Yapay Zekânın Akademik Yayın Hakemliğindeki Rolü Üzerine Epistemik ve Etik Bir Sorgulama

Abstract

Teknolojik gelişimi gün geçtikçe artan yapay zekâ araçlarının kullanım alanları da benzer bir şekilde artmaktadır. Bu bağlamda eğitim-öğretim faaliyetleri başta olmak üzere üniversitelerde ve akademik çalışmalarda yapay zekâ hem bir araştırma nesne olarak hem de araştırmalara yardımcı olan bir araç olarak gündeme gelmeye başlamıştır. Akademik yayınların üretilmesi ve değerlendirilmesi süreçlerinde yapay zekânın rolü henüz netleşmemiştir. Bu çalışmada akademik yayınlarda yapay zekâ araçlarının hakemlik süreçlerine etkileri genel hatlarıyla ele alınmaktadır. Hakemlik, bilimsel bilginin güvenilirliğini sağlayan, insan merkezli değerlendirme süreçlerine dayanan tarihsel bir denetim mekanizması olarak ortaya çıkmıştır. Ancak son yıllarda yapay zekâ destekli uygulamaların bu kurumsallaşmış yapının işlevsel, etik ve epistemik boyutlarında dönüşümlere yol açtığı gözlemlenmiştir. Bu dönüşüm, bilimsel değerlendirmenin öznesi, otoritesi ve meşruiyeti konusunda temel soruları da beraberinde getirmiştir. Makale, hakemlik kurumunun tarihsel gelişimini ve epistemik otorite kavramı ile ilişkisini irdelemekte; yapay zekâ sistemlerinin hakemlik sürecinde üstlenebileceği teknik rolleri ve potansiyel sınırlılıklarını tartışmaktadır. Yapay zekâ araçlarının hakem önerme, dilsel iyileştirme, biçimsel tutarlılık denetimi ve rapor özetleme gibi görevlerde süreç verimliliğini artırabileceği; ancak bağlamsal sezgi, etik muhakeme ve yaratıcı değerlendirme gibi niteliklerde insan hakemlerin yerini tutamayacağı vurgulanmıştır. Ayrıca yapay zekânın karar alma mekanizmalarına dâhil edilmesinin, değerlendirme süreçlerinde şeffaflık ve hesap verebilirlik ilkelerini zayıflatabileceği ifade edilmiştir. Yapay zekânın bilimsel değerlendirme süreçlerine katkı sağlayabilmesi, onun değerlendirme sürecinin merkezine değil, çevresine yerleştirilmesi ile mümkün olacaktır. Nihai kararlar ve epistemik otorite, hâlâ insan hakemliğinin sorumluluğunda olmalıdır. Bu bağlamda, yapay zekânın sunduğu olanakların, bilimsel bütünlüğü gözeten, etik ve denetimli bir çerçevede değerlendirilmesi gerektiği sonucuna varılmıştır.

Keywords

• Yapay Zekâ
• Akademik hakemlik
• Epistemik otorite
• Bilimsel etik

An Epistemic and Ethical Inquiry into the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Academic Peer Review

Abstract

With the rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies, their fields of application have similarly expanded. In this context, AI has increasingly emerged in universities and academic research not only as a subject of investigation but also as a tool that supports research processes. However, the role of AI in the production and evaluation of academic publications remains ambiguous. This paper provides a general overview of the potential impacts of AI tools on the peer review process in academic publishing. Peer review has historically functioned as a human-centered mechanism of scholarly evaluation, ensuring the reliability of scientific knowledge. Yet, in recent years, AI-supported applications have begun to transform the functional, ethical, and epistemic dimensions of this institutionalized structure. This transformation has raised fundamental questions regarding the subject, authority, and legitimacy of scientific evaluation. This study examines the historical development of the peer review institution and its connection to the concept of epistemic authority. It also discusses the technical roles that AI systems could assume within the peer review process and highlights their potential limitations. While AI tools may enhance procedural efficiency in tasks such as reviewer recommendation, linguistic refinement, formal consistency checks, and summarization of review reports, they are not capable of replacing human reviewers in areas requiring contextual intuition, ethical judgment, and creative evaluation. Moreover, integration of AI into decision-making mechanisms may undermine the principles of transparency and accountability within assessment. The meaningful contribution of artificial intelligence to scientific evaluation processes can only be realized by positioning it at the periphery rather than at the core of such processes. Final decisions and the exercise of epistemic authority ought to remain the responsibility of human reviewers. In this context, it is concluded that the opportunities offered by artificial intelligence should be assessed within an ethical and regulated framework that ensures the scientific integrity.

Keywords

• Artificial Intelligence
• Academic Peer Review
• Epistemic Authority
• Scientific Ethics

References

1. BaHammam, A. (2025). Peer Review in the Artificial Intelligence Era: A Call for Developing Responsible Integration Guidelines. Nature and Science of Sleep, Volume 17, 159-164. https://doi.org/10.2147/NSS.S513872
2. Baldwin, M. (2015). Credibility, Peer Review, and Nature, 1945–1990. Notes and Records: The Royal Society Journal of the History of Science, 69(3), 337-352. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsnr.2015.0029
3. Barros, A., Prasad, A., & Śliwa, M. (2023). Generative Artificial Intelligence and Academia: Implication for Research, Teaching and Service. Management Learning, 54(5), 597-604. https://doi.org/10.1177/13505076231201445
4. Biswas, S. S. (2023). Chatgpt for Research and Publication: A Step-By-Step Guide. The Journal of Pediatric Pharmacology and Therapeutics, 28(6), 576-584. https://doi.org/10.5863/1551-6776-28.6.576
5. Biswas, S. S. (2024). AI-assisted Academia: Navigating the Nuances of Peer Review with Chatgpt 4. The Journal of Pediatric Pharmacology and Therapeutics, 29(4), 441-445. https://doi.org/10.5863/1551-6776-29.4.441
6. Cheng, K., Sun, Z., Liu, X., Wu, H., & Li, C. (2024). Generative Artificial Intelligence Is Infiltrating Peer Review Process. Critical Care, 28(1), 149. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-024-04933-z
7. Church, K. W., Chandrasekar, R., Ortega, J. E., & Ahmad, I. S. (2025). Is peer-reviewing worth the effort?. Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Computational Linguistics. 3589-3599.
8. Crawford, J., Allen, K.-A., & Lodge, J. (2024). Humanising Peer Review with Artificial Intelligence: Paradox or Panacea? Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 21(1). https://doi.org/10.53761/xeqvhc70

9. Defining The Role of Authors and Contributors: Hearing De International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (2023). https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/manuscript-preparation/preparing-for-submission.html
10. Farber, S. (2024). Enhancing Peer Review Efficiency: A Mixed‐Methods Analysis of Artificial Intelligence Assisted Reviewer Selection Across Academic Disciplines. Learned Publishing, 37(4), e1638. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1638
11. Farber, S. (2025). Comparing Human and Ai Expertise in the Academic Peer Review Process: Towards A Hybrid Approach. Higher Education Research & Development, 44(4), 871-885. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2024.2445575
12. Giray, L. (2024). Benefits and Challenges of Using AI for Peer Review: A Study on Researchers’ Perceptions. The Serials Librarian, 85(5-6), 144-154. https://doi.org/10.1080/0361526X.2024.2428377
13. Hadan, H., Wang, D. M., Mogavi, R. H., Tu, J., Zhang-Kennedy, L., & Nacke, L. E. (2024). The Great Ai Witch Hunt: Reviewers’ Perception and (Mis)Conception of Generative AI in Research Writing. Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans, 2(2), 100095. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbah.2024.100095
14. Hsu, H.-P. (2023). Can Generative Artificial Intelligence Write an Academic Journal Article? Opportunities, Challenges, and Implications. Irish Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 7(2), 158-171. https://doi.org/10.22554/ijtel.v7i2.152
15. Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2024). Artificial Intelligence to Support Publishing and Peer Review: A Summary and Review. Learned Publishing, 37(1), 4-12. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1570
16. Leung, T. I., De Azevedo Cardoso, T., Mavragani, A., & Eysenbach, G. (2023). Best Practices for Using AI Tools As an Author, Peer Reviewer, or Editor. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 25, e51584. https://doi.org/10.2196/51584
17. Merton, R. K. (1973). The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. University of Chicago Press.
18. Mollaki, V. (2024). Death Of a Reviewer or Death of Peer Review Integrity? The Challenges of Using Ai Tools In Peer Reviewing and the Need to Go Beyond Publishing Policies. Research Ethics, 20(2), 239-250. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161231224552
19. Moxham, N., & Fyfe, A. (2018). The Royal Society and the Prehistory of Peer Review, 1665–1965. The Historical Journal, 61(4), 863-889. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0018246X17000334
20. Perkins, M., & Roe, J. (2023). Academic Publisher Guidelines on AI Usage: A Chatgpt Supported Thematic Analysis. F1000Research, 12, 1398. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.142411.1
21. Perkins, M., & Roe, J. (2024). Academic Publisher Guidelines on AI Usage: A Chatgpt Supported Thematic Analysis. F1000Research, 12, 1398. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.142411.2
22. Richards, R. K. (1956). Arithmetic Operation in Digital Computers (4. bs). D. Van Nostrand Company INC.
23. Sabet, C. J., Bajaj, S. S., Stanford, F. C., & Celi, L. A. (2023). Equity In Scientific Publishing: Can Artificial Intelligence Transform the Peer Review Process? Mayo Clinic Proceedings: Digital Health, 1(4), 596-600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcpdig.2023.10.002
24. Seghier, M. L. (2025). AI-Powered Peer Review Needs Human Supervision. Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society, 23(1), 104-116. https://doi.org/10.1108/JICES-09-2024-0132
25. Thelwall, M., & Yaghi, A. (2025). Evaluating The Predictive Capacity of Chatgpt for Academic Peer Review Outcomes Across Multiple Platforms. Scientometrics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-025-05287-1
26. Yükseköğretim Kurumları Bilimsel Araştırma ve Yayın Faaliyetlerinde Üretken Yapay Zekâ Kullanımına Dair Etik Rehber. (2024). YÖK. https://www.yok.gov.tr/Documents/2024/yapay-zeka-kullanimina-dair-etik-rehber.pdf
27. Timur, S. (2024). Bilim Tarihinin Tarih-Sosyoloji ve Felsefe Disiplinleri Arasındaki Konumu. Kaygı: Bursa Uludağ Üniversitesi Fen-Edebiyat Fakültesi Felsefe Dergisi, 23(1), 324-341. https://doi.org/10.20981/kaygi.1380515
28. Zielinski, C., Winker, Ma. A., Aggarwal, R., & Ferris, L. E. (2023). Chatbots, ChatGPT, and Scholarly Manuscripts. WAME Recommendations on ChatGPT and Chatbots in Relation to Scholarly Publications. https://wame.org/page3.php?id=106