Ethical limits and suggestions for improving the use of AI in scientific research, academic publishing, and the peer review process, based on deontological and consequentialist viewpoints

Abstract This study provides a comprehensive analysis of researchers' perspectives on AI integration across theoretical and practical research, academic publishing, and its future role, highlighting ethical considerations shaping its adoption. The methodology used a mixed approach, using a ques...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:Discover Education
Main Author: Mohammed Daoudi
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Springer 2025-07-01
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-025-00696-z
_version_ 1849495544298209280
author Mohammed Daoudi
author_facet Mohammed Daoudi
author_sort Mohammed Daoudi
collection DOAJ
container_title Discover Education
description Abstract This study provides a comprehensive analysis of researchers' perspectives on AI integration across theoretical and practical research, academic publishing, and its future role, highlighting ethical considerations shaping its adoption. The methodology used a mixed approach, using a questionnaire distributed to researchers from various scientific disciplines. Quantitative data were analyzed statistically, and qualitative responses underwent thematic analysis to ensure a robust understanding of the findings. Results reveal that AI is viewed as a powerful tool for enhancing efficiency in research, particularly in data analysis (61.9%) and hypothesis generation (45.2%). However, ethical concerns, including bias, transparency, and trust, were noted as significant challenges, with 38.1% emphasizing the need for improved ethical frameworks. In academic writing, 81% of respondents supported AI use with proper acknowledgment, while 76.2% expressed openness to AI-assisted peer review under human supervision. The future of AI is seen as complementary to human expertise (69%), with its potential strongest in data analysis, simulations, and innovation in research tools (57.1%). Key barriers include limited access to AI tools (47.6%), high costs (38.1%), and insufficient technical skills (45.2%). This study’s innovation lies in its integration of ethical theories, deontology and consequentialism, as a framework to evaluate AI’s role in research. It offers practical recommendations to foster responsible AI adoption, including ethical training, interdisciplinary collaboration, and enhanced accessibility to AI tools. Addressing gaps in ethical guidelines and emphasizing AI’s potential to complement human creativity, this research contributes valuable insights to the evolving discourse on AI in scientific research.
format Article
id doaj-art-e0ab4aa416374d66b0fed6e26a8a748e
institution Directory of Open Access Journals
issn 2731-5525
language English
publishDate 2025-07-01
publisher Springer
record_format Article
spelling doaj-art-e0ab4aa416374d66b0fed6e26a8a748e2025-08-20T03:06:02ZengSpringerDiscover Education2731-55252025-07-014112710.1007/s44217-025-00696-zEthical limits and suggestions for improving the use of AI in scientific research, academic publishing, and the peer review process, based on deontological and consequentialist viewpointsMohammed Daoudi0Solar Energy and Environment Group, Department of Physics, Faculty of Sciences, Mohammed V University in RabatAbstract This study provides a comprehensive analysis of researchers' perspectives on AI integration across theoretical and practical research, academic publishing, and its future role, highlighting ethical considerations shaping its adoption. The methodology used a mixed approach, using a questionnaire distributed to researchers from various scientific disciplines. Quantitative data were analyzed statistically, and qualitative responses underwent thematic analysis to ensure a robust understanding of the findings. Results reveal that AI is viewed as a powerful tool for enhancing efficiency in research, particularly in data analysis (61.9%) and hypothesis generation (45.2%). However, ethical concerns, including bias, transparency, and trust, were noted as significant challenges, with 38.1% emphasizing the need for improved ethical frameworks. In academic writing, 81% of respondents supported AI use with proper acknowledgment, while 76.2% expressed openness to AI-assisted peer review under human supervision. The future of AI is seen as complementary to human expertise (69%), with its potential strongest in data analysis, simulations, and innovation in research tools (57.1%). Key barriers include limited access to AI tools (47.6%), high costs (38.1%), and insufficient technical skills (45.2%). This study’s innovation lies in its integration of ethical theories, deontology and consequentialism, as a framework to evaluate AI’s role in research. It offers practical recommendations to foster responsible AI adoption, including ethical training, interdisciplinary collaboration, and enhanced accessibility to AI tools. Addressing gaps in ethical guidelines and emphasizing AI’s potential to complement human creativity, this research contributes valuable insights to the evolving discourse on AI in scientific research.https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-025-00696-zArtificial IntelligenceEthical boundariesScientific researchAcademic publishingPeer review
spellingShingle Mohammed Daoudi
Ethical limits and suggestions for improving the use of AI in scientific research, academic publishing, and the peer review process, based on deontological and consequentialist viewpoints
Artificial Intelligence
Ethical boundaries
Scientific research
Academic publishing
Peer review
title Ethical limits and suggestions for improving the use of AI in scientific research, academic publishing, and the peer review process, based on deontological and consequentialist viewpoints
title_full Ethical limits and suggestions for improving the use of AI in scientific research, academic publishing, and the peer review process, based on deontological and consequentialist viewpoints
title_fullStr Ethical limits and suggestions for improving the use of AI in scientific research, academic publishing, and the peer review process, based on deontological and consequentialist viewpoints
title_full_unstemmed Ethical limits and suggestions for improving the use of AI in scientific research, academic publishing, and the peer review process, based on deontological and consequentialist viewpoints
title_short Ethical limits and suggestions for improving the use of AI in scientific research, academic publishing, and the peer review process, based on deontological and consequentialist viewpoints
title_sort ethical limits and suggestions for improving the use of ai in scientific research academic publishing and the peer review process based on deontological and consequentialist viewpoints
topic Artificial Intelligence
Ethical boundaries
Scientific research
Academic publishing
Peer review
url https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-025-00696-z
work_keys_str_mv AT mohammeddaoudi ethicallimitsandsuggestionsforimprovingtheuseofaiinscientificresearchacademicpublishingandthepeerreviewprocessbasedondeontologicalandconsequentialistviewpoints