ChatGPT and Its Ethical Implications For STEM Rese

Nam and Bai International Journal of
International Journal of STEM Education (2023) 10:66

https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-023-00452-5 STEM Education
RESEARCH Open Access
ChatGPT and its ethical implications

for STEM research and higher education:
a media discourse analysis
Benjamin H. Nam1 and Qiong Bai2*
Abstract
Background With the increasing demand brought on by the beginning of the fourth industrial revolution
in the period of post-digital education and bio-digital technology, artificial intelligence (AI) has played a pivotal role
in supporting human intelligence and contributing to intellectuals within science, technology, science, and math-
ematics (STEM) and in the broader field of higher education. Thus, this study examines how writers for mainstream
STEM journals and higher education magazines perceive the impact of ChatGPT, a powerful AI chatbot, on STEM
research and higher education. ChatGPT can generate realistic texts based on user prompts. However, this platform
also poses ethical challenges for academic integrity, authorship, and publication.
Results Using a comparative media discourse analysis approach, this study analyzes 72 articles from four media
outlets: (a) Springer Nature; (b) The Chronicle of Higher Education; (c) Inside Higher Ed; and (d) Times Higher Education. The
results show that the writers expressed various concerns and opinions about the potential conflicts and crises caused
by ChatGPT in three areas: (a) academic research and publication; (b) teaching and learning; and (c) human resources
management.
Conclusions This study concludes with some policy implications and suggestions for future research on ChatGPT
and AI ethics in academia by reilluminating the most overarching policy concerns related to ethical writing in STEM
research and higher education and limitations to the blindness to authorship and academic integrity among diverse
stakeholders.
Keywords ChatGPT, AI chatbot, Human intelligence, Ethics, Authorship, Academic integrity, Post-digital education,
Conflict theory, Crisis management, Qualitative media discourse
Introduction supporting human intelligence (Gan & Bai, 2023; Knox,

With the increasing demand brought on by the begin- 2019; MacKenzie et al., 2022; Miller, 2019; Moreno-
ning of the fourth industrial revolution (4IR) in the Guerrero et al., 2022; Peters et al., 2023a; Salas-Pilco &
period of post-digital education and bio-digital technol- Yang, 2022). Briefly defined, AI is a computing system
ogy, artificial intelligence (AI) has played a pivotal role in that supports human intelligence through which individ-
uals use their cognitive ability and intellectual knowledge
to solve problems and tasks (Knox, 2019). Thus, AI chat-
*Correspondence:
Qiong Bai bots facilitate how human intelligence can learn, adapt,
[email protected] synthesize, self-correct, and use data for complex tasks
1
School of Education, Shanghai International Studies University, and help them comprehend common language requests
Shanghai, People’s Republic of China
2
School of Media and Arts, Nanjing University of Posts through automatic responses and immediate assistance
and Telecommunications, Nanjing, People’s Republic of China (Salas-Pilco & Yang, 2022). Indeed, AI has become a
prominent vehicle for human intelligence in dealing with
© The Author(s) 2023. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which
permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the
original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or
other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line
to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory
regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this
licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Nam and Bai I nternational Journal of STEM Education (2023) 10:66 Page 2 of 24
big data, increasing an understanding of the brain–com- promote pedagogical content knowledge. Furthermore,
puter interface (BCI) technology and information and Salas-Pilco and Yang (2022) perceived that higher educa-
communication technology (ICT) (Miller, 2019). AI has tion administrators could also practically utilize AI chat-
also promoted a knowledge-based economy and human bots to manage documents. For instance, they can easily
capital within science, technology, engineering, and organize charts on dropout and retention rates of stu-
mathematics (STEM) and in the broader field of higher dents, design extracurricular activities and service-learn-
education. Notably, STEM has long contributed to devel- ing programs, and measure various performances among
oping the infrastructures of higher education and think- teachers and learners.
tank research, facilitating numerous human projects and Concerning the advent of ChatGPT, a rapidly growing
tasks in diverse professional fields (Hughes et al., 2022; body of evidence (e.g., philosophical, positional, literature
Li, 2014; Li et al., 2020, 2022; Marín-Marín et al., 2021; review papers, and monographs) argued that ChatGPT
Peters, 2017; Wu et al., 2022).1 would be helpful to numerous professionals, instructors,
Despite the rapid evolution of AI, the recent advent of and students (Gan & Bai, 2023; Rayner, 2023; Shen et al.,
the Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer (hence- 2023; Stojanov, 2023; Peters et al., 2023b). For instance,
forth: ChatGPT) has influenced the knowledge ecology Rayner (2023) stated that diverse stakeholders, such as
system, affecting public administration, medical and scientists, researchers, instructors, and students in busi-
healthcare management, business enterprises, social ness economics, mathematics, physics, data science, and
agencies, cultural organizations, and educational insti- information systems, could improve their creative writ-
tutions at large (Gan & Bai, 2023; Peters et al., 2023a, ing, coding skills, and common-sense reasoning at large.
2023b; Thorp, 2023). ChatGPT was introduced by Ope- However, ethical dilemmas will frequently arise in their
nAI and officially launched on November 30, 2022. It academic tasks. In medical and health sciences, radiolo-
optimizes language models for dialogues and provides gists have viewed ChatGPT as a “double-edged sword”
detailed responses to specific questions, correcting prem- (Shen et al., 2023, p. 1). Even though the platform is
ises and inappropriate requests (Kim, 2023; Thorp, 2023; undoubtedly convenient when dealing with documenting
see also OpenAI, 2015–2023). According to Dowling and charts (i.e., automatic summarization, machine transla-
Lucy (2023), ChatGPT retains the function of language tion, and question–answering), its functions may gener-
model training “with a blend of reinforcement learning ate incorrect answers. ChatGPT often performs manually
algorithms and human input over 150 billion parameters” fixed instructions instead of genuine interactions. Thus, if
(p. 1). the users do not provide sufficiently specific requests, AI
assumes their demands and needs (Shen et al., 2023).
Research problems and gaps Noticeably, as of May and through September 2023,
In practice, a growing body of literature has underlined OpenAI has launched ChatGPT-4, which alarms academ-
both positive influences and challenges to utilizing AI ics to rethink the rapid evolution of AI chatbots and its
chatbots. Before the emergence of ChatGPT, previous language models, despite its claims about creation, safety,
scholars highlighted more positive aspects of the rapid and benefits for all of humanity (Barash et al., 2023;
evolution of AI Chatbots. For example, Dimitriadou and Lewandowski et al., 2023; Peters et al., 2023b; Tülübaş
Lanitis (2023) viewed that AI chatbots could contrib- et al., 2023; see also OpenAI, 2015–2023). Despite the
ute to the field of STEM education, such as educational existing body of literature on AI chatbots in general
technology that designs smart classrooms; teachers and and the recently growing body of evidence regarding
learners can collectively develop innovative curricula and the advent of ChatGPT, far too little empirical research
has been conducted in this area. Accordingly, globally
renowned academic publishers and their STEM and edu-
1
cation journals (e.g., Springer Nature, Science, and Rout-
Indeed, STEM represents “sparking innovation,” “ensuring opportunity for
all,” and “strengthening the teaching profession,” namely expanding existing
ledge) have called upon scholars to pay more attention to
knowledge in global scholarship for larger audiences (Li, 2014, p. 1). The the impact of ChatGPT on research ethics, authorship,
contemporary STEM research society acknowledges a broader context of and academic integrity in STEM research and higher
interdisciplinary studies in higher education, including “STEM + the arts”
(STEAM) (Li et al., 2020, p. 8). Today, STEAM broadly includes but is not
education development (Kim, 2023; Peters et al., 2023a,
limited to the humanities, arts, languages, and social sciences that utilize 2023b; Thorp, 2023). In this regard, an editorial in Science
various forms of new technology, including AI, ICT, Internet-based learn- on January 26, 2023, stated that “ChatGPT is fun, but not
ing, digital learning, 3D printing, DNA mapping, biotechnology, nanotech-
nology, and so forth (Gan & Bai, 2023; Khine & Areepattamannil, 2019;
an author,” which means “concerns related to how Chat-
Peters, 2017). Yet, the current study will consistently use the acronym GPT will change education”; the author further shared:
“STEM” throughout this paper, thereby helping readers “focus attention on
and efforts in STEM education” and its research development and scholar-
ship (Li et al., 2022, p. 4).

It certainly can write essays about a range of top- and reflections can demonstrate real-life stories as social
ics. I gave it both an exam and a final project that phenomena. Each writer encounters sociopolitical and
I had assigned students in a class I taught on sci- sociocultural problems, so their written and textual data
ence denial at George Washington University. It did can provide specific frames and discourses associated
well finding factual answers, but the scholarly writ- with specific academic subjects, theories, human behav-
ing still has a long way to go…Machines play an iors, and social factors, such as STEM ideology and arts-
important role, but as tools for the people posing the based learning, as well as museology, visualization, and
hypotheses, designing the experiments, and making technology use (Bai & Nam, 2020), or cultural politics
sense of the results (Thorp, 2023, p. 313). and intersectionality of class, gender, race, ethnicity, and
national origin (Deeb & Love, 2018; Denzin & Lincoln,
Another editorial in Maxillofacial Plastic and Recon-
2011).
structive Surgery on March 8, 2023, argued that even
The purpose of this study is to investigate how writers
though ChatGPT is an innovative tool for scientists
in the mainstream STEM journals and higher education
and medical researchers, they will face moral dilem-
magazines perceive the impact of AI Chatbots on STEM
mas regarding authorship, which “is an ethical issue of
research and the future of human intelligence in higher
significant importance in scientific articles, and it has
education. Therefore, this study asks the following pri-
become a critical matter in scientific journals. A recent
mary research questions:
publication in Nature stated that an AI chatbot cannot be
listed as an author of a scientific article since it cannot
RQ1: How do writers of mainstream STEM journals
take responsibility for the article’s claims.” (Kim, 2023,
and newspapers and higher education magazines
p. 1). Earlier, another editorial in Educational Philoso-
perceive the potential conflict and crisis in academic
phy and Theory on January 15, 2021, anticipated a grow-
research and publication?
ing public concern about the use of AI and the future of
human intelligence in higher education. In the current
age of post-digital education and bio-digital technology,
perceive the potential conflict and crisis in teaching
human beings can utilize AI pragmatically. However, AI
and learning?
will potentially influence human knowledge and their
roles. Thus, academics must use their intellectual roles to
engage with the public and promote mutual dialogues in
perceive the potential conflict and crisis in HR man-
a public forum setting (Peters et al., 2023a).
agement?
Research thesis, purpose, and questions
To this end, this study adopts the concepts of research
The potential conflicts and crises in academic research
ethics, academic publishing, and integrity within the
and publication, teaching and learning, and human
context of the knowledge ecology system and human
resources (HR) management are visible among diverse
capital in the age of post-digital education and bio-dig-
stakeholders in STEM research and higher education
ital technology at a general level and, in turn, uses con-
development (i.e., journal editors versus authors, profes-
flict theory and crisis management within the context of
sors versus students, and higher education leaders ver-
STEM research and higher education development, more
sus academic faculty and administrative bodies). Hence,
specifically.
specific empirical research is needed to examine these
contradictory problems, thereby increasing a more com-
Definitions of the key concepts, theoretical relevance,
prehensive understanding of the impact of AI chatbots
and methodological applicability
on STEM research and the future of human intelligence
Briefly defined, research ethics is closely intertwined
in higher education (Crompton & Burke, 2023; Kim,
with the authors’ morality, authorship, and integrity to
2023; Peters et al., 2023b; Thorp, 2023; Tlili et al., 2023).2
secure intellectual property by avoiding misconduct and
In this regard, Altheide and Schneider (2013) maintained
respecting grounded rules in academic publishing. Given
that media sources are prominent elements of empirical
this, academic editorials are the primary stakeholders
data, as professional writers’ experiences, observations,
who promote the knowledge ecology system as lead-
ers, judges, advisors, and mediators (Peters et al., 2016).
2
Empirical research refers to examining the lived experiences of individuals
Authorship means each academic writer’s rights and
and generalizing these experiences as particular social phenomena. Thus, ownership and asset to share scientific knowledge with
investigators undertake either quantitative or qualitative investigations to members of intellectual society (Moorehead, 1966). Fur-
theorize particular social phenomena (see Creswell, 2013; Merriam & Tis-
dell, 2016).
thermore, human capital in education refers to human

resources and the workforce in a specific field who can and their responsibility and accountability for their
devote themselves to promoting a knowledge-based claims (Kim, 2023; Moorehead, 1966; Peters et al., 2016).
economy as symbolic power (Spring, 2015). Moreover, According to Peters et al. (2016), editors’ philosophy of
post-digital education defines the relationship between academic publishing and their journal ecosystem com-
human intelligence and technology, more specifically prises various dimensions, such as the “new knowledge
referred to as “posterior,” suggesting “a different stage in ecologies and the global ecosystem of scholarly com-
the perception and use of technology” (Knox, 2019, p. munications,”; “enlightenment continuities,”; “univer-
359) in the currently ongoing era of bio-digital technol- sal access and democracy,”; and “ownership and rights”
ogy, which indicates intrinsic and significant portions of among others (p. 1402). Notably, ownership and rights
the post-digital ideas (Peters et al., 2023a, p. 3). Conflict are the material products of each author’s intellectual
theory and crisis management are also intertwined as labor. Their knowledge displayed in publications is their
strategic tools and coping mechanisms for diverse stake- property and asset (Moorehead, 1966). Therefore, the
holders with different interests based on their divergent role of academic editors and their intervention concern-
beliefs, norms, and benefits (Giddens & Sutton, 2014; ing authors’ ownership and rights in academic publishing
Hong & Hardy, 2022). relate to both tangible and intangible results of the sci-
Accordingly, grounded in a qualitative approach, entific research society, respecting academics’ intellectual
this study uses a comparative media discourse analysis endeavors. Publishers provide robust intellectual profits
(CMDA) to navigate the research questions about how by promoting human knowledge and creative thinking
various academic editorials, newspapers, and magazines through the authors’ scientific writing (Moorehead, 1966;
have framed potential conflicts and crises in academic Peters et al., 2016).
research and publication, teaching and learning, and HR In addition, one of the utmost values of teaching and
management at a general level. This study also aims to learning in higher education is to educate students to
develop discourses about ethical issues and risk factors develop academic integrity, helping them cultivate eth-
that may influence contemporary STEM research and, ics and morality in academic writing in a classroom set-
more specifically, higher education development. In this ting. In general, many students’ course assignments or
scene, CMDA can interpret whether there are any simi- thesis projects are not focused on publishing. However,
lar perceptions, different reflections, or potential biases their writing practices are entwined with academic integ-
toward specific study subjects (Altheide & Schneider, rity as moral behaviors and practices. Hence, the role of
2013). Overall, examining diverse stakeholders’ empirical educators is to foster the next generation of educational
voices can develop a more comprehensive understand- and societal leaders (Besley et al., 2023; Jandrić et al.,
ing of the conflicts in the knowledge ecology system and 2022; Nam et al., 2023). From the perspective of students,
have practical implications for STEM scholars and higher academic integrity is trustworthiness and responsibility
education policy-decision makers regarding crisis man- that promotes their commitment and the spirit of colle-
agement strategies in the age of post-digital education giality. To foster academic integrity, educators encourage
and bio-digital technology. their students to undertake collective writing projects
and practice peer-reviewing and editing, and construct a
sense of collective academic identity (Jandrić et al., 2022).
Review of the literature and theoretical framework
Research ethics, academic publishing, and integrity Human capital in the age of post‑digital education
in the knowledge ecology system and bio‑digital technology
When considering STEM research and higher education Human capital refers to human resources, manpower, and
development, ethics and integrity are crucial parts of the the workforce in labor markets (Nam et al., 2019). From
knowledge ecology system–academic publishing, teach- sociological and political–economic perspectives, Gid-
ing, and learning. First, concerning academic publishing, dens and Sutton (2014) argued that the division of labor
one of the significant aspects of research ethics involves illustrates occupational trajectories in specific labor mar-
human subjects, protecting participants’ identities and kets and socio-economic status. Given this, the formation
confidentialities (Cresswell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, of social structures accompanies bureaucracy, education,
2016). Furthermore, research ethics illustrates authors’ consumerism, capitalism, organization, and so forth, in
integrity, morality, and conscience beyond human sub- which individuals strive to gain better social positions.
jects while undertaking academic publication projects. From viewpoints of post-digital education, the late
Academic journals strictly control authorship and plagia- 1990s through the early 2010s were considered the digital
rism, intervening in conflicts of interest among authors

era. The rapid development of the Internet, digital and relationship when people compete for perceived values,
electronic media, and new technology provided numer- interests, and advantages. In power dynamics, human
ous benefits to human society. The digital-based knowl- beings often harm or eliminate their counterparts or
edge economy produced human capital in labor markets. negotiate and collaborate with the other parties. Thus,
It promoted radical STEM and ICT advancement and Nam et al. (2018) argued that conflicts are often entwined
political–economic climate changes, such as a knowl- “with decision-making processes in which individuals or
edge-based society, network society, and cyber society groups often face challenges due to unexpected situa-
(Gan & Bai, 2023). In this regard, concern for the digital tions.” (p. 600).
gaps and cultural leaps has grown for socioeconomically In addition, crisis management is related to strate-
marginalized individuals; teachers, students, and employ- gic planning and problem-solving in diverse ecological
ees may have faced various challenges associated with and environmental dimensions of sustainability, entail-
digital capitalism, so their personal academic and pro- ing social, economic, cultural, political, organizational,
fessional goals could be influenced by the level of digital institutional, and technological factors (Hong & Hardy,
literacy and technical proficiency of new technology and 2022). Crisis management illustrates how certain leaders
media (Gan & Bai, 2023). identify risk factors and incidents and prepare for strate-
Furthermore, Peters et al. (2023a) illuminated bio-dig- gic planning to cope with emergencies. They also solve
ital technology at the nexus of human intelligence and conflicts of interest among different parties as social
AI. This shows the relationship between digital technol- justice advocators, critical mentors, mediators, facilita-
ogy and bio-economy. Indeed, STEM education today is tors, and influencers (Hansen, 2008; Nam, 2020). Peters
closely intertwined with “post-digital knowledge ecolo- et al. (2017) viewed these practices as the roles of public
gies” and “bio-digital philosophy” (Peters et al., 2023a, intellectuals.
p. 1). Thus, bio-digital dialogues entail philosophical and Pertinent to the current study, the recent advent of
ideological aspects of higher education in the age of 4IR ChatGPT can produce diverse conflicts of interest and
and develop scholarly conversations about morality and crises in STEM research and higher education develop-
ethics in technoscience, bio-economy, and HR management, especially regarding research ethics, authorship,
ment (Peters et al., 2023a). In addition, Peters and his rights, and ownership. Given the context, numerous edi-
colleagues undertook a collective educational philoso- torial concerns are related to ethical writing issues in the
phy and theory (EPAT) writing project with the specific scientific research society in this early stage of the Chat-
theme, “AI and the future of humanity: ChatGPT-4, phi- GPT (Kim, 2023; Peters et al., 2023a; Thorp, 2023). Fur-
losophy and education—Critical responses” (Peters et al., thermore, ethical writing issues involve academic faculty
2023, p. 1). A total of 15 educational philosophers and and their publication works and students’ writing prac-
theorists shared their perceptions of the use of ChatGPT. tices in classrooms.
They promoted competing discourses about “the dawn of In addition to the future of human intelligence in
augmented intelligence” in the currently mobilizing age higher education, some arguments have been made that
of 4IR and ChatGPT. These included the nature of (a) AI chatbots are practical instruments for various stake-
“mass industrial societies”; (b) “the “data-driven econo- holders that can provide enormous data and information.
mies”; (c) “work and learning”; and (d) “human cultural This factor can help save time and academic tasks in vari-
evolution”; and (e) “critical reasoning and situated ethics” ous disciplines (Moreno-Guerrero et al., 2022). However,
(Peters et al., 2023b, p. 17). The most overarching argu- the rapid evolution of AI and the recent advent of Chat-
ment by Peters et al. (2023b) was that many intellectuals GPT have been increasing anxiety about human intelli-
have anticipated that ethical concerns will consistently gence, which can potentially have numerous academics
occur, while advanced countries and their companies facing ethical dilemmas in research activities, teach-
participate in cosmopolitan AI competitions. Hence, the ing practices, and sustaining themselves to retain their
future of humanity may need to negotiate with AI chat- academic career positions. Thus, the key stakeholders’
bots in the age of post-digital education and bio-digital perceptions of the advent of ChatGPT and its potential
technology. conflicts and crises in STEM research and higher educa-
tion development are necessary.
Conflict and crisis management in STEM research Given this, the current study focuses on developing
and higher education development scholarly dialogues about writers of editorials and news-
Conflicts are power struggles among individuals and papers in mainstream STEM journals and higher edu-
groups with divergent ideologies that produce segmenta- cation magazines and their perceptions of the advent
tion and dissension (Giddens & Sutton, 2014). Accord- of ChatGPT and the potential conflict and crisis in aca-
ing to Nam et al. (2018), conflicts can occur in any demic research and publication. STEM journal editors

write editorials on behalf of their board members and Data collection

academics in their disciplines and call upon scholars to All media outlets selected for this study are valid accord-
pay close attention to specific issues or events. STEM ing to qualitative and naturalist inquiry (Lincoln & Guba,
journalists and higher education columnists are not aca- 1985), through which the authors attempted to bol-
demics but professional writers affiliated with academic ster the trustworthiness and the quality of the CMDA.
journals and magazines. They provide diverse news arti- Accordingly, the data collection strategies adopted entail
cles related to particular issues and events. Their empiri- transferability, confirmability, credibility, and depend-
cal voices through texts can be powerful in developing a ability (Creswell, 2013; Denzin & Lincoln, 2011; Shenton,
critical media discourse. 2004). Transferability illustrates how data can be gener-
alizable within qualitative inquiry (Denzin & Lincoln,
Methods 2011). As aforementioned, journalists/columnists affili-
A comparative media discourse analysis approach ated with these outlets are professional writers, and their
This study adopted a comparative media discourse analy- editors must approve their written reports. For confirma-
sis (CMDA) approach as the primary methodological bility, the authors in the current study conducted system-
lens. Given the nature of the qualitative inquiry, a dis- atic data collection and reviewed all written and textual
course analysis approach, in general, “is often descrip- sources of evidence (Shenton, 2004). They directly visited
tive, narrating stories about commonly shared ideas and the official websites of each outlet and manually used
norms.” (Bai & Nam, 2020, p. 270). This approach calls search engines to collect news articles and contextualize
upon intellectuals to give more attention to untold or these data sources to develop units of discourse analysis.
already told stories that are quite paradoxical, encour- Specifically, the authors collected a total of 72 arti-
aging them to participate in scholarly debates in a pub- cles from several key outlets, including Springer Nature
lic forum setting (Fairclough, 1992). Given the context, (n = 20); The Chronicle of Higher Education (n = 11); Inside
researchers consider the public forum as a particular Higher Ed (n = 32); and Times Higher Education (n = 9).
social structure, sphere, and space, drawing “empirical” ChatGPT was launched on November 30, 2022, and the
voices to contextualize “reality” (Fairclough, 2003, p. 14). specific period examined was between December 1, 2022,
This approach benefits researchers seeking to develop and February 23, 2023, totaling 85 days. Concerning the
dialogues about particular public concerns, social issues, rationale for the specific media outlet selections, the
and cultural events in real-world situations (Denzin & authors primarily contemplated Springer Nature as their
Lincoln, 2011; Fairclough, 1992). Moreover, a media dis- starting point among many other publishers, including
course analysis approach interprets the perceptions of Nature, Nature Machine Intelligence, Nature Biotechnol-
members of media societies using “a hermeneutic and ogy, Nature Biomedical Engineering, and Nature Astron-
textual analysis” to explore the “embodied assumptions” omy. This publisher is not only one of the most influential
or to draw ‘human experiences” as “empirical evidence.” academic publishers in STEM that provides exceptional
(Bai & Nam, 2022, p. 887). news articles but also a pioneering platform that primar-
In addition, Altheide and Schneider (2013) stated that ily covers research ethics, authorship, and integrity issues.
CMDA is the so-called “Ethnographic Content Analy- Notably, as aforementioned, the editorial boards of this
sis” (ECA), through which media analysts use differ- publisher initiated to express concerns about the absence
ent sampling and data collection strategies to interpret of grounded rules for authorship, in which ChatGPT or
the commonalities and differences among divergent any AI chatbots will not be listed as co-author, because it
societal group members and attempt to conceptualize cannot claim scientific research papers’ claims (see Kim,
certain social phenomena (p. 26). Thus, this approach 2023). In addition, editorials in the Springer Nature jour-
entails a content analysis of written and textual data nals offer opinions or discuss topical issues on behalf of
sources of evidence, such as newspapers, magazines, board members and academics. The primary role of edi-
and electronic documents from different media out- torials in academic journals is to shed light on problem-
lets (Altheide & Schneider, 2013). Therefore, this study atic public concerns and social issues. They share their
aims to promote scholarly conversations about the viewpoints and opinions, call upon scholars to pay close
impact of AI chatbots on STEM research and the future attention to these concerns, and encourage academics to
of human intelligence in higher education through engage in scholarly conversations (Kim, 2023; Li, 2014).
the lenses of different media outlets, including STEM The other outlets represent mainstream higher education
editorials, STEM newspapers, and higher education magazines, also known as industrial publications. Their
magazines. journalists/columnists are experts in higher education
administration, policies, teaching, and research.

The third of the four key factors listed above, credibil- authors selected 72 of the most relevant and applicable
ity, defines “how” data can be triangulated and “what” articles to conduct a CMDA of the advent of ChatGPT.
essential contents can be constructed (Creswell, 2013). Finally, the fourth key factor, dependability, describes
The authors collected various news/magazine articles, how data collection is traceable, logical, and documented
such as editorials, opinions, daily briefings, guest posts, (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011). The authors followed the “Alt-
teaching notes, and essay reviews. In the initial search heide Research Team Protocol for News Reports” (see
phase, several keywords were considered, such as “Chat- Altheide & Schneider, 2013, p. 48), adopting several vital
GPT,” “artificial intelligence,” “AI,” and “higher educa- components, such as specific publication titles, author
tion.” This produced 141 news articles, many duplicated names, volume/issue/page numbers, publication dates,
or cross-posted in the search terms. Hence, the authors and source information (i.e., article links). Code names
contemplated another search phase, adding more specific and numbers for each article were chosen by following
key terms to narrow the scope of the contents: “ethics,” the abovementioned key elements (see Table 1).
“academic,” “teaching,” “research,” “professor,” “student,”
“writing,” “essay,” “paper,” “misconduct,” “cheating,” and
“human intelligence,” among others. In this manner, the
Table 1 Information about media representations of ChatGPT

Code No. Author/journal names Publication Publication titles/article links
date
Editorial-1 Nature Machine Intelligence 19-Dec-22 Much to discuss in AI ethics

https://www.nature.com/articles/s42256-022-00598-x
Editorial-2 Nature Biomedical Engineer- 23-Dec-22 Contextual learning is nearly all you need
ing
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41551-022-00997-w
Editorial-3 Nature Machine Intelligence 20-Jan-23 The AI writing on the wall
https://www.nature.com/articles/s42256-023-00613-9
Editorial-4 Nature Astronomy 23-Jan-23 Welcome to the AI future?
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-023-01891-4
Editorial-5 Nature 24-Jan-23 Tools such as ChatGPT threaten transparent science; here are our ground rules for their
use
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-00191-1
Editorial-6 Nature Biotechnology 2-Feb-23 Generating ‘smarter’ biotechnology
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41587-023-01695-x
Nature-1 Davide Castelvecchi 8-Dec-22 Are ChatGPT and AlphaCode going to replace programmers?
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-04383-z
Nature-2 No author listed 8-Dec-22 Are your students using AI to write papers? Take nature’s poll
Nature-3 Chris Stokel-Walker 9-Dec-22 Al bot ChatGPT writes smart essays-should professors worry?
Nature-4 Flora Graham 12-Dec-22 Daily briefing: Will ChaptGPT kill the essay assignment?
Nature-5 Holly Else 12-Jan-23 Abstracts written by ChatGPT fool scientists
Nature-6 Flora Graham 13-Jan-23 Daily briefing: AI-generated abstracts fool scientists
Nature-7 Chris Stokel-Walker 18-Jan-23 ChapGPT listed as author on research papers: many scientists disapprove
Nature-8 Flora Graham 20-Jan-23 Daily briefing: ChatGPT listed as author on research papers
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-00188-w
Nature-9 Amanda Heidt 24-Jan-23 ‘Arms race with automation’: professors fret about AI-generated coursework
Nature-10 Flora Graham 3-Feb-23 Daily briefing: Science urgently needs a plan for ChatGPT

Table 1 (continued)
date
Nature-11 Richard Van Noorden 6-Feb-23 What ChatGPT and generative AI mean for science
Nature-12 Chris Woolston 6-Feb-23 Measuring societal impact: how to go beyond standard publication metrics
Nature-13 Alex Zhavoronkov 7-Feb-23 Caution with AI-generated content in biomedicine
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41591-023-00014-w
Nature-14 Brian Owens 20-Feb-23 How Nature readers are using ChatGPT
CHE-1 Beth McMurtrie 13-Dec-22 AI and the future of undergraduate writing
https://www.chronicle.com/article/ai-and-the-future-of-undergraduate-writing
CHE-2 Beth McMurtrie 5-Jan-23 Teaching: Will ChatGPT change the way you teach?
https://www.chronicle.com/newsletter/teaching/2023-01-05
CHE-3 Christopher Grobe 18-Jan-23 The Review/Essay: Why I’m not scared of ChatGPT
https://www.chronicle.com/article/why-im-not-scared-of-chatgpt
CHE-4 Beth McMurtrie 19-Jan-23 Teaching: What really helps with burnout? A new project investigates
CHE-5 James Lang/Michell Miller 30-Jan-23 Don’t write like a robot
https://www.chronicle.com/article/dont-write-like-a-robot
CHE-6 Beth McMurtrie 2-Feb-23 Teaching: Rethinking research papers, and other responses to ChatGPT
CHE-7 Tom Bissonette 7-Feb-23 Letters: Not embracing ChatGPT is an opportunity missed for educators
https://www.chronicle.com/blogs/letters/not-embracing-chatgpt-is-an-opportunity-
missed-for-educators
CHE-8 Eva Surovell 8-Feb-23 ChatGPT has everyone freaking out about cheating. It’s not the first time
https://www.chronicle.com/article/chatgpt-has-everyone-freaking-out-about-cheating-
its-not-the-first-time
CHE-9 Kate Hidalgo Bellows 9-Feb-23 Daily briefing: ChatGPT reviews panic over academic integrity
https://www.chronicle.com/newsletter/daily-briefi ng/2023-02-09
CHE-10 Denise K. Magner 13-Feb-23 Your career: What can you learn about your own writing from ChatGPT?
https://www.chronicle.com/newsletter/your-career/2023-02-13
CHE-11 Ben Chrisinger 22-Feb-23 It’s not just our students – ChatGPT is coming for faculty writing
https://www.chronicle.com/article/its-not-just-our-students-ai-is-coming-for-faculty-
writing
IHE-1 John Warner 5-Dec-22 Freaking out about ChatGPT-Part I
https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/just-visiting/freaking-out-about-chatgpt%E2%
80%94part-i
IHE-2 Marc Watkins 14-Dec-22 Guest post: AI will augment, not replace
https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/just-visiting/guest-post-ai-will-augment-not-
replace
IHE-3 Ray Schroeder 14-Dec-22 Deconstructing ChatGPT on the future of continuing education
https://www.insidehighered.com/digital-learning/blogs/online-trending-now/decon
structing-chatgpt-future-continuing-education
IHE-4 Steven Mintz 16-Dec-22 AI Unleashed
https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/higher-ed-gamma/ai-unleashed
IHE-5 Steven Mintz 23-Dec-22 The forces that are shaping the future of higher education
https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/higher-ed-gamma/forces-are-shaping-future-
higher-education
IHE-6 John Warner 4-Jan-23 How about we put learning at the center?

Table 1 (continued)
date
https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/just-visiting/how-about-we-put-learning-
center
IHE-7 Jim Jump 9-Jan-23 Ethical college admissions: ‘I am not a robot’
https://www.insidehighered.com/admissions/views/2023/01/09/what-impact-will-
chatgpt-have-college-essay-opinion
IHE-8 Susan D’Agostino 12-Jan-23 ChatGPT advice academics can use now
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2023/01/12/academic-experts-offer-advice-
chatgpt
IHE-9 Brian Strang 12-Jan-23 My first chat with the bot
https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2023/01/12/my-first-chat-chatgpt-opinion
IHE-10 John Warner 16-Jan-23 ChatGPT both is and is not like a calculator
https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/just-visiting/chatgpt-both-and-not-calculator
IHE-11 Steven Mintz 16-Jan-23 ChaptGPT: Threat or menace?
https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/higher-ed-gamma/chatgpt-threat-or-menace
IHE-12 Tracy Mitrano 17-Jan-23 Coping with ChatGPT
https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/law-policy%E2%80%94and-it/coping-chatgpt
IHE-13 Steven Mintz 18-Jan-23 Breaking free from higher ed’s iron triangle
https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/higher-ed-gamma/breaking-free-higher-ed%
E2%80%99s-iron-triangle
IHE-14 Ray Schroeder 18-Jan-23 GPT in higher education
https://www.insidehighered.com/digital-learning/blogs/online-trending-now/gpt-
higher-education
IHE-15 Anna Mills 19-Jan-23 Seeing past the dazzle of ChatGPT
https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2023/01/19/academics-must-collaborate-
develop-guidelines-chatgpt-opinion
IHE-16 Kevin Jacob Kelly 19-Jan-23 Teaching actual student writing in an AI world
https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2023/01/19/ways-prevent-students-using-ai-
tools-their-classes-opinion
IHE-17 Susan D’Agostino 20-Jan-23 AI writing detection: A losing battle worth fighting
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2023/01/20/academics-work-detect-chatgpt-
and-other-ai-writing
IHE-18 Hetal Thaker 23-Jan-23 Worried about ChatGPT? Don’t be
https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2023/01/23/chatgpt-and-what-we-value-writi
ng-instruction-opinion
IHE-19 Matt Reed 24-Jan-23 Getting the AI we deserve
https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/confessions-community-college-dean/getti
ng-ai-we-deserve
IHE-20 Rachel Elliott Rigolino 31-Jan-23 With ChatGPT, We’re all editors now
https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2023/01/31/chatgpt-we-must-teach-students-
be-editors-opinion
IHE-21 Susan D’Agostino 31-Jan-23 Designing assignments in the ChatGPT era
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2023/01/31/chatgpt-sparks-debate-how-
design-student-assignments-now
IHE-22 Sean Ross Meehan 31-Jan-23 When AI is writing, who is the author?
https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2023/01/31/teaching-ai-writing-terms-co-
authorship-opinion
IHE-23 Sharon Aschaiek 1-Feb-23 Promises and pitfalls of ChatGPT
https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/call-action-marketing-and-communications-
higher-education/promises-and-pitfalls-chatgpt
IHE-24 Ray Schroeder 1-Feb-23 Remaining relevant in a changing higher ed
https://www.insidehighered.com/digital-learning/blogs/online-trending-now/remai
ning-relevant-changing-higher-ed

Table 1 (continued)
date
IHE-25 Susan D’Agostino 1-Feb-23 Community colleges’ positive, pervasive digital leap
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2023/02/01/community-colleges-positive-
pervasive-digital-leap
IHE-26 John Warner 8-Feb-23 Automation isn’t automatic
https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/just-visiting/automation-isn%E2%80%99t-
automatic
IHE-27 Jeremy Weissman 9-Feb-23 ChatGPT is a plague upon education
https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2023/02/09/chatgpt-plague-upon-education-
opinion
IHE-28 Johanna Alonso 13-Feb-23 Why are students so disengaged?
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2023/02/13/fight-student-disengagement-real-
world-projects-can-help
IHE-29 Johanna Alonso 15-Feb-23 Let’s stop talking about ChatGPT
https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/just-visiting/let%E2%80%99s-stop-talking-
about-chatgpt
IHE-30 Ray Schroeder 15-Feb-23 In the coming weeks, how to respond to generative AI
https://www.insidehighered.com/digital-learning/blogs/online-trending-now/coming-
weeks-how-respond-generative-ai
IHE-31 John Roberts 21-Feb-23 Is it time to get admissions counselors off the road?
https://www.insidehighered.com/admissions/views/2023/02/21/it-time-get-admis
sions-counselors-road-opinion
IHE-32 Susan D’Agostino 22-Feb-23 AI bots can seem sentient. Students need guardrails.
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2023/02/22/ai-bots-can-seem-sentient-stude
nts-need-guardrails
THE-1 Tom Williams 19-Dec-22 ChatGPT ‘a powerful tool for education if used correctly’
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/chatgpt-powerful-tool-education-if-
used-correctly
THE-2 John Gill 19-Jan-23 ChaptGPT: tool or terminator?
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/opinion/chatgpt-tool-or-terminator
THE-3 Paul Breen 29-Jan-23 Don’t fear ChatGPT: education will always trump technology
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/blog/dont-fear-chatgpt-education-will-always-
trump-technology
THE-4 Tom Williams 6-Feb-23 Inside the post-ChatGPT scramble to create AI essay detectors
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/depth/inside-post-chatgpt-scramble-create-
ai-essay-detectors
THE-5 Tom Williams 9-Feb-23 ChatGPT can pass US medical license exams, study claims
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/chatgpt-can-pass-us-medical-licence-
exams-study-claims
THE-6 Tom Williams 14-Feb-23 Turnitin announces AI detector with ’97 percent accuracy’
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/turnitin-announces-ai-detector-97-cent-
accuracy
THE-7 John Warren 17-Feb-23 ChatGPT reveals the uncomfortable truth about graduate skills
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/blog/chatgpt-reveals-uncomfortable-truth-
about-graduate-skills
THE-8 Andy Williams 21-Feb-23 To outwit ChatGPT, lectures must embrace it
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/opinion/outwit-chatgpt-lecturers-must-embra
ce-it
THE-9 Colm O’Shea 23-Feb-23 Thank you ChatGPT for exposing the banality of undergraduate essays
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/blog/thank-you-chatgpt-exposing-banality-
undergraduate-essays

Table 2 Information about the categorical media frames and illustrative core ideas
Media frames Article Frequency (%) Presented articles Illustrative core ideas
presence
Nam and Bai I nternational Journal of STEM Education
The Potential Conflict and Crisis in Academic Research 23 31.94% Editorial-1; Editorial-2; Editorial-3; Editorial-5; Nature-5; 23 represented articles directly mentioned or implied
and Publication Nature-6; Nature-7; Nature-8; Nature-11; Nature-12; the potential conflict and crisis in academic research
Nature-13; Nature-14; CHE-5; CHE-6; CHE-9; CHE-11; and publications provoked by ChatGPT. The most
IHE-3; IHE-4; IHE-8; IHE-14; IHE-22; IHE-23; IHE-30; THE-2 common and frequent topics were ethical writing,
plagiarism, bias, and misinterpretation about data
analysis
(2023) 10:66
The Potential Conflict and Crisis in Teaching and Learn- 50 69.44% Editorial-5; Nature-2; Nature-3; Nature-4; Nature-9; 50 represented articles directly mentioned or implied
ing Nature-11; Nature-12; CHE-1; CHE-2; CHE-3; CHE-4; the potential conflict and crisis in teaching and learn-
CHE-5; CHE-6; CHE-7; CHE-8; CHE-9; CHE-10; CHE-11; ing provoked by ChatGPT. The most common
IHE-1; IHE-2; IHE-3; IHE-4; IHE-6; IHE-8; IHE-9; IHE-10; IHE- and frequent topics were related to cheating and pla-
11; IHE-12; IHE-13; IHE-14; IHE-15; IHE-16; IHE-17; IHE-18; giarism, as well as teachers’ dilemmas about writing
IHE-19; IHE-20; IHE-21; IHE-22; IHE-23; IHE-27; IHE-28; assignments
IHE-29; IHE-32; THE-1; THE-2; THE-3; THE-4; THE-7; THE-8;
THE-9
The Potential Conflict and Crisis in HR Management 31 43.05% Editorial-4; Editorial-6; Nature-1; Nature-5; Nature-6; 32 represented articles directly mentioned or implied
Nature-7; Nature-8; Nature-10; Nature12; Nature-14; the potential conflict and crisis of human resources
CHE-3; CHE-10; IHE-5; IHE-7; IHE-13; IHE-14; IHE-15; IHE- management in higher education and industries,
19; IHE-21; IHE-22; IHE-24; IHE-26; IHE-27; IHE-30; IHE-31; due to the rapid evolution of AI and the advent
IHE-32; THE-2; THE-3; THE-4; THE-5; THE-6 of ChatGPT

Page 11 of 24
Data analysis concerns in academia and the neutral position that views
This CMDA, specifically, used an inductive content ChatGPT as a pragmatic instrument. However, some
analysis of textual and written data alongside its primary articles that covered the neutral position were incorpo-
research questions that explored how different writers of rated into the primary media frames as units of discourse
mainstream STEM journals and higher education maga- analysis. Hence, the authors elaborated on illustrative
zines have framed potential crises in academic research core ideas to show media representations of AI and the
and publication, teaching, and learning. Moreover, HR advent of ChatGPT and their overarching concerns (see
management expressed concerns about ethical issues and Table 2).
risk factors influencing contemporary STEM research In the next stage, the authors categorized different media
and higher education development. The authors adopted outlets and articles based on the positionalities of each
and applied Altheide and Schneider’s (2013) approach writer, thereby identifying the characteristics of each unit
to CMDA, which indicates stages of textual and written of media discourse content: (a) STEM editorials; (b) STEM
data analysis, including protocol data collection, format- newspapers; and (c) higher education magazines. Given
ting, framing, and discoursing.3 the methodological nature of discourse analysis, drawing
Initially, the authors manually reviewed all collected specific and rich quotations and verbatims from textual
articles multiple times in the protocol data collection data can enhance the quality of descriptive and narrative
and formatting stages. They identified keywords and cru- analysis in a storytelling manner (Fairclough, 1992, 2003).
cial points related to the rapid evolution of AI and the Hence, the authors carefully reviewed all textual data and
emergence of ChatGPT, along with the chosen concep- selected articles that included thick and rich descriptions of
tual maps and writers’ positionalities. They openly coded the established media frames. However, they excluded arti-
articles to identify four crucial items: (a) publication date; cles lacking depth or mentioning key terms without specific
(b) positive influences; (c) challenges; and (d) neutrality. descriptions, implications, or inferences. Accordingly, the
In the next framing stage, the authors carefully reviewed authors focused on comparing or contrasting how writers
all articles. They focused on clustering specific types of of divergent media outlets viewed the advent of ChatGPT.
articles and common or different ideas among writers to They analyzed similarities, differences, or biases related to
classify domains. In doing so, the authors considered the the primary media frames (see Table 3). Finally, the authors
potential content and developed media frames, such as shed new light on the most overarching concerns identified
general concerns among editorials, positive influences, in the results. They also interpreted these issues by consid-
and potential challenges or crises in higher education ering the discussion sections’ research purpose, questions,
at a general level. They found that most articles covered and theoretical lenses.
diverse topics rather than a single specific topic. Hence, Overall, the authors in this study acknowledge that each
they noted the media frames’ presence, frequency, and writer and media outlet may have certain biases toward
illustrative core ideas (Altheide & Schneider, 2013; Deeb specific subject–object relationships based on their posi-
& Love, 2018). At the same time, they selected influential tionalities and characteristics. For example, while STEM
terms, phrases, clauses, and sentences in coding schemes editorials focused more on mentioning potential conflict
(Denzin & Lincoln, 2011; Fairclough, 1992). and crisis in academic research and publication, higher
Accordingly, the authors determined three primary education magazines focused more on discussing potential
media frames along with the research questions: (a) conflict and crisis in teaching and learning, and vice versa,
the potential conflict and crisis in academic research though both outlets illustrated potential conflict and crisis
and publication; (b) the potential conflict and crisis in in HR management. However, it is meaningful to find col-
teaching and learning; and (c) the potential conflict and lective thinking among diverse individuals and groups in
crisis in HR management. In this phase, the authors col- the media society (Altheide & Schneider, 2013; Bai & Nam,
lapsed too general or too obvious frames, such as general 2020, 2022).
Results
3
The authors analyzed data manually. One recent strategy is to use com- The potential conflict and crisis in academic research
puter-assisted qualitative data analysis software (CAQDAS) (Merriam & and publication
Tisdell, 2016). However, Seale (2008) argued that CAQDAS packages are
not significantly influential when it comes to “discourse analysis” because it STEM editorials: research ethics, scientific writing,
requires researchers to use their logic to contextualize data (p. 242). Nota- authorship, and ground rules
bly, in conventional qualitative research, Denzin and Lincoln (2011) main- Despite growing concerns about unclear ethical bounda-
tained that investigators spend an enormous amount of time and effort
to collect and analyze data and report their data analysis systematically ries, STEM journal editorials discussed research eth-
and coherently, so “there is no such thing as value-free inquiry (Lim et al., ics associated with scientific writing, authorship, and
2015, p. 35). Accordingly, the authors relied on their own time and logic to ground rules in publishable scholarship. Although most
develop media frames and units of the CMDA.

Table 3 Media frames, units of discourse analysis contents, selected articles, and the summary of the CMDA contents
Media frames/units of discourse analysis contents/selected articles Summary of the CMDA contents
The Potential Conflict and Crisis in Academic Research and Publication The initial media discourse was about the potential conflict and cri-
STEM Editorials sis in academic research and publication. Most of the chosen articles
Research Ethics, Scientific writing, Authorship from the three stakeholder groups commonly mentioned ethical issues
Editorial-1; Editorial-2; Editorial-3; Editorial-5 in scientific research. STEM editorials illuminated numerous risk factors,
STEM Newspapers such as scientific writing, authorship, and ground rules, in which there
Authorship and Moral Dilemma to Utilizing ChatGPT are very few new ethical boundaries and challenges to deal with authors’
Nature-6; Nature-7; Nature-11 potential use of AI chatbots in academic publications. STEM newspapers
Higher Education Magazines also expressed similar concerns. Some articles focused more on authorship
Ambiguous Authorship as Research Assistants, Editors, or Collaborators issues and moral dilemmas to utilizing ChatGPT. Higher education maga-
CHE-5; IHE-4; IHE-22 zines also mentioned academic writing issues, raising critical questions
about authorship and its ambiguity when using ChatGPT. Overall, STEM edi-
torials expressed more general issues about research ethics, while the other
stakeholder groups underlined authorship issues
The Potential Conflict and Crisis in Teaching and Learning While many STEM newspapers (n = 6) and higher education magazines
STEM Editorials: (n = 43) covered the potential conflict and crisis in teaching and learning,
Academic Integrity Issues of Students most STEM editorials neglected to discuss this important item. Neverthe-
Editorial-5 less, one article, Editorial-5, portrayed academic integrity issues of students
STEM Newspapers when writing essays. STEM newspapers and higher education magazines
Academics’ Anxiety versus Concerns about Students’ Essays also commonly covered students’ academic integrity issues involving writ-
Nature-2; Nature-4; Nature-9 ing assignments. More specifically, chosen articles from STEM newspapers
Higher Education Magazines mentioned these issues from the educators’ perspectives, while higher
Biases Toward Students’ Academic Integrity in Writing Despite the Reality education magazines expressed some biases toward the use of ChatGPT
CHE-1; CHE-3; IHE-18; IHE-27; THE-5 that can be negotiable, although there are still no clear ethical boundaries
in mutual teaching and learning. Overall, the primary concerns have been
related to academic integrity issues, academics’ anxiety versus concerns
about students’ essay assignments, and skeptical viewpoints about using AI
chatbots for writing assignments
The Potential Conflict and Crisis in HR Management Writers of the three different stakeholder groups commonly mentioned
STEM Editorials the potential conflict and crisis in HR management. Considering the posi-
Anxiety about the Future of Human Intelligence in Research Community tionalities of the writers and characteristics of the media outlets, each
Editorial-4; Editorial-6 stakeholder group represented different areas of HR management; STEM
STEM Newspapers editorials and newspapers discussed the impact of ChatGPT on scientific
The Knowledge Competition between AI and Human Intelligence research communities. Whereas STEM editorials discussed anxiety, STEM
in STEM Research newspapers promoted a scholarly debate regarding the knowledge
Nature-1; Nature-10; Nature-12; competition between AI and human intelligence. Similarly, writers of higher
HE Magazines education magazines portrayed the potential crisis in HR management,
Will AI Replace Human Intelligence in Higher Education or Co-exist? questioning whether AI will replace or co-exist with human intelligence.
CHE-10; IHE-24; IHE-31; THE-2 AI chatbots have benefited the STEM research communities and higher
education administration, teaching, and research, the growing concerns
and risk factors may influence the future of human intelligence in academia
editorials represented negative aspects of using ChatGPT problems in academic research and publication: “2022
during academic research and publication works, Edi- has seen eye-catching development in AI applications.
torial-2 showed a neutral position, acknowledging that Work is needed to ensure that ethical reflection and
ChatGPT can be used as a practical tool to organize data responsible publication practices are keeping pace.” The
in scientific research. For example, one editorial under- editorial further addressed potential risk factors related
lined, “[G]raph neural networks are a type of machine to large language models (LLMs) in STEM research:
learning algorithm that use graph structures to encode
A persistent problem with many experimental AI
spatial relationships between objects.” In this regard, the
tools, such as those based on LLMs, is that they have
algorithms can be utilized to generate “spatial context for
many limitations that are not sufficiently under-
various applications, including image segmentation, dis-
stood, but that could lead, intentionally or uninten-
ease classification, and tissue analysis.” Hence, Editorial-2
tionally, to harmful applications. Those who con-
emphasized that scientists and researchers can experi-
tribute to AI developments, therefore, need to engage
ence ChatGPT as a means to organize data and charts,
more with ethical processes to ensure responsible
promoting the quality of scientific research (i.e., biomedi-
publication and release of AI tools. This is urgent
cal engineering, pathology, and radiology).
and necessary given the reach of AI, with many
Nonetheless, other editorials showed different view-
applications being pervasive in society and posing a
points. For instance, Editorial-1 raised a critical question
substantial risk of potential harm and misuse.
regarding “AI ethics” and highlighted diverse potential

Furthermore, Editorial-3 highlighted potential risk STEM newspapers: authorship and moral dilemma
factors related to scientific writing and authorship. to utilizing ChatGPT
Due to ChatGPT’s 175-billion parameter LLM from Similar to journal editorials, professional writers of
OpenAI and self-trained mode, researchers can easily STEM journals directly mentioned or implied the poten-
access an enormous amount of data on the internet. tial crisis in academic research and publication. The risk
Thus, this editorial expressed concerns about publica- factors vary, including authorship, content development,
tion ethics: absence of standard publication metrics, and moral
dilemmas to utilizing ChatGPT. According to Nature-11,
It has become an essential, largely underappreciated
STEM researchers could improve their scientific writ-
part of science publishing to carry out various qual-
ing through academic editing services before the advent
ity checks such as whether authors and affiliations
of ChatGPT. They had to spend an enormous amount of
actually exist and whether parts of the text have
money on hiring copy editors, but currently, they can use
been previously published elsewhere. ChatGPT’s
ChatGPT to improve their manuscripts and save time
ability to produce large amounts of plausible-sound-
and research funding. This news article provided an illu-
ing content and to rewrite the existing text in differ-
minating example of how scientists may feel favorable to
ent styles, making plagiarism detection near-impos-
AI chatbots:
sible, may stretch the current system to its limits and
undermine trust. In December, computational biologists Casey
Another concern in scientific writing is that a user’s Greene and Milton Pividori embarked on an unu-
prompt may generate text from ChatGPT that sual experiment: they asked an assistant who was
includes content that the user does not understand, not a scientist to help them improve three of their
but which the user may be tempted to incorporate research papers. Their assiduous aide suggested
into their writing…A downside is that ChatGPT revisions to sections of documents in seconds; each
may normalize a new form of writing in which the manuscript took about five minutes to review. In one
human user merely curates large swaths of text by biology manuscript, their helper even spotted a mis-
rearranging the output from multiple prompts. take in a reference to an equation. The trial didn’t
always run smoothly, but the final manuscripts were
Notably, Editorial-5 clarified that ChatGPT threatens easier to read—and the fees were modest, at less
transparent science and urged researchers and publishers than US$0.50 per document.
to recognize some ground rules. AI chatbots entail “[T]
he big worry in the research community” that can pro- Nevertheless, the other STEM journal newspapers had
duce unreliable work. This editorial clarified the scientific different opinions. They disapproved of ChatGPT as co-
societies’ positions on research ethics and publication, authors in academic publications. For instance, Nature-7
stating “[S]everal preprints and published articles have represented a clear position that “many scientists disap-
already credited ChatGPT with formal authorship.” and prove” and implied growing concerns about preprint
further asserted: papers or positional papers that may list ChatGPT as
co-authors, disregarding “formal debut in the scientific
That’s why it is high time researchers and publishers literature—racking up at least four authorship credits on
laid down ground rules about using LLMs ethically. published papers and preprint.” Similarly, a daily brief-
Nature, along with all Springer Nature journals, has ing issued by Nature-8 showed the same position and
formulated the following two principles, which have critiqued growing concerns related to authorship: “Pub-
been added to our existing guide to authors….First, lishers are starting to ban AI authorship.” Furthermore,
no LLM tool will be accepted as a credited author Nature-6 perceived that “ChatGPT can write passable
on a research paper. That is because any attribution abstracts.”, but AI-generated abstracts pool scientists,”
of authorship carries with it accountability for the and these are not even appropriate and acceptable, which
work, and AI tools cannot take such responsibility… cannot persuade academic editors.
Second, researchers using LLM tools should docu-
ment this use in the methods or acknowledgments Higher education magazines: ambiguous authorship
sections. If a paper does not include these sections, as research assistants, editors, or collaborators
the instruction or another appropriate section can Writers of higher education magazines directly men-
be used to document the use of the LLM. tioned or implied authorship issues involving academic

research. Some of the most illuminating examples of this STEM newspapers: academics’ anxiety versus concerns
were related to ambiguous authorship. In other words, about students’ essays
the writers raised critical questions about how higher The primary debate in this discourse was about academ-
education researchers should view the roles of ChatGPT ics’ anxiety and concerns about students’ essays. Nature-2
and its AI chatbots. According to IHE-22, the AI capa- introduced the use of ChatGPT in a smart classroom set-
bilities of ChatGPT have many academics being, “both ting: “The growth in tools based on [AI] that can generate
drastic and ecstatic, for the end of essay writing.” This text in response to a question has transformed how peo-
quote implies that if AI chatbots are writing, who are the ple use smartphones and computers…students can use
authors? IHE-8 also raised crucial points regarding man- such software to summarize articles, clean up text and
uscript development and asked readers how researchers even write code. But some worry that this type of soft-
should use the chatbots: “What will the writing process ware could lead to scientific misconduct.” Furthermore,
look like for them? Will they use models as research Nature-4 supported that ChatGPT may “kill the essay
assistants? As editors?”. assignment” and urged that “[a]cademics worry about
Indeed, ChatGPT provides diverse answers about areas students using artificial intelligence tools to write their
of faculty work. Given this, CHE-5 addressed: homework.” Nature-9 also covered AI competitions in a
STEM classroom setting. A news article entitled, “Arms
Much academic research reads as if it were pre-
race with automation’: professors fret about AI-generated
pared by artificial intelligence. It follows strict con-
course work,” portrayed that “[i]nstructors are rethink-
ventions of form and objectivity and goes unread all
ing student assignments to tackle an anticipated surge
too often. Artificial intelligence can teach academ-
in bogus essays…[with] the rapid development and evo-
ics the importance of having a distinctive writing
lution of [AI] chatbots, students can generate seemingly
voice—one has been conditioned by the experience of
insightful writing with the click of a button.” However,
being a human and that a robot would have trouble
along with the rapid evolution of AI and the advent of
replicating.
ChatGPT, Nature-9 offered: “Although some academics
IHE-4 also implied ambiguous authorship but urged blame these tools for the death of the college essay, a pool
academics to rethink “AI simply as an automation tool of Nature readers suggested that the resulting essays are
or as an assistant.” And further, it emphasized that “[W]e still easy to flag, and it is possible to amend existing poli-
might, instead, think of it as a collaborator—as a resource cies and assignments to address their use.”
that we can use to in research, writing and thinking. I feel
today a bit as I did in 1993 when the internet browser was Higher education magazines: biases toward students’
introduced.” academic integrity in writing despite the reality
Along with growing concerns about the impact of AI
The potential conflict and crisis in teaching and learning chatbots on teaching and learning, especially associated
STEM editorials: academic integrity issues of students with academic writing and essay assignments in a class-
While most editorials focused on discussing potential room setting, writers of higher education magazines not
issues involving scientific research and publication, Edi- only acknowledged diverse risk factors but also expressed
torial-5 covered potential academic integrity issues of how instructors should negotiate with students’ aca-
students. This editorial implied that many students might demic integrity issues, indicating somewhat neutral
have experienced the use of ChatGPT in their academic positions. Initially, CHE-1 noted: “AI and the future of
assignments: undergraduate writing –Teaching experts are concerned,
but not for the reasons you think,” and further raised the
ChatGPT can write presentable student essays, question: “Is the college essay dead? Are hordes of stu-
summarize research papers, answer questions well dents going to use artificial intelligence to cheat on their
enough to pass medical exams, and generate helpful writing assignments? Has machine learning reached the
computer code. It has produced research abstracts point where auto-generated text looks like what a typical
good enough that scientists found it hard to spot that first-year student might produce?” CHE-3 also remarked:
a computer had written them. Worryingly for soci- “Why I’m Not Scared of ChatGPT–The limits of the
ety, it could also make spam, ransomware, and other technology are where real writing begins.” Furthermore,
malicious outputs easier to produce. Although Ope- as CHE-8 pointed out, “ChatGPT has everyone freak-
nAI has tried to put guard rails on what the chatbot ing out about cheating….and continued, “This is not the
will do, users are already finding ways around them. first time a new technology has kindled worries among

faculty, who have long feared that students will take The potential conflict and crisis in HR management
shortcuts instead of doing their own work.” STEM editorials: anxiety about the future of human
Other news articles implied that instructors can handle intelligence in research communities
students’ academic integrity issues in writing by setting Even though there are advantages to using ChatGPT in
clear rules and guidelines. For instance, IHE-15 men- scientific research communities, some editorials also
tioned, “[T]o help put text generators in the proper per- expressed concerns about the future of human intelli-
spective, we need to turn toward each other to determine gence. One of the primary concerns was the limited abil-
guidelines for the use of such tools.” IHE-18 also dis- ity to predict research data and analysis compared to AI
cussed, “ChatGPT raises questions about what we value algorithms. While AI chatbots forecast results and show
in writing instruction,” but many instructors are “worried better performances, many scientists may feel empty and
about ChatGPT.” Given this, this opinion article stated, questionable about their research capability. For example,
“Don’t be” These quotes implied that at the end of semes- in astronomy, Editorial-4 expressed “the potential for AI
ters, many students are writing their final papers, and to replace human astronomers” and argued:
instructors are “exhausted from grading.” Both parties
While AI algorithms can be very effective at ana-
may consider using ChatGPT when they struggle to final-
lyzing data and making predictions, they cannot
ize their tasks on time. However, IHE-18’s texts implied
replace the human ability to ask questions, make
that ChatGPT’s current ability is not superior enough
creative connections and think critically about the
to enhance students’ essays in a specific logical manner,
data. There is a risk that the reliance on AI could
such as Wikipedia or Google.
lead to a reduction in human creativity and curios-
Despite ongoing debates regarding how instructors
ity in the field of astronomy…It is important to be
should negotiate with students’ academic integrity issues,
aware of the pitfalls of AI, including the risk of inac-
some other news articles demonstrated a clear position
curate predictions and the potential for it to replace
that using ChatGPT is unethical, which will potentially
human thinking and creativity. By being mindful of
disregard the value of higher education and its justifi-
these potential pitfalls, astronomers can make the
cation of existence. Notably, IHE-27 metaphorized the
most of the benefits of AI while also maintaining the
advent of ChatGPT as “a plague upon education” and
unique strengths of human intelligence.
stated:
In addition, Editorial-6 predicted the continual growth
Today we are facing a new sort of plague, one that
of AI, which may influence the future of human intelli-
threatens our minds more than our bodies. Chat-
gence. This editorial stated, “In 2022, over $1.37 billion
GPT, the artificial intelligence chatbot that can
was invested into generative AI companies, and as this
write college-level essays, is going viral…A lecturer
software gains more traction in the biomedical space, this
at an Australian university found that a fifth of her
amount is likely to increase. There have been predictions
students had already used ChatGPT on their exams.
that generative AI could result in $1 trillion in value for
Scores of Stanford University students reportedly
the healthcare industry by 2040.” Given the context, the
used it on their fall 2022 final exams mere weeks
future of human intelligence is uncertain without specific
after its release. A critical mass, a superspreader
knowledge and creative thinking in the scientific research
event, is clearly forming…While headlines warning
society.
about ChatGPT have populated the news cycle daily
for more than a month now, most educators have yet
to really feel the brunt of this viral sensation directly. STEM newspapers: the knowledge competition between AI
and human intelligence in STEM research
THE-5 stated that “ChatGPT can pass US medical Writers of STEM journal newspapers suggest the poten-
license exams” and “AI-generated answers showed ‘new, tial impact of ChatGPT and its AI chatbots on human
non-obvious and clinically valid’ insights in texts usually intelligence in the scientific research job market. Some
taken by students after years of study.” In a nutshell, while news articles, including daily briefings or career fea-
some higher education magazine articles have argued tures, provided texts and developed debates regarding
that instructors should be steadfast and make active chal- AI versus HI. For example, Nature-1 portrayed: “Are
lenges and negotiate with their students’ academic integ- Chat[GPT] and Alpha[-]code going to replace program-
rity issues, other articles pointed out that these seem mers?” and “OpenAI and DeepMind systems can now
problematic, which could remain potential biases toward produce meaningful lines of code, but software engi-
the promises and pitfalls of ChatGPT and its AI chatbots. neers shouldn’t switch careers quite yet.” Nature-5 noted:

“Abstracts written by ChatGPT fool scientists” and illustrated the landscape of academic job markets and
“Researchers cannot always differentiate between AI- demographic shifts:
generated and original abstracts.” Nature-10 described:
As a field that has remained relatively unchanged
“Science urgently needs a plan for ChatGPT” and “How
over decades, higher education is overdue for a
artificial intelligence tools might remake the scientific
major makeover to adjust to the changes over the
enterprise.” Nature-12 wrote: “Approaches to capturing
decades in our society. We have lost affordability
the benefits of research on society are improving—but
and relevance to many prospective students and
huge challenges remain.”
employees. As a result, four million fewer students
More specifically, Nature-12 suggested the poten-
are attending college than a decade ago. Now, fewer
tially limited role of scientists in the age of AI and raised
employers are requiring college degrees. The advent
critical questions: “Every researcher wants to write their
of new technical capabilities such as generative arti-
work to matter—and increasing competition for fund-
ficial intelligence promises to create even greater
ing is compelling scientists to show their worth. But what
pressure to replace positions with less expensive and
is the real value of an experiment, a finding, or a public
more efficient AI applications. These factors com-
lecture?” In addition, Nature-1 warned about the poten-
bine with other socioeconomic conditions to create
tial human intelligence crisis in the scientific research
a downward pressure on the budgets of colleges and
society:
universities.
Artificial intelligence (AI) researchers have been
Although some articles narrated a more specific expla-
impressed by the skills of AlphaCode, an AI sys-
nation of the future academic faculty job market, oth-
tem that can often compete with humans at solv-
ers discussed non-faculty positions in higher education
ing simple computer-science problems. Google sis-
as leading to a certain blindness about questioning the
ter company DeepMind, an AI powerhouse based
future of higher education that AI may provoke. For
in London, released the tool in February and has
instance, IHE-31 provided an illuminating example of
now published its results in Science, showing that
admissions counselors. In specific, those admissions pro-
AlphaCode beat about half of humans at code com-
fessionals are significant. Considering their roles, IHE-31
petitions.
stated that “industry standards such as travel season (vis-
iting high schools and attending college fairs) are viewed
as a rite of passage,” and they “all have fond (or not-so-
Higher education magazines: will AI replace human
fond) memories of scouring the earth to meet prospective
intelligence in higher education or co‑exist?
students, collecting information, and racking up hotel
Numerous higher education magazine articles directly
points.” However, their roles may be limited, because par-
mentioned the term “human intelligence” and implied
ents and students themselves could collect general infor-
issues involving the future of HR management in higher
mation about college admissions and develop their own
education. Like STEM editorials and newspapers, the most
admissions strategies using ChatGPT.
dominant debate was related to academic faculty. Never-
Finally, THE-2 raised a critical question about Chat-
theless, some articles provided deeper and richer explana-
GPT as a “tool or terminator” and generated a debate
tions regarding the potential risk factors beyond academic
regarding the potential human intelligence crisis in
faculty positions. Initially, CHE-10 mentioned a general
higher education: “AI will replace academics unless
concern about academic faculty: “[I]t’s not easy to write
[their] teaching challenges students.” This article con-
like a human when AI or the worn-in grooves of scholarly
cluded with a reader’s comment:
habits are right there at hand.” This meant that each faculty
member has their writing style and scholarly habits. They The emergence of AI and ChatGPT is an inevitable
are concerned about “what this technology means for aca- evolution. It’s only a threat to educational institu-
demic integrity, writing instruction, and essay assignments. tions if they don’t evolve with it. This is an oppor-
But in the meantime, ChatGPT offers a clear message tunity to finally rid ourselves of traditional assess-
about another major area of faculty work: scholarly writ- ment formats, which disadvantaged many anyway
ing.” Given the context, ChatGPT may influence future aca- (by punishing those who were slow to develop skills
demic job markets and faculty careers as academic writing to write academically) and were increasingly open
abilities in their chosen disciplines are significant. to misconduct, with many lazily relying on Turn It
Beyond a simple mention of HR management in higher In. Unfortunately, I strongly suspect that institutions
education, some writers have raised critical questions will be very slow to react and even to respond on
concerning future employment. For instance, IHE-24 how staff should deal with it.

Discussion societies as public intellectuals, critical mentors, media-

This study explored how writers of the mainstream tors, facilitators, and influential figures to promote criti-
STEM journals and higher education magazines per- cal conflict resolutions (Hansen, 2008; Nam, 2020; Peters
ceived the impact of AI chatbots on STEM research and et al., 2022). Accordingly, the most overarching conflict-
the future of human intelligence in higher education. ing relationships, potential crises, and risk factors, as well
Three prominent writer groups were chosen to develop as plausible crisis management strategies and praxis, will
CMDA with the advent of ChatGPT, including STEM be presented in this discussion section.
editorials, STEM newspapers, and higher education mag-
azines, and asked research questions about how these Philosophy of academic publishing and ground rules
stakeholder groups engaged with scholarly dialogues for authorship
concerning the potential conflicts and crises in academic The first research question was how mainstream STEM
research, publication, teaching, learning, and HR man- journals and higher education magazines perceived the
agement. These stakeholder groups mentioned ethical potential conflict and crisis in academic research and
issues, moral dilemmas, and risk factors that may influ- publication. In general, the primary conflict is between
ence individuals’ academic integrity and future careers academic editors and authors. In the contemporary sci-
in scientific research communities and higher education. entific research society, the roles of academic editors
However, contradictory and problematic debates have are significant. They are the key stakeholders and ethi-
arisen regarding the promises and pitfalls of ChatGPT cal judges in the global academy. Thus, they play pivotal
and its AI chatbots. roles in intervening with conflicts of interest among
Among the diverse media outlets, STEM journal edi- authors. They must encourage investigators to follow
torials anticipated a growing public concern about the ethical guidelines, adopt experimental and innovative
potential conflict and crisis in academic research and approaches, and develop critical thinking and problem-
publication. In the current age of post-digital education solving skills in academic publishing; these researchers
and bio-digital technology, the editorials demonstrated must navigate their curiosities by raising and answering
precise positions regarding intellectual knowledge that their critical questions (Peters et al., 2016). Indeed, pub-
should be protected, focusing more on authorship and lication work describes academic labor, entailing trust-
integrity issues, while higher education magazines worthiness, candor, integrity, and perseverance. Editors
expressed concerns regarding academic integrity, espe- are responsible for protecting intellectual benefits and
cially the potential conflict and crisis in teaching and respecting fairness and justice for all academics (Kim,
learning relationships. Although both parties acknowl- 2023; Peters et al., 2016). However, persistent concerns
edged that the advent of ChatGPT could influence the about the advent of ChatGPT have invaded academic
future of human intelligence in STEM research and research and publication.
higher education development, there have still been limi- In the current study, the results showed that despite
tations to reforming appropriate policies and practices. a majority of writers’ concerns about the potential ethi-
More specifically, despite Springer Nature Journals’ urg- cal writing issues, especially authorship, ownership, and
ing for grounded rules for authorship, mentioning spe- rights, a growing body of literature on ChatGPT and AI
cific grounded rules in teaching and learning was largely Chatbots has neglected to respect these important items,
overlooked. Thus, in this CMDA, their critical voices and adding ChatGPT as co-authors or developers of research
empirical thinking can offer implications for research design contents. Notably, prominent journal editorials
ethics and academic norms, suggesting plausible guide- (i.e., Springer Nature and Science) and monographs have
lines to be aware of the significance of protecting intellec- expressed concerns about countless positional, preprint,
tual assets in the knowledge ecology system. and conference papers (i.e., non-empirical and peer-
Within STEM research and higher education devel- reviewed papers) that often test the ability of ChatGPT
opment, crisis management illustrates strategic plan- and share their perceptions and opinions about their use.
ning and problem-solving. Academic editors and higher They argued that academics should not negotiate with AI
education leaders intervene with conflicting groups of chatbots (Kim, 2023; Thorp, 2023).
interests, such as institutional and technological factors More recently, Tülübaş et al. (2023) tested the Human-
that may hinder the effectiveness of scientific research, AI collaboration to generate scientific research projects
knowledge-based economy, and human capital develop- via ChatGPT-3.5 and 4. The investigators interviewed
ment (Hong & Hardy, 2022; Nam et al., 2019). Hence, ChatGPT on emergency remote teaching (ERT) and gen-
academic leaders and policy-decision makers should erated texts regarding the research themes and evalu-
recognize potential risk factors and incidents, prevent- ations. The result showed that ChatGPT-4 responded
ing crises in certain emergencies. They can serve their with synthesized and detailed information about

the investigators’ requests. This study discussed bias issues. Despite the importance of ethical writing, some
issues involving content development via ChatGPT scholars maintained that course instructors should allow
but neglected to provide an in-depth discussion about students to use AI chatbots appropriately. For example,
authorship and rights. Meanwhile, Peters et al. (2023b) Tlili et al. (2023) conducted an empirical case study using
discussed using ChatGPT-4 and authorship issues: “… chatbots for educational purposes in a smart classroom
it emphasizes the collaborative and distributed nature setting. The investigators conducted in-depth interviews
of knowledge production across various entities, includ- with three educators and 19 learners and their percep-
ing non-human ones. Similarly, ChatGPT generates tions as ChatGPT users. They developed contents as
responses based on a vast corpus of data, rather than on units of analysis: (a) educational transformation; (b)
the authority of a single author or expert, and does not response quality; (c) personality and emotions; (d) useful-
offer a response to the idea of a ‘public intellectual’” (p. ness; and (e) ethics. Notably, one of the primary discus-
19). sions was about embracing the technology rather than
Springer Nature Journals have initiated editorial poli- banning it; despite growing concerns about ethical dilem-
cies and practices concerning ground rules for authorship mas in teaching and learning, ChatGPT provides educa-
that ChatGPT will not be co-authors because of respon- tional opportunities for smart learners, which should be
sibility and accountability issues. Texts generated by AI negotiated along with the rapid evolution of AI. However,
chatbots will not be acceptable (Kim, 2023). Neverthe- still, there are no clear ethical boundaries, ground rules,
less, there have still been numerous open-access journals, and policies in teaching and learning, even though edi-
especially potentially predatory publishers or journals tors of prominent journals began to raise critical ques-
(i.e., Beall’s list) (see Peters et al., 2016), or archive organi- tions regarding ground rules for authorship.
zations that disregard the ethical and moral standards Jandrić et al. (2022) suggested that educators should
of academic publishing (Peters et al., 2023b). Therefore, encourage students to undertake collective writing pro-
promoting a continuum of social change in academic jects to cope with students’ academic integrity in the cur-
research and publication is significant. rent age of post-digital education. They can serve their
classmates as peer reviewers and collaborators, building
How to cope with students’ academic integrity in writing
mutual trust, responsibility, accountability, and intellec-
The second research question was about how main- tual property. The students can also learn the nature of the
stream STEM journals and higher education magazines academic “ecosystem of new (and original) ideas (with-
perceived the potential conflict and crisis in teaching out foundations)” and the “ethical system—trust, integ-
and learning. The primary conflict is between instructors rity, and collegiality.” (Jandrić et al. 2022, pp. 20–21). To
and students. As the results found, ChatGPT and its AI enhance the ground rules for students’ academic writing,
Chatbots can be available for college students. Instruc- Besley et al. (2023) suggested that course instructors can
tors are anxious about students’ academic violations, develop a draft of an integrity statement, set clear course
such as cheating, misconduct, and penalties. Teachers policies, and avoid abuses of academic power, thereby
and students may lose faith in each other because of the boosting mutual teaching and learning relationships.
unforeseen conflicts arising from the increased concerns
for ChatGPT. Rethinking STEM ideology at the nexus between AI
In reviewing the relevant literature, students’ aca- and human intelligence in the 4IR era
demic integrity instills in them how to construct ethical The third and final research question was how main-
and moral behaviors, using their thinking and abilities stream STEM journals and higher education magazines
to perform their academic tasks (Besley et al., 2023). perceived the potential conflict and crisis in HR man-
higher education institutions value students’ reliability agement. The major conflict involved academic faculty
and accountability, showing their active challenges in members in teaching and research, because they are the
dealing with their academic performances and writing stakeholders who may feel anxious about the potential
tasks. Educators observe their morale to encourage them structural problems that could affect HR management
to develop academic integrity and suggest guidelines to and future academic job markets and employment pat-
develop subjectivities and citizenship behaviors while terns. As the results of the current study demonstrated,
undertaking their essay assignments and collective writ- many members of the scientific research society and
ing projects (Jandrić et al., 2022; Nam et al., 2023). college instructors may feel anxious about their future
Nevertheless, the current study’s findings underlined careers and muse on the potential crisis of whether AI
that students’ misconduct and cheating have long been may replace human intelligence in STEM research and
growing concerns in higher education, and the recent higher education development. In reality, as THE-2
advent of ChatGPT contributed to accelerating these stated:

If history tells us anything, it’s that focusing on pol- (2021) stated that TPACK was introduced by Mishra and
icy and punitive measures for academic misconduct Koehler (2006) to support instructors and learners in
was not an adequate solution to essay mills. I hope understanding content-focused learning strategies. This
HEIs [higher education institutions] don’t make the framework helps teachers and students accomplish their
same mistake with AI. The difference here is that learning goals by cultivating new technology proficiency
AI is going to be incredibly useful for studying and and creative thinking skills. Likewise, STEM scholars
for employment, so hopefully that’s recognized and have collectively attempted to construct the knowledge
quickly. ecology system and foster a knowledge-based economy
and human capital in the current age of post-digital edu-
In addition, numerous columnists and influencers on
cation and bio-digital technology (Peters et al., 2023a).
public media outlets (e.g., The New York Times, Wall
Finally, previous scholars have refined the meaning of
Street Journal, and CBS News) and social media plat-
post-digital capitalism and the future of human intelli-
forms (e.g., Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook) have voiced
gence in STEM education and praxis; human intelligence
concerns about the implications of AI and the impact of
has the characteristics of conscious human practical
ChatGPT on human labor relations, as well as anticipated
activities and emphasizes art as an essential practical
AI competitions among companies in the ICT industry
feature thereof, and STEM theories and its ideological
(Cao, 2023; Cerullo, 2023; Hao, 2023; Hsu & Thomp-
principles are related to human thinking and spiritual
son, 2023). The age of digital capitalism has been shifting
communication with machines (i.e., AI chatbots). These
toward post-digital capitalism, in which ICT and STEM
are also associated with the nexus between spiritual and
companies in “Silicon Valley” have been promoting cos-
material productions, in which AI cannot rule human
mopolitan market competition (Fast, 2021, p. 1616). The
intelligence (Gan & Bai, 2023). However, other scholars
ICT and STEM industry leaders (e.g., Elon Musk and
have raised a crucial point regarding intellectuals’ careers
Mark Zuckerberg) began expecting to recruit employees
in the current era of 4IR; other risk factors can influ-
armed with cutting-edge new technology skills, such as
ence their occupational opportunities because of social,
AI, robotics, DNA mapping, 3D printing, nanotechnol-
economic, or environmental factors (i.e., the COVID-19
ogy, biotechnology, and so on (see Cao, 2023; Khine &
pandemic and shrinking academic job markets), but not
Areepattamannil, 2019; Peters, 2017). However, these
because of the AI chatbots (). In a sense, the potential
columnists also expressed that numerous white-collar
conflict and crisis in HR management cannot be general-
jobs may disappear in the near future due to the rapid
izable yet, at least in the current early stage of the Chat-
evolution of AI (Cao, 2023; Cerullo, 2023; Hao, 2023;
GPT era. As numerous scholars have represented their
Hsu & Thompson, 2023). The current study claims that
positionalities as neutral, the public dialogues about the
it is significant to reflect on the nature of STEM ideology
impact of AI chatbots on STEM research and the future
and praxis in the age of 4IR and refine the role of STEM
of human intelligence in higher education have remained
scholars and their contributions to higher education
an ongoing sociocultural and sociopolitical discourse,
development.
viewing the promises and pitfalls of ChatGPT as a “dou-
To recall, in recent decades, STEM scholars have been
ble-edged sword” (Shen et al., 2023, p. 1).
promoting scientific knowledge and learning outcomes
Overall, there were similarities and differences regard-
with equity for students in the contemporary neoliberal
ing the impact of AI chatbots on STEM research and
academic and capitalist market economic structures
the future of human intelligence in higher education,
(Gan & Bai, 2023; Hughes et al., 2022). They have con-
provoked by the recent advent of ChatGPT. The STEM
ceptualized the smart campus and classroom, which
editorials expressed concerns related to publication eth-
promotes the digitalization of education by combining
ics. Notably, Kim (2023) represented Springer Nature
high-end technologies to support teachers and learners.
journals’ grounded rules in general and clear standpoints
They have also encouraged teachers and learners to use
regarding authorship that ChatGPT cannot take full
ICT tools and digital devices like the Internet, AI chat-
responsibility or accountability, such as human intel-
bots, smartphones, and robotics (Cox, 2021; Dimitriadou
ligence. The current study also claims that intellectual
& Lanitis, 2023).
property is of utmost value in academic publishing. By
Moreover, STEM scholars have also conceptual-
the same token, higher education magazines also have
ized Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowl-
lamented the limited roles of educational policymakers,
edge (TPACK) to increase a practice understanding of
so thus, they have issued calls for policy reforms to sug-
teaching and learning in higher education (Gan & Bai,
gest a new AI policy paradigm in higher education. Due
2023; Jiang et al., 2023; Khine & Areepattamannil, 2019;
to the different characteristics of those academic and
Soler-Costa et al., 2021). For example, Soler-Costa et al.
professional writers, they focused more on their specific

areas, whether issues involving research ethics, teaching, the promotion of AI tools for students may hinder the
learning, or HR management. However, they commonly effectiveness of teaching and learning, which may jeop-
raised crucial points regarding morality and integrity ardize students’ academic integrity and actual learning
in academic writing. These are their critical discourses goals. However, in this rapid sociocultural and sociopolit-
regarding the advent of ChatGPT and uncertainty about ical climate shift toward the ChatGPT era, higher educa-
the future of human intelligence in STEM research and tion is in numerous crises without plausible policy reform
higher education development. agendas. The academic integrity issues in higher educa-
tion have remained significant limitations. Hence, future
Practical implications, limitations, and future scholars should continue investigating ways to strengthen
research grounded rules for mutual teaching and learning. In
The current study calls for educational policy reforms addition, even though written and textual data from
and urges setting more transparent grounded rules mainstream STEM journal editorials and higher educa-
within STEM research and higher education develop- tion magazines are prominent empirical data sources of
ment. Although Springer Nature Journals proclaimed evidence, researchers’ and students’ perceptions about
that any AI chatbot-generated articles will not be con- the impact of ChatGPT on academic research and teach-
sidered publishable scholarship, there are no clear ethi- ing and learning in higher education will be valuable as
cal boundaries among many other publishers and their they are also primary stakeholders. Finally, as aforemen-
journals. Furthermore, the writers of the chosen articles tioned, OpenAI launched the version of ChatGPT-4, and
have lamented the limited roles of educational policy- future versions or similar AI platforms will continually be
makers, so thus, they have issued calls for policy reforms introduced. Therefore, future scholars should consider
to suggest a new AI policy paradigm in higher education. both quantitative and qualitative investigations regard-
Regarding scientific research and publication, Editorial-3 ing this topic, expanding existing knowledge in global
urged that there is no clear policy yet. This should “evolve scholarship.
when the impacts of large language models on scientific
publishing to resolve legitimate and unwanted appli- Conclusion
cations of AI-generative tools, and we will be actively This study examined the impact of AI chatbots on STEM
involved in discussions about this.” By the same token, research and the future of human intelligence in higher
Nature-12 stated that science-policy researchers should education. Accordingly, the current study asked research
contribute to improving specific policies and practices to questions about how the writers of mainstream STEM
measure “societal impact” on “how to go beyond stand- journals and higher education magazines framed poten-
ard publication metrics”, in which currently “approaches tial conflicts and crises in academic research and publi-
to capturing the benefits of research on society are cation, teaching and learning, and HR management. The
improving–but huge challenges remain.” results showed commonalities and differences based on
Concerning teaching and learning in higher education, the writers’ positionalities and characteristics of their
CHE-8 addressed that “many faculty members are debat- disciplines or occupational areas. In retrospect, numer-
ing what ChatGPT might mean for the future of teaching ous scholars, both within STEM research and higher
and academic integrity.” However, no clear policies exist, education development, have explored the recent advent
which may produce diverse conflicts between teach- of ChatGPT and dedicated themselves to increasing an
ers and learners. Furthermore, IHE-2 pointed out that in-depth understanding of the knowledge competition
“AI will augment, not replace”, which will cause “a likely between AI and human intelligence. However, using
series [of ] freaking out about ChatGPT” among diverse empirical data to explore potential conflicts and cri-
stakeholders. Notably, IHE-7 addressed ethical college ses in key risk areas—academic research and publica-
admissions influenced by ChatGPT. Many high school tion, teaching and learning, and HR management—has
students may consider utilizing Chatbot to develop their so far been limited. Accordingly, the current study pre-
life experience and qualification to apply to universities. sented a CMDA of the expert groups in STEM research
At this point, this study claims that the students’ imagi- and higher education development as an exemplar. The
nary and virtual reflections on their personal identi- empirical voices from academic editors and professional
ties could be described in their admission essays. While writers of the mainstream STEM journals and higher
they obtain admission to high-profile universities, many education magazines can be powerful means to increase
higher education institutions may face challenges recog- a more comprehensive understanding of the movement
nizing students’ specific qualifications and endowments. toward post-digital education and bio-digital technology
Nevertheless, there is no clear policy to control the ethi- in the age of 4IR.
cal writing issue. The current study further argues that

By addressing the most overarching concerns, this Declarations

study focused on promoting scholarly dialogues among
Ethics approval and consent to participate
the chosen writer groups, emphasizing the social impor- This research does not involve human subjects. As this research adopted a
tance of research ethics and academic publication, and qualitative media analysis method, ethics approval by the university ethics
urging scientists and scholars to give more attention to committee does not apply.
the philosophy of academic publishing and ground rules. Competing interests

The current study also focused on illuminating grow- The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
ing concerns about students’ academic writing issues
and professors’ anxiety and worries about their teach- Received: 8 May 2023 Accepted: 28 September 2023
ing morale and faith in their classes. These issues are not
only instructors’ concerns but higher education policy-
decision makers’ tasks. Hence, this study called upon
more intellectuals to take their educative, social, and References
political roles to engage with the public and share their Altheide, D. L., & Schneider, C. J. (2013). Qualitative media analysis (2nd ed.).
SAGE.
authentic voices to enhance ground rules in teaching and Bai, Q., & Nam, B. H. (2023). Symbolic power for student curators as social
learning. agents: The emergence of the museum of World Languages at Shanghai
Meanwhile, there were a few notable limitations. Ini- International Studies University during the COVID-19 era. Museum
Management and Curatorship, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/09647775.
tially, this study identified various risk factors, incidents, 2023.2188473
and conflicts of interest among academic editors, instruc- Bai, Q., & Nam, B. H. (2020). Capitalism and reproduction in the new museol-
tors, and students, and their positionalities concerning ogy: Chinese cultural heritage conservation and promotion at the Met-
ropolitan Museum of Art. Journal of Arts Management, Law and Society.,
the use of AI chatbots in STEM research and interpret- 50(4–5), 267–282. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632921.2020.1815613
ing the future of human intelligence in higher education Bai, Q., & Nam, B. H. (2022). Where ‘West Meets East’: Cross-cultural discourses
have still been ambiguous. Thus, this study recommends regarding the Chinese arts collections at the Metropolitan Museum of
Art. Identities, 29(6), 883–902. https://doi.org/10.1080/1070289X.2020.
that future scholars expand the current research topic 1851007
and continually investigate the future of human intelli- Barash, Y., Klang, E., Konen, E., & Sorin, V. (2023). ChatGPT-4 assistance in opti-
gence in the global academy. Furthermore, it was limited mizing emergency department radiology referrals and imaging selection.
Journal of the American College of Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.
to drawing on the key policy-decision makers’ empiri- 2023.06.009
cal voices (higher education leaders, such as presidents, Besley, T., Jackson, L., Peters, M. A., Devine, N., Mayo, C., Stewart, G. T., & Arndt,
deans, and chairs) and their opinions about potential S. (2023). Philosophers and professors behaving badly: Responses to
‘named or nameless’ by Besley, Jackson & Peters. An EPAT collective writ-
conflicts and crises in STEM research and higher edu- ing project. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 55(3), 272–284. https://doi.
cation development. Therefore, the current study sug- org/10.1080/00131857.2021.2015322
gests that future scholars can consider investigating the Cao, S. (2023). Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg join the AI race to catch
ChatGPT. Observer. https://observer.com/2023/02/elon-musk-mark-zucke
perceptions of the key policy-decision makers and their rberg-chatgpt-rival/
ideas about strategic planning and critical conflict resolu- Cerullo, M. (2023). ChatGPT is growing faster than TikTok. CBS News. https://
tion strategies. Overall, this study contributes to the field www.cbsnews.com/news/chatgpt-chatbot-tiktok-ai-artifi cial-intelligen
ce/
of STEM education and promotes a continuum of policy Cox, A. M. (2021). Exploring the impact of Artificial Intelligence and robots on
reforms in higher education. higher education through literature-based design fictions. International
Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 18(3), 1–19. https://
Acknowledgements doi.org/10.1186/s41239-020-00237-8
We are grateful to Dr. Feng Gan in the School of Art at Southeast University. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among
His scholarly advice and encouragement helped us complete this research five approaches (3rd ed.). Sage.
successfully. We also appreciate his endless emotional support. Crompton, H., & Burke, D. (2023). Artificial intelligence in higher education: The
state of the field. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher
Author contributions Education, 20(22), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00392-8
BHN conceptualized this study and its research design. BHN and QB collected Deeb, A., & Love, A. (2018). Media representations of multiracial athletes.
data and analyzed the data together. Both authors equally developed the Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 42(2), 95–114.
manuscript. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research.
SAGE.
Funding Dimitriadou, E., & Lanitis, A. (2023). A critical evaluation, challenges, and future
This research received from grants from a general project of the National Fund perspectives of using artificial intelligence and emerging technologies in
of Philosophy and Social Science of the People’s Republic of China. [Project smart classrooms. Smart Learning Environments, 10(12), 1–26. https://doi.
No: 23BA022] and a major project of the National Fund of Philosophy and org/10.1186/s40561-023-00231-3
Social Science of the People’s Republic of China. [Project No: 21ZD11]. Dowling, M., & Lucey, B. (2023). ChatGPT for (finance) research: The Banana-
rama conjecture. Finance Research Letters, 53(103662), 1–6. https://doi.
Availability of data and materials org/10.1016/j.frl.2023.103662
All data utilized for this research are publicly available online. The specific data Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research.
materials are informed in Table 1. Routledge.

Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Polity Press. Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
Fast, K. (2021). The disconnection turn: Three facets of disconnective work implementation (4th ed.). USA: Wiley.
in post-digital capitalism. The International Journal of Research into New Miller, A. (2019). The intrinsically linked future for human and Artificial Intelli-
Media Technologies, 27(6), 1615–1630. https://doi.org/10.1177/13548 gence interaction. Journal of Big Data, 6(38), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/
565211033382 s40537-019-0202-7
Gan, F., & Bai, Q. (2023). Karl Marx’s thoughts on critical pedagogy, reproduc- Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowl-
tion, and aesthetic literacy in STEAM education and praxis. Educational edge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record,
Philosophy and Theory, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2023. 108(6), 1017–1054. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x
2197208 Moorehead, A. (1966). The fatal impact: An account of the South Pacific,
Giddens, A., & Sutton, P. W. (2014). Essential concepts in sociology. Polity Press. 1767–1840. Hamish Hamilton.
Hansen, T. (2008). Critical conflict resolution theory and practice. Conflict Reso- Moreno-Guerrero, A., Marín-Marín, J., Dúo-Terrón, P., & López-Belmonte,
lution Quarterly, 25(4), 403–427. https://doi.org/10.1002/crq.215 J. (2022). Chatbots in education: A systematic review of the science
Hao, K. (2023). What is ChatGPT? What to know about the AI Chatbot. The Wall literature. In P. P. Churi, S. Joshi, M. Elhoseny, & A. Omrane (Eds.), Artificial
Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/chatgpt-ai-chatbot-app- intelligence in higher education: A practical approach (pp. 81–94). USA: CRC
explained-11675865177 Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003184157-4
Hong, M., & Hardy, I. (2022). Sustainability and the Australian international Nam, B. H., English, A. S., Li, X., Van, H. H., & Nyman, J. K. (2023). Subjectivities
higher education industry: Towards a multidimensional model. Sustain- and the future of comparative and international education: Teacher
ability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 13(5), 1060–1081. researchers and graduate student researchers as co-constructive narra-
https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-11-2021-0481 tive inquirers. Educational Review, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131
Hsu, T., & Thompson, S. A. (2023). Disinformation researchers raise alarms about 911.2022.2159934
A.I. Chatbots. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/08/ Nam, B. H. (2020). Promoting the right to education and dual careers of ath-
technology/ai-chatbots-disinformation.html letes: Former Korean dropout college student-athletes as social agents to
Hughes, B. S., Corrigan, M. W., Grove, D., Andersen, S. B., & Wong, J. T. (2022). promote critical conflict resolution. International Journal of the History of
Integrating arts with STEM and leading with STEAM to increase science Sport., 37(17), 1755–1776. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523367.2020.1845152
learning with equity for emerging bilingual learners in the United States. Nam, B. H., Hong, D., Marshall, R. C., & Hong, J. (2018). Rethinking social activism
International Journal of STEM Education, 9(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10. regarding human rights for student-athletes in South Korea. Sport in Soci-
1186/s40594-022-00375-7 ety, 21(11), 1831–1849. https://doi.org/10.1080/17430437.2017.1421175
Jandrić, P., Luke, T. W., Sturm, S., McLaren, P., Jackson, L., MacKenzie, A., ... & Gib- Nam, B. H., Shin, Y. H., Jung, K. S., Kim, J., & Nam, S. (2019). Promoting knowl-
bons, A. (2022). Collective writing: The continuous struggle for meaning- edge economy, human capital, and dual careers of athletes: A critical
making. Postdigital Science and Education, 1–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/ approach to the Global Sports Talent Development Project in South
s42438-022-00320-5 Korea. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics., 11(4), 607–624.
Jiang, X., Nam, B. H., Tian, S., & Jin, H. (2023). How to cope with emergency https://doi.org/10.1080/19406940.2019.1615974
remote teaching for university academics: The case of a high-profile OpenAI (2015–2023). Introducing ChatGPT. https://openai.com/blog/chatgpt
language university in China. SAGE Open, 13(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10. Peters, M. A., Jandrić, P., Irwin, R., Locke, K., Devine, N., Heraud, R., & Benade,
1177/21582440231158026 L. (2016). Towards a philosophy of academic publishing. Educational
Khine, M., & Areepattamannil, S. (2019). STEAM education. Springer. Philosophy and Theory, 48(14), 1401–1425. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131
Kim, S. G. (2023). Using ChatGPT for language editing in scientific articles. 857.2016.1240987
Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 45(13), 1–2. https://doi.org/ Peters, M. A., Jandrić, P., Fuller, S., Means, A. J., Rider, S., Lăzăroiu, G., & Barnett,
10.1186/s40902-023-00381-x R. (2022). Public intellectuals in the age of viral modernity: An EPAT col-
Knox, J. (2019). What does the ‘postdigital’ mean for education? Three critical lective writing project. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 54(6), 783–798.
perspectives on the digital, with implications for educational research https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2021.2010543
and practice. Postdigital Science and Education, 1, 357–370. https://doi. Peters, M. A., Jackson, L., Papastephanou, M., Jandrić, P., Lazaroiu, G., Evers, C.
org/10.1007/s42438-019-00045-y W., ... & Fuller, S. (2023b). AI and the future of humanity: ChatGPT-4, phi-
Lewandowski, M., Łukowicz, P., Świetlik, D., & Barańska-Rybak, W. (2023). An losophy and education—Critical responses. Educational Philosophy and
original study of ChatGPT-3.5 and ChatGPT-4 dermatological knowledge Theory, 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2023.2213437
level based on the dermatology specialty certificate examinations. Clini- Peters, M. A. (2017). Technological unemployment: Educating for the fourth
cal and Experimental Dermatology, llad255. https://doi.org/10.1093/ced/ industrial revolution. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 49(1), 1–6.
llad255 https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2016.1177412
Li, Y., Wang, K., Xiao, Y., & Froyd, J. E. (2020). Research and trend in STEM educa- Peters, M. A., Jandrić, P., & Hayes, S. (2023a). Postdigital-biodigital: An emerging
tion: A systematic review of journal publications. International Journal of configuration. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 55(1), 1–14. https://doi.
STEM Education, 7(11), https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00207-6 org/10.1080/00131857.2020.1867108
Li, Y., Xiao, Y., Wang, K., Zhang, N., Pang, Y., Wang, R., & Star, J. R. (2022). A Rayner, M. (2023). ChatGPT acts as though it has strong ethical intuitions, even
systematic review of high impact empirical studies in STEM education. though it says it hasn’t any. Goodreads.
International Journal of STEM Education, 9(1), 72. https://doi.org/10.1186/ Salas-Pilco, S. Z., & Yang, Y. (2022). Artificial intelligence applications in Latin
s40594-022-00389-1 American higher education: A systematic review. International Journal of
Li, Y. (2014). International Journal of STEM Education-a platform to promote Educational Technology in Higher Education, 19(21), 1–20. https://doi.org/
STEM education and research worldwide. International Journal of STEM 10.1186/s41239-022-00326-w
Education, 1(1), 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1186/2196-7822-1-1 Seale, C. (2008). Using computers to analyse qualitative data. In D. Silverman
Lim, S., Love, A., & Lim, H. C. (2015). Minseok Ahn and public sociology of sport. & A. Marvasti (Eds.), Doing qualitative research (pp. 233–256). Thousand
Quest, 67(1), 30–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2014.985318 Oaks: Sage.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage. Shen, Y., Heacock, L., Elias, J., Hentel, K. D., Reig, B., Shih, G., & Moy, L. (2023).
MacKenzie, A., Bacalja, A., Annamali, D., Panaretou, A., Girme, P., Cutajar, M., ChatGPT and other large language models are double-edged swords.
... & Gourlay, L. (2022). Dissolving the dichotomies between online and Radiology, 307, e230163. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.230163
campus-based teaching: a collective response to the manifesto for Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative
teaching online (Bayne et al. 2020). Postdigital Science and Education, 4(2), research projects. Education for Information, 22(2), 63–75. https://doi.org/
271–329. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-021-00259-z 10.3233/EFI-2004-22201
Marín-Marín, J. A., Moreno-Guerrero, A. J., Dúo-Terrón, P., & López-Belmonte, J. Soler-Costa, R., Moreno-Guerrero, A. J., López-Belmonte, J., & Marín-Marín, J. A.
(2021). STEAM in education: A bibliometric analysis of performance and (2021). Co-word analysis and academic performance of the term TPACK
co-words in Web of Science. International Journal of STEM Education, 8(41), in web of science. Sustainability, 13(3), 1481. https://doi.org/10.3390/
1–21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-021-00296-x su13031481

Spring, J. (2015). Globalization of education: An introduction. Routledge.

Stojanov, A. (2023). Learning with ChatGPT 3.5 as a more knowledgeable
other: an autoethnographic study. International Journal of Educational
Technology in Higher Education, 20(1), 35. https://doi.org/10.1186/
s41239-023-00404-7
Thorp, H. H. (2023). ChatGPT is fun, but not an author. Science, 379(6630), 313.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adg7879
Tlili, A., Shehata, B., Adarkwah, M. A., Bozkurt, A., Hickey, D. T., Huang, R., &
Agyemang, B. (2023). What if the devil is my guardian angel: ChatGPT as a
case study of using chatbots in education. Smart Learning Environments,
10(15), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-023-00237-x
Tülübaş, T., Demirkol, M., Ozdemir, T. Y., Polat, H., Karakose, T., & Yirci, R. (2023).
An interview with ChatGPT on emergency remote teaching: A compara-
tive analysis based on human–AI collaboration. Educational Process:
International Journal, 93–110. https://doi.org/10.22521/edupij.2023.122.6
Wu, C. H., Liu, C. H., & Huang, Y. M. (2022). The exploration of continuous
learning intention in STEAM education through attitude, motivation, and
cognitive load. International Journal of STEM Education, 9(1), 1–22. https://
doi.org/10.1186/s40594-022-00346-y
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in pub-
lished maps and institutional affiliations.

Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers and authorised users (“Users”), for small-
scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By
accessing, sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of use (“Terms”). For these
purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal
subscription. These Terms will prevail over any conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription
(to the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of the Creative Commons license used will
apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may also use these personal data internally within
ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not
otherwise disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies unless we have your permission as
detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial use, it is important to note that Users may
not:
1. use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale basis or as a means to circumvent access
control;
2. use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is
otherwise unlawful;
3. falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in
writing;
4. use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
5. override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
6. share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a systematic database of Springer Nature journal
content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a product or service that creates revenue,
royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal
content cannot be used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large scale into their, or any
other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not obligated to publish any information or
content on this website and may remove it or features or functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature
may revoke this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or guarantees to Users, either express or implied
with respect to the Springer nature journal content and all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law,
including merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published by Springer Nature that may be licensed
from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a regular basis or in any other manner not
expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer Nature at
[email protected]

ChatGPT and Its Ethical Implications For STEM Rese

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ChatGPT and Its Ethical Implications For STEM Rese

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ChatGPT and Its Ethical Implications For STEM Rese

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nam and Bai ﻿ International Journal of

International Journal of STEM Education (2023) 10:66

RESEARCH Open Access

ChatGPT and its ethical implications

Introduction supporting human intelligence (Gan & Bai, 2023; Knox,

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

write editorials on behalf of their board members and Data collection

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Table 1 Information about media representations of ChatGPT

Editorial-1 Nature Machine Intelligence 19-Dec-22 Much to discuss in AI ethics

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Discussion societies as public intellectuals, critical mentors, media-

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

By addressing the most overarching concerns, this Declarations

the philosophy of academic publishing and ground rules. Competing interests

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Spring, J. (2015). Globalization of education: An introduction. Routledge.

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

You might also like

Nam and Bai International Journal of