Exploring Ethical Concerns of Mobile Applications from App Reviews: A Literature Survey

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.16770v1
• Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2026 01:30:06 GMT
• Title: Exploring Ethical Concerns of Mobile Applications from App Reviews: A Literature Survey
• Abstract summary: This paper presents a survey of 37 relevant studies published since 2012.<n>The studies examined vary in review counts, ranging from 500 to 626 million, and include between a single and 1.3 million apps.<n>Our findings identify persistent barriers to privacy, security, accessibility, transparency, fairness, accountability, and safety, as reported by users in app reviews.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Privacy, security, and accessibility, like ethical concerns in mobile applications (a.k.a. apps), commonly subsumed under non-functional requirements, are generally reported by users through app reviews available in app stores. However, these remain unidentified among other types of reviews, such as user experiences, problem reports, and new feature discussions. Over the past decade, extensive research has focused on extracting valuable information from app reviews, including feature requests and bug reports. However, there remains a lack of a synthesis of research related to app review analysis for exploring users' ethical concerns. This paper presents a comprehensive survey of this research area, covering 37 relevant studies published since 2012, identified from the initial 553 studies using specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. The studies examined vary in review counts, ranging from 500 to 626 million, and include between a single and 1.3 million apps. Our detailed analysis highlights diverse objectives, methodologies, and strategies, along with additional resources such as app privacy policies, which researchers generally utilize to analyze ethical concerns. Our findings also identify persistent barriers to privacy, security, accessibility, transparency, fairness, accountability, and safety, as reported by users in app reviews. Furthermore, we propose a research agenda that focuses on four key areas, including automated extraction and classification of ethical concerns-related app reviews. Our survey outcomes can assist developers and system architects in recognizing and prioritizing non-functional requirements at the initial stages of the development lifecycle, whereas researchers can expand upon this synthesis to create tools for the automated detection of ethical concerns.

Related papers

• Personalized Auto-Research: Towards a True AI Co-Scientist [90.01790420664169]
  Given a research goal, state-of-the-art systems remain researcher-agnostic.<n>What counts as novel, valuable, or feasible depends on the researcher.<n>We propose a framework that threads a graph-grounded researcher context through retrieval, hypothesis search, experimentation, writing, and review.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-14T20:43:27Z)
• AutoResearchBench: Benchmarking AI Agents on Complex Scientific Literature Discovery [55.70879973230979]
  AutoResearchBench is a benchmark for autonomous scientific literature discovery.<n>Compared to previous benchmarks on agentic web browsing, AutoResearchBench is research-oriented.<n>Even the most powerful LLMs, despite having largely conquered general agentic web-browsing benchmarks such as BrowseComp, achieve only 9.39% accuracy on Deep Research and 9.31% IoU on Wide Research.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-28T06:05:17Z)
• Understanding Usage and Engagement in AI-Powered Scientific Research Tools: The Asta Interaction Dataset [47.98539809308384]
  We analyze the Asta Interaction dataset, a large-scale resource comprising over 200,000 user queries and interaction logs.<n>We characterize query patterns, engagement behaviors, and how usage evolves with experience.<n>We release the anonymized dataset and analysis with a new query taxonomy to inform future designs of real-world AI research assistants.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-26T18:40:28Z)
• The Story is Not the Science: Execution-Grounded Evaluation of Mechanistic Interpretability Research [56.80927148740585]
  We address the challenges of scalability and rigor by flipping the dynamic and developing AI agents as research evaluators.<n>We use mechanistic interpretability research as a testbed, build standardized research output, and develop MechEvalAgent.<n>Our work demonstrates the potential of AI agents to transform research evaluation and pave the way for rigorous scientific practices.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-05T19:00:02Z)
• A Dataset of Low-Rated Applications from the Amazon Appstore for User Feedback Analysis [5.949233960332969]
  This study introduces a novel dataset curated from 64 low-rated applications sourced from the Amazon Software Appstore (ASA)<n>The dataset is designed to capture the most frequent issues identified by users, which are critical for improving software quality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-06T13:32:49Z)
• AstaBench: Rigorous Benchmarking of AI Agents with a Scientific Research Suite [75.58737079136942]
  We present AstaBench, a suite that provides the first holistic measure of agentic ability to perform scientific research.<n>Our suite comes with the first scientific research environment with production-grade search tools.<n>Our evaluation of 57 agents across 22 agent classes reveals several interesting findings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-24T17:10:26Z)
• LiveResearchBench: A Live Benchmark for User-Centric Deep Research in the Wild [86.6586720134927]
  LiveResearchBench is a benchmark of 100 expert-curated tasks spanning daily life, enterprise, and academia.<n>DeepEval is a comprehensive suite covering both content- and report-level quality.<n>Our analysis reveals current strengths, recurring failure modes, and key system components needed to advance reliable, insightful deep research.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-16T02:49:16Z)
• Ethical software requirements from user reviews: A systematic literature review [0.0]
  This SLR aims to identify and analyze existing ethical requirements identification and elicitation techniques. Ethical requirements gathering has recently driven drastic interest in the research community due to the rise of ML and AI-based approaches in decision-making within software applications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-18T19:56:19Z)
• Towards Extracting Ethical Concerns-related Software Requirements from App Reviews [0.0]
  This study analyzes app reviews of the Uber mobile application (a popular taxi/ride app) We propose a novel approach that leverages a knowledge graph (KG) model to extract software requirements from app reviews. Our framework consists of three main components: developing an ontology with relevant entities and relations, extracting key entities from app reviews, and creating connections between them.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-19T04:50:32Z)
• The Best Ends by the Best Means: Ethical Concerns in App Reviews [2.0625936401496237]
  App store reviews allow practitioners to collect users' perspectives, crucial for identifying software flaws. We collected five million user reviews, developed a set of ethical concerns representative of user preferences, and manually labeled a sample of these reviews. We found that users highly report ethical concerns about censorship, identity theft, and safety.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-19T23:53:26Z)
• Algorithmic Fairness Datasets: the Story so Far [68.45921483094705]
  Data-driven algorithms are studied in diverse domains to support critical decisions, directly impacting people's well-being. A growing community of researchers has been investigating the equity of existing algorithms and proposing novel ones, advancing the understanding of risks and opportunities of automated decision-making for historically disadvantaged populations. Progress in fair Machine Learning hinges on data, which can be appropriately used only if adequately documented. Unfortunately, the algorithmic fairness community suffers from a collective data documentation debt caused by a lack of information on specific resources (opacity) and scatteredness of available information (sparsity)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-03T17:25:46Z)
• Emerging App Issue Identification via Online Joint Sentiment-Topic Tracing [66.57888248681303]
  We propose a novel emerging issue detection approach named MERIT. Based on the AOBST model, we infer the topics negatively reflected in user reviews for one app version. Experiments on popular apps from Google Play and Apple's App Store demonstrate the effectiveness of MERIT.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-08-23T06:34:05Z)
• Ethical issues with using Internet of Things devices in citizen science research: A scoping review [1.933681537640272]
  This chapter presents a scoping review of published scientific studies that utilise both citizen scientists and Internet of Things devices. We selected studies where the authors had included at least a short discussion of the ethical issues encountered during the research process. Following this analysis, our discussion provides recommendations for researchers who wish to integrate citizen scientists and Internet of Things devices into their research.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-07-18T12:22:05Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.