搜索结果：Journal of academic ethics

This study investigates the use of AI tools in academic writing through an analysis of AI usage declarations in journals. Using a mixed-methods approach combining content analysis, statistical analysis, and text mining, this study analyzed 135 AI declarations from 8633 articles across 27 categories. Results show that ChatGPT dominates academic writing assistance (73.3 percent usage). The primary purposes of AI integration are concentrated on lower-level cognitive tasks, specifically improving readability (57.8 percent) and grammar checking (19.3 percent). Statistical analysis indicates a highly significant association between team composition and AI-use purposes (p = 0.0008), highlighting international teams' reliance on grammar assistance, while no significant association was found regarding authors' native-speaker status (p = 0.2359). These findings provide insights for journal policy development and for understanding the evolving role of AI in academic writing.

We introduce a novel methodology for mapping academic institutions based on their journal publication profiles. We believe that journals in which researchers from academic institutions publish their works can be considered as useful identifiers for representing the relationships between these institutions and establishing comparisons. However, when academic journals are used for research output representation, distinctions must be introduced between them, based on their value as institution descriptors. This leads us to the use of journal weights attached to the institution identifiers. Since a journal in which researchers from a large proportion of institutions published their papers may be a bad indicator of similarity between two academic institutions, it seems reasonable to weight it in accordance with how frequently researchers from different institutions published their papers in this journal. Cluster analysis can then be applied to group the academic institutions, and dendrograms can be provided to illustrate groups of institutions following agglomerative hierarchical clustering. In order to test this methodology, we use a sample of Spanish universities as a case study. We f

Rankings of scholarly journals based on citation data are often met with skepticism by the scientific community. Part of the skepticism is due to disparity between the common perception of journals' prestige and their ranking based on citation counts. A more serious concern is the inappropriate use of journal rankings to evaluate the scientific influence of authors. This paper focuses on analysis of the table of cross-citations among a selection of Statistics journals. Data are collected from the Web of Science database published by Thomson Reuters. Our results suggest that modelling the exchange of citations between journals is useful to highlight the most prestigious journals, but also that journal citation data are characterized by considerable heterogeneity, which needs to be properly summarized. Inferential conclusions require care in order to avoid potential over-interpretation of insignificant differences between journal ratings. Comparison with published ratings of institutions from the UK's Research Assessment Exercise shows strong correlation at aggregate level between assessed research quality and journal citation `export scores' within the discipline of Statistics.

Bibliometric studies are a rare undertaking in the field of English language teaching, especially at a journal level. To celebrate the 30th anniversary of TEFLIN Journal, this study exhibits a bibliometric portrait of its publication, indexation, and citation from 1990 to 2019. Two pieces of free software were adopted to conduct the descriptive and network analyses of bibliographic data from Microsoft Academic. The publication and citation metrics have risen during its lifetime. The bibliographic network identifies the most productive authors, institutions, and countries along with the co-authorship pattern, type of top-cited articles, and top-used keywords. The articles relatedness is also sighted in terms of the citation frequency and number of shared references. Even though the analyses were complicated by some missing articles and improper indexation, this study could still take a full-length bibliometric portrait of the journal during its 30-year journey between the commitment to competence and the quest for higher impact.

Despite recent evidence that Microsoft Academic is an extensive source of citation counts for journal articles, it is not known if the same is true for academic books. This paper fills this gap by comparing citations to 16,463 books from 2013-2016 in the Book Citation Index (BKCI) against automatically extracted citations from Microsoft Academic and Google Books in 17 fields. About 60% of the BKCI books had records in Microsoft Academic, varying by year and field. Citation counts from Microsoft Academic were 1.5 to 3.6 times higher than from BKCI in nine subject areas across all years for books indexed by both. Microsoft Academic found more citations than BKCI because it indexes more scholarly publications and combines citations to different editions and chapters. In contrast, BKCI only found more citations than Microsoft Academic for books in three fields from 2013-2014. Microsoft Academic also found more citations than Google Books in six fields for all years. Thus, Microsoft Academic may be a useful source for the impact assessment of books when comprehensive coverage is not essential.

Data sharing partnerships are increasingly an imperative for research institutions and, at the same time, a challenge for established models of data governance and ethical research oversight. We analyse four cases of data partnership involving academic institutions and examine the role afforded to the research partner in negotiating the relationship between risk, value, trust and ethics. Within this terrain, far from being a restraint on financialisation, the instrumentation of ethics forms part of the wider mobilisation of infrastructure for the realisation of profit in the big data economy. Under what we term `combinatorial data governance' academic structures for the management of research ethics are instrumentalised as organisational functions that serve to mitigate reputational damage and societal distrust. In the alternative model of `experimental data governance' researchers propose frameworks and instruments for the rethinking of data ethics and the risks associated with it - a model that is promising but limited in its practical application.

Video games are one of the richest and most popular forms of human-computer interaction and, hence, their role is critical for our understanding of human behaviour and affect at a large scale. As artificial intelligence (AI) tools are gradually adopted by the game industry a series of ethical concerns arise. Such concerns, however, have so far not been extensively discussed in a video game context. Motivated by the lack of a comprehensive review of the ethics of AI as applied to games, we survey the current state of the art in this area and discuss ethical considerations of these systems from the holistic perspective of the affective loop. Through the components of this loop, we study the ethical challenges that AI faces in video game development. Elicitation highlights the ethical boundaries of artificially induced emotions; sensing showcases the trade-off between privacy and safe gaming spaces; and detection, as utilised during in-game adaptation, poses challenges to transparency and ownership. This paper calls for an open dialogue and action for the games of today and the virtual spaces of the future. By setting an appropriate framework we aim to protect users and to guide devel

Although indicators based on scholarly citations are widely used to support the evaluation of academic journals, alternatives are needed for scholarly book acquisitions. This article assesses the value of research quality scores from ChatGPT 4o-mini for 9,830 social sciences, arts, and humanities books from 2019 indexed in Scopus, based on their titles and descriptions but not their full texts. Although most books scored the same (3* on a 1* to 4* scale), the citation rates correlate positively but weakly with ChatGPT 4o-mini research quality scores in both the social sciences and the arts and humanities. Part of the reason for the differences was the inclusion of textbooks, short books, and edited collections, all of which tended to be less cited and lower scoring. Some topics also tend to attract many/few citations and/or high/low ChatGPT scores. Descriptions explicitly mentioning theory and/or some methods also associated with higher scores and more citations. Overall, the results provide some evidence that both ChatGPT scores and citation counts are weak indicators of the research quality of books. Whilst not strong enough to support individual book quality judgements, they may

A number of journal classification systems have been developed in bibliometrics since the launch of the Citation Indices by the Institute of Scientific Information (ISI) in the 1960s. These systems are used to normalize citation counts with respect to field-specific citation patterns. The best known system is the so-called "Web-of-Science Subject Categories" (WCs). In other systems papers are classified by algorithmic solutions. Using the Journal Citation Reports 2014 of the Science Citation Index and the Social Science Citation Index (n of journals = 11,149), we examine options for developing a new system based on journal classifications into subject categories using aggregated journal-journal citation data. Combining routines in VOSviewer and Pajek, a tree-like classification is developed. At each level one can generate a map of science for all the journals subsumed under a category. Nine major fields are distinguished at the top level. Further decomposition of the social sciences is pursued for the sake of example with a focus on journals in information science (LIS) and science studies (STS). The new classification system improves on alternative options by avoiding the problem

Microsoft Academic is a free citation index that allows large scale data collection. This combination makes it useful for scientometric research. Previous studies have found that its citation counts tend to be slightly larger than those of Scopus but smaller than Google Scholar, with disciplinary variations. This study reports the largest and most systematic analysis so far, of 172,752 articles in 29 large journals chosen from different specialisms. From Scopus citation counts, Microsoft Academic citation counts and Mendeley reader counts for articles published 2007-2017, Microsoft Academic found a slightly more (6%) citations than Scopus overall and especially for the current year (51%). It found fewer citations than Mendeley readers overall (59%), and only 7% as many for the current year. Differences between journals were probably due to field preprint sharing cultures or journal policies rather than broad disciplinary differences.

Digital ethics, also known as computer ethics or information ethics, is now a lively field that draws a lot of attention, but how did it come about and what were the developments that lead to its existence? What are the traditions, the concerns, the technological and social developments that pushed digital ethics? How did ethical issues change with digitalisation of human life? How did the traditional discipline of philosophy respond? The article provides an overview, proposing historical epochs: 'pre-modernity' prior to digital computation over data, via the 'modernity' of digital data processing to our present 'post-modernity' when not only the data is digital, but our lives themselves are largely digital. In each section, the situation in technology and society is sketched, and then the developments in digital ethics are explained. Finally, a brief outlook is provided.

A simulation model based on parallel systems is established, aiming to explore the relation between the number of submissions and the overall standard of academic journals within a similar discipline under peer review. The model can effectively simulate the submission, review, and acceptance behaviors of academic journals in a distributed manner. According to the simulation experiments, it could possibly happen that the overall standard of academic journals deteriorates due to excessive submissions.

This chapter discusses the ethics of generative AI. It provides a technical primer to show how generative AI affords experiencing technology as if it were human, and this affordance provides a fruitful focus for the philosophical ethics of generative AI. It then shows how generative AI can both aggravate and alleviate familiar ethical concerns in AI ethics, including responsibility, privacy, bias and fairness, and forms of alienation and exploitation. Finally, the chapter examines ethical questions that arise specifically from generative AI's mimetic generativity, such as debates about authorship and credit, the emergence of as-if social relationships with machines, and new forms of influence, persuasion, and manipulation.

Using "Analyze Results" at the Web of Science, one can directly generate overlays onto global journal maps of science. The maps are based on the 10,000+ journals contained in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) of the Science and Social Science Citation Indices (2011). The disciplinary diversity of the retrieval is measured in terms of Rao-Stirling's "quadratic entropy." Since this indicator of interdisciplinarity is normalized between zero and one, the interdisciplinarity can be compared among document sets and across years, cited or citing. The colors used for the overlays are based on Blondel et al.'s (2008) community-finding algorithms operating on the relations journals included in JCRs. The results can be exported from VOSViewer with different options such as proportional labels, heat maps, or cluster density maps. The maps can also be web-started and/or animated (e.g., using PowerPoint). The "citing" dimension of the aggregated journal-journal citation matrix was found to provide a more comprehensive description than the matrix based on the cited archive. The relations between local and global maps and their different functions in studying the sciences in terms of journal lit

Publication patterns of 79 forest scientists awarded major international forestry prizes during 1990-2010 were compared with the journal classification and ranking promoted as part of the 'Excellence in Research for Australia' (ERA) by the Australian Research Council. The data revealed that these scientists exhibited an elite publication performance during the decade before and two decades following their first major award. An analysis of their 1703 articles in 431 journals revealed substantial differences between the journal choices of these elite scientists and the ERA classification and ranking of journals. Implications from these findings are that additional cross-classifications should be added for many journals, and there should be an adjustment to the ranking of several journals relevant to the ERA Field of Research classified as 0705 Forestry Sciences.

The integration of continuous data from built-in sensors and Large Language Models (LLMs) has fueled a surge of "Sensor-Fused LLM agents" for personal health and well-being support. While recent breakthroughs have demonstrated the technical feasibility of this fusion (e.g., Time-LLM, SensorLLM), research primarily focuses on "Ethical Back-End Design for Generative AI", concerns such as sensing accuracy, bias mitigation in training data, and multimodal fusion. This leaves a critical gap at the front end, where invisible biometrics are translated into language directly experienced by users. We argue that the "illusion of objectivity" provided by sensor data amplifies the risks of AI hallucinations, potentially turning errors into harmful medical mandates. This paper shifts the focus to "Ethical Front-End Design for AI", specifically, the ethics of biometric translation. We propose a design space comprising five dimensions: Biometric Disclosure, Monitoring Temporality, Interpretation Framing, AI Stance, and Contestability. We examine how these dimensions interact with context (user- vs. system-initiated) and identify the risk of biofeedback loops. Finally, we propose "Adaptive Disclos

We present Ethics Readiness Levels (ERLs), a four-level, iterative method to track how ethical reflection is implemented in the design of AI systems. ERLs bridge high-level ethical principles and everyday engineering by turning ethical values into concrete prompts, checks, and controls within real use cases. The evaluation is conducted using a dynamic, tree-like questionnaire built from context-specific indicators, ensuring relevance to the technology and application domain. Beyond being a managerial tool, ERLs help facilitate a structured dialogue between ethics experts and technical teams, while our scoring system helps track progress over time. We demonstrate the methodology through two case studies: an AI facial sketch generator for law enforcement and a collaborative industrial robot. The ERL tool effectively catalyzes concrete design changes and promotes a shift from narrow technological solutionism to a more reflective, ethics-by-design mindset.

This book chapter delves into the pressing need to "queer" the ethics of AI to challenge and re-evaluate the normative suppositions and values that underlie AI systems. The chapter emphasizes the ethical concerns surrounding the potential for AI to perpetuate discrimination, including binarism, and amplify existing inequalities due to the lack of representative datasets and the affordances and constraints depending on technology readiness. The chapter argues that a critical examination of the neoliberal conception of equality that often underpins non-discrimination law is necessary and cannot stress more the need to create alternative interdisciplinary approaches that consider the complex and intersecting factors that shape individuals' experiences of discrimination. By exploring such approaches centering on intersectionality and vulnerability-informed design, the chapter contends that designers and developers can create more ethical AI systems that are inclusive, equitable, and responsive to the needs and experiences of all individuals and communities, particularly those who are most vulnerable to discrimination and harm.

Dyads of journals related by citations can agglomerate into specialties through the mechanism of triadic closure. Using the Journal Citation Reports 2011, 2012, and 2013, we analyze triad formation as indicators of integration (specialty growth) and disintegration (restructuring). The strongest integration is found among the large journals that report on studies in different scientific specialties, such as PLoS ONE, Nature Communications, Nature, and Science. This tendency towards large-scale integration has not yet stabilized. Using the Islands algorithm, we also distinguish 51 local maxima of integration. We zoom into the cited articles that carry the integration for: (i) a new development within high-energy physics and (ii) an emerging interface between the journals Applied Mathematical Modeling and the International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology. In the first case, integration is brought about by a specific communication reaching across specialty boundaries, whereas in the second, the dyad of journals indicates an emerging interface between specialties. These results suggest that integration picks up substantive developments at the specialty level. An advantage o