Abstract

This study highlights the current state of affairs regarding the provision of AI-focused policies, guidelines, information, explanations, etc., to authors, editors, and reviewers in the article acceptance process of academic journals in Türkiye. Recently, it has been observed that international publishing ethics and editorial organizations (COPE, ICMJE, WAME, etc.) and leading journal publishers (Elsevier, Springer, Wiley, Clarivate, etc.) have established relevant policies and/or principles. Furthermore, the number of journals offering principles and information regarding the use of AI tools in their publication submission guidelines or independent policy units is rapidly increasing. In this study, journals listed on DergiPark Akademik (DPA), Türkiye’s most comprehensive academic journal platform, were examined to assess the extent to which existing AI policies in academic publishing are met through postal submissions. The research was conducted using document analysis of the web pages of 340 journals selected from 2,181 journals on the DPA platform, using a manual method that ensured equitable representation through publisher stratification. The sample consisted of 204 university journals, 69 registered journals, 33 association journals, and 34 journals from other publishing houses. First, it was determined whether the publications had AI policies, and then it was not specified whether there was information regarding representations of AI use in journals with AI policies. The evaluation results revealed that academic journals in Türkiye are inadequate in terms of AI use policies, principles, information, etc., in their article acceptance series. The structural depth of existing policy statements is limited, and the emphasis on author-centered statements is evident; the institutional-level policy reflections of publisher, editor, and reviewer roles are weak. This study, which examines the publishing countries and the national literature in Türkiye in detail regarding the use of AI in academic publishing, will achieve its purpose to the extent that the distribution of principles and ethics in AI use is taken into consideration by the academic world.

Keywords: Academic publishing, DergiPark Academic, artificial intelligence, AI, artificial intelligence policy, publishing ethics

References

  1. Bornmann, L., Wu, L. ve Ettl, C. (2024). The use of ChatGPT for identifying disruptive papers in science: a first exploration. Scientometrics, 129, 7161–7165. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-024-05176-z
  2. Cheng, K., ve Wu, H. (2024). Policy framework for the utilization of generative AI. Critical Care, 28(1), 128. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-024-04917-z
  3. Cochran, W. G. (1963). Sampling techniques. John Wiley & Sons.
  4. Dalalah, D. ve Dalalah, O.M.A. (2023). The false positives and false negatives of generative AI detection tools in education and academic research: The case of ChatGPT. International Journal of Management Education, 21(2), 100822. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2023.100822
  5. de Winter, J. (2024). Can ChatGPT be used to predict citation counts, readership, and social media interaction? An exploration among 2222 scientific abstracts. Scientometrics, 129, 2469–2487. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-024-04939-y
  6. Duan, Y., Edwards, J. S., ve Dwivedi, Y. K. (2019). Artificial intelligence for decision making in the era of Big Data–evolution, challenges and research agenda. International Journal of Information Management, 48, 63–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.01.021
  7. Dupps, W. J. (2023). Artificial intelligence and academic publishing. Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery, 49(7), 655-656. https://doi.org/10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000001223
  8. Ebadi, S., Nejadghanbar, H., Salman, A. R., ve 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
  9. El Harrath, A. (2025). Navigating the new frontier: An analysis of applied linguistics journals’ editorial policies on AI use in scientific publishing. International Journal of Linguistics and Translation Studies, 6, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.36892/ijlts.v6i3.593
  10. Ganjavi, C., Eppler, M. B., Pekcan, A., Biedermann, B., Abreu, A., Collins, G. S., Gill, I. S. ve Cacciamani, G. E. (2024). Publishers’ and journals’ instructions to authors on use of generative artificial intelligence in academic and scientific publishing: bibliometric analysis. The BMJ, 384, e077192. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2023-077192
  11. Garcia, M.B. (2024). Using AI tools in writing peer review reports: Should academic journals embrace the use of ChatGPT?. Annals of Biomedical Engineering, 52, 139–140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-023-03299-7
  12. Gendron, Y., Andrew, J. ve Cooper, C. (2022). The perils of artificial intelligence in academic publishing. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 87, 102411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2021.102411
  13. Gomes, W. J., Evora, P. R. B., ve Guizilini, S. (2023). Artificial intelligence is irreversibly bound to academic publishing - ChatGPT is cleared for scientific writing and peer review. Brazilian Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery, 38(4), e20230963. https://doi.org/10.21470/1678-9741-2023-0963
  14. Goyanes, M., ve Lopezosa, C. (2024). ChatGPT en Ciencias Sociales: Revision de la literatura sobre el uso de inteligencia artificial (IA) de OpenAI en investigacion cualitativa y cuantitativa. Anuario ThinkEPI, 18, e18e04. https://doi.org/10.3145/thinkepi.2024.e18a04
  15. Goyanes, M., Lopezosa, C. ve Piñeiro-Naval, V. (2025). The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in research: A review of author guidelines in leading journals across eight social science disciplines. Scientometrics, 130, 3725–3741. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-025-05377-0
  16. Gulumbe, B.H., Audu, S.M. ve Hashim, A.M. (2024). Balancing AI and academic integrity: What are the positions of academic publishers and universities? AI & Society, 40, 1775–1784. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-024-01946-8
  17. Hartley, J., Jolevski, F., Melo, V., ve Moore, B. (2024). The labor market effects of generative artificial intelligence. SSRN. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5136877
  18. Hern A. (2022, 4 Aralık). AI bot ChatGPT stuns academics with essay-writing skills and usability. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/dec/04/ai-bot-chatgpt-stuns-academics-with-essay-writing-skills-and-usability
  19. Hoyt, R., Limon, A., ve Chang, A. (2025). Generative AI and scientific manuscript peer review. Intelligence-Based Medicine, 11, 100246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibmed.2025.100246
  20. Hu, K. (2023, 2 Şubat). ChatGPT sets record for fastest-growing user base – analyst note. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/technology/chatgpt-sets-record-fastest-growing-user-base-analyst-note-2023-02-01/
  21. Huang, J. ve Tan, M. (2023). The role of ChatGPT in scientific communication: writing better scientific review articles. American Journal Cancer Research, 13(4), 1148-1154. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10164801/
  22. Kim, E. (2024). Analyzing AI use policy in LIS: Association with journal metrics and publisher volume. Scientometrics, 129, 7623–7644. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-024-05189-8
  23. Kooli, C., ve Al Muftah, H. (2022). Artificial intelligence in healthcare: A comprehensive review of its ethical concerns. Technological Sustainability, 1(2), 121–131. https://doi.org/10.1108/TECHS-12-2021-0029
  24. Kousha, K. (2024). How is ChatGPT acknowledged in academic publications? Scientometrics, 129, 7959–7969. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-024-05193-y
  25. Lehr, S. A., Caliskan, A., Liyanage, S., ve Banaji, M. R. (2024). ChatGPT as research scientist: Probing GPT’capabilities as a research librarian, research ethicist, data generator, and data predictor. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 121(35), e2404328121. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2404328121
  26. Lund, B. D. ve Naheem, K. T. (2023). 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
  27. Lund, B. D., Wang, T., Mannuru, N. R., Nie, B., Shimray, S. ve 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24750
  28. McCarthy, J. (2007). From here to human-level AI. Artificial Intelligence, 171(18), 1174–1182.
  29. Macdonald, C., Adeloye, D., Sheikh, A. ve Rudan, I. (2023). Can ChatGPT draft a research article? An example of population-level vaccine effectiveness analysis. Journal of Global Health, 13, 01003. https://doi:10.7189/jogh.13.01003
  30. Merriam-Webster (2025). Artificial intelligence. Merriam-Webster.com dictionary içinde https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/artificial%20intelligence
  31. Naik, N., Hameed, B. Z., Shetty, D. K., Swain, D., Shah, M., Paul, R., Aggarwal, K., Ibrahim, S., Patil, V., Smriti, K., Shetty, S., Rai, B. P., Chlosta, P., ve Somani, B. K. (2022). Legal and ethical consideration in artificial intelligence in healthcare: Who takes responsibility? Frontiers in Surgery, 9, 862322. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2022.862322
  32. Nigel, C. (2023). To ChatGPT or not to ChatGPT? The impact of artificial intelligence on academic publishing. The Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal, 42(4), 275. https://doi.org/10.1097/INF.0000000000003852
  33. Ng, D. T. K., Leung, J. K. L., Chu, S. K. W., ve Qiao, M. S. (2021). Conceptualizing AI literacy: An exploratory review. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 2, 100041. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2021.100041
  34. Orduña-Malea, E. ve Cabezas-Clavijo, Á. (2023). ChatGPT and the potential growing of ghost bibliographic references. Scientometrics, 128(9), 5351–5355. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-023-04804-4
  35. OpenAI. (2022, 30 Kasım). Karşınızda ChatGPT. https://openai.com/tr-TR/index/chatgpt/
  36. Plata, S., De Guzman, M. A. ve Quesada, A. (2023). Emerging research and policy themes on academic integrity in the age of Chat GPT and generative AI. Asian Journal of University Education, 19(4), 743-758. https://doi.org/10.24191/ajue.v19i4.24697
  37. Qadhi, S. M., Alduais, A., Chaaban, Y., ve Khraisheh, M. (2024). Generative AI, research ethics, and higher education research: Insights from a scientometric analysis. Information, 15(6), 325. https://doi.org/10.3390/info15060325
  38. Rahman, M. M., ve Watanobe, Y. (2023). ChatGPT for education and research: Opportunities, threats, and strategies. Applied Sciences, 13(9), 5783. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13095783
  39. Rakha E. A., Toss M., Shiino S., Gamble, P., Jaroensri, R., Mermel, C. H. ve Chen, P. C. (2021). Current and future applications of artificial intelligence in pathology: A clinical perspective. Journal of Clinical Pathology, 74(7), 409-414. https://doi.org/10.1136/jclinpath-2020-206908
  40. Sandnes, F. E. (2024). Can we identify prominent scholars using ChatGPT? Scientometrics, 129(1), 713–718. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-023-04882-4
  41. Silverman, J. A., Ali, S. A., Rybak, A., Van Goudoever, J. B., ve Leleiko, N. S. (2023). Generative AI: Potential and pitfalls in academic publishing. JPGN Reports, 4(4), e387. https://doi.org/10.1097/PG9.0000000000000387
  42. Simsek, O., Manteghinejad, A., ve Vossough, A. (2024). A comparative review of imaging journal policies for use of AI in manuscript generation. Academic Radiology, 31(12), 5232–5236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2024.05.006
  43. Singhal, K., Azizi, S., Tu, T., Mahdavi, S. S., Wei, J., Chung, H. W., Scales, N., Tanwani, A., Cole-Lewis, H., Pfohl, S., Payne, P., Seneviratne, M., Gamble, P., Kelly, C., Babiker, A., Schärli, N., Chowdhery, A., Mansfield, P., Demner-Fushman, D., ... Natarajan, V. (2023). Large language models encode clinical knowledge. Nature, 620(7972), 172-180. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06291-2
  44. Stokel-Walker C. (2022). AI bot ChatGPT writes smart essays — should professors worry? Nature, December 9, 2022. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-04397-7
  45. The Lancet Digital Health. (2023). ChatGPT: friend or foe?. Editorial. Lancet Digital Health, 5(3), e102, March. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/landig/article/PIIS2589-7500(23)00023-7/fulltext
  46. Thorp, H. H. (2023). ChatGPT is fun, but not an author. Science, 379(6630), 313. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adg7879
  47. Türkiye Bilimsel ve Teknolojik Araştırma Kurumu [TÜBİTAK]. (2026). Destek süreçlerinde üretken yapay zekânın (ÜYZ) sorumlu ve güvenilir kullanımı rehberi. https://tubitak.gov.tr/tr/kurumsal/hakkimizda/uretken-yapay-zeka-rehberi
  48. Wang, P. (2019). On defining artificial intelligence. Journal of Artificial General Intelligence, 10(2), 1–37. https://doi.org/10.2478/jagi-2019-0002.
  49. Xames, M. D., ve Shefa, J. (2023). ChatGPT for research and publication: Opportunities and challenges. Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching, 6(1), 390-395. https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.20
  50. Xu, Y., Liu, X., Cao, X., Huang, C., Liu, E., Qian, S., Liu, X., Wu, Y., Dong, F., Qiu, C. W., ve Qiu, J. (2021). Artificial intelligence: A powerful paradigm for scientific research. The Innovation, 2(4), 100179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xinn.2021.100179
  51. Yasmin, H. ve Mazhar, R. (2022). AI in education: A few decades from now. P. P. Churi, S. Joshi, M. Elhoseny ve A. Omrane (Ed.). Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education içinde (ss. 1-30). CRC Press.
  52. Yin, S., Huang, S., Xue, P., Xu, Z., Lian, Z., Ye, C., Ma, S., Liu, M., Hu, Y., Lu, P., ve Li, C. (2025). Generative artificial intelligence (GAI) usage guidelines for scholarly publishing: A cross-sectional study of medical journals. BMC Medicine, 23(1), 77. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-025-03899-1
  53. Yükseköğretim Kurulu [YÖK]. (2024). Yükseköğretim kurumları bilimsel araştırma ve yayın faaliyetlerinde üretken yapay zekâ kullanımına dair etik rehber. https://proje.yok.gov.tr/tr/page/635
  54. Zhang, Q., Fotaki, A., Ghadimi, S., Wang, Y., Doneva, M., Wetzl, J., Delfino, J. G., O’Regan, D. P., Prieto, C., ve Epstein, F. H. (2024). Improving the efficiency and accuracy of cardiovascular magnetic resonance with artificial intelligence—review of evidence and proposition of a roadmap to clinical translation. Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, 26(2), 101051. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocmr.2024.101051

License

Copyright (c) 2026 The author(s). This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.

How to Cite

Binici, K., Akkaya, M. A., & Polat, C. (2026). Artificial Intelligence Policies of Academic Journals in Turkey: An Evaluation of Journals on the DergiPark Academic: DergiPark. Information World, 27, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.15612/BD.2026.895