Cover not available

Article published In: Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) and Writing for Scholarly Publication
Edited by A. Mehdi Riazi
[Journal of English for Research Publication Purposes 6:2] 2025
► pp. 220–247

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

Ensuring ethical standards in scholarly publishing

The future of AI-driven knowledge production

 | The University of Auckland
Published online: 12 March 2026
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/jerpp.00033.moh
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.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Literature review
    • 2.1Evolution of GenAI in scholarly publishing
    • 2.2Ethical concerns in AI-assisted authorship
    • 2.3Regulatory responses and institutional guidelines
  • 3.Methodology
    • 3.1Research design and rationale
    • 3.2Data sources
      • 3.2.1Documentary data
      • 3.2.2Stakeholder interviews
    • 3.3Analytical framework
      • 3.3.1Thematic content analysis
      • 3.3.2Comparative policy analysis
    • 3.4Theoretical framework
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Current institutional and journal policies on GenAI
      • A.Institutional and editorial regulation of GenAI
      • B.Institutional policies in established vs. emerging markets
      • C.Case examples of policy implementation
    • 4.2Challenges to authorship and editorial integrity in the GenAI era
      • A.Ethical dilemmas in authorship and peer review
      • B.AI’s role in the peer review and editorial process
    • 4.3GenAI and the academic identity formation of emerging scholars
      • A.Scholarly development and early-career researchers
      • B.Support for early-career and non-native researchers
      • C.Risks of overreliance and loss of scholarly voice
    • 4.4Governance frameworks for ethical GenAI integration in academia
      • A.Toward ethical governance of GenAI
      • B.The need for harmonised governance frameworks
      • C.Balancing assistance with autonomy: Pedagogical governance
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusion
  • References
References (40)
References
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Sage Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2016). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Denzin, N. K. (2012). Triangulation 2.0. Journal of mixed methods research, 6(2), 80–88. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Downes, M. (2023). The phantom of the author: predatory publisher OMICS is ghost-writing its own articles. Learned Publishing, 36(4). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Foltýnek, T., Meuschke, N., & Gipp, B. (2019). Academic plagiarism detection: a systematic literature review. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 52(6), 1–42. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gendron, Y., Andrew, J., & Cooper, C. (2022). The perils of artificial intelligence in academic publishing. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 871, 102411. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Guest, G., MacQueen, K. M., & Namey, E. E. (2011). Applied thematic analysis. Sage Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heaven, W. D. (2023). ChatGPT is everywhere. Here’s where it came from. MIT Technology Review, 101.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Holmes, W., & Miao, F. (2023). Guidance for generative AI in education and research. UNESCO Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Layne-Worthey, G., & Russell, I. G. (2024). Editors’ introduction to libraries, archives, and the digital humanities. In G. Layne-Worthey & I. G. Russell (Eds.), The Routledge companion to libraries, archives, and the digital humanities (pp. 1–14). Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Miao, F., Holmes, W., Huang, R., & Zhang, H. (2021). AI and education: A guidance for policymakers. Unesco Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mohebbi, A. (2024). Enabling learner independence and self-regulation in language education using AI tools: a systematic review. Cogent Education, 12(1), 2433814. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2025). Speaking without fear: How AI is transforming language learning for the anxious and introverted. Language Exploration, 1(2), 3416–341. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mökander, J. (2023). Auditing of AI: Legal, ethical and technical approaches. Digital Society, 2(3), 491. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nature Editorial. (2023). Tools such as ChatGPT threaten transparent science; here are our ground rules for their use. Nature, 613(7945), 612. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Prem, E. (2023). From ethical AI frameworks to tools: a review of approaches. AI and Ethics, 3(3), 699–716. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sabatier, P. A., & Weible, C. M. (2014). Theories of the policy process (3rd ed.). Westview Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stilgoe, J., Owen, R., & Macnaghten, P. (2013). Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy, 42(9), 1568–1580. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thorp, H. H. (2023). ChatGPT is fun, but not an author. Science, 379(6630), 313. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tisdell, E. J., Merriam, S. B., & Stuckey-Peyrot, H. L. (2025). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative inquiry, 16(10), 837–851. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Trist, E. L. (1981). The evolution of socio-technical systems (Vol. 21, p. 1981). Toronto: Ontario Quality of Working Life Centre.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue