more rigorous, inclusive, and practical in light of the protection and promotion of human rights in an age of rapidly evolving technologies. 5. Limitations of the study Despite a thorough review of the published literature on artificial intelligence ethics and human rights, this study has several limitations that must be considered. First, the data used in this study were obtained only from the Scopus database. Although Scopus is well-known for its wide discipline coverage and accepted indexing, it is not exhaustive. Second, the search string used to locate the relevant documents ((“Artificial intelligence ethics” OR “AI ethics”) AND (“data protection” OR “privacy law” OR digital rights OR legal framework OR human rights OR tech governance)) was intended to be non-random and be able to target specific thematic interconnectedness. However, this Boolean search string may have unintentionally excluded literature that discusses themes using different terminology, geographical articulations, or implicit framing, without the language of the relevant keywords. This deficiency is inherent in all bibliometric studies, which depends on the choice of keywords, and may lead to the possibility of under-indication from certain theoretical or geographical perspectives. Fourthly, the quantitative bibliometrics approaches striven for in this study, which enable the investigation of publication trends, significant authors, significant keywords etc, do not assess the qualitative depth or normative quality of the arguments propounded in each article. The highly quoted literature may indicate popularity or transmutability, rather than theoretical or empirical justification. Similarly, keyword co-occurrence and source indicators may not indicate the presence of contradiction, comparative theoretical coherence, or methodological rigor. Fifth, although library software, such as VOS viewer, Biblioshiny, and Excel, were effectively employed to map and visualize the dataset, they relied on the metadata provided by Scopus, which may be inconsistent in the use of author names, institutional affiliations, and keyword tagging. Despite data cleaning efforts, certain residual errors such as duplicate authors or incomplete data on institutions may persist and affect clustering or trend analyses. Finally, the timeframe examined (2018–2025) contains the projected records for later publications. Forward-looking inclusion is a method of understanding emerging trends. 6. Conclusion This paper demonstrates that there has been a rapid increase in the literature on AI ethics, whereby most of the contributions are from high-income countries such as the USA, the UK, and Australia. Thematic focus has gradually shifted from general ethical concerns to more specific ones, such as AI governance, algorithmic accountability, and data privacy, and more recently to issues relating to generative AI. In contrast, there are still gaps in both the theory and methodology of the literature. The literature is still mainly conceptual and lacks serious engagement with more structured ethical or legal theories such as deontology and human rights law. The geographical distribution of the literature is heavily weighted in the Global North, whereas the Global South, while providing an increasing number of publications, is hampered by a lack of visibility and citation impact. Furthermore, the literature is still mainly on general thematic categories, such as AI ethics and privacy, with little exploration of specific AI technologies and their specific ethical consequences. In addressing these gaps, the paper a future research agenda based on the TCCM framework (Theory–Context–Characteristics–Methodology). In conclusion, this study highlights the need for a theoretical shift in favor of more formal ethical models and legal frameworks. In regard to context, it is essential, it is intended in future publications to include those from underrepresented regions, together with non-English language ones, to provide a more complete global perspective. Data availability The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study—including cleaned metadata, PRISMA Checklist, PRISMA 2020 diagram are openly available in the Figshare repository at: https://figshare.com/s/9768f20c2d33020c3b0f Supporting Data for “Mapping Research on AI Ethics and Human Rights: A Bibliometric Study with a TCCM-Based Agenda”. DOI : https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.30676301 ( Ahmad, V., 2025 ). Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero “No rights reserved” data waiver (CC0 1.0 Public domain dedication) . References Ahmad V: Supporting Data for “Mapping Research on AI Ethics and Human Rights: A Bibliometric Study with a TCCM-Based Agenda”. Figshare. 2025. Publisher Full Text Akula R, Garibay I: Audit and Assurance of AI Algorithms: A framework to ensure ethical algorithmic practices in Artificial Intelligence. arXiv (Cornell University). 2021. Publisher Full Text Al-Fuqaha A: Ethical and trustworthy AI systems: Design and deployment. Machine Learning and Knowledge Extraction. 2021; 3 (4): 735–752. Andreou A, Macnish K, Ryan M, et al. : Artificial intelligence, human rights and public sector accountability. Journal of Business Research. 2022; 140 : 209–219. Avin S, Belfield H, Brundage M, et al. : Filling gaps in trustworthy development of AI. Science. 2021; 374 (6573): 1327–1329. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Ayling J, Chapman A: Putting AI ethics to work: are the tools fit for purpose? AI and Ethics. 2021; 2 (3): 405–429. Publisher Full Text B.C.: Ethical compliance and risk governance in artificial intelligence systems. Computer Law & Security Review. 2021; 41 : 105560. Bertino E: Data transparency and accountability in AI systems. Journal of Data and Information Quality. 2020; 12 (3): 15. Biju MR: Ethical governance of artificial intelligence systems. AI and Society. 2020; 35 (4): 771–779. Bolgouras V, Zarras A, Leka C, et al. : Eu regulatory ecosystem for ethical AI. AI and Ethics. 2025; 5 : 5063–5080. Publisher Full Text Brey P: Artificial intelligence for human flourishing. Journal of Business Research. 2022; 141 : 1–10. Brogle K, Kallina E, Sargeant H, et al. : Context-specific certification of AI systems: a pilot in the financial industry. AI and Ethics. 2025; 5 : 4223–4240. Publisher Full Text Chellappan RB: From Algorithms to Accountability: The Societal and Ethical Need for Explainable AI. Research Square (Research Square). 2024. Publisher Full Text Cihon P, Kleinaltenkamp MJ, Schuett J, et al. : AI Certification: Advancing Ethical Practice by Reducing Information Asymmetries. IEEE Transactions on Technology and Society. 2021; 2 (4): 200–209. Publisher Full Text Coeckelbergh M: Artificial intelligence, responsibility, and human dignity. AI and Society. 2020; 35 (4): 789–797. Constantinides M, Tahaei M, Quercia D, et al. : Implications of Regulations on the Use of AI and Generative AI for Human-Centered Responsible Artificial Intelligence.2024; 1 . Publisher Full Text Corrêa NK, Galvão C, Santos JW, et al. : Worldwide AI ethics: A review of 200 guidelines and recommendations for AI governance [Review of Worldwide AI ethics: A review of 200 guidelines and recommendations for AI governance]. Patterns. 2023; 4 (10): 100857. Elsevier BV. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Elia M, Ziethmann P, Krumme J, et al. : Responsible AI, ethics, and the AI lifecycle: how to consider the human influence? AI and Ethics. 2025; 5 : 4011–4028. Publisher Full Text Ema A, Sato R, Hase T, et al. : Advancing AI Audits for Enhanced AI Governance. arXiv (Cornell University). 2023. Publisher Full Text Falco G, Shneiderman B, Badger J, et al. : Governing AI safety through independent audits. Nature Machine Intelligence. 2021; 3 (7): 566–571. Publisher Full Text Fanaei Sheikhobiasi S: Ethical learning architectures for intelligent systems. Machine Learning and Knowledge Extraction. 2021; 3 (3): 512–526. Faveri B, Johnson-León M, Sylvester PE, et al. : Towards A Global AI Auditing Framework: Assessment and Recommendations.2025. Publisher Full Text Fjeld J, Achten N, Hilligoss H, et al. : Principled Artificial Intelligence: Mapping Consensus in Ethical and Rights-Based Approaches to Principles for AI. SSRN Electron. J. 2020. Publisher Full Text Fulton R, Fulton D, Hayes N, et al. : The Transformation Risk-Benefit Model of Artificial Intelligence: Balancing Risks and Benefits Through Practical Solutions and Use Cases. arXiv (Cornell University). 2024; 15 : 01–22. Publisher Full Text Goodman E, Trehu J: AI Audit Washing and Accountability. SSRN Electron. J. 2022. Publisher Full Text Greif L, Kimmig A, Bobbou SE, et al. : Strategic view on the current role of AI in advancing environmental sustainability: a SWOT analysis. Discover. Artif. Intell. 2024; 4 (1). Publisher Full Text Hariri RH, Fanaei Sheikhobiasi S, Khosravi A, et al. : Machine learning and knowledge extraction in ethical AI systems. Machine Learning and Knowledge Extraction. 2021; 3 (2): 411–435. Hermann E, Williams GY, Puntoni S: Deploying artificial intelligence in services to AID vulnerable consumers. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2023; 52 (5): 1431–1451. Publisher Full Text Hernández EG: Towards an Ethical and Inclusive Implementation of Artificial Intelligence in Organizations: A Multidimensional Framework. arXiv (Cornell University). 2024. Publisher Full Text Herrera-Poyatos A, Del Ser J, de Prado ML , et al. : Responsible Artificial Intelligence Systems: A Roadmap to Society’s Trust through Trustworthy AI, Auditability, Accountability, and Governance.2025. Publisher Full Text Ibitoye A, Nkwo M, Orji R: Rethinking responsible AI from ethical pillars to sociotechnical practice. AI and Ethics. 2025; 5 : 6207–6223. Publisher Full Text Jedličková A: Ethical approaches in designing autonomous and intelligent systems: a comprehensive survey towards responsible development. AI & Soc. 2024; 40 : 2703–2716. Publisher Full Text John AM, Panachakel JT, Anusha SP: Navigating AI Policy Landscapes: Insights into Human Rights Considerations Across IEEE Regions.2024; 1. Publisher Full Text Khosravi A: Responsible machine learning and explainability challenges. Machine Learning and Knowledge Extraction. 2021; 3 (1): 221–238. Kijewski S, Ronchi E, Vayena E: The rise of checkbox AI ethics: a review [Review of The rise of checkbox AI ethics: a review]. AI and Ethics. 2024; 5 (3): 1931–1940. Springer Nature. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Knight W: Accountability and transparency in AI decision-making. AI and Society. 2020; 35 (3): 645–654. Kundu A: Trustworthy data management for AI-driven systems. Journal of Data and Information Quality. 2020; 12 (2): 9. Kuner C: International data protection law and AI governance. Computer Law & Security Review. 2021; 41 : 105556. Publisher Full Text Lahlou S: Human rights-based approaches to AI regulation. Computer Law & Security Review. 2021; 41 : 105559. Publisher Full Text Laine J, Minkkinen M, Mäntymäki M: Ethics-based AI auditing: A systematic literature review on conceptualizations of ethical principles and knowledge contributions to stakeholders. Inf. Manag. 2024; 61 (5): 103969. Publisher Full Text Lam KT, Lange B, Blili-Hamelin B, et al. : A Framework for Assurance Audits of Algorithmic Systems. 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. 2024; 38 : 1078. Publisher Full Text Li N: Ethical Considerations in Artificial Intelligence: A Comprehensive Disccusion from the Perspective of Computer Vision. SHS Web of Conferences. 2023; 179 : 4024. Publisher Full Text Ligot DV: AI Governance: A Framework for Responsible AI Development. SSRN Electron. J. 2024. Publisher Full Text Mökander J, Axente M, Casolari F, et al. : Conformity Assessments and Post-market Monitoring: A Guide to the Role of Auditing in the Proposed European AI Regulation. Mind. Mach. 2021; 32 (2): 241–268. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Mökander J, Floridi L: Ethics-Based Auditing to Develop Trustworthy AI. Mind. Mach. 2021; 31 (2): 323–327. Publisher Full Text Macnish K: Responsibility and accountability in AI regulation. Computer Law & Security Review. 2021; 41 : 105558. Publisher Full Text Macnish K: Ethics, AI, and public administration. Journal of Business Research. 2022; 144 : 85–94. Manheim D, Martin S, Bailey M, et al. : The Necessity of AI Audit Standards Boards. arXiv (Cornell University). 2024. Publisher Full Text Manheim D, Martin S, Bailey M, et al. : The necessity of AI audit standards boards. AI & Soc. 2025; 40 : 6609–6624. Publisher Full Text Mantelero A, Esposito MS: An evidence-based methodology for human rights impact assessment (HRIA) in the development of AI data-intensive systems. Computer Law & Security Review. 2021; 41 : 105561. Publisher Full Text Mbiazi D, Bhange M, Babaei M, et al. : Survey on AI Ethics: A Socio-technical Perspective. arXiv (Cornell University). 2023. Publisher Full Text Mpinga EK, Bukonda NK, Qailouli S, et al. : Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights: Are There Signs of an Emerging Discipline? A Systematic Review [Review of Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights: Are There Signs of an Emerging Discipline? A Systematic Review]. J. Multidiscip. Healthc. 2022; 15 : 235–246. Dove Medical Press. Publisher Full Text Nasir S, Khan RA, Bai S: Ethical Framework for Harnessing the Power of AI in Healthcare and Beyond. IEEE Access. 2024; 12 : 31014–31035. Publisher Full Text Nastoska A, Jancheska B, Rizinski M, et al. : Evaluating Trustworthiness in AI: Risks, Metrics, and Applications Across Industries. Electronics. 2025; 14 (13): 2717. Publisher Full Text Oesterling A, Bhalla U, Venkatasubramanian S, et al. : Operationalizing the Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights: Recommendations for Practitioners, Researchers, and Policy Makers.2024. Publisher Full Text Pi Y, Turkay Ç, Bogiatzis-Gibbons D: Interactive AI and Human Behavior: Challenges and Pathways for AI Governance.2025; 8 (3): 2016. Publisher Full Text Quintarelli S: Artificial intelligence, democracy, and human rights. AI and Society. 2020; 35 (4): 761–770. Publisher Full Text Radanliev P: AI Ethics: Integrating Transparency, Fairness, and Privacy in AI Development. Appl. Artif. Intell. 2025; 39 (1). Publisher Full Text Radanliev P, Santos O, Brandon-Jones A, et al. : Ethics and responsible AI deployment. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence. 2024; 7 . PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Raji ID, Xu P, Honigsberg C, et al. : Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance. arXiv (Cornell University). 2022. Publisher Full Text Raza S, Qureshi R, Zahid A, et al. : Who is Responsible? The Data, Models, Users or Regulations? Responsible Generative AI for a Sustainable Future.2025. Publisher Full Text van Rees CJ , Müller B: All that glitters is not gold: trustworthy and ethical AI principles. AI and Ethics. 2022; 3 (4): 1241–1254. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Rodrigues R: Legal and human rights issues of AI governance. Computer Law & Security Review. 2021; 41 : 105561. Publisher Full Text Ryan M: Ethical decision making in artificial intelligence: A critical perspective. Journal of Business Research. 2022; 143 : 1–9. Santiago J: Algorithmic regulation and legal accountability of AI systems. Computer Law & Security Review. 2021; 41 : 105552. Schiff D, Kelley S, Ibáñez JC: The emergence of artificial intelligence ethics auditing. Big Data Soc. 2024; 11 (4). Publisher Full Text Sharma AK, Kyosev D, Kunkel J: Ethical AI: Towards Defining a Collective Evaluation Framework. arXiv (Cornell University). 2025. Publisher Full Text Sridhar U: Ethical frameworks for responsible ai development: Challenges and implementation strategies. World Journal of Advanced Engineering Technology and Sciences. 2025; 15 (1): 2028–2038. Publisher Full Text Stahl BC: Ethical issues of artificial intelligence in business and society. Journal of Business Research. 2022; 144 : 100–109. Publisher Full Text Stahl BC: On conflicts between ethical and logical principles in AI systems. AI and Society. 2020; 35 (4): 895–900. Publisher Full Text Stephanidis C, Salvendy G, Antona M, et al. : Seven HCI Grand Challenges Revisited: Five-Year Progress. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction. 2025; 41 : 11947–11995. Publisher Full Text Sura Z: Security and integrity challenges in AI data pipelines. Journal of Data and Information Quality. 2020; 12 (4): 18. Szpak A: Ethical design and responsible innovation in AI. AI and Society. 2020; 35 (2): 429–438. Tabbakh A, Amin A, Islam M, et al. : Towards sustainable AI: a comprehensive framework for Green AI. Discov. Sustain. 2024; 5 (1). Publisher Full Text Tahaei M, Constantinides M, Quercia D: A Systematic Literature Review of Human-Centered, Ethical, and Responsible AI. arXiv (Cornell University). 2023. Publisher Full Text Tettey DJ, Chrisben D, Victoria M, et al. : Responsible AI deployment in sustainable project execution: Ensuring transparency, carbon efficiency and regulatory alignment. International Journal of Science and Research Archive. 2025; 14 (3): 1686–1705. Publisher Full Text Ugwudike P: AI audits for assessing design logics and building ethical systems: the case of predictive policing algorithms. AI and Ethics. 2021; 2 (1): 199–208. Publisher Full Text Valdez AC, Heine M, Franke T, et al. : The European Commitment to Human-Centered Technology: The Integral Role of HCI in the EU AI Act’s Success.2024. Publisher Full Text Verma H, Padh K, Thelisson E: Can AI be Auditable?2025. Publisher Full Text Waltersdorfer L, Ekaputra FJ, Miksa T, et al. : AuditMAI: Towards An Infrastructure for Continuous AI Auditing. arXiv (Cornell University). 2024. Publisher Full Text Wang S, Zhang H: Artificial intelligence digital employees and sustainable innovation in online retail: The mediating role of ambidextrous green innovation and the moderating role of ethical anxiety. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2025; 84 : 104235. Publisher Full Text Wankhade SG, Sahni M, León-Castro E, et al. : Navigating AI ethics: ANN and ANFIS for transparent and accountable project evaluation amidst contesting AI practices and technologies. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence. 2025; 8 . PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Zhang Y: Human-centered machine learning and ethical constraints. Machine Learning and Knowledge Extraction. 2021; 3 (4): 702–718. Zicari RV, Broeckelman T, Maher A, et al. : Z-Inspection ® : A process to assess trustworthy AI. Journal of Business Research. 2022; 144 : 119–136. Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 14 Jan 2026 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment Author details Author details 1 College of Legal Studies, COER University, Roorkee, Uttarakhand, India 2 Faculty of Law, Centre for Juridical Studies, Dibrugarh University, Dibrugarh, Assam, India 3 School of Legal Studies, Jigyasa University, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India 4 Jagannath Vishwa Law College, Dehradun, Veer Madho Singh Bhandari, Uttarakhand Technical University, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India 5 Department of Journalism and Mass Communication, Swami Vivekanand Subharti University, Meerut, UP, India 6 Department of Law, Netaji Subhas University, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand, India 7 Asian Law College, Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India 8 College of Law, IIMT University Meerut, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, India 9 Alard School of Law, ALARD University, Pune, Maharashtra, India 10 Uttaranchal Institute of Management, Uttaranchal University, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, 248007, India Jageshwar Nath Singh Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Investigation Siddharth Thapliyal Roles: Methodology Sandeep Kumar Roles: Investigation Sachchidanand Sharan Das Roles: Investigation Sanjay Singh Rawat Roles: Data Curation, Writing – Review & Editing Vimal kumar Jha Roles: Software Ritesh Chaudhary Roles: Supervision Raju Kumar Bhagat Roles: Conceptualization Smriti Raturi Sharma Roles: Validation Amitesh Anand Roles: Visualization Akhilesh Kumar Pandey Roles: Conceptualization Ahtshamuddin Ansari Roles: Supervision Vasim Ahmad Roles: Formal Analysis, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Competing interests No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work. Article Versions (1) version 1 Published: 14 Jan 2026, 15:59 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.173404.1 Copyright © 2026 Singh JN et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Download Export To Sciwheel Bibtex EndNote ProCite Ref. Manager (RIS) Sente metrics Views Downloads F1000Research - - PubMed Central info_outline Data from PMC are received and updated monthly. - - Citations open_in_new 0 open_in_new 0 open_in_new SEE MORE DETAILS CITE how to cite this article Singh JN, Thapliyal S, Kumar S et al. Mapping Research on AI Ethics and Human Rights: A Bibliometric Study with a TCCM-Based Agenda [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2026, 15 :59 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.173404.1 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS track receive updates on this article Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article. TRACK THIS ARTICLE Share Open Peer Review Current Reviewer Status: ? Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 14 Jan 2026 Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Evangeline SI. Reviewer Report For: Mapping Research on AI Ethics and Human Rights: A Bibliometric Study with a TCCM-Based Agenda [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2026, 15 :59 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.191217.r460185 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/15-59/v1#referee-response-460185 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 06 Mar 2026 S. Ida Evangeline , Government College of Engineering, Tirunelveli, India Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.191217.r460185 The introduction states that the study provides the “first empirically grounded and temporally based analysis of AI ethics and human rights literature.” However, Several existing bibliometric reviews on AI ethics and governance already exist. The manuscript does not sufficiently explain ... Continue reading READ ALL The introduction states that the study provides the “first empirically grounded and temporally based analysis of AI ethics and human rights literature.” However, Several existing bibliometric reviews on AI ethics and governance already exist. The manuscript does not sufficiently explain how this study differs from previous bibliometric or systematic reviews. The search strategy used is limited to a single database (Scopus) with a narrow Boolean query. Key terms such as “algorithmic accountability,” “fairness,” “AI regulation,” “responsible AI,” and “trustworthy AI” are missing. The methodological description lacks sufficient detail for reproducibility. The authors mention keyword normalization and metadata cleaning in Excel but do not explain how this was conducted. The threshold settings in VOSviewer and Biblioshiny are not clearly justified. Much of the results section merely describes figures and tables without analytical insight. The TCCM framework is introduced as a central analytical lens but is only loosely connected to the bibliometric results. There are inconsistencies in terminology throughout the paper: Examples include AI ethics, Artificial intelligence ethics, Ethical technology. Several figures are difficult to interpret and lack sufficient explanation. Numerous grammatical and stylistic issues appear throughout the manuscript. The discussion sometimes repeats results rather than synthesizing them. Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated? Yes Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? No Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? No Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review? Yes If this is a Living Systematic Review, is the ‘living’ method appropriate and is the search schedule clearly defined and justified? (‘Living Systematic Review’ or a variation of this term should be included in the title.) No Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: AI Ethics, Human Rights I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Evangeline SI. Reviewer Report For: Mapping Research on AI Ethics and Human Rights: A Bibliometric Study with a TCCM-Based Agenda [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2026, 15 :59 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.191217.r460185 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/15-59/v1#referee-response-460185 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 14 Jan 2026 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment keyboard_arrow_left keyboard_arrow_right Open Peer Review Reviewer Status info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Reviewer Reports Invited Reviewers 1 Version 1 14 Jan 26 read S. Ida Evangeline , Government College of Engineering, Tirunelveli, India Comments on this article All Comments (0) Add a comment Sign up for content alerts Sign Up You are now signed up to receive this alert Browse by related subjects keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2026 Evangeline S. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 06 Mar 2026 | for Version 1 S. Ida Evangeline , Government College of Engineering, Tirunelveli, India 0 Views copyright © 2026 Evangeline S. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions The introduction states that the study provides the “first empirically grounded and temporally based analysis of AI ethics and human rights literature.” However, Several existing bibliometric reviews on AI ethics and governance already exist. The manuscript does not sufficiently explain how this study differs from previous bibliometric or systematic reviews. The search strategy used is limited to a single database (Scopus) with a narrow Boolean query. Key terms such as “algorithmic accountability,” “fairness,” “AI regulation,” “responsible AI,” and “trustworthy AI” are missing. The methodological description lacks sufficient detail for reproducibility. The authors mention keyword normalization and metadata cleaning in Excel but do not explain how this was conducted. The threshold settings in VOSviewer and Biblioshiny are not clearly justified. Much of the results section merely describes figures and tables without analytical insight. The TCCM framework is introduced as a central analytical lens but is only loosely connected to the bibliometric results. There are inconsistencies in terminology throughout the paper: Examples include AI ethics, Artificial intelligence ethics, Ethical technology. Several figures are difficult to interpret and lack sufficient explanation. Numerous grammatical and stylistic issues appear throughout the manuscript. The discussion sometimes repeats results rather than synthesizing them. Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated? Yes Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? No Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? No Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review? Yes If this is a Living Systematic Review, is the ‘living’ method appropriate and is the search schedule clearly defined and justified? (‘Living Systematic Review’ or a variation of this term should be included in the title.) No Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise AI Ethics, Human Rights I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Evangeline SI. Peer Review Report For: Mapping Research on AI Ethics and Human Rights: A Bibliometric Study with a TCCM-Based Agenda [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2026, 15 :59 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.191217.r460185) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/15-59/v1#referee-response-460185 Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Adjust parameters to alter display View on desktop for interactive features Includes Interactive Elements View on desktop for interactive features Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Stay Updated Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles Register with F1000Research Already registered? Sign in Not now, thanks close PLEASE NOTE If you are an AUTHOR of this article, please check that you signed in with the account associated with this article otherwise we cannot automatically identify your role as an author and your comment will be labelled as a “User Comment”. If you are a REVIEWER of this article, please check that you have signed in with the account associated with this article and then go to your account to submit your report, please do not post your review here. If you do not have access to your original account, please contact us . All commenters must hold a formal affiliation as per our Policies . The information that you give us will be displayed next to your comment. User comments must be in English, comprehensible and relevant to the article under discussion. We reserve the right to remove any comments that we consider to be inappropriate, offensive or otherwise in breach of the User Comment Terms and Conditions . Commenters must not use a comment for personal attacks. When criticisms of the article are based on unpublished data, the data should be made available. I accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions Please confirm that you accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions. Affiliation ✕ refresh Please enter your institution. Note: To add your institution or organisation, start typing the name and then select the correct name from the list. Where applicable, the name will appear in both the original language and in English. Do not paste in the name. If the name does not appear in the drop-down list, we will display the information you have entered. ✕ refresh Country/Region * USA UK Canada China France Germany Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory British Virgin Islands Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Democratic Republic of the Congo Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands Faroe Islands Federated States of Micronesia Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and Mcdonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Kosovo (Serbia and Montenegro) Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Minor Outlying Islands of the United States Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island North Korea North Macedonia Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territory Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Is South Korea South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand The Gambia The Netherlands Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu UK USA Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United States Virgin Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Vietnam Wallis and Futuna West Bank and Gaza Strip Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Please select your country/region. You must enter a comment. Competing Interests Please disclose any competing interests that might be construed to influence your judgment of the article's or peer review report's validity or importance. Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Please state your competing interests The comment has been saved. An error has occurred. Please try again. Cancel Post var lTitle = "Mapping Research on AI Ethics and Human Rights:...".replace("'", ''); var linkedInUrl = "http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/15-59/v1" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle) + "&summary=" + encodeURIComponent('Read the article by '); var deliciousUrl = "https://del.icio.us/post?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/15-59/v1&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); var redditUrl = "http://reddit.com/submit?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/15-59/v1" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); linkedInUrl += encodeURIComponent('Singh JN et al.'); var offsetTop = /chrome/i.test( navigator.userAgent ) ? 4 : -10; var addthis_config = { ui_offset_top: offsetTop, services_compact : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_expanded : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_custom : [ { name: "LinkedIn", url: linkedInUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_linkedin.svg" }, { name: "Mendeley", url: "http://www.mendeley.com/import/?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/15-59/v1/mendeley", icon:"/img/icon/at_mendeley.svg" }, { name: "Reddit", url: redditUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_reddit.svg" }, ] }; var addthis_share = { url: "https://f1000research.com/articles/15-59", templates : { twitter : "Mapping Research on AI Ethics and Human Rights: A Bibliometric\u00A0Study.... Singh JN et al., published by " + "@F1000Research" + ", https://f1000research.com/articles/15-59/v1" } }; if (typeof(addthis) != "undefined"){ addthis.addEventListener('addthis.ready', checkCount); addthis.addEventListener('addthis.menu.share', checkCount); } $(".f1r-shares-twitter").attr("href", "https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=" + addthis_share.templates.twitter); $(".f1r-shares-facebook").attr("href", "https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=" + addthis_share.url); $(".f1r-shares-linkedin").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[0].url); $(".f1r-shares-reddit").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[2].url); $(".f1r-shares-mendelay").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[1].url); function checkCount(){ setTimeout(function(){ $(".addthis_button_expanded").each(function(){ var count = $(this).text(); if (count !== "" && count != "0") $(this).removeClass("is-hidden"); else $(this).addClass("is-hidden"); }); }, 1000); } close How to cite this report {{reportCitation}} Cancel Copy Citation Details $(function(){R.ui.buttonDropdowns('.dropdown-for-downloads');}); $(function(){R.ui.toolbarDropdowns('.toolbar-dropdown-for-downloads');}); $.get("/articles/acj/173404/191217") new F1000.Clipboard(); new F1000.ThesaurusTermsDisplay("articles", "article", "191217"); $(document).ready(function() { $( "#frame1" ).on('load', function() { var mydiv = $(this).contents().find("div"); var h = mydiv.height(); console.log(h) }); var tooltipLivingFigure = jQuery(".interactive-living-figure-label .icon-more-info"), titleLivingFigure = tooltipLivingFigure.attr("title"); tooltipLivingFigure.simpletip({ fixed: true, position: ["-115", "30"], baseClass: 'small-tooltip', content:titleLivingFigure + " " }); tooltipLivingFigure.removeAttr("title"); $("body").on("click", ".cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); var ref = $(this).attr("data-ref"); $(this).closest(".living-figure-list-container").find("#" + ref).fadeIn(200); }); $("body").on("click", ".close-cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); $(this).closest(".popup-window-wrapper").fadeOut(200); }); $(document).on("mouseup", function(e) { var metricsContainer = $(".article-metrics-popover-wrapper"); if (!metricsContainer.is(e.target) && metricsContainer.has(e.target).length === 0) { $(".article-metrics-close-button").click(); } }); var articleId = $('#articleId').val(); if($("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics) { $("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics(articleId, { articleMetricsView: true }); } }); var figshareWidget = $(".new_figshare_widget"); if (figshareWidget.length > 0) { window.figshare.load("f1000", function(Widget) { // Select a tag/tags defined in your page. In this tag we will place the widget. _.map(figshareWidget, function(el){ var widget = new Widget({ articleId: $(el).attr("figshare_articleId") //height:300 // this is the height of the viewer part. [Default: 550] }); widget.initialize(); // initialize the widget widget.mount(el); // mount it in a tag that's on your page // this will save the widget on the global scope for later use from // your JS scripts. This line is optional. //window.widget = widget; }); }); } close Error Close Add Reset F1000.MICROSERVICES.AFFILIATION = ''; $(document).ready(function () { $('.js-affiliations-form').each((index, form) => { new AffiliationForm({ formId: form.id, institutionErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-institution', departmentErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-department', placeSelector: '.js-add-comment-place', stateSelector: '.js-add-comment-state', zipCodeSelector: '.js-add-comment-zipcode', countrySelector: '.js-add-comment-country', countryErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-country', }); }); }); $(document).ready(function () { var reportIds = { "454406": 0, "454404": 0, "454405": 0, "454402": 0, "454403": 0, "454400": 0, "454401": 0, "460183": 0, "460182": 0, "460181": 0, "460180": 0, "460189": 0, "460188": 0, "460187": 0, "460186": 0, "460185": 14, "460184": 0, "457006": 0, "457007": 0, "457004": 0, "457005": 0, "451766": 0, "451767": 0, "457012": 0, "457013": 0, "457010": 0, "457011": 0, "457008": 0, "457009": 0, "454398": 0, "451774": 0, "454399": 0, "451775": 0, "451772": 0, "454397": 0, "451773": 0, "451770": 0, "451771": 0, "451768": 0, "451769": 0, }; $(".referee-response-container,.js-referee-report").each(function(index, el) { var reportId = $(el).attr("data-reportid"), reportCount = reportIds[reportId] || 0; $(el).find(".comments-count-container,.js-referee-report-views").html(reportCount); }); var uuidInput = $("#article_uuid"), oldUUId = uuidInput.val(), newUUId = "e0ed295c-6d4d-49ff-aba8-483278532a1a"; uuidInput.val(newUUId); $("a[href*='article_uuid=']").each(function(index, el) { var newHref = $(el).attr("href").replace(oldUUId, newUUId); $(el).attr("href", newHref); }); }); An innovative open access publishing platform offering rapid publication and open peer review, whilst supporting data deposition and sharing. Browse Gateways Collections How it Works Contact For Developers Cookie Notice Privacy Notice RSS Submit Your Research Follow us © 2012-2026 F1000 Research Ltd. ISSN 2046-1402 | Legal | Partner of Research4Life • CrossRef • ORCID • FAIRSharing R.templateTests.simpleTemplate = R.template(' $text $text $text $text $text '); R.templateTests.runTests(); var F1000platform = new F1000.Platform({ name: "f1000research", displayName: "F1000Research", hostName: "f1000research.com", id: "1", editorialEmail: "[email protected]", infoEmail: "[email protected]", usePmcStats: true }); $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-authors, .dropdown-for-about, .dropdown-for-myresearch');}); // $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-referees');}); $(document).ready(function () { if ($(".cookie-warning").is(":visible")) { $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "35px"); $(".devices").addClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); } $(".cookie-warning .close-button").click(function (e) { $(".devices").removeClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "0"); }); $("#tweeter-feed .tweet-message").each(function (i, message) { var self = $(message); self.html(linkify(self.html())); }); $(".partner").on("mouseenter mouseleave", function() { $(this).find(".gray-scale, .colour").toggleClass("is-hidden"); }); }); Sign In Remember me Forgotten your password? Sign In Cancel Email or password not correct. Please try again Please wait... $(function(){ // Note: All the setup needs to run against a name attribute and *not* the id due the clonish // nature of facebox... $("a[id=googleSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("GOOGLE"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=facebookSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("FACEBOOK"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=orcidSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("ORCID"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); }); If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password. The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000. Email address not valid, please try again You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here . You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here . Code not correct, please try again Reset password Cancel Email us for further assistance. Server error, please try again. If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password. If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance. Please wait... Register $(document).ready(function () { signIn.createSignInAsRow($("#sign-in-form-gfb-popup")); $(".target-field").each(function () { var uris = $(this).val().split("/"); if (uris.pop() === "login") { $(this).val(uris.toString().replace(",","/")); } }); });