Journal of English for Research Publication Purposes - Volume 6, Issue 2, 2025

Abstract

The use of AI in academic research offers new opportunities for knowledge creation but also creates new forms of inequality between the Global North and the Global South. This paper uses epistemic justice theory to analyze the developing “AI-Enabled Scholarship Divide. Drawing on a comprehensive synthesis of existing empirical studies from Africa, Asia and Latin America, this paper illustrates how differential access to AI technologies, computational infrastructure and developmental capacity may be creating a two-tier system of knowledge generation. The paper advances the discourse by proposing concrete governance frameworks, including international AI commons modeled on CERN, modular open-source research AI libraries, and regional computational centers. It also introduces specific capacity-building approaches such as university-based AI makerspaces and South-South research networks, alongside design principles for culturally-appropriate AI that respect indigenous knowledge systems and local epistemologies. The findings suggest that, while technical solutions are necessary, achieving epistemic justice through AI mediation in scholarly processes likely requires fundamental attention to underlying power structures in the global production of knowledge.

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.

Abstract

The rise of Generative AI, notably following the release of ChatGPT in late 2022, has brought both excitement and significant challenges to academia. While some welcome its potential, others express concern, particularly around academic publishing. Mentors, already tasked with upholding ethical standards and addressing academic misconduct among mentees, find themselves in an even more demanding role as they confront the complexities introduced by AI. With academic writing for publication already a difficult skill to master, the dual challenge of integrating technological advancements while safeguarding academic integrity places additional strain on mentorship. This perspective article proposes using the Psycho-Pedagogical Model of Students’ Professional Consciousness Development (Enns & Shapovalova, 2015) as a framework to guide mentors in fostering reflective, ethically aware, and autonomous scholarly writers. Building on this model, it advocates for an approach that embraces AI as a complementary tool while reinforcing the vital human role in scholarly writing.

Abstract

The rise of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) in academic writing and publishing (AWP) raises questions about linguistic inclusivity and the legitimacy of diverse Englishes in global scholarly communication. This article responds to these questions through a structured scholarly dialogue involving five sociolinguists from World Englishes and adjacent fields. Organised around five guiding questions, the dialogue interrogates how GenAI tools influence writing practices, reinforce or disrupt dominant language norms, and raise ethical challenges. Contributors reflect on the potential of GenAI to democratise writing processes while also raising concerns about GenAI’s tendency to marginalise minoritised varieties and flatten nuance in scholarly writing. Across the dialogue, themes of linguistic (in)justice, researcher agency, and institutional responsibility emerge, with contributors calling for equity-informed policies, critical AI literacy, and inclusive co-design in GenAI development. The article shows the value of dialogic reflection in understanding GenAI’s role in AWP. It concludes that while GenAI may reinforce existing hierarchies, it can also serve as a site of resistance, depending on how it is designed, governed and used within scholarly communities committed to linguistic diversity.

Abstract

Unequal access to resources for publication for Global South scholars is decidedly real when we consider issues of epistemic injustice encountered by them (Higgins, 2024). The emergence of Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) may seem like a panacea for addressing this social injustice. However, ongoing material challenges (e.g., limited access to digital media and AI tools) prevent Global South scholars from fully exploiting AI-generated writing (Dobinson et al., 2024; Warschauer et al., 2023). Against this fraught backdrop, we situate our Indonesia-based case study within a decolonial perspective, centering two Indonesian scholars who have attended GenAI workshops on writing for publication. Through thematic analysis, triangulating data from interviews, artifacts, member checking, and peer debriefing, we explore how they negotiated the learning and application of GenAI tools. Our findings reveal that while workshops were generally helpful, the participants faced challenges such as structural inequities in research resources and accessibility, English and discursive challenges, and written voices and academic integrity. From an English for research publication purposes (ERPP) perspective, these findings suggest that GenAI alone will not be able to level the proverbial publication playing field; instead, Global South scholars require mentorship and guidance in navigating the complex publishing process.

Abstract

In English-dominant academia, multilingual scholars often contend with tensions between achieving global visibility through English-language publishing and sustaining local scholarly communities. The emergence of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) introduces new possibilities for managing these pressures while also generating complex emotional and ethical dilemmas. Drawing on poststructural theories of emotion and affect, this study conceptualizes GenAI-as-affect, framing generative AI not merely as a tool but as an affective force that produces and mediates scholars’ emotional engagements with academic writing. Based on qualitative interviews and reflexive thematic analysis with 18 multilingual Arab scholars at a research-intensive university in Qatar, the findings reveal three interrelated affective atmospheres shaped by GenAI: (1) empowerment and increased confidence through linguistic support and productivity gains, (2) anxiety, ambivalence, and ethical unease surrounding authorship, originality, and credibility, and (3) frustration over GenAI’s uneven performance across languages, alongside cautious optimism about its potential for translation and cross-linguistic connection. Together, these findings show how affect, ethics, and technology intersect in everyday scholarly writing, shaping multilingual scholars’ experiences of institutional pressure, linguistic hierarchy, and professional identity. By foregrounding affect, this study advances a holistic understanding of academic writing as a socio-emotional-technical practice in AI-mediated contexts.

Abstract

This article introduces the “dialogic triad,” a model that redefines human-AI collaboration in scholarly writing by integrating relational agency and Bakhtinian dialogism. Through a case study involving two scholars and multiple GenAI systems, we demonstrate how AI serves as an active co-creator, provoking critical reflection and epistemic innovation. The study highlights moments of tension, where AI outputs conflict with human expertise, and synergy, where AI’s generative potential catalyzes theoretical breakthroughs. Crucially, our findings emphasize that human oversight remains central to ensuring accuracy, ethical accountability, and epistemic depth in AI-assisted scholarship. The model advocates for iterative, transparent collaboration that leverages AI’s potential while preserving scholarly rigor. Practical strategies, including iterative prompting, staged engagement and dialogic trace documentation, emphasize the need for human authority in framing arguments and validating AI outputs. Ultimately, this work positions human expertise as the essential anchor for meaningful, ethical, and innovative academic co-creation.

This article reviews Utilizing AI tools in academic research writing979-8-3693-1798-3$ 184.00

This article reviews Generative AI in writing education: Policy and pedagogical implications9781032792491£ 43.99

This article reviews Digital Scientific Communication: Identity and Visibility in Research Dissemination