Beyond Regulation: How AI Reshapes What We Write, How We Review, and Why It Matters for Business Administration
Main Article Content
Abstract
The relationship between technology and scholarly inquiry has always been one of creative tension. Each major technological disruption — from the advent of word processors in the 1980s to the proliferation of statistical software in the 2000s — has forced the academic community to renegotiate the boundaries of what constitutes legitimate research practice (Aguinis, 2026). We now stand at what may be the most consequential of these inflection points: the integration of generative artificial intelligence (AI) into every stage of the research lifecycle, from literature discovery and hypothesis generation to manuscript drafting, peer review, and editorial decision-making.
The pace of transformation is remarkable. As of early 2026, over 83% of high-impact academic journals have adopted formal AI policies, up from 77% just six months earlier (Wang & Gong, 2026). Major publishers — Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley, and Sage — have issued and revised guidelines multiple times, often struggling to keep pace with the technology they seek to govern. The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) convened a dedicated forum on “Emerging AI Dilemmas in Scholarly Publishing” in July 2025, acknowledging that the ethical landscape is shifting faster than institutional responses can adapt (COPE, 2025).
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
References
Aguinis, H. (2026). Method-driven theory advancements and AI implementation. Journal of International Business Studies. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-026-00851-0
Budhwar, P., Wood, G., & Chowdhury, S. (2024). Articulating scholarship in HRM: From writing to reviewing and everything in between. Human Resource Management Journal, 34(4), 887–929. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12567
Committee on Publication Ethics. (2023). COPE position statement: Authorship and AI tools. https://publicationethics.org/guidance/cope-position/authorship-and-ai-tools
Committee on Publication Ethics. (2025). Emerging AI dilemmas in scholarly publishing. Forum proceedings, July 2025. https://publicationethics.org/topic-discussions/emerging-ai-dilemmas-scholarly-publishing
Delios, A., Tung, R. L., & van Witteloostuijn, A. (2025). How to intelligently embrace generative AI: The first guardrails for the use of GenAI in IB research. Journal of International Business Studies, 56(3), 451-460. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-024-00736-0
Dwivedi, Y. K., Kshetri, N., Hughes, L., Slade, E. L., Jeyaraj, A., Kar, A. K., Baabdullah, A. M., Koohang, A., Raghavan, V., Ahuja, M., Albanna, H., Albashrawi, M. A., Al-Busaidi, A. S., Balakrishnan, J., Barlette, Y., Basu, S., Bose, I., Brooks, L., Buhalis, D., Carter, L., … & Wright, R. (2023). Opinion paper: “So what if ChatGPT wrote it?” Multidisciplinary perspectives on opportunities, challenges, and implications of generative conversational AI for research, practice, and policy. International Journal of Information Management, 71, 102642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102642
Elsevier. (2025). The use of AI and AI-assisted technologies in writing for Elsevier. https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies-and-standards/the-use-of-generative-ai-and-ai-assisted-technologies-in-writing-for-elsevier
Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024. (2024). Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (AI Act). Official Journal of the European Union. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj/eng
Hosseini, M., Resnik, D. B., & Holmes, K. (2023). The ethics of disclosing the use of artificial intelligence tools in writing scholarly manuscripts. Research Ethics, 19(4), 449–465. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161231180449
Mendonça, R. F., Almeida, V., & Filgueiras, F. (2024). Algorithmic institutionalism: The changing rules of social and political life. Oxford University Press.
Meszaros, J., Huys, I., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2026). Challenges in applying the EU AI Act research exemptions to contemporary AI research. npj Digital Medicine, 8, Article 127. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-025-02263-0
Lund, B. D., Wang, T., Mannuru, N. R., Nie, B., Shimray, S., & Wang, Z. (2023). ChatGPT and a new academic reality: AI-written research papers and the ethics of the large language models in scholarly publishing. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 74(5), 570–581. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24750
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2024). Recommendation of the Council on Artificial Intelligence. OECD Legal Instruments. https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/oecd-legal-0449
Projeto de Lei no. 2.338, de 2023. (2023). Dispõe sobre o uso da inteligência artificial. Senado Federal. https://www25.senado.leg.br/web/atividade/materias/-/materia/157233
Sage Publishing. (2025). Artificial intelligence policy. https://www.sagepub.com/journals/publication-ethics-policies/artificial-intelligence-policy
SciELO in Perspective. (2025, December 5). The dangers of using AI in peer review. https://blog.scielo.org/en/2025/12/05/the-dangers-of-using-ai-in-peer-review/
Springer Nature. (2025). Artificial intelligence (AI). Editorial Policies. https://www.springer.com/gp/editorial-policies/artificial-intelligence--ai-/25428500
Stokel-Walker, C., & Van Noorden, R. (2023). What ChatGPT and generative AI mean for science. Nature, 614(7947), 214–216. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-00340-6
UNESCO. (2021). Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence. UNESCO General Conference, 41st session. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000380455
Wang, Z., & Gong, M. (2026). A cross-disciplinary analysis of AI policies in academic peer review. Learned Publishing, 39(1), e2035. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.2035