Cover not available
Article In:
Journal of English for Research Publication Purposes
Vol. 5:1/2 (2024) ► pp.93–105
Perspective

The promising and problematic potential of generative AI as a leveler of the publishing playing field

 | Georgia State University
This perspective paper considers the affordances and challenges of generative AI for linguaculturally diverse scholars in a still English-dominant academic publishing world. Chief among the questions examined is whether AI offers a viable path forward toward greater research publication equity but, at the same time, something much more fraught. In other words, the paper explores how promising the apparent equalizing potential of generative AI may be. Might, for example, generative AI offer a smoother path to visibility, but in so doing, actually make the uniqueness of diverse scholars’ contributions far less visible? The paradoxical potential of generative AI is discussed first in this paper by surveying, at this particular phase of AI development, some of the salient advantages of generative AI use for research prewriting, writing, and post-writing, that is, AI’s ability to assist with such essentials as idea generation, text development, and text refinement. The apparent democratizing advantages of AI for each of these major stages of research writing are then interrogated and problematized. The paper concludes with a brief speculative path forward.
Keywords: Generative AI, research writing, academic publishing, EAL
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The promise of AI
  • 3.The challenges of AI
  • 4.Looking forward
  • Note
  • References
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References (65)
References
Aguilar, G. (2024). Rhetorically training students to generate with AI: Social justice applications for AI as audience. Computers and Composition, 71 1, Article 102828. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Amano, T., Ramirez-Castañeda, V., Berdejo-Espinola, V., Borokini, I., Chowdhury, S., Golivets, M., González-Trujillo, J. D., Montaño-Centellas, F., Paudel, K., White, R. L., & Verissimo, D. (2023). The manifold costs of being a non-native English speaker in science. PLOS Biology, 21 (7), Article e3002184. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Babl, F., & Babl, M. (2023). Generative artificial intelligence: Can ChatGPT write a quality abstract? Emergency Medicine Australasia, 35 1, 809–811. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, S. (2023, May 19). China overtakes United States on contribution to research in Nature Index. Nature. PMID: 37208516. [URL]. DOI logo
Barrett, A., & Pack, A. (2023). Not quite eye to A.I.: Student and teacher perspectives on the use of generative artificial intelligence in the writing process. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20 1. Article 59. [URL]. DOI logo
Barrot, J. (2024). ChatGPT as a language learning tool: An emerging technology report. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 29 1, 1151–1156. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Becker, B., Denny, P., Finnie-Ansley, J., Luxton-Reilly, A., Prather, J., & Antonio Santos, E. (2023). Programming is hard — Or at least it used to be: Educational opportunities and challenges of AI code generation. SIGCSE 2023: Proceedings of the 54th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 1 1 (pp. 500–506). Association for Computing Machinery. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bedington, A., Halcomb, E., McKee, H., Sargent, T., & Smith, A. (2024). Writing with generative AI and human-machine teaming: Insights and recommendations from faculty and students. Computers and Composition, 71 1, Article 102833. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., & Shmitchell, S. (2021). On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT ‘21), Association for Computing Machinery, NY, NY, USA (pp. 610–623). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berg, C. (2023). The case for generative AI in scholarly practice. Available at SSRN 4407587, [URL]
Canagarajah, A. S. (1996). “Nondiscursive” requirements in academic publishing, material resources of periphery scholars, and the politics of knowledge production. Written communication, 13 1, 435–472. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2022). Language diversity in academic writing: Toward decolonizing scholarly publishing. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 17 1, 107–128. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cao, S., & Zhong, L. (2023). Exploring the effectiveness of ChatGPT-based feedback compared with teacher feedback and self-feedback: Evidence from Chinese to English translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.01645, 2023 — arxiv.orgGoogle Scholar
Casal, J. E., & Kessler, M. (2023). Can linguists distinguish between ChatGPT/AI and human writing?: A study of research ethics and academic publishing. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, 2 1, Article 100068. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chapelle, C. A. (2024). Open generative AI changes a lot, but not everything. Modern Language Journal, 108 1, 534–540. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Curry, N., Baker, P., & Brookes, G. (2024). Generative AI for corpus approaches to discourse studies: A critical evaluation of ChatGPT. Applied Corpus Linguistics, 4 1, Article 100082. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dave, P. (2023). ChatGPT is cutting non-English languages out of the AI revolution. [URL]
Farangi, M., & Nejadghanbar, H. (2024). Investigating questionable research practices among Iranian applied linguists: Prevalence, severity, and the role of artificial intelligence tools. System, 125 1. Article 103427. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Flower, L. (1979). Writer-based prose: A cognitive basis for problems in writing. College English, 41 1, 19–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garg, R., Urs, V., Agarwal, A., Chaudhury, S., Paliwal, V., & Kumar, S. (2023). Exploring the role of ChatGPT in patient care (diagnosis and treatment) and medical research: A systematic review. Health Promotion Perspectives, 13 (3), 183–191. DOI logo. [URL]
Geertz, C. (1988). Words and lives: The anthropologist as author. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
George, A. S. (2023). The potential of generative AI to reform graduate education. Partners Universal International Research Journal, 2 1. ISSN: 2583-5602. [URL]
Girdharry, K., & Khachatryan, D. (2023). Meaningful writing in the age of generative artificial intelligence. Double Helix, 11 1. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Godwin-Jones, R. (2023). Emerging spaces for language learning: AI bots, ambient intelligence, and the metaverse. Language Learning & Technology, 27 (2), 6–27. [URL]
Habibie, P. (2022). Early-career scholars and scholarship: A social justice perspective. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 42 1, 55–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hake, J., Crowley, M., Coy, A., Shanks, D., Eoff, A., Kirmer-Voss, K., Dhanda, G., & Parente, D. (2024). Quality, accuracy, and bias in ChatGPT-based summarization of medical abstracts. The Annals of Family Medicine, 22 1, 113–120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Howarth, J. (2024, June 11). Languages supported by ChatGPT. [URL]
Hundley, M., Pendergrass, E., Burriss, S., & Smith, B. (2024). Redefining writing again? In C. Moran (Ed.), Revolutionizing English education: The power of AI in the classroom (pp. 141–156). Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Hutson, J. (2024). Rethinking plagiarism in the era of generative AI. Journal of Intelligent Communication, 4 1, 20–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jacob, S., Tate, T., & Warschauer, M. (2023). Emergent AI-Assisted discourse: Case study of a second language writer authoring with ChatGPT. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.10903, 2023 — arxiv.orgGoogle Scholar
Jiang, F. K., & Hyland, K. (2024). Does ChatGPT argue like students? Bundles in argumentative essays. Applied Linguistics. Preprint. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kern, R. (2024). Twenty-first century technologies and language education: Charting a path forward. Modern Language Journal, 108 1, 515–533. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Khalifa, M., & Albadawy, M. (2024). Using artificial intelligence in academic writing and research: An essential productivity tool. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine Update, 5 1, Article 100145. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, M., & Lu, X. (2024). Exploring the potential of using ChatGPT for rhetorical move-step analysis: The impact of prompt refinement, few-shot learning, and fine-tuning. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 71 1, Article 101422. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Knowles, A. (2024). Machine-in-the-loop writing: Optimizing the rhetorical load. Computers and Composition, 71 1, Article 102826. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kohnke, L., Moorhouse, B., & Zou, D. (2023). ChatGPT for Language Teaching and Learning. RELC Journal, 54 1, 1–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koltovskaia, S., Rahmati, P., & Saeli, H. (2024). Graduate students’ use of ChatGPT for academic text revision: Behavioral, cognitive, and affective engagement. Journal of Second Language Writing, 65 1, Article 101130. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kubota, R. (2023). Another contradiction in AI-assisted second language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing. 62 1, Article 101069. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuteeva, M., & Andersson, M. (2024). Diversity and standards in writing for publication in the age of AI — Between a rock and a hard place. Applied Linguistics, 45 1, 561–567. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lai, V., Ngo, N., Veyseh, A., Man, H., Dernoncourt, F., Bui, T., & Nguyen, T. (2023). ChatGPT Beyond English: Towards a comprehensive evaluation of large language models in multilingual learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.05613v1 [cs.CL] 12 Apr 2023Google Scholar
Li, R. (2024). A “Dance of storytelling”: Dissonances between substance and style in collaborative storytelling with AI. Computers and Composition, 71 1, Article 102825. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liang, W., Yuksekgonul, M., Mao, Y., Wu, E., & Zou, J. (2023). GPT detectors are biased against non-native English writers. Patterns, 4 1. Article 100779. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lin, Z. (2024). Techniques for supercharging academic writing with generative AI. Nature Biomedical Engineering. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Macknish, C. (2012). Understanding critical reading in an ESL class in Singapore. TESOL Journal, 2 1, 444–472. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mollick, E. (2023). Power and weirdness: How to use Bing AI. [URL]
Moorhouse, B., Yeo, M., & Wan, Y. (2023). Generative AI tools and assessment: Guidelines of the world’s top-ranking universities. Computers and Education Open, 5 1, Article 100151. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Noy, S., & Zhang, W. (2023). Experimental evidence on the productivity effects of generative artificial intelligence. Science, 381 1, 187–192. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Odri, G., & Yoon, D. (2023). Detecting generative artificial intelligence in scientific articles: Evasion techniques and implications for scientific integrity. Orthopaedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research, 109 1, Article 103706. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pedersen, I. (2023). The rise of generative AI and enculturating AI writing in postsecondary education. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 6 1, Article 1259407. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pfau, A., Polio, C., & Xu, Y. (2023). Exploring the potential of ChatGPT in assessing L2 writing accuracy for research purposes. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, 2 1, Article 100083. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pigg, S. (2024). Research writing with ChatGPT: A descriptive embodied practice framework. Computers and Composition, 71 1, Article 102830. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ranade, N., & Eyman, D. (2024). Introduction: Composing with generative AI. Computers and Composition, 71 1, Article 102834. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sasaki, M. (2023). AI tools as affordances and contradictions for EFL writers: Emic perspectives and L1 use as a resource. Journal of Second Language Writing, 62 1, Article 101068. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shopovski, J. (2024). Generative artificial intelligence, AI for scientific writing: A literature review. [URL]. DOI logo
Si, C., Yang, D., & Hashimoto, T. (2024). Can LLMs generate novel research ideas? A large-scale human study with 100+ NLP researchers. arXiv preprint arXiv. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Soler, J. (2021). Linguistic injustice in academic publishing in English: Limitations and ways forward in the debate. Journal of English for Research Publication Purposes, 2 1, 160–171. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stokel-Walker, C., & Van Noorden, R. (2023). What ChatGPT and generative AI mean for science. Nature, 614 (7947), 214–216. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Su, Y., Lin, Y., & Lai, C. (2023). Collaborating with ChatGPT in argumentative writing classrooms. Assessing Writing, 57 1, Article 100752. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thorne, S. L. (2024). Generative artificial intelligence, co-evolution, and language education. Modern Language Journal, 108 1, 567–572. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trust, T., Whalen, J., & Mouza, C. (2023). Editorial: ChatGPT: Challenges, opportunities, and implications for teacher education. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 23 (1), 1–23. [URL]
Ventayen, R. (2023). Let’s ask the authors! ‘Did you use generative AI to write your manuscript?’ Available at SSRN: [URL] DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Warschauer, M., Tseng, W., Yim, S., Webster, T., Jacob, S., Du, Q., & Tate, T. (2023). The affordances and contradictions of AI-generated text for writers of English as a second or foreign language. Journal of Second Language Writing, 62 1, Article 101071. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Washington, J. (2023). The impact of generative artificial intelligence on writer’s self-efficacy: A critical literature review. SSRN Electron. J. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zheng, H., & Zhan, H. (2023). ChatGPT in scientific writing: A cautionary tale. The American Journal of Medicine, 136 (8),725–726.e6. DOI logoGoogle Scholar