|
Navigating the AI turn in educational research: Promises, perils, and possibilities
An invited guest editorial
Hassan Soodmand Afshar
Allameh Tabataba'i University, Iran
Naser Ranjbar
Farhangian University, Iran
In this evolving landscape, artificial intelligence (AI) seems to signify the most profound transformation in the history of educational research since the advent of the Internet. The emergence of generative AI technologies such as ChatGPT, Bard, and Claude has altered our professional, pedagogical, and editorial vantage point dramatically. A thorough analysis of 6843 publications on AI over a ten-year time span from 2013 to 2023 indicated a significant growth in the output and an expanding diversity in the topics and methodologies (Guo et al., 2024). Notably, countries like the United States, China, India, Spain, and Germany have increasingly welcomed the integration of AI in higher education, including language education (Albedah, 2025). Given these shifts, such renowned and accredited journals as Issues in Educational Research (IIER), which have long advocated for rigor, ethics, and culturally-informed scholarship, are now in pressing need of reflection, recalibration, and revitalised commitment in light of these shifting circumstances.
Our guest editorial, thus, aims to examine the contemporary dynamics of educational publishing in the era of AI, from the viewpoint of the authors: an editor-in-chief and an associate editor of a prestigious SCOPUS-indexed journal. We highlight both the pros and cons of AI integration in (educational) research, while pondering the editorial duties that arise from this technological shift.
In such a context, AI can be viewed both as a solution and a potential hazard. AI-powered writing assistants may potentially alleviate the linguistic and stylistic difficulties that non-native scholars struggle with and thus, enhance clarity, coherence, and academic writing (Flowerdew, 2025). Nonetheless, these tools can jeopardise the uniqueness of the material as they may blur the boundaries of authorship and originality. Editors frequently encounter manuscripts that, while polished and technically accurate, lack the author's unique intellectual voice and genuine engagement. Consequently, here comes the critical question: What does it mean to be an author in the age of artificial intelligence? Additionally, how can we ensure that the human element prevails in academic inquiry as algorithmic mediation becomes more prevalent?
It has been well-documented that AI tools can have the ability to be a valuable language learning asset because of their accessibility, capacity to simulate interactive dialogue, and ability to provide instant formative feedback. Yet, what if they "replace" teachers? There comes the need for a thoughtful integration. AI tools work best as a complement to teacher-led instruction rather than a substitute (Barrot, 2024). They need explicit instruction, learner perception, and reflective activities (Mekheimer, 2025). These applications are theoretically in line with sociocultural and cognitive-interactionist perspectives on education in general and second language acquisition (SLA) in particular, where feedback, negotiation of meaning, and scaffolded participation are crucial elements for development (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006). Incorporating these mechanisms into a digital setting, we can enable learners to participate in personalised, low-stakes interactional practice with the help of these tools.
Nevertheless, as we embrace these innovations, we must also grapple with concerns regarding equity, privacy, bias, criticality, reflectivity, and creativity. That is, overreliance on AI-generated feedback may inhibit self-editing, critical reflection, and creativity. Employing AI may conceal learners' deficits, whether linguistic or discoursal, with the illusion of fluency. It is thus incumbent upon educators to integrate AI tools responsibly - not as an alternative, but as a mediation. Striking a balance between harnessing AI's benefits and addressing these challenges will, thus, be vital for the future of (language) education.
The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE Council, 2023) has responded. It stated clearly that AI tools cannot be listed as authors and their use must be transparently disclosed. However, compliance depends largely on trust and author integrity. Many journals and scholarly societies have now adapted this guidance into their policies, requiring authors to describe which AI tools were used and for what purposes. At the same time, editors are under pressure to "detect" AI-generated text because detecting AI-generated content is far from straightforward: detection tools suffer from both false positives and false negatives, and may unfairly penalise writers whose style happens to resemble that of large training corpora (Bittle & El-Gayar, 2025). Moreover, sophisticated paraphrasing can easily evade current algorithms. There is also more. There are times when we assign the given manuscript to the reviewers, and we may encounter a list of comments on the articles generated by AI tools in response.
From our editorial experience, the challenge is not merely technical but philosophical. We are witnessing a redefinition of what counts as "original contribution." If originality is reduced to surface form rather than conceptual insight, then even human-authored papers risk becoming algorithmic in spirit. We, as editors, now need to exercise a thicker kind of judgment: we read not only for style, but also for intellectual risk, methodological transparency, and the presence of a genuine research context. Thus, the task for editors is to nurture a culture of intellectual authenticity, where AI serves inquiry rather than substitutes for it.
This evolving scenario challenges some already-established assumptions for the editors. We used to rely on plagiarism reports, blind peer reviews, and professional guidelines and standards of our communities. A new layer has been introduced now. We need to carefully check to see whether the submitted manuscript has been partially or entirely generated by an AI tool. The possibility that the data, the analysis, and even citations and references are being fabricated or falsified is another editorial burden.
Yet, there are some positive points concerning the introduction of AI tools to the context of publication. Thanks to the digital and AI-supported technologies, scholars who were under-represented in the worldwide publishing before, and researchers from varied linguistic and cultural contexts, are now able to generate internationally comprehensible texts, thereby enhancing inclusivity within scholarly communication, which might help us achieve educational and research equity. Moreover, we need to bear in mind that not all well-written manuscripts are AI-generated. Neither are all experiments with AI tools unethical. We, as journal editors, have seen that there are authors who disclose how they employed AI to polish their texts or generate ideas. Others may provide their readers with a thought-provoking methodological reflection on the role of AI tools in learning and teaching. Severe prohibitions may inhibit these legitimate uses and limit open conversations.
However, automation should not be equated with wisdom. The fundamental essence of educational research - critical thinking, ethical reflection, and contextual understanding - should not be delegated to the machines. We, as editors, must advocate for AI literacy as an urgent need for both authors and reviewers. Understanding the capabilities and limitations of generative models, ethical citation of AI outputs, and the cultivation of human-AI collaboration grounded in transparency (KeyFutureSkills, n.d) may be accounted among the most prominent tenets of AI literacy.
Hence, there comes a more important question: What will remain intact from the human touch in educational research? Although tasks such as language polishing, developing research proposals, summarising, and so on can be done by AI tools, it is devoid of live experiences, empathy, and intuition. AI is incapable of perceiving the reality of the classroom dynamics. It cannot understand the complexities of multilingual identities and acculturation. Ethical considerations underpinning the educational inquiry mean nothing to AI. However, as Biesta (2020) held, education is a profoundly normative endeavour; it pertains to what we ought to do, not merely what we can do. Thus, editors, reviewers, and authors must ensure that their publications remain purposeful, contextual, and, more importantly, ethical by prioritising human voice and wisdom over speed and abundance.
First and foremost, the long-term impact of AI-assisted (language) education research on authors' and reviewers' ritical, reflective, and creative thinking skills should be investigated. Additionally, studies can be conducted to empirically assess how AI can bridge gaps in (language) education research while recognising and addressing potential disparities in access and effectiveness.
Moreover, educationalists and technologists should collaborate with ethicists to develop guidelines for the responsible use of AI in educational research contexts. Furthermore, to gain more comprehensive insights and foster a collaborative approach to technology integration, the voices of all stakeholders, including authors, reviewers, journal editors, etc., should be heard, and they should be involved in the discussions on AI tools.
Finally, as far as journal editors are concerned, journals and editorial policies should delineate explicit guidelines for AI use in order for the researchers to integrate AI tools with more accountability. This needs research training programs and professional development courses on modules such as AI literacy, data ethics, and critical digital pedagogy. Journals may also collaborate to enhance editorial integrity by setting standards for authorship norms and including diverse perspectives in a way that the future of educational publishing reflects not only technological advancement but also epistemic justice. As mentioned earlier, the integration of AI tools into education and research is inevitable. Thus, whether AI becomes a tool for promotion or degradation depends on us. We need to ensure we take the route to innovation founded on academic integrity, not the other path, which leads to efficiency without authenticity.
Yet, we do not have final answers. We do, however, believe that journals like Issues in Educational Research have the potential to offer a platform for slow, yet deliberate thinking in such a rapidly changing environment. An AI-enabled future that is humane, fair, and sufficiently critical and creative can be shaped by the integration of empirical studies, theoretical reflections, and critical narratives from diverse contexts. When looking forward to the future of educational research, we recall Freire's 1970) enduring insight: education is an act of freedom, not conformity. We need to integrate AI as a collaborator in that freedom through which we can expand, rather than constrain, our capacity to think, learn, and create.
Albedah, F. (2025). Artificial intelligence in language education: A systematic review of multilingual applications, large language models, and emerging challenges. Language Teaching Research Quarterly, 49, 247-268. https://doi.org/10.32038/ltrq.2025.49.13
Altbach, P. & de Wit, H. (2020). Postpandemic outlook for higher education is bleakest for the poorest. International Higher Education, (102), 3-5. https://ejournals.bc.edu/index.php/ihe/article/view/14583
Barrot, J. S. (2024). ChatGPT as a language learning tool: An emerging technology report. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 29, 1151-1156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-023-09711-4
Biesta, G. (2020). Risking ourselves in education: Qualification, socialization, and subjectification revisited. Educational Theory, 70(1), 89-104. https://doi.org/10.1111/edth.12411
Bittle, K. & El-Gayar, O. (2025). Generative AI and academic integrity in higher education: A systematic review and research agenda. Information, 16(4), article 296. https://doi.org/10.3390/info16040296
COPE Council (2023). COPE position statement: Authorship and AI tools. Committee on Publication Ethics. https://publicationethics.org/guidance/cope-position/authorship-and-ai-tools
Flowerdew, J. (2025). Data-driven learning: From Collins Cobuild Dictionary to ChatGPT. Language Teaching, 58(3), 359-376. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444824000144
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Continuum. https://files.libcom.org/files/Paulo%20Freire,%20Myra%20Bergman%20Ramos,%20Donaldo%20Macedo%20-%20Pedagogy%20of%20the%20Oppressed,%2030th%20Anniversary%20Edition%20(2000,%20Bloomsbury%20Academic).pdf
Guo, S., Zheng, Y. & Zhai, X. (2024). Artificial intelligence in education research during 2013-2023: A review based on bibliometric analysis. Education and Information Technologies, 29, 16387-16409. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12491-8
KeyFutureSkills (n.d.). Generative AI for leaders: Unlocking opportunities for innovation. https://www.keyfutureskills.com/generative-ai-for-leaders-unlocking-opportunities-for-innovation/
Kim, S. & Lee, K. (2022). The paradigm shift of mass customisation research. International Journal of Production Research, 61(10), 3350-3376. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2022.2081629
Lantolf, J. P. & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford University Press.
Mekheimer, M. (2025). Generative AI-assisted feedback and EFL writing: A study on proficiency, revision frequency and writing quality. Discover Education, 4, article 170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-025-00602-7
Sezgin, A., Orbay, K. & Orbay, M. (2022). Educational research review from diverse perspectives: A bibliometric analysis of Web of Science (2011-2020). Sage Open, 12(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440221141628
Tiwari, S. P., Prasad, S. & Thushara, M. G. (2023). Machine learning for translating pseudocode to Python: A comprehensive review. In 7th International Conference on Intelligent Computing and Control Systems (ICICCS) (pp. 274-280). IEEE. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10142254 [also https://www.researchgate.net/publication/371431542]
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology (2023). Artificial intelligence and the future of teaching and learning: Insights and recommendations. https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/documents/ai-report/ai-report.pdf
| Authors: Dr Hassan Soodmand Afshar (corresponding author) is Professor of Applied Linguistics in the Department of English Language and Literature, Faculty of Persian Literature and Foreign Languages, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran. Hassan is the Immediate Past Chairman of Iran University Press, Editor-in-Chief of TEL Journal [https://www.teljournal.org], and President of TELLSI (Teaching English Language and Literature Society of Iran). Scopus profile: https://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.uri?authorId=56544537200 Publons profile: https://publons.com/researcher/1354699/hassan-soodmand-afshar/ Google Scholar profile: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=bXUZ4YEAAAAJ&hl=enJ ResearchGate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Hassan-Soodmandafshar-2 ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1070-0249 Email: hassansoodmand@gmail.com Naser Ranjbar is an Assistant Professor of Applied Linguistics at Farhangian University, Mashhad, Iran. He is Associate Editor for the Journal of Teaching English Language (TEL) [https://www.teljournal.org], published by the Teaching English Language and Literature Society of Iran. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0318-1949 Email: ranjbar.nasser@gmail.com Please cite as: Soodmand Afshar, H. & Ranjbar, N. (2025). Navigating the AI turn in educational research: Promises, perils, and possibilities. Issues in Educational Research, 35(4) invited guest editorial, viii-xv. http://www.iier.org.au/iier35/soodmand-afshar-2.pdf |