Natural Language Processing research is increasingly reliant on large scale data and computational power. Many achievements in the past decade resulted from collaborations with the tech industry. But an increasing entanglement of academic research and industry interests leads to conflicts of interest. We assessed published NLP research from 2000-2024 and labeled author affiliations as academic or industry-affiliated to measure conflicts of interest. Overall 27.65% of the papers contained at least one industry-affiliated author. That figure increased substantially with more than 1 in 3 papers having a conflict of interest in 2024. We identify top-tier venues (ACL, EMNLP) as main drivers for that effect. The paper closes with a discussion and a simple, concrete suggestion for the future.

Language is a symbolic capital that affects people's lives in many ways (Bourdieu, 1977, 1991). It is a powerful tool that accounts for identities, cultures, traditions, and societies in general. Hence, data in a given language should be viewed as more than a collection of tokens. Good data collection and labeling practices are key to building more human-centered and socially aware technologies. While there has been a rising interest in mid- to low-resource languages within the NLP community, work in this space has to overcome unique challenges such as data scarcity and access to suitable annotators. In this paper, we collect feedback from those directly involved in and impacted by NLP artefacts for mid- to low-resource languages. We conduct a quantitative and qualitative analysis of the responses and highlight the main issues related to (1) data quality such as linguistic and cultural data suitability; and (2) the ethics of common annotation practices such as the misuse of online community services. Based on these findings, we make several recommendations for the creation of high-quality language artefacts that reflect the cultural milieu of its speakers, while simultaneously respecting the dignity and labor of data workers.

Natural Language Processing (NLP) is a dynamic, interdisciplinary field that integrates intellectual traditions from computer science, linguistics, social science, and more. Despite its established presence, the definition of what constitutes NLP research remains debated. In this work, we quantitatively investigate what constitutes NLP by examining research papers. For this purpose, we propose a taxonomy and introduce NLPContributions, a dataset of nearly $2k$ research paper abstracts, expertly annotated to identify scientific contributions and classify their types according to this taxonomy. We also propose a novel task to automatically identify these elements, for which we train a strong baseline on our dataset. We present experimental results from this task and apply our model to $\sim$$29k$ NLP research papers to analyze their contributions, aiding in the understanding of the nature of NLP research. Our findings reveal a rising involvement of machine learning in NLP since the early nineties, alongside a declining focus on adding knowledge about language or people; again, in post-2020, there has been a resurgence of focus on language and people. We hope this work will spark discussions on our community norms and inspire efforts to consciously shape the future.

This position paper concerns the use of religious texts in Natural Language Processing (NLP), which is of special interest to the Ethics of NLP. Religious texts are expressions of culturally important values, and machine learned models have a propensity to reproduce cultural values encoded in their training data. Furthermore, translations of religious texts are frequently used by NLP researchers when language data is scarce. This repurposes the translations from their original uses and motivations, which often involve attracting new followers. This paper argues that NLP's use of such texts raises considerations that go beyond model biases, including data provenance, cultural contexts, and their use in proselytism. We argue for more consideration of researcher positionality, and of the perspectives of marginalized linguistic and religious communities.

The paper focuses on the marginalization of indigenous language communities in the face of rapid technological advancements. We highlight the cultural richness of these languages and the risk they face of being overlooked in the realm of Natural Language Processing (NLP). We aim to bridge the gap between these communities and researchers, emphasizing the need for inclusive technological advancements that respect indigenous community perspectives. We show the NLP progress of indigenous Latin American languages and the survey that covers the status of indigenous languages in Latin America, their representation in NLP, and the challenges and innovations required for their preservation and development. The paper contributes to the current literature in understanding the need and progress of NLP for indigenous communities of Latin America, specifically low-resource and indigenous communities in general.

Despite comprising one-third of global languages, African languages are critically underrepresented in Artificial Intelligence (AI), threatening linguistic diversity and cultural heritage. Ghanaian languages, in particular, face an alarming decline, with documented extinction and several at risk. This study pioneers a comprehensive survey of Natural Language Processing (NLP) research focused on Ghanaian languages, identifying methodologies, datasets, and techniques employed. Additionally, we create a detailed roadmap outlining challenges, best practices, and future directions, aiming to improve accessibility for researchers. This work serves as a foundational resource for Ghanaian NLP research and underscores the critical need for integrating global linguistic diversity into AI development.

The introduction of large public legal datasets has brought about a renaissance in legal NLP. Many of these datasets are comprised of legal judgements - the product of judges deciding cases. This fact, together with the way machine learning works, means that several legal NLP models are models of judges. While some have argued for the automation of judges, in this position piece, we argue that automating the role of the judge raises difficult ethical challenges, in particular for common law legal systems. Our argument follows from the social role of the judge in actively shaping the law, rather than merely applying it. Since current NLP models come nowhere close to having the facilities necessary for this task, they should not be used to automate judges. Furthermore, even in the case the models could achieve human-level capabilities, there would still be remaining ethical concerns inherent in the automation of the legal process.

The scientific innovation in Natural Language Processing (NLP) and more broadly in artificial intelligence (AI) is at its fastest pace to date. As large language models (LLMs) unleash a new era of automation, important debates emerge regarding the benefits and risks of their development, deployment and use. Currently, these debates have been dominated by often polarized narratives mainly led by the AI Safety and AI Ethics movements. This polarization, often amplified by social media, is swaying political agendas on AI regulation and governance and posing issues of regulatory capture. Capture occurs when the regulator advances the interests of the industry it is supposed to regulate, or of special interest groups rather than pursuing the general public interest. Meanwhile in NLP research, attention has been increasingly paid to the discussion of regulating risks and harms. This often happens without systematic methodologies or sufficient rooting in the disciplines that inspire an extended scope of NLP research, jeopardizing the scientific integrity of these endeavors. Regulation studies are a rich source of knowledge on how to systematically deal with risk and uncertainty, as well as with scientific evidence, to evaluate and compare regulatory options. This resource has largely remained untapped so far. In this paper, we argue how NLP research on these topics can benefit from proximity to regulatory studies and adjacent fields. We do so by discussing basic tenets of regulation, and risk and uncertainty, and by highlighting the shortcomings of current NLP discussions dealing with risk assessment. Finally, we advocate for the development of a new multidisciplinary research space on regulation and NLP (RegNLP), focused on connecting scientific knowledge to regulatory processes based on systematic methodologies.

As an efficient approach to understand, generate, and process natural language texts, research in natural language processing (NLP) has exhibited a rapid spread and wide adoption in recent years. Given the increasing research work in this area, several NLP-related approaches have been surveyed in the research community. However, a comprehensive study that categorizes established topics, identifies trends, and outlines areas for future research remains absent. Contributing to closing this gap, we have systematically classified and analyzed research papers in the ACL Anthology. As a result, we present a structured overview of the research landscape, provide a taxonomy of fields of study in NLP, analyze recent developments in NLP, summarize our findings, and highlight directions for future work.

Van Miltenburg et al. (2021) suggest NLP research should adopt preregistration to prevent fishing expeditions and to promote publication of negative results. At face value, this is a very reasonable suggestion, seemingly solving many methodological problems with NLP research. We discuss pros and cons -- some old, some new: a) Preregistration is challenged by the practice of retrieving hypotheses after the results are known; b) preregistration may bias NLP toward confirmatory research; c) preregistration must allow for reclassification of research as exploratory; d) preregistration may increase publication bias; e) preregistration may increase flag-planting; f) preregistration may increase p-hacking; and finally, g) preregistration may make us less risk tolerant. We cast our discussion as a dialogue, presenting both sides of the debate.