Yapay Zeka Kullanımında Etik Konular
Özet
Üretken yapay zekâ teknolojilerinin akademik yazım ve bilimsel yayıncılıkta kullanımı, akademik bütünlüğü korumaya yönelik etik ilkelerin yeniden ele alınmasını gerekli kılmaktadır. Yapay zekâ destekli uygulamalar, özgünlük, hesap verebilirlik, doğrulanabilirlik ve şeffaflık ilkeleriyle uyumlu olacak biçimde sınırlandırılmalıdır. Akademik yazarlık, insan muhakemesine dayanan entelektüel bir faaliyettir ve bu sürece ilişkin etik sorumluluklar otomatik sistemlere devredilemez. Bu nedenle yapay zekâ, yazarlığın yerine geçen bir unsur olarak değil, insan denetimi altında kullanılan sınırlı bir destek aracı olarak değerlendirilmelidir.
The use of generative artificial intelligence in academic writing and scholarly publishing calls for a reassessment of ethical principles central to academic integrity. AI-assisted practices must be constrained in accordance with originality, accountability, verifiability, and transparency. Academic authorship is an intellectual activity grounded in human judgment, and its ethical responsibilities cannot be transferred to automated systems. Accordingly, generative AI should be regarded not as a substitute for authorship, but as a limited support tool employed under explicit human oversight.
Referanslar
Pellegrina D, Helmy M. AI for scientific integrity. Front Artif Intell. 2025;8:1644098. doi:10.3389/frai.2025.1644098.
Resnik DB, Hosseini M. The ethics of using artificial intelligence in scientific research. AI Ethics. 2024. doi:10.1007/s43681-024-00493-8.
Frangou S, Volpe U, Fiorillo A. Artificial intelligence in scientific writing and publishing: a call for critical engagement. Eur Psychiatry. 2025;68(1):e98. doi:10.1192/j.eurpsy.2025.10061.
Daly T. A low-tech academic virtue ethics in the age of generative artificial intelligence. J Acad Ethics. 2026;24:13. doi:10.1007/s10805-025-09683-3.
Fasoli M, Cassinadri G, Ienca M. The dark side of cognitive enhancement: technologically induced cognitive diminishment. J Cogn Enhanc. 2025. doi:10.1007/s41465-025-00331-7.
Kosmyna N, Hauptmann E, Yuan YT, Situ J, Liao XH, Beresnitzky AV, et al. Your brain on ChatGPT: accumulation of cognitive debt when using an AI assistant for essay writing tasks. arXiv. 2025. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2506.08872.
Ugwu NF, et al. Ethical dilemmas of artificial intelligence use in research writing. High Learn Res Commun. 2024;14(2):29–47.
Zirpoli CT. Generative artificial intelligence and copyright law. CRS Report No. LSB10922. Washington (DC): Congressional Research Service; 2025.
Miao J, Thongprayoon C, Suppadungsuk S. Ethical dilemmas in using artificial intelligence for academic writing: a narrative review. Clin Pract. 2023;14(1):89–105. doi:10.3390/clinpract14010008.
Güçlütürk OG. The evolving regulatory landscape of artificial intelligence in healthcare. J Acad Res Med. 2025;15(3):107–108.
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals. Updated 2023. Available from: https://www.icmje.org
Committee on Publication Ethics. Authorship and artificial intelligence tools. 2023. Available from: https://publicationethics.org/guidance/cope-position/authorship-and-ai-tools
European Commission. Living guidelines on the responsible use of generative artificial intelligence in research. Brussels: European Union; 2025.
European Association of Science Editors. EASE recommendations on the use of artificial intelligence in scholarly communication. 2024.
Yoo JH. Defining the boundaries of artificial intelligence use in scientific writing: a comparative review of editorial policies. J Korean Med Sci. 2025;40(23):e187. doi:10.3346/jkms.2025.40.e187.
Nature Editorial. Why Nature will not allow the use of generative AI in images and video. Nature. 2023;618:214. doi:10.1038/d41586-023-01546-4.
Yükseköğretim Kurulu. Ethical guidelines for the use of generative artificial intelligence in scientific research and publication. Ankara: YÖK; 2025.
Türkiye Bilimsel ve Teknolojik Araştırma Kurumu. Guidelines on the responsible and reliable use of generative artificial intelligence in funding processes. Ankara: TÜBİTAK; 2025.
Liang W, Yuksekgonul M, Mao Y, Wu E, Zou J. GPT detectors are biased against non-native English writers. Patterns. 2023;4(7):100779. doi:10.1016/j.patter.2023.100779.
Jiang Y, Hao J, Fauss M, Li C. Detecting ChatGPT-generated essays in large-scale writing assessment. Comput Educ. 2024;217:105070. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105070.
Nelson J. OpenAI quietly shuts down its AI detection tool. Decrypt. 2023.
