SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Journal of Metaverse / 2026 / Issue: 6

Governing Artificial Intelligence in the Evolving Academic Publishing Ecosystem

Enis Karaarslan(MUGLA SITKI KOCMAN UNIVERSITY, FACULTY OF ENGINEERING, DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER ENGINEERING, DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER ENGINEERING)0000-0002-3595-8783
Ömer Aydın(MANİSA CELÂL BAYAR ÜNİVERSİTESİ, MÜHENDİSLİK FAKÜLTESİ, ELEKTRİK-ELEKTRONİK MÜHENDİSLİĞİ BÖLÜMÜ)0000-0002-7137-4881
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-04-05
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

This document serves as both a functional policy framework and a contribution to the discourse on responsible AI integration in academic publishing.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:As scholarly publishing navigates the rapid integration of artificial intelligence (AI), encompassing generative AI, natural language processing (NLP), large language models (LLMs), and autonomous agents, the editorial ecosystem must adapt to maintain its core integrity.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Furthermore, this editorial explores the strategic use of generative AI for post-publication science communication, demonstrating how automated infographics and multimedia summaries can significantly enhance research visibility and broad accessibility.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:This document serves as both a functional policy framework and a contribution to the discourse on responsible AI integration in academic publishing.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Artificial Intelligence · Generative AI · Large Language Models

Abstract

As scholarly publishing navigates the rapid integration of artificial intelligence (AI), encompassing generative AI, natural language processing (NLP), large language models (LLMs), and autonomous agents, the editorial ecosystem must adapt to maintain its core integrity. This editorial evaluates the operational advantages of AI, such as enhanced efficiency and automated integrity checks, against systemic risks, including hallucination, bias, and confidentiality breaches. Drawing on recent empirical validations and policy frameworks from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), and major publishers, we outline a comprehensive editorial policy for the Journal of Metaverse. This policy emphasizes human oversight, transparency, and domain-specific rigor. We also introduce practical implementation mechanisms, including an AI-use disclosure template, auditing protocols, and specific reporting requirements for metaverse research. Furthermore, this editorial explores the strategic use of generative AI for post-publication science communication, demonstrating how automated infographics and multimedia summaries can significantly enhance research visibility and broad accessibility. This document serves as both a functional policy framework and a contribution to the discourse on responsible AI integration in academic publishing.

🔖

Cite This Article

Karaarslan, E., Aydın, Ö. (2026). Governing Artificial Intelligence in the Evolving Academic Publishing Ecosystem. Journal of Metaverse, Issue: 6. https://doi.org/10.57019/jmv.1899774

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (47)

  1. Raitskaya, L., & Tikhonova, E. (2025). The 2025 Landscape of Generative AI in Scholarly Writing and Publishing: A Scoping Review of Uses and Ethical Approaches. Journal of Language and Education, 11(4), 5-51. https://doi.org/10.17323/jle.2025.29876
  2. Elsevier (2025). Generative AI policies for journals. https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies-and-standards/generative-ai-policies-for-journals
  3. Springer (2025). Authors, editors and peer reviewers supported with launch of new AI tool. Springer Nature. https://group.springernature.com/de/group/media/press-releases/ai-tool-to-help-streamline-integrity-and-ethics-checks/27730892
  4. Anderson, P. (2025). Academic Publishing: Springer Nature Adds another Manuscript Tool. Publishing Perspectives. https://publishingperspectives.com/2025/01/academic-publishing-springer-nature-adds-another-manuscript-processing-tool/
  5. Liang, W., Yuksekgonul, M., Mao, Y., Wu, E., & Zou, J. (2023). GPT detectors are biased against non-native English writers. Patterns, 4(7). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patter.2023.100779
  6. Hosseini, M., & Resnik, D. B. (2025). Guidance needed for using artificial intelligence to screen journal submissions for misconduct. Research ethics, 21(1), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161241254052
  7. Duan, Y., Edwards, J. S., & 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
  8. Elali, F. R., & Rachid, L. N. (2023). AI-generated research paper fabrication and plagiarism in the scientific community. Patterns, 4(3). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patter.2023.100706
  9. Azamfirei, R., Kudchadkar, S. R., & Fackler, J. (2023). Large language models and the perils of their hallucinations. Critical Care, 27(1), 120. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-023-04393-x
  10. Dahl, M., Magesh, V., Suzgun, M., & Ho, D. E. (2024). Large legal fictions: Profiling legal hallucinations in large language models. Journal of Legal Analysis, 16(1), 64-93. https://doi.org/10.1093/jla/laae003
  11. Huang, L., Yu, W., Ma, W., Zhong, W., Feng, Z., Wang, H., Chen, Q., Peng,W., Feng, X., Qin, B., & Liu, T. (2025). A survey on hallucination in large language models: Principles, taxonomy, challenges, and open questions. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 43(2), 1-55. https://doi.org/10.1145/3703155
  12. Vo, A., Nguyen, K. N., Taesiri, M. R., Dang, V. T., Nguyen, A. T., & Kim, D. (2025). Vision language models are biased. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.23941. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2505.23941
  13. Zhu, B., & Zhang, H. (2025). Debiasing vision-language models for vision tasks: a survey. Frontiers of Computer Science, 19(1), 191321. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11704-024-40051-3
  14. Zielinski, C., Winker, M. A., Aggarwal, R., Ferris, L. E., Heinemann, M., Lapeña, J. F., Pai, S.A., Ing, E., Citrome, L., Alam, M., Voight, M., Habibzadeh, F., & WAME Board. (2024). Chatbots, generative AI, and scholarly manuscripts: WAME recommendations on chatbots and generative artificial intelligence in relation to scholarly publications. Current Medical Research and Opinion, 40(1), 11-13. https://doi.org/10.1080/03007995.2023.2286102
  15. COPE (2023). Authorship and AI tools. COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics). https://publicationethics.org/guidance/cope-position/authorship-and-ai-tools
  16. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (2000). The iron cage revisited institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. In J. A.C. Baum,& F. Dobbin (Eds.), Economics Meets Sociology in Strategic Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-3322(00)17011-1
  17. Diakopoulos, N. (2016). Accountability in algorithmic decision making. Communications of the ACM, 59(2), 56-62. https://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2844110
  18. McKenna, N., Li, T., Cheng, L., Hosseini, M., Johnson, M., & Steedman, M. (2023, December). Sources of hallucination by large language models on inference tasks. In Findings of the association for computational linguistics: EMNLP 2023 (pp. 2758-2774). https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.findings-emnlp.182
  19. Xu, Z. (2025). Patterns and purposes: A cross-journal analysis of AI tool usage in academic writing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.00632. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2502.00632
  20. Ayala, O., & Bechard, P. (2024, June). Reducing hallucination in structured outputs via Retrieval-Augmented Generation. In Y. Yang, A. Davani, A. Sil, & A. Kumar (Eds), Proceedings of the 2024 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 6: Industry Track) (pp. 228–238). https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.naacl-industry.19
  21. Kirchenbauer, J., & Barns, C. (2024). Hallucination reduction in large language models with retrieval-augmented generation using wikipedia knowledge. ArXiv Preprint. https://doi. org/10.31219/osf. io/pv7r5.
  22. Rakin, S., Shibly, M. A. R., Hossain, Z. M., Akbar, M. M., & Khan, Z. (2025, April). Leveraging the Domain Adaptation of Retrieval Augmented Generation Models for Question Answering and for Hallucination Reduction. In International Conference on Information Technology-New Generations (pp. 482-493). Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-89063-5_42
  23. Tonmoy, S. M., Zaman, S. M., Jain, V., Rani, A., Rawte, V., Chadha, A., & Das, A. (2024). A Comprehensive Survey of Hallucination Mitigation Techniques in Large Language Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.01313. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2401.01313
  24. Alan, A.Y., Karaarslan, E., & Aydin, Ö. (2024). A RAG-based Question Answering System Proposal for Understanding Islam: MufassirQAS LLM. arXiv e-prints, arXiv-2401. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2401.15378
  25. Alan AY, Karaarslan E, Aydın Ö. (2025). Improving LLM reliability with RAG in religious question-answering: MufassirQAS. Turkish Journal of Engineering, 9(3), 544-559. https://doi.org/10.31127/tuje.1624773.
  26. Goddard, J. (2023). Hallucinations in ChatGPT: a cautionary tale for biomedical researchers. The American journal of medicine, 136(11), 1059-1060. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2023.06.012
  27. Chelli, M., Descamps, J., Lavoué, V., Trojani, C., Azar, M., Deckert, M.,. & Ruetsch-Chelli, C. (2024). Hallucination rates and reference accuracy of ChatGPT and bard for systematic reviews: comparative analysis. Journal of medical Internet research, 26(1), e53164.
  28. Bagaria, A. (2025). INSIGHT: An Interpretable Neural Vision-Language Framework for Reasoning of Generative Artifacts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.22351. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2511.22351
  29. Kachwala, Z., Singh, D., Yang, D., & Menczer, F. (2025). Prefill-Guided Thinking for zero-shot detection of AI-generated images. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.11031. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2506.11031
  30. Mahara, A., & Rishe, N. (2026). Methods and trends in detecting AI-generated images: A comprehensive review. Computer Science Review, 60, 100908. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosrev.2026.100908
  31. Frangou, S., Volpe, U., & Fiorillo, A. (2025). AI in scientific writing and publishing: A call for critical engagement. European Psychiatry, 68(1), e98. https://doi.org/10.1192/j.eurpsy.2025.10061
  32. Rodriguez, M. A., & Bollen, J. (2008, October). An algorithm to determine peer-reviewers. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on Information and knowledge management (pp. 319-328).
  33. Charlin, L., & Zemel, R. S. (2013). The Toronto paper matching system: An automated paper-reviewer assignment system. In S. Dasgupta & D. McAllester (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Machine Learning (Vol. 28, pp. 1–9). JMLR Workshop and Conference Proceedings.
  34. Siddique, M. K. B., Rahim, S. A., Rahman, M. M., Lasker, S. P., & Rahim, M. M. U. R. (2025). Artificial intelligence in journal editing: Expanding horizons for scholarly publications - A mixed method study. Health Sciences Quarterly, 5(2), 109–119. https://doi.org/10.26900/hsq.2674
  35. Mitchell, E., Lee, Y., Khazatsky, A., Manning, C. D., & Finn, C. (2023, July). Detectgpt: Zero-shot machine-generated text detection using probability curvature. In International conference on machine learning (pp. 24950-24962). PMLR. https://proceedings.mlr.press/v202/mitchell23a/mitchell23a.pdf
  36. Ghosal, T., Verma, R., Ekbal, A., Saha, S., & Bhattacharyya, P. (2018). An AI aid to the editors. Exploring the possibility of an AI assisted article classification system. arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.01403. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1802.01403
  37. Fiorillo, L., & Mehta, V. (2024). Accelerating editorial processes in scientific journals: Leveraging AI for rapid manuscript review. Oral Oncology Reports, 10, 100511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oor.2024.100511
  38. Sage (2025). Artificial intelligence policy. Publication ethics policies. https://www.sagepub.com/journals/publication-ethics-policies/artificial-intelligence-policy
  39. Naddaf, M. (2026). More than half of researchers now use AI for peer review—often against guidance. Nature, 649(8096), 273-274. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-025-04066-5
  40. SAUC (2025). Editorial Policy on the Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI). Street Art & Urban Creativity Scientific Journal. https://visualcompublications.es/SAUC/politicaia
  41. Jiang, S. (2025). Tenure under pressure: Simulating the disruptive effects of AI on academic publishing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.16925. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2509.16925
  42. Jeimp (2024). Guidelines and Recommendations for Authors Using AI in Manuscript Preparation. Journal of European Internal Medicine Professionals. https://jeimp.com/index.php/pub/announcement/view/5
  43. Gewaltig, M-O. (2025). AI Policies in Academic Publishing 2025: Guide & Checklist. Thesify.ai. https://www.thesify.ai/blog/ai-policies-academic-publishing-2025
  44. Giugliano, A. (2025). No AI Assignments Built to Be AI-Resistant. Thesify.ai. https://www.thesify.ai/blog/no-ai-assignments-design
  45. Dergipark (2025). Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy. Sakarya University Journal of Education. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/suje/page/18417
  46. Hoover, A. (2023). Use of AI Is Seeping Into Academic Journals—and It’s Proving Difficult to Detect. Wired. https://www.wired.com/story/use-of-ai-is-seeping-into-academic-journals-and-its-proving-difficult-to-detect/
  47. Chelli, M., Descamps, J., Lavoué, V., Trojani, C., Azar, M., Deckert, M.,. & Ruetsch-Chelli, C. (2024). Hallucination rates and reference accuracy of ChatGPT and bard for systematic reviews: comparative analysis. Journal of medical Internet research, 26(1), e53164.