Öz

Bu çalışmada, Türkiye’deki akademik dergilerin makale kabul sürecinde yazarlara, editörlere ve hakemlere yönelik yapay zekâ (YZ) odaklı politika, rehber, bilgilendirme, açıklama vb. sunmalarına ilişkin mevcut durumun ortaya konulması amaçlanmıştır. Son dönemde uluslararası yayımcılık etiği ve editör kuruluşları (COPE, ICMJE, WAME vb.) ile önde gelen dergi yayımcılarının (Elsevier, Springer, Wiley, Clarivate vb.) konuyla ilgili politikalar ve/veya ilkeler belirledikleri bilinmektedir. Bunun yanında, yayın başvuru esaslarında ya da bağımsız politikalar biçiminde YZ araçlarının kullanımına ilişkin ilkeler ve bilgilendirmeler sunan dergilerin sayısı da hızla artmaktadır. Çalışmada, akademik yayımcılıkta YZ politikalarının Türkiye’deki durumunu ortaya koymak amacıyla Türkiye’nin en kapsamlı akademik dergi platformu olan DergiPark Akademik’te (DPA) yer alan dergiler incelenmiş ve var olan politikaların belirlenen ölçütleri karşılama durumu analiz edilmiştir. Araştırma, DPA platformundaki 2.181 dergiden yayımcı kategorisinde tabakalı rastgele örnekleme yöntemi ile eşit temsili gözetilerek seçilen 340 derginin web sayfaları üzerinden doküman analizi yöntemiyle gerçekleştirilmiştir. Örneklem; 204 üniversite, 69 şahıs, 33 dernek ve 34 diğer yayınevi kategorisindeki dergilerden oluşmaktadır. Öncelikle dergilerin YZ politikalarının olup olmadığı belirlenmiş, sonra YZ politikaları olan dergilerde YZ kullanımına ilişkin belirlenen ölçütlerle ilgili bilgi olup olmadığı irdelenmiştir. Değerlendirmeler sonucunda Türkiye’deki akademik dergilerin makale kabul süreçlerinde YZ kullanım politikaları, esasları, bilgilendirmeleri vb. konusunda yetersiz kaldığı tespit edilmiştir. Var olan politika beyanlarının ise yapısal derinliğinin sınırlı, yazar merkezli beyan ağırlığı belirgin; yayınevi, editör ve hakem rollerinin kurumsal düzeydeki politika yansımalarının ise zayıf olduğu görülmüştür. Akademik yayımcılıkta YZ kullanımına ilişkin yayımcı farkındalıklarını Türkiye’deki ulusal literatür bağlamında kapsamlı bir biçimde ele alan bu çalışma, YZ kullanımındaki ilke ve etik yönlerin akademi dünyası tarafından dikkate alındığı ölçüde amacına ulaşacaktır.  

Anahtar Kelimeler: Akademik yayımcılık, DergiPark Akademik, yapay zekâ, YZ, yapay zekâ politikası, yayımcılık etiği

Referanslar

  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 DOI: 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 DOI: 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 DOI: 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 DOI: 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 DOI: 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 DOI: 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 DOI: 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 DOI: 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 DOI: 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 DOI: 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 DOI: 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 DOI: 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 DOI: 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 DOI: 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 DOI: 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 DOI: https://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 DOI: 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 DOI: 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 DOI: 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 DOI: 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 DOI: 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 DOI: 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 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4389887
  28. McCarthy, J. (2007). From here to human-level AI. Artificial Intelligence, 171(18), 1174–1182. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2007.10.009
  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 DOI: https://doi.org/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 DOI: 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 DOI: 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 DOI: 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 DOI: 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 DOI: 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 DOI: 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 DOI: 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 DOI: 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 DOI: 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 DOI: 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 DOI: 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 DOI: 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 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/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 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2589-7500(23)00023-7
  46. Thorp, H. H. (2023). ChatGPT is fun, but not an author. Science, 379(6630), 313. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adg7879 DOI: 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. DOI: 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 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4381803
  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 DOI: 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 DOI: 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 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocmr.2024.101051

Lisans

Telif Hakkı (c) 2026 Yazar(lar). Açık erişimli bu makale, orijinal çalışmaya uygun şekilde atıfta bulunulması koşuluyla, herhangi bir ortamda veya formatta sınırsız kullanım, dağıtım ve çoğaltmaya izin veren Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) altında dağıtılmıştır.

Nasıl Atıf Yapılır

Binici, K., Akkaya, M. A., & Polat, C. (2026). Türkiye’de akademik dergilerin yapay zekâ politikaları: DergiPark Akademik dergileri üzerine bir değerlendirme. Bilgi Dünyası, 27, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.15612/BD.2026.895