Artificial Intelligence in Turkish Educational Research Journals Publishing in English: Policies, Ethics, and Stakeholder Perspectives

Hüsem Korkmaz

doi:10.53850/joltida.1780138

Artificial Intelligence in Turkish Educational Research Journals Publishing in English: Policies, Ethics, and Stakeholder Perspectives

Abstract

This study is an attempt to gain insight into the adoption of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) policies by Turkish educational research journals publishing manuscripts in English. With this aim, the educational research journals indexed in Turkish national indexing database, TR Dizin, were chosen as the sample of the study. After implementing the exclusion criteria such as having a predominantly non-educational scope or being under evaluation for the year 2025, a total of 107 journals comprised the sample. The journal contents were carefully examined to find out any AI use policy, and the contents of these policies were qualitatively analysed. In order to delve deeper into the phenomenon, semi-structured interviews were conducted with various stakeholders of scholarly publishing such as publishers, chief-editors, editors, and authors. The data collected were analysed using thematic analysis in order to identify relevant codes and themes. The findings indicated that the majority of Turkish educational research journals lack declared policies regarding the AI use. Those adopting AI policies commonly prohibited the use of AI in generating data and transferring the responsibility of authorship to AI while they cautiously permitted using AI as a proof-reader, a data analysis assistant, and a language correction tool. The interview findings pointed to the need to adopt and declare clear AI use policies and highlighted the inevitability of utilizing AI tools in scholarly publishing while also drawing attention to the ethical considerations and risks resulting from the current capabilities of AI.

Keywords

References

Altmäe, S., Sola-Leyva, A., & Salumets, A. (2023). Artificial intelligence in scientific writing: A friend or a foe?. Reproductive BioMedicine Online, 47(1), 3-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2023.04.009
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 Bhavsar, D., Duffy, L., Jo, H. et al. (2025). Policies on artificial intelligence chatbots among academic publishers: a cross-sectional audit. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 10, Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-025-00158-y
Borenstein, J., Howard, A. (2021). Emerging challenges in AI and the need for AI ethics education. AI and Ethics 1, 61–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-020-00002-7
Chemaya, N., & Martin, D. (2024). Perceptions and detection of AI use in manuscript preparation for academic journals. PLoS ONE 19(7), Article e0304807. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304807
Council of Higher Education. (2024). Yükseköğretimde üretken yapay zeka kullanımı [The use of generative artificial intelligence in higher education]. https://proje.yok.gov.tr/documentFiles/17539645334.Y%C3%BCksek%C3%B6%C4%9Fretimde%20%C3%BCretken%20yapay%20zeka%20kullan%C4%B1m%C4%B1-tr.pdf
Davis, F. D. (1989). Technology acceptance model: TAM. Al-Suqri, MN, Al-Aufi, AS: Information Seeking Behavior and Technology Adoption, 205(219), 5.
Dönbak, P. (2024). Perceptions towards the use of artificial intelligence applications in the academy. KİÜ Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 2(1), 17-28. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.12651930
Ebadi, S., Nejadghanbar, H., Salman, A.R., & Khosravi, H. (2025). Exploring the Impact of Generative AI on Peer Review: Insights from Journal Reviewers. Journal of Academic Ethics, 23, 1383-1397. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-025-09604-4

Floridi, L. (2007). “Understanding Information Ethics”. APA Newsletter on Philosophy and Computers, 07(1), 3-12.
Floridi, L. (2013). The Ethics of Information. Oxford University Press.
García-Peñalvo, F.J. (2023). “The perception of artificial intelligence in educational contexts after the launch of ChatGPT: disruption or panic?”, Education in Knowledge Society, 24, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.14201/eks.31279
Glickman, M., & Zhang, Y. (2024). AI and generative AI for research discovery and summarization. Harvard Data Science Review 6(2). https://doi.org/10.1162/99608f92.7f9220ff
Gregor, Shirley (2024) "Responsible Artificial Intelligence and Journal Publishing," Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 25(1), 48-60. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00863
Haman, M., & Školník, M. (2023). Using ChatGPT to conduct a literature review. Accountability in Research, 31(8), 1244–1246. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2023.2185514
Hosseini, M., Rasmussen, L. M., & Resnik, D. B. (2023). Using AI to write scholarly publications. Accountability in Research, 31(7), 715–723. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2023.2168535
Hu, G. (2024). Challenges for enforcing editorial policies on AI-generated papers. Accountability in Research, 31(7), 978–980. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2023.2184262
Hutson M. (2022). Could AI help you to write your next paper? Nature, 611(7934), 192–193. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-03479-w
Kretser, A., Murphy, D., Bertuzzi, S., Abraham, T., Allison, D. B., Boor, K. J., Dwyer, J., Grantham, A., Harris, L. J., Hollander, R., Jacobs-Young, C., Rovito, S., Vafiadis, D., Woteki, C., Wyndham, J., & Yada, R. (2019). Scientific Integrity Principles and Best Practices: Recommendations from a Scientific Integrity Consortium. Science and Engineering Ethics 25, 327–355. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-019-00094-3
Larivière, V., Haustein, S., & Mongeon, P. (2015). The oligopoly of academic publishers in the digital era. PLoS ONE 10(6): e0127502. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127502
Lillis, T., & Curry, M. J. (2010). Academic writing in a global context: The politics and practices of publishing in English. Routledge.
Lund, B.D., & Naheem, K. T. (2024). Can ChatGPT be an author? A study of artificial intelligence authorship policies in top academic journals. Learned Publishing, 37(1), 13-21. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1582
Nature. (2023). “Editorial.” Nature, 613(7945), 612. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-00191-1
Pereira, R., Reis, I. W., Ulbricht, V., & Santos, N. D. (2024). Generative artificial intelligence and academic writing: an analysis of the perceptions of researchers in training. Management Research: Journal of the Iberoamerican Academy of Management, 22(4), 429-450. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRJIAM-01-2024-1501
Rahimi, M., & Zhang, L. J. (2018). “Writing task complexity, students’ motivational beliefs, anxiety and their writing production in English as a second language”, Reading and Writing, 32(3), 761-786. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9887-9
Teel, Z. A., Wang, T., & Lund, B. (2023). ChatGPT conundrums: Probing plagiarism and parroting problems in higher education practices. College & Research Libraries News, 84(6), 205. https://doi.org/10.5860/crln.84.6.205 Thorp, H. H. (2023). “ChatGPT is Fun, but Not an Author.” Science, 379(6630), Article 313. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adg7879
Turnitin. (2023). “Turnitin Announces AI Writing Detector and AI Writing Resource Center for Educators.” https://www.turnitin.com/press/turnitin-announces-ai-writing-detector- and-AI-writing-resource-center-for-educators
TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM. (n.d.). Criteria – TR Dizin application and evaluation processes [Web page]. Retrieved October 29, 2025, from https://trdizin.gov.tr/en/criteria/
Van Noorden R., & Perkel J.M. (2023). AI and science: What 1,600 researchers think. Nature, 621(7980), 672–675. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-02980-0
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186-204. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926
Wu, Q., Tian, J. & Liu, Z. (2025). Exploring the usage behavior of generative artificial intelligence: A case study of ChatGPT with insights into the moderating effects of habit and personal innovativeness. Current Psychology, 44, 8190–8203. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-024-07193-w

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

Artificial Intelligence (Other)

Journal Section

Research Article

Authors

Hüsem Korkmaz ^*
0000-0002-5759-7392
Türkiye

Publication Date

January 14, 2026

Submission Date

September 8, 2025

Acceptance Date

November 5, 2025

Published in Issue

Year 2026 Number: 1

DOI

https://doi.org/10.53850/joltida.1780138

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA69HH57FN

Cite

RIS / Bibtex

APA

Korkmaz, H. (2026). Artificial Intelligence in Turkish Educational Research Journals Publishing in English: Policies, Ethics, and Stakeholder Perspectives. Journal of Learning and Teaching in Digital Age, 1, 144-155. https://doi.org/10.53850/joltida.1780138