Ethical Dimensions of Artificial Intelligence in Scientific Research: a Case Study of «7m01504 – Chemistry» Master's Program
Main Article Content
Abstract
This article examines the ethical challenges and practical implications of integrating Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) into academic research and thesis writing. As AI tools become deeply embedded in higher education, the distinction between legitimate research support and academic dishonesty has become a critical concern. This study provides a comprehensive analysis of ethical risks, such as "ghost-authoring" and "AI hallucinations," while emphasizing the necessity of maintaining academic integrity. A central component of this research is an empirical survey conducted among first-year master’s students of the "7M01504 – Chemistry" educational program at K. Zhubanov Aktobe Regional University. The results indicate that while 75% of students use AI for technical tasks, they frequently encounter the "False Positive" phenomenon—where original, human-written scientific content is incorrectly flagged as machine-generated by detection software. The paper proposes a strategic framework for the ethical use of AI, including the implementation of a "Disclosure Protocol" and a shift from algorithmic surveillance to substantive mentoring. It reviews international guidelines from COPE and UNESCO to advocate for a "Human-in-the-Loop" approach. The study concludes that fostering a culture of digital responsibility and transparency is essential for protecting the reputation of researchers and academic institutions in the AI era.
Article Details
References
Academic Integrity Code. (2025). Internal regulations of K. Zhubanov Aktobe Regional University. Aktobe: K. Zhubanov Publishing.
COPE Council. (2023). Authorship and AI tools: COPE Position Statement. Committee on Publication Ethics. https://publicationethics.org/node/53106.
European Commission. (2024). Living guidelines on the responsible use of generative AI in research. EU Publication Office. https://doi.org/10.2777/13354.
Gao, C. A., Howard, F. M., Markov, N. S., Dyer, E. C., Stern, S. C., & Luo, Y. (2023). Comparing scientific abstracts generated by ChatGPT to real abstracts with detector software and blinded human reviewers. PLOS Digital Health, 2(6), e0000198. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pdig.0000198. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-023-00819-6
Hosseini, M., & Holmes, D. B. (2023). The ethical implications of using ChatGPT in scientific writing: Efficiency revisited. Nursing Ethics, 30(3), 361-367. https://doi.org/10.1177/09697330231170518.
Ji, S., Qiu, L., Xu, S., Zhang, D., & Yang, B. (2023). Survey of Hallucination in Natural Language Generation. ACM Computing Surveys, 55(12), 1-38. https://doi.org/10.1145/3571730. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3571730
Khalil, M., & Er, E. (2023). Will ChatGPT get you a PhD? Revealing the linguistic features of AI-generated academic writing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.11187. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2303.11187.
Lund, B. D., Wang, T., Mannuru, N. R., Nie, B., Shimray, S., & Wang, Z. (2023). ChatGPT and a New Academic Reality: Artificial Intelligence-written Research Papers and Ethical Considerations. Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.15
Stokel-Walker, C., & Van Noorden, R. (2023). ChatGPT listed as author on research papers: many scientists disapprove. Nature, 613(7945), 620-621. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-00107-z. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-00107-z
UNESCO. (2023). Guidance for generative AI in education and research. UNESCO Publishing. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000386693.
