A meta-research study found only 1 in 9 qualitative papers in Human-Computer Interaction reported inter-rater reliability metrics BIBREF31. Another related area are meta-research and methods papers focused on identifying or preventing low-effort responses from crowdworkers — sometimes called “spam” or “random” responses, or alternatively ”fraudsters” or ”cheaters.” Rates of “self-agreement” are often used, determining if the same person labels the same item differently at a later stage. 
 Question: What are the key issues around whether the gold standard data produced in such an annotation is reliable? 
 only 1 in 9 qualitative papers in Human-Computer Interaction reported inter-rater reliability metrics low-effort responses from crowdworkers