ReviewFrontiers in psychology2024
The relationship between personal and professional goals and emotional state in academia: a study on unethical use of artificial intelligence.
Review in Frontiers in psychology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Moral Disengagement and Unethical Generative AI Use as the Chain Mediators Between Antagonistic Personality and Problematic Generative AI Use.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Generative AI in academia: Efficiency versus scholarship.The Journal of physiology · 2026Article
- A research on copyright issues impacting artists emotional states in the framework of artificial intelligence.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
- Improving Delphi Process in Acupuncture Decision Making: Overall Descriptions and Quality Assessment of Delphi Reports.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is a concept that has been a subfield of computer science since the 1950s. In recent years, with its growing development power, AI technologies have made significant progress and are now being used in many fields. Like in all areas, the use of AI technologies in academia has provided convenience to academics while also bringing ethical debates. In the literature part of the study, concepts such as AI, academia, academics and academic progress, ethics, ethical theories, academic ethics, and emotional states have been thoroughly examined and defined. In this study, starting from AI and scientific ethics, ethical issues arising from emotional states in academic research have been identified, and concrete solutions to these ethical issues have been proposed. The aim is to discuss the views of academics in order to determine what types of scientific ethical violations and prevention methods are involved. In this context, the semi-structured interview technique, which is one of the qualitative research methods, was preferred as the method. In the study, in-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with 4 ethics experts and 4 psychology experts selected through snowball sampling technique. The data obtained through semi-structured in-depth interviews will be analyzed using content analysis. Within the context of the literature review and interviews: Ethics is based on the foundation of acting correctly. In this context, scientific ethics can be summarized as acting truthfully and honestly, not distorting data, and not trying to progress unfairly. The use of AI in academia is becoming increasingly widespread. From a positive perspective, this usage significantly contributes to making studies more practical. However, it can lead to problems such as unfair authorship, devaluation of human authorship, and incorrect data. The connection between academics' professional advancement goals and emotional states becomes prominent in this context. The potential of AI to facilitate progression can lead to unethical use. To prevent such situations, it is recommended to organize training sessions to increase professional awareness, internalize ethics personally, establish ethical committees specific to the field of AI, conduct more effective audits by academic publication and promotion committees, and implement specific regulations for AI. Finally, for future academic studies, it is suggested that the usage of AI in academic research be measured and evaluated by ethics experts. For psychologists, conducting surveys with academics to explore how they use AI in the context of their emotional states and professional advancement goals is recommended.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.