NLP needs Diversity outside of 'Diversity'

Building language technologies and conducting NLP research for low-resource languages---particularly when led by native speakers or involving participatory research practices---are often framed as means of addressing inequality, serving local communities, and, at times, contributing to decolonisation. In this paper, we examine recently published NLP and ML papers, focusing on the narratives used to characterise multilinguality, low-resource languages, and underrepresented cultures. We propose a framework for analysing research framings and identify recurring rhetorical patterns that may hinder accountability and constrain equitable knowledge production for---and by---underserved communities. We further assess the evidential basis of assertions regarding community benefit and find that such statements are often weakly supported or left unsubstantiated. Although community ownership and participation are frequently presented as key objectives, our analysis, supported by statistics from the ACL Anthology, suggests that research outputs more often prioritise resource creation and benchmarking---important but distinct goals---over evidence of broader structural change. We conclude by offering practical recommendations to help authors, reviewers, and readers critically assess these assertions and avoid potentially misleading framings.

Peer review plays a central role in the NLP publication process, but is susceptible to various biases. Here, we study language-of-study (LoS) bias: the tendency for reviewers to evaluate a paper differently based on the language(s) it studies, rather than its scientific merit. Despite being explicitly flagged in reviewing guidelines, such biases are poorly understood. Prior work treats such comments as part of broader categories of weak or unconstructive reviews without defining them as a distinct form of bias. We present the first systematic characterization of LoS bias, distinguishing negative and positive forms, and introduce the human-annotated dataset LOBSTER (Language-Of-study Bias in ScienTific pEer Review) and an LLM-based detection pipeline achieving 87.37 macro F1. We analyze 15,645 reviews to estimate how negative and positive biases differ with respect to the LoS, and find that non-English papers face substantially higher bias rates than English-only ones, with negative bias consistently outweighing positive bias. Finally, we identify four subcategories of negative bias, and find that demanding unjustified cross-lingual generalization is the most dominant form. We publicly release all resources to support work on fairer reviewing practices in NLP and beyond.

There is growing evidence that data diversity is crucial for developing fair and robust NLP models. However, current approaches to measure diversity remain inconsistent and fragmented: While there exist a number of tools for measuring the lexical diversity of texts, researchers lack standardized tools for quantifying diversity based on embeddings. Embedding-based diversity measures are highly flexible: They work with any embedding model and any data that can be embedded, and are thus applicable to many notions of diversity. With emb-diversity, we provide a comprehensive embedding-based diversity measurement tool, spanning a broad range of measures. We demonstrate its potential for several use cases: measuring the stylistic, semantic, language and speaker diversity of datasets. https://github.com/nlpsoc/emb-diversity/