@article {1298,
	title = {Editorial: Insights (January 2020)},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {10},
	year = {2020},
	month = {01/2020},
	pages = {3-4},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	chapter = {3},
	address = {Ottawa},
	keywords = {AI, artificial intelligence, B2B sales, big data, business-to-business sales, data-based value, digital solutions, ecosystem, ecosystems, Ethics, Gujarat State, Indian IT industry, innovation, IT clusters, Knowledge Innovation clusters, Networks Analysis, regional development, Roboethics, Smart robot, strategy, Systematic literature review, technology, value capture, value creation, value sales},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1298},
	url = {timreview.ca/article/1298},
	author = {Stoyan Tanev and Gregory Sandstrom}
}
@article {1326,
	title = {The Ethical Dimensions of Public Opinion on Smart Robots},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {10},
	year = {2020},
	month = {02/2020},
	pages = {25-36},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	chapter = {25},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {This article investigates public opinion about smart robots, with special focus on the ethical dimension. In so doing, the study reviews relevant literature and analyzes data from the comments sections of four publically available online news articles on smart robots. Findings from the content analysis of investigated comments suggest that public opinion about smart robots remains fairly negative, and that public discussion is focused on potentially negative social and economic impacts of smart robots on society, as well as various liability issues. In particular, many comments were what can only be called {\textquotedblleft}apocalyptical{\textquotedblright}, suggesting that the rise of smart robots is a threat to the very existence of human beings, and that the replacement of human labour by smart robots will lead to deepening the socio-economic gap, and concentrating power and wealth in the hands of even fewer people. Further, public discussion seems to pay little attention to the debate on whether robots should have {\textquotedblleft}rights{\textquotedblright}, or on the increasing environmental effects of the growth in robotics. This study contributes to the extant literature on {\textquotedblleft}roboethics{\textquotedblright}, by suggesting a dendrogram approach to illustrate themes based on a qualitative content analysis. It suggests that smart robot manufacturers should ensure better transparency and inclusion in their robotics design processes to foster public adoption of robots.},
	keywords = {Content analysis., Ethics, Public opinion, Roboethics, Smart robot},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1326},
	url = {timreview.ca/article/1326},
	author = {Mika Westerlund}
}
@article {1312,
	title = {An Ethical Framework for Smart Robots},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {10},
	year = {2020},
	month = {01/2020},
	pages = {35-44},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	chapter = {35},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {This article focuses on {\textquotedblleft}roboethics{\textquotedblright} in the age of growing adoption of smart robots, which can now be seen as a new robotic {\textquotedblleft}species{\textquotedblright}. As autonomous AI systems, they can collaborate with humans and are capable of learning from their operating environment, experiences, and human behaviour feedback in human-machine interaction. This enables smart robots to improve their performance and capabilities. This conceptual article reviews key perspectives to roboethics, as well as establishes a framework to illustrate its main ideas and features. Building on previous literature, roboethics has four major types of implications for smart robots: 1) smart robots as amoral and passive tools, 2) smart robots as recipients of ethical behavior in society, 3) smart robots as moral and active agents, and 4) smart robots as ethical impact-makers in society. The study contributes to current literature by suggesting that there are two underlying ethical and moral dimensions behind these perspectives, namely the {\textquotedblleft}ethical agency of smart robots{\textquotedblright} and {\textquotedblleft}object of moral judgment{\textquotedblright}, as well as what this could look like as smart robots become more widespread in society. The article concludes by suggesting how scientists and smart robot designers can benefit from a framework, discussing the limitations of the present study, and proposing avenues for future research.},
	keywords = {AI, artificial intelligence, Ethics, Roboethics, Smart robot},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1312},
	url = {timreview.ca/article/1312},
	author = {Mika Westerlund}
}
