کتابداری و اطلاع‌رسانی

کتابداری و اطلاع‌رسانی

چالش‌ها و تعارضات اخلاقی به‌ کارگیری هوش مصنوعی در نگارش علمی: یک تحلیل هم‌واژگانی

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان
حمید احمدی 1
محمد جواد جمشیدی 2
1 استادیار گروه علم اطلاعات و دانش‌شناسی، دانشکده علوم اجتماعی، دانشگاه رازی، کرمانشاه، ایران.
2 استادیار گروه سیستم‌های نوین کامپیوتری‌، دانشکده علوم و فناوری‌‌های راهبردی، دانشگاه رازی، کرمانشاه، ایران.
10.30481/lis.2025.556316.2307
چکیده
هدف: هدف این پژوهش، شناسایی و تحلیل چالش‌های اخلاقی استفاده از هوش مصنوعی در نگارش علمی، از جمله: شفافیت، مسئولیت‌پذیری و اصالت است. در ادامه، علل این چالش‌ها در شکاف بین توسعه فناوری و چارچوب‌های اخلاقی بررسی می‌شود. بر این اساس، چارچوبی عملی برای شفافیت و استناددهی به کاربرد هوش مصنوعی ارائه می‌گردد. در نهایت، راهنمای کاربردی برای توانمندسازی پژوهشگران و ناشران در استفاده مسئولانه از این فناوری تدوین می‌شود.
روش‌شناسی: این پژوهش از نوع کاربردی است که با رویکرد علم‌سنجی و روش تحلیل هم‌واژگانی انجام شده است. داده‌های مورد مطالعه شامل متن کامل ۴۵ مقاله نمایه‌شده در پایگاه‌های معتبر بین‌المللی است که با استفاده از فنون متن‌کاوی در نرم‌افزار ووس‌ویور تجزیه و تحلیل شد. در این تحلیل، مهمترین و پربسامدترین مفاهیم و خوشه‌های موضوعی مرتبط با چالش‌های اخلاقی استفاده از هوش مصنوعی در نگارش علمی استخراج و مورد بررسی قرار گرفت.
یافته­‌ها: یافته‌ها حاکی از استخراج 2851 واژه یا مفهوم با فراوانی‌های مختلف از مدارک مورد بررسی است. در این میان مفاهیم «چت جی‌پی‌تی، نویسنده، مقاله، ابزارها، نسخه دست­‌نوشته، محتوا، سرقت ادبی، محقق، ابزار هوش مصنوعی، پژوهش، راهنما، سیاست، داور، متن و نگارش علمی» دارای بیشترین فراوانی یا بسامد از 240 تا 50 مورد است. همچنین، خوشه‌بندی مفاهیم چالش­‌ها و تعارضات استفاده از هوش مصنوعی در 9 خوشه مستقل و با کمتر شباهت و 2 خوشه نیمه‌مستقل قرار می‌گیرند. این خوشه­‌ها به ترتیب شامل: اخلاق و یکپارچگی علمی در عصر هوش مصنوعی، هوش مصنوعی به عنوان دستیار در فرآیند نگارش و پژوهش علمی، چارچوب‌های مسئولیت‌پذیری و شفافیت در همکاری انسان و هوش مصنوعی برای پژوهش، واکنش نظام‌مند ناشران و پایگاه‌های علمی به هوش مصنوعی: از اعلامیه‌های سیاستی تا اجرا، بازتعریف نویسندگی و اصالت در عصر همکاری انسان و هوش مصنوعی، کاربرد هوش مصنوعی در نگارش، ارزیابی و انتشار مقالات علمی، سیاستگذاری و استفاده اخلاقی از هوش مصنوعی در آموزش عالی است.
نتیجه‌گیری: نتیجه‌گیری پژوهش نشان می‌دهد که استفاده از هوش مصنوعی در نگارش علمی با رعایت ملاحظات اخلاقی قابل پذیرش است. اگرچه هوش مصنوعی نباید به عنوان نویسنده شناخته شود، اما نقش آن در توسعه اثر نیازمند شفافیت و ارزیابی مستند است. نویسندگان موظفند محتوای تولید ‌شده را بازنویسی اساسی کرده و منابع را به ‌درستی استناد دهند. نظارت تخصصی انسانی برای پیشگیری از خطا و سوگیری ضروری است. این پژوهش راهنمایی‌های عملی برای به ‌کارگیری مسئولانه هوش مصنوعی در اختیار جامعه علمی قرار می‌دهد.
کلیدواژه‌ها
هوش مصنوعی
اخلاق پژوهش
تحلیل هم‌واژگانی
بیانیه‌های ناشران
نگارش علمی
اصالت علمی
چالش­‌های اخلاقی پژوهش

عنوان مقاله English

The Challenges and Ethical Conflicts of Using Artificial Intelligence in Scientific Research: A Co-Word Analysis

نویسندگان English

Hamid Ahmadi 1
Mohammad Javad Jamshidi 2
1 Assistant Professor, Department of Knowledge and Information Science, Faculty of Social Sciences, Razi University, Kermanshah, Iran.
2 Assistant Professor, Department of Modern Computer Systems, Faculty of Strategic Sciences and Technologies, Razi University, Kermanshah, Iran.
چکیده English

Objective: This research identifies and analyzes ethical challenges such as transparency, accountability, and originality in using AI for scientific writing. It investigates the root cause: the gap between advancing technology and existing ethical frameworks. To address this, the study proposes a practical framework for transparent AI citation and develops a guide to empower researchers and publishers in responsibly using AI.
Methodology: The present study is an applied research project in terms of its purpose and was conducted using a synonym analysis approach. The statistical population comprises 45 documents from journals indexed in a reputable scientific database, published between 2000 and 2024. To extract keywords from documents and cluster data after preparation and necessary preprocessing, "VOSviewer" text mining software was used, and the technique and method of word co-occurrence analysis were used to analyze the data.
Findings: The findings indicate that 2851 words or concepts were extracted with different frequencies from the documents under study. Among them, the concepts of "ChatGPT, author, article, tools, manuscript, content, plagiarism, researcher, artificial intelligence tool, research, guide, policy, referee, text, scientific writing" have the highest frequency, ranging from 240 to 50 cases. Additionally, the clustering of concepts related to challenges and conflicts of using artificial intelligence is divided into nine independent clusters with the least similarity and two semi-independent clusters. These clusters include: Ethics and scientific integrity in the age of artificial intelligence, artificial intelligence as an assistant in the process of scientific writing and research, accountability and transparency frameworks in human-AI collaboration for research, systematic response of publishers and scientific databases to artificial intelligence: from policy statements to implementation, redefining authorship and originality in the age of human-AI collaboration, application of artificial intelligence in writing, evaluating and publishing scientific articles, policy-making and ethical use of artificial intelligence in higher education.
Conclusion: Based on the findings presented in this research, the integration of Artificial Intelligence into scientific writing is deemed acceptable and potentially beneficial, but only under a strict framework of ethical standards designed to safeguard academic integrity. The core principle is that AI must serve strictly as a supplementary tool to support, not replace, human intellectual effort and authorship. Consequently, attributing formal authorship or co-authorship to an AI system is explicitly prohibited due to its lack of legal responsibility and authentic creative agency. However, the use of AI in developing a work deserves transparent recognition. Authors are obligated to disclose the nature and extent of AI assistance, enabling readers to properly evaluate the manuscript. To ensure responsibility, mandatory human oversight is non-negotiable. Authors must substantially rewrite, critically verify, and take full intellectual ownership of all AI-generated content to correct potential inaccuracies, biases, and to avoid plagiarism. The ethical use of AI therefore hinges on transparency, rigorous verification, and the substantive human contribution that defines true authorship. To institutionalize these principles, the study calls for proactive policy development by educational institutions, research bodies, and publishers. Effective policies must establish clear guidelines on AI's supplementary role, mandate disclosure processes, and implement mechanisms to assess the reliability and validity of AI tools themselves. Crucially, these policies must be dynamic, subject to continuous review and updating to keep pace with rapid advancements in AI capabilities and their evolving applications in science. Ultimately, this research provides a practical guide for researchers, students, and publishers, outlining how to harness AI's potential while rigorously upholding the foundational values of accuracy, originality, and accountability in scientific research.

کلیدواژه‌ها English

Artificial Intelligence
Research Ethics
Co-Word analysis
Publishers' Statements
Scientific Writing
Originality
Ethical Challenges
احمدی، حمید؛ فریده عصاره (1396). بررسی مفاهیم، تعاریف و کارکردهای تحلیل هم‌واژگانی. مطالعات ملی کتابداری و سازمان‌دهی اطلاعات، 28(1)، 125-145.  https://ensani.ir/file/download/article/20180114082414-9556-258.pdf
اسکندری، سعیده (1403). چالش‌های اخلاقی هوش مصنوعی در مقاله‌نویسی. آموزش و اخلاق در پرستاری، 13(1-2)، 4-6. https://doi: 10.22034/ethic.2024.2029584.1051
دانش، فرشید؛ نعمت اللهی، زهرا  (1399). خوشه‏‌بندی مفاهیم و رویدادهای نوپدید سازماندهی دانش. کتابداری و اطلاع‌رسانی، 23(2)، 53-85. https://doi: 10.30481/lis.2020.213568.1666
سهیلی، فرامرز؛ رحیمی، صالح (1404). ترسیم نقشه علمی پژوهش‌های حوزه اخلاق در ایران: تحلیل ساختار مفهومی با نگاهی به گفتمان جهانی. رهیافت. (زودآیند) https://rahyaft.nrisp.ac.ir/article_14139.html
مرتضوی شاهرودی، سید محمدعلی؛ زارعی، عیسی (1404). اصول و چالش‌های اخلاقی استفاده از ‌هوش مصنوعی در تحقیقات علمی. فصلنامه اخلاق پژوهی، 7(4)، 5-26.https://doi: 10.22034/ethics.2025.51545.1701  
مطلبی، داریوش؛ علیپور حافظی، مهدی (1402). نگاهی به پژوهش‌های حوزه موضوعی امام رضا (ع). مطالعات علم‌سنجی. فصلنامه علمی فرهنگ رضوی، 11(2)، 83-122. DOI:10.22034/FARZV.2022.329750.1745
References
Ahmadi, H., & Osareh, F. (2017). A review of the concepts, definitions, and functions of co-word analysis. National Studies on Librarianship and Information Organization, 28(1), 125–145. https://ensani.ir/file/download/article/20180114082414-9556-258.pdf. )in Persian(
Alharbi, W. (2023). AI in the foreign language classroom: A pedagogical overview of automated writing assistance tools. Education Research International, 2023, Article 4253331. https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/4253331
Ambati, S. (2023). Security and authenticity of AI-generated code [Doctoral dissertation, University of Saskatchewan]. Harvest. Graduate Theses and Dissertations. https://hdl.handle.net/10388/15154
Bahammam, A. S. (2023). Balancing innovation and integrity: The role of AI in research and scientific writing. Nature and Science of Sleep, 2023(15), 1153–1156. https://doi.org/10.2147/NSS.S455765
Budhwar, P., Malik, A., De Silva, M. T., & Thevisuthan, P. (2022). Artificial intelligence–challenges and opportunities for international HRM: A review and research agenda. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 33(6), 1065–1097. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2022.2035161
Cambridge University Press. (2023). Research publishing ethics guidelines for journals. https://assets.ctfassets.net/ulsp6w1o06p0/1d2pgZfZ7xwtIWmziBYGpS/d7e31f360974e0baaacaa090191b070c/2023-Research-Publishing-Ethics-Guidelines-for-Journals.pdf
Carobene, A., Padoan, A., Cabitza, F., Banfi, G., & Plebani, M. (2024). Rising adoption of artificial intelligence in scientific publishing: Evaluating the role, risks, and ethical implications in paper drafting and review process. Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine, 62(5), 835–843. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2023-1136
Cobo, M. J., López-Herrera, A. G., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2011). Science mapping software tools: Review, analysis, and cooperative study among tools. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(7), 1382–1402. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21525
Committee on Publication Ethics. (2023, February 13). Authorship and AI tools. https://publicationethics.org/cope-position-statements/ai-author
Danesh, F., & Neamatollahi, Z. (2020). Clustering the concepts and emerging events of knowledge organization. Library and Information Sciences, 23(2), 53-85. https://doi.org/10.30481/lis.2020.213568.1666  )in Persian(
Danesh, F., GhaviDel, S., & Piranfar, V. (2020). Coronavirus: Discover the Structure of Global Knowledge, Hidden Patterns & Emerging Events. Journal of Advances in Medical and Biomedical Research, 28(130), 253-264. http://journal.zums.ac.ir/article-1-6166-en.html
Del Giglio, A., & Da Costa, M. U. P. (2023). The use of artificial intelligence to improve the scientific writing of non-native English speakers. Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira, 69(9), Article e20230560. https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-9282.20230560
Dergaa, I., Saad, H. B., El Omri, A., Glenn, J., Clark, C., Washif, J., Guelmami, N., Hammouda, O., Al-Horani, R. A., Reynoso-Sánchez, L. F., Romdhan, M., Paineiras-Domingos, L. L., Vancini, R. L., Taheri, M., Mataruna-Dos-Santos, L. J., Trabelsi, K., Chtourou, H., Zghibi, M., Eken, O., & Chamari, K. (2023). Using artificial intelligence for exercise prescription in personalised health promotion: A critical evaluation of OpenAI’s GPT-4 model. Biology of Sport, 41(2), 221–241. https://doi.org/10.5114/biolsport.2024.133661
Elsevier (n.d.). The use of AI and AI-assisted writing technologies in scientific writing. Retrieved February 1, 2024. https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies-and-standards/the-use-of-generative-ai-and-ai-assisted-technologies-in-writing-for-elsevier
Eskandari, S. (2024). Ethical Challenges of Using Artificial Intelligence in Article Writing. Education and Ethics In Nursing ISSN: 2322-5300, 13(1-2), 4-6. https://doi.10.22034/ethic.2024.2029584.1051 (in Persian)
Flanagin, A., Bibbins-Domingo, K., Berkwits, M., & Christiansen, S. L. (2023). Nonhuman “authors” and implications for the integrity of scientific publication and medical knowledge. Journal of the American Medical Association, 329(8), 637–639. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2023.1344
Ganjavi, C., Eppler, M. B., Pekcan, A., Biedermann, B., Abreu, A., Collins, G. S., Gill, I. S., & Cacciamani, G. E. (2024). Publishers’ and journals’ instructions to authors on use of generative artificial intelligence in academic and scientific publishing: Bibliometric analysis. British Medical Journal, 384, Article e077192. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2023-077192
Glikson, E., & Woolley, A. W. (2020). Human trust in artificial intelligence: Review of empirical research. Academy of Management Annals, 14(2), 627–660. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2018.0057
Hoque, M. N., Mashiat, T., Ghai, B., Shelton, C. D., Chevalier, F., Kraus, K., & Elmqvist, N. (2024). The haLLMark effect: Supporting provenance and transparent use of large language models in writing with interactive visualization. In F. F. Mueller, P. Kyburz, J. R. Williamson, C. Sas, M. L. Wilson, P. T. Dugas, & I. Shklovski (Eds.), CHI ’24: Proceedings of the CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (Article 1045). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3613904.3641895
Hosseini, M., Resnik, D. B., & Holmes, K. (2023). The ethics of disclosing the use of artificial intelligence tools in writing scholarly manuscripts. Research Ethics, 19(4), 449–465. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161231180449
Jarrah, A. M., Wardat, Y., & Fidalgo, P. (2023). Using ChatGPT in academic writing is (not) a form of plagiarism: What does the literature say? Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies, 13(4), Article e202346. https://doi.org/10.30935/ojcmt/13572
King, M. R. (2023). A place for large language models in scientific publishing, apart from credited authorship. Cellular and Molecular Bioengineering, 16(2), 95–98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12195-023-00765-z
Kooli, C. (2023). Chatbots in education and research: A critical examination of ethical implications and solutions. Sustainability, 15(7), Article 5614. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15075614
Lam, K., Abràmoff, M. D., Balibrea, J. M., Bishop, S. M., Brady, R. R., Callcut, R. A., Chand, M., Collins, J. W., Diener, M. K., Eisenmann, M., Fermont, K., Neto, M. G., Hager, G. D., Hinchliffe, R. J., Horgan, A., Jannin, P., Langerman, A., Logishetty, K., Mahadik, A., & Purkayastha, S. (2022). A Delphi consensus statement for digital surgery. NPJ Digital Medicine, 5, Article 100. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-022-00641-6
Leavitt, K., Schabram, K., Hariharan, P., & Barnes, C. M. (2021). Ghost in the machine: On organizational theory in the age of machine learning. Academy of Management Review, 46(4), 750–777. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2019.0247
Lee, I., & Perret, B. (2022). Preparing high school teachers to integrate AI methods into STEM classrooms. Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, 36(11), 12783–12791. https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v36i11.21557
Lubowitz, J. H. (2023). Guidelines for the use of generative artificial intelligence tools for biomedical journal authors and reviewers. Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery, 40(3), 651–652. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2023.10.037
Májovský, M., Černý, M., Kasal, M., Komarc, M., & Netuka, D. (2023). Artificial intelligence can generate fraudulent but authentic-looking scientific medical articles: Pandora’s box has been opened. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 25, Article e46924. https://doi.org/10.2196/46924
Matlabi, D., & Alipur Hafezi, M. (2023). A Look at Researches in the Subject Area of Imam Riḍā (as); A Scientometric Study. Journal of Razavi Culture, 11(42), 83-122. doi: 10.22034/farzv.2022.329750.1745 (in Persian)
McCarthy, J. (2004). What is artificial intelligence? Engineering Materials and Design, 32(3), 1-14. http://jmc.stanford.edu/articles/whatisai.pdf
Miao, J., Thongprayoon, C., Suppadungsuk, S., Garcia Valencia, O. A., Qureshi, F., & Cheungpasitporn, W. (2023). Ethical dilemmas in using AI for academic writing and an example framework for peer review in nephrology academia: A narrative review. Clinics and Practice, 14(1), 89–105. https://doi.org/10.3390/clinpract14010008
 Mortazavi Shahroudi, S. M. A., & Zarei, E. (2025). The principles and ethical challenges of using artificial intelligence in scientific research. Journal of Moral Studies, 7(4), 5-26. doi: 10.22034/ethics.2025.51545.1701 (in Persian)
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2024, May 21). Human accountability and responsibility needed to protect scientific integrity in an age of AI, says new editorial [Press release].https://www.nationalacademies.org/news/2024/05/human-accountability-and-needed-to- responsibility -protect-scientific-integrity-says-new-editorial.
Nazari, N., Shabbir, M. S., & Setiawan, R. (2021). Application of artificial intelligence powered digital writing assistant in higher education: Randomized controlled trial. Heliyon, 7(5), Article e07014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07014
Sage. (n.d.). Using AI in peer review and publishing. Retrieved February 1, 2024 from https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/using-ai-in-peer-review-and-%20first%20instance
Salvagno, M., Taccone, F. S., & Gerli, A. G. (2023). Can artificial intelligence help for scientific writing? Critical Care, 27, Article 75. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-023-043802
Science (n.d.). Science journals: Editorial policies. Retrieved February 1, 2024 from https://www.science.org/content/page/science-journals-editorial-policies
Selten, F., & Klievink, B. (2024). Organizing public sector AI adoption: Navigating between separation and integration. Government Information Quarterly, 41(1), Article 101885. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2023.101885
Soheili, F. & Rahimi, S. (2025). Scientific Mapping of Ethics Research in Iran: Analyzing the Conceptual Structure with a View to the Global Discourse. Rahyaft, (Come soon.), doi: 10.22034/rahyaft.2025.11807.1536 )in Persian(
Springer Nature (n.d.). Artificial intelligence (AI). Retrieved February 1, 2024 from https://www.springer.com/gp/editorial-policies/artificial-intelligence--ai-/25428500.
Stanbrook, M. B., Weinhold, M., & Kelsall, D. (2023). A new policy on the use of artificial intelligence tools for manuscripts submitted to CMAJ. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 195(28), E958–E959. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.230949
Taylor & Francis (2023, February 17). Taylor & Francis clarify the responsible use of AI tools in academic content creation [Press release]. https://newsroom.taylorandfrancisgroup.com/taylor-francis-clarifies-the-responsible-use-of-ai-tools-in-academic-content-creation
Tennant, J. P., Crane, H., Crick, T., Davila, J., Enkhbayar, A., Havemann, J., Kramer, B., Martin, R., Masuzzo, P., Nobes, A., Rice, C., Rivera-López, B., Ross-Hellauer, T., Sattler, S., Thacker, P. D., & Vanholsbeeck, M. (2019). Ten hot topics around scholarly publishing. Publications, 7(2), Article 34. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications7020034
Thorp, H. H. (2023, January 26). ChatGPT is fun, but not an author. Science, 379(6630), 313. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adg7879
Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2017). Citation-based clustering of publications using CitNetExplorer and VOSviewer. Scientometrics, 111(2), 1053–1070.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2300-7
Vartiainen, H., & Tedre, M. (2023). Using artificial intelligence in craft education: Crafting with text-to-image generative models. Digital Creativity, 34(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/14626268.2023.2174557
Vasquez, K. (2024). Researchers plan to release guidelines for use of AI in publishing. Chemical & Engineering News, 102(2), 36. https://doi.org/10.1021/cen-10202-cover16
Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V. I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019). Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education: Where are the educators? International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16(1), 1–27.