Makale Geri Çekme: Makine Çevirisinde Şeffaflık ve Hesap Verebilirlik: Yapay Zeka Çağında Yeni Etik Normlar Ortaya Çıkıyor mu?

Öz

Bu bildirim, Gülfidan Aytaş tarafından kaleme alınan ve 2026 yılı, Cilt 26, Sayı 1'de yayımlanan "Makine Çevirisinde Şeffaflık ve Hesap Verebilirlik: Yapay Zeka Çağında Yeni Etik Normlar Ortaya Çıkıyor mu?" başlıklı, 10.18037/ausbd.1811507 ID'li makale için Yayın Kurulu kararıyla yayımlanmaktadır. Yayın sonrası yapılan incelemeler sonucunda, makalede atıf yapılan çeşitli kaynakların literatürde gerçekte var olmadığı tespit edilmiştir. Olmayan kaynakların kaynakçada gösterilmesi ve metin içinde atıf yapılması, dergimizin yayın etiği politikalarına, akademik dürüstlük normlarına ve COPE ilkelerine açıkça aykırıdır. Yazar ile iletişime geçilmiş; yazar sunduğu savunmada kaynakça oluşturma aşamasında dosya sürümleri arasında karmaşa yaşandığını, yanlış taslak metnin sisteme yüklendiğini belirterek ihlale konu olan hatayı kabul etmiştir. Ancak, üretilmiş/kurgusal kaynak kullanımının çalışmanın bilimsel güvenilirliğini temelden sarsan majör bir etik ihlal olması sebebiyle Yayın Kurulu tarafından makalenin geri çekilmesine karar verilmiştir. Yaşanan bu durumdan dolayı okuyucularımızdan ve bilim camiasından özür dileriz. Bilgilerinize sunarız. AÜSBD Yayın Kurulu

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Makale geri çekme
• şeffaflık
• yapay zekâ etiği
• çeviri etiği

Retraction: Transparency and Accountability in Machine Translation: Are New Ethical Norms Emerging in the Age of AI?

Öz

This notice is published by the decision of the Editorial Board regarding the article titled, 10.18037/ausbd.1811507 ID  "Transparency and Accountability in Machine Translation: Are New Ethical Norms Emerging in the Age of AI? ", authored by Gülfidan Aytaş and published in 2026, Volume 26, Issue 1. Following post-publication reviews, it has been discovered that several sources cited in the article do not actually exist in the literature. Including non-existent sources in the reference list and citing them within the text is a clear violation of our journal's publication ethics policies, norms of academic integrity, and COPE guidelines. The author was contacted regarding the issue. In her defense, the author admitted to the error causing the violation, stating that there was confusion between file versions during the preparation of the bibliography and that the wrong draft was uploaded to the system. However, since the use of fabricated/fictitious references constitutes a major ethical violation that fundamentally undermines the scientific credibility of the study, the Editorial Board has decided to retract the article. We apologize to our readers and the scientific community for this incident. Submitted for your information, AÜSBD Editorial Board

Anahtar Kelimeler

• retraction
• transparency
• AI ethics
• translation ethics

Kaynakça

1. ACL-BG. (2023). Gender bias benchmark report in machine translation. Association for Computational Linguistics – Bulgaria. https://acl-bg.org
2. Ananny, M., & Crawford, K. (2018). Seeing without knowing: Limitations of the transparency ideal and its application to algorithmic accountability. New Media & Society, 20(3), 973–989. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816676645
3. Baker, M. (2018). Translation and conflict: A narrative account. Routledge.
4. Bietti, E. (2020). From ethics washing to ethics bashing: Regulating AI in Europe. Computer Law & Security Review, 35(6), 105–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2020.105383
5. Boddington, P. (2017). Towards a code of ethics for artificial intelligence. Springer.
6. Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
7. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
8. Chesterman, A. (2001). Proposal for a hieronymic oath. The Translator, 7(2), 139–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2001.10799099

9. Chesterman, A. (2016). Memes of translation: The spread of ideas in translation theory (Revised ed.). John Benjamins.
10. Crawford, K., & Paglen, T. (2021). Excavating AI: The politics of images in machine learning training sets. AI Now Institute. https://www.excavating.ai
11. Cronin, M. (2017). Eco-translation: Translation and ecology in the age of the Anthropocene. Routledge.
12. Cronin, M. (2022). Translation in the digital age: Ethics, agency, and posthumanism. Routledge.
13. European Union. (2024). Artificial Intelligence Act (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689). Official Journal of the European Union. https://artificialintelligenceact.eu
14. Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. Longman.
15. Floridi, L. (2019). The logic of information: A theory of philosophy as conceptual design. Oxford University Press.
16. Floridi, L., & Cowls, J. (2021). A unified framework of five principles for AI in society. Harvard Data Science Review, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.1162/99608f92.8cd550d1
17. GenLaw Blog. (2023). Liability and post-editing in AI-assisted legal translation. https://blog.genlaw.org/liability-postediting
18. Han, B.-C. (2021). Infocracy: Digitization and the crisis of democracy. Polity Press.
19. Hovy, D., & Spruit, S. L. (2023). The social impact of natural language processing. Computational Linguistics, 49(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1162/coli_a_00468
20. Jobin, A., Ienca, M., & Vayena, E. (2019). The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1(9), 389–399. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0088-2
21. Kenny, D., & Doherty, S. (2020). Ethics in machine translation: A humanist perspective. Translation Studies, 13(1), 19–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/14781700.2019.1689878
22. Krüger, R. (2022). Translation ethics and the posthuman turn: Agency, responsibility, and technology. Target, 34(2), 301–324. https://doi.org/10.1075/target.21035.kru
23. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network theory. Oxford University Press.
24. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.
25. Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
26. Mittelstadt, B. D. (2022). The value of AI ethics. AI and Ethics, 2(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-021-00084-x
27. O’Hagan, M. (2022). Transparency in the age of neural MT: Revisiting translation ethics. Machine Translation, 36(1), 57–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10590-021-09317-0
28. OECD. (2019). OECD Principles on Artificial Intelligence. OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/going-digital/ai/principles/
29. OECD. (2020). Implementing trustworthy AI: AI principles in practice. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/cb6b6e5f-en
30. OECD. (2023). AI, Data and Public Policy: Building More Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence Systems. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/1f0a2d20-en
31. Olohan, M. (2021). Technology, translation, and society: A sociological perspective. Routledge.
32. Palinkas, L. A., Horwitz, S. M., Green, C. A., Wisdom, J. P., Duan, N., & Hoagwood, K. (2015). Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 42(5), 533–544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-013-0528-y
33. Pym, A. (2012). On translator ethics: Principles for mediation between cultures. John Benjamins.
34. Ricoeur, P. (1976). Interpretation theory: Discourse and the surplus of meaning. Texas Christian University Press.
35. UNESCO. (2021). Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence. UNESCO Publishing. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000380455
36. UNESCO. (2023). Guidance for the Ethical Use and Governance of Artificial Intelligence in Education. UNESCO Publishing. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000385457
37. Venuti, L. (1995). The translator’s invisibility: A history of translation. Routledge.
38. Wolfe, C. (2010). What is posthumanism? University of Minnesota Press.