1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Journal of English for Research Publication Purposes
  4. Volume 6, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 6, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2590-0994
  • E-ISSN: 2590-1001
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The rapid integration of Generative Artificial Intelligence into scholarly publishing presents transformative potential and ethical challenges. This study examines how academic institutions and journals address these challenges, with a focus on key areas such as authorship, peer review, early-career researcher development, and governance policies. Employing a qualitative research design, the study draws on documentary analysis from 42 academic institutions and 15 scholarly journals, supplemented by semi-structured interviews with 24 stakeholders, including editors, research ethics officers, and researchers from disciplines and regions. Findings reveal a fragmented and evolving regulatory landscape marked by inconsistent institutional policies, limited editorial transparency, and uncertainty regarding the ethical use of GenAI. Key concerns include unclear authorship attribution, potential for fabricated citations, and erosion of scholarly voice, particularly affecting early-career and multilingual researchers. While many participants acknowledged the advantages of GenAI in enhancing writing support and language accessibility, they also emphasised the importance of safeguards to uphold academic integrity. The study highlights the need for tiered AI disclosure requirements, integration of AI ethics into research training, and international policy alignment through organisations such as COPE and UNESCO. Responsible governance of GenAI requires coordinated efforts across institutions, journals, and educational frameworks to ensure ethical and inclusive scholarly communication.

© 2025 John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jerpp.00033.moh
2026-03-12
2026-04-20

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/jerpp.00033.moh
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Bai, Z., Wang, P., Xiao, T., He, T., Han, Z., Zhang, Z., & Shou, M. Z.
    (2024) Hallucination of multimodal large language models: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.18930. 10.48550/arXiv.2404.18930
     https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2404.18930 [Google Scholar]
  2. Béland, D., & Howlett, M.
    (2016) The role and impact of the multiple-streams approach in comparative policy analysis. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 18(3), 221–227. 10.1080/13876988.2016.1174410
     https://doi.org/10.1080/13876988.2016.1174410 [Google Scholar]
  3. Blanchard, A., & Taddeo, M.
    (2023) The ethics of artificial intelligence for intelligence analysis: a review of the key challenges with recommendations. Digital Society, 2(1), 12. 10.1007/s44206‑023‑00036‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s44206-023-00036-4 [Google Scholar]
  4. Boyatzis, R. E.
    (1998) Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Sage Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Braun, V., & Clarke, V.
    (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
     https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa [Google Scholar]
  6. Bubeck, S., Chandrasekaran, V., Eldan, R., Gehrke, J., Horvitz, E., Kamar, E., … & Zhang, Y.
    (2023) Sparks of artificial general intelligence: Early experiments with GPT-4. arXiv. 10.48550/arXiv.2303.12712
     https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2303.12712 [Google Scholar]
  7. Cabanac, G., & Labbé, C.
    (2021) Prevalence of nonsensical algorithmically generated papers in the scientific literature. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 72(12), 1461–1476. 10.1002/asi.24495
     https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24495 [Google Scholar]
  8. Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N.
    (2016) Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Denzin, N. K.
    (2012) Triangulation 2.0. Journal of mixed methods research, 6(2), 80–88. 10.1177/1558689812437186
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689812437186 [Google Scholar]
  10. Douglas, D. G.
    (2012) The social construction of technological systems, anniversary edition: New directions in the sociology and history of technology. MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Downes, M.
    (2023) The phantom of the author: predatory publisher OMICS is ghost-writing its own articles. Learned Publishing, 36(4). 10.1002/leap.1573
     https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1573 [Google Scholar]
  12. Floridi, L., Cowls, J., Beltrametti, M., Chatila, R., Chazerand, P., Dignum, V., … & Vayena, E.
    (2018) AI4People — an ethical framework for a good AI society: opportunities, risks, principles, and recommendations. Minds and machines, 281, 689–707. 10.1007/s11023‑018‑9482‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-018-9482-5 [Google Scholar]
  13. Foltýnek, T., Meuschke, N., & Gipp, B.
    (2019) Academic plagiarism detection: a systematic literature review. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 52(6), 1–42. 10.1145/3345317
     https://doi.org/10.1145/3345317 [Google Scholar]
  14. Gendron, Y., Andrew, J., & Cooper, C.
    (2022) The perils of artificial intelligence in academic publishing. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 871, 102411. 10.1016/j.cpa.2021.102411
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2021.102411 [Google Scholar]
  15. Guest, G., MacQueen, K. M., & Namey, E. E.
    (2011) Applied thematic analysis. Sage Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Heaven, W. D.
    (2023) ChatGPT is everywhere. Here’s where it came from. MIT Technology Review, 101.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Holmes, W., & Miao, F.
    (2023) Guidance for generative AI in education and research. UNESCO Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Israel, M. J., & Amer, A.
    (2023) Rethinking data infrastructure and its ethical implications in the face of automated digital content generation. AI and Ethics, 3(2), 427–439. 10.1007/s43681‑022‑00169‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-022-00169-1 [Google Scholar]
  19. Jin, Y., Yan, L., Echeverria, V., Gašević, D., & Martinez-Maldonado, R.
    (2025) Generative AI in higher education: A global perspective of institutional adoption policies and guidelines. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 81, 100348. 10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100348
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100348 [Google Scholar]
  20. Layne-Worthey, G., & Russell, I. G.
    (2024) Editors’ introduction to libraries, archives, and the digital humanities. InG. Layne-Worthey & I. G. Russell (Eds.), The Routledge companion to libraries, archives, and the digital humanities (pp.1–14). Routledge. 10.4324/9781003327738‑1
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003327738-1 [Google Scholar]
  21. Lund, B. D., Wang, T., Mannuru, N. R., Nie, B., Shimray, S., & Wang, Z.
    (2023) ChatGPT and a new academic reality: Artificial Intelligence-written research papers and the ethics of the large language models in scholarly publishing. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 74(5), 570–581. 10.1002/asi.24750
     https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24750 [Google Scholar]
  22. Meyer, J. G., Urbanowicz, R. J., Martin, P. C., O’Connor, K., Li, R., Peng, P. C., … & Moore, J. H.
    (2023) ChatGPT and large language models in academia: Opportunities and challenges. BioData mining, 16(1), 20. 10.1186/s13040‑023‑00339‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1186/s13040-023-00339-9 [Google Scholar]
  23. Miao, F., Holmes, W., Huang, R., & Zhang, H.
    (2021) AI and education: A guidance for policymakers. Unesco Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Mohebbi, A.
    (2024) Enabling learner independence and self-regulation in language education using AI tools: a systematic review. Cogent Education, 12(1), 2433814. 10.1080/2331186X.2024.2433814
     https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2024.2433814 [Google Scholar]
  25. (2025) Speaking without fear: How AI is transforming language learning for the anxious and introverted. Language Exploration, 1(2), 3416–341. 10.59400/le3416
     https://doi.org/10.59400/le3416 [Google Scholar]
  26. Mökander, J.
    (2023) Auditing of AI: Legal, ethical and technical approaches. Digital Society, 2(3), 491. 10.1007/s44206‑023‑00074‑y
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s44206-023-00074-y [Google Scholar]
  27. Mökander, J., Sheth, M., Watson, D. S., & Floridi, L.
    (2023) The switch, the ladder, and the matrix: Models for classifying AI systems. Minds and Machines, 33(1), 221–248. 10.1007/s11023‑022‑09620‑y
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-022-09620-y [Google Scholar]
  28. Mondal, H.
    (2025) The Future of Writing: How artificial intelligence is shaping the way we write. Indian Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, 12(1), 74–75. 10.4103/ijves.ijves_160_24
     https://doi.org/10.4103/ijves.ijves_160_24 [Google Scholar]
  29. Nature Editorial
    Nature Editorial (2023) Tools such as ChatGPT threaten transparent science; here are our ground rules for their use. Nature, 613(7945), 612. 10.1038/d41586‑023‑00191‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-00191-1 [Google Scholar]
  30. Prem, E.
    (2023) From ethical AI frameworks to tools: a review of approaches. AI and Ethics, 3(3), 699–716. 10.1007/s43681‑023‑00258‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-023-00258-9 [Google Scholar]
  31. Sabatier, P. A., & Weible, C. M.
    (2014) Theories of the policy process (3rd ed.). Westview Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Stilgoe, J., Owen, R., & Macnaghten, P.
    (2013) Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy, 42(9), 1568–1580. 10.1016/j.respol.2013.05.008
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.05.008 [Google Scholar]
  33. Tang, K. S., Cooper, G., & Nielsen, W.
    (2024) Philosophical, legal, ethical, and practical considerations in the emerging use of generative AI in academic journals: Guidelines for research in science education (RISE). Research in Science Education, 54(5), 797–807. 10.1007/s11165‑024‑10192‑3
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-024-10192-3 [Google Scholar]
  34. Thorp, H. H.
    (2023) ChatGPT is fun, but not an author. Science, 379(6630), 313. 10.1126/science.adg7879
     https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adg7879 [Google Scholar]
  35. Tisdell, E. J., Merriam, S. B., & Stuckey-Peyrot, H. L.
    (2025) Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. John Wiley & Sons.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Tracy, S. J.
    (2010) Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative inquiry, 16(10), 837–851. 10.1177/1077800410383121
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410383121 [Google Scholar]
  37. Trist, E. L.
    (1981) The evolution of socio-technical systems (Vol.21, p.1981). Toronto: Ontario Quality of Working Life Centre.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Van Dis, E. A. M., Bollen, J., Zuidema, W., Van Rooij, R., & Boucherie, R. J.
    (2023) ChatGPT: Five priorities for research. Nature, 614(7947), 224–226. 10.1038/d41586‑023‑00288‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-00288-7 [Google Scholar]
  39. Williamson, B., Macgilchrist, F., & Potter, J.
    (2024) Near-future academic publishing–a speculative social science fiction experiment. Learning, Media and Technology, 49(4), 523–526. 10.1080/17439884.2024.2436835
     https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2024.2436835 [Google Scholar]
  40. Zhou, Q.
    (2014) Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing and publication of scholarly work in medical journals. Zhonghua gan zang bing za zhi= Zhonghua ganzangbing zazhi= Chinese journal of hepatology, 22(10), 781–791.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/jerpp.00033.moh
Loading
Ensuring ethical standards in scholarly publishing
Journal of English for Research Publication Purposes 6, 220 (2025); https://doi.org/10.1075/jerpp.00033.moh
/content/journals/10.1075/jerpp.00033.moh
/content/journals/10.1075/jerpp.00033.moh
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): academic integrity; authorship and attribution; early-career researchers; GenAI; research ethics; scholarly publishing

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error