AI detectors, academic freedom, and scientific communication: A transition from prohibition to regulated disclosure
https://doi.org/10.24069/sep.26.11.49
Abstract
The turbulent integration of generative language models into the research cycle has prompted an institutional response, including stricter editorial policies and ubiquitous AI detection tools. This article analyzes the statistical limitations of automated detectors and their effect on academic freedom and cognitive diversity in scientific discourse. Recent empirical data (2023–2026) indicate that the false-positive rate is approximately 16% when testing a single detector using texts written by native English-speaking students. However, this figure rises to 61.3% for texts written by non-native English speakers when testing seven detectors, indicating a systemic bias in these tools. Bayesian statistics suggest that, due to the low prevalence of violations, even a moderate proportion of false positives can lead to a high false discovery rate (FDR) in sanction decisions. Legitimate scenarios for AI application during the stages of literature review, hypothesis formalization, methodological design, and linguistic preparation of the manuscript for publication are considered. Approaches to regulating the use of AI in scientific research and the presentation of research findings in the form of scientific texts have been systematized using official statements from COPE, WAME, Nature Portfolio, American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), Elsevier, Springer Nature, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), and the International Federation of Translators (FIT), as well as a review of relevant publications. The authors argue the need to transfer from a culture of detection and prohibition to that of transparent disclosure, cryptographic traceability, and verification of the research process. Particular attention is given to the Russian context, including the implementation of an AI-detection module in the Antiplagiat system and the absence of a unified stance by the Higher Attestation Commission (VAK) and the White List operators. The applicability of Western quality metrics for plagiarism detectors to Russian-language texts is also discussed. Another focus is the transformation of scholarly text creation and the peer-review system, the global inequality of access to language tools, as well as the “arms race” between detection tools and circumvention technologies.
About the Authors
Elvira A. Pocheshkhova
Kuban State Medical University, Krasnodar, Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Dr. Sci. (Med.), Associate Professor, Head of the Department of Biology and Medical Technologies, Kuban State Medical University, Krasnodar, Russian Federation; Editor-in-Chief of the Kuban Scientific Medical Bulletin
Natalia G. Popova
Institute of Philosophy and Law of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Ekaterinburg, Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Cand. Sci. (Sociol.), Senior Researcher, Sector for Theoretical Linguistics and Scientific Communications, Institute of Philosophy and Law of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Ekaterinburg, Russian Federation; Founder of the Laboratory for Scientific Translation by Natalia Popova; Deputy Editor in Sociology of the Сhanging Societies & Personalities journal
Serik D. Nurbaev
Kuban State Medical University, Krasnodar, Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Dr. Sci. (Biol.), Professor; Professor, Department of Biology and Medical Technologies, Kuban State Medical University, Krasnodar, Russian Federation
Nurbiy A. Pocheshkhov
Adyghe State University, Maykop, Russian Federation
Dr. Sci. (Hist.), Professor, Department of National History, Historiography, Theory and Methodology of History, Adyghe State University, Maykop, Russian Federation
References
1. Latour B. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. NY: Oxford University Press, 2005.
2. de Boer B., te Molder H., Verbeek P.-P. Understanding science-in-the-making by letting scientific instruments speak: From semiotics to postphenomenology. Social Studies of Science. 2021;51(3):392–413. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312720981600
3. Ihde D. The structure of technology knowledge. International Journal of Technology and Design Education. 1997;7(1–2):73–79. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008809019482
4. Popova N.G., Beavitt T.A. English as a means of scientific communication: linguistic imperialism or interlingua? Integration of Education. 2017;1(21):54–70. https://doi.org/10.15507/1991-9468.086.021.201701.054-070
5. Попова Н.Г., Коптяева Н.Н. Академическое письмо: статьи в формате IMRAD. Екатеринбург: Изд-во Урал. ун-та, 2016.
6. Popova N.G., Koptyaeva N.N. Academic Writing: Articles in the IMRAD Format. Yekaterinburg: Izdatel'stvo Ural'skogo universiteta, 2016. (In Rus.)
7. Тихонова Е.В. Обсуждение полученных результатов в оригинальном исследовании: риторические шаги и их воплощение. Научный редактор и издатель. 2024;9(1):6–37. https://doi.org/10.24069/SEP-24-14
8. Tikhonova E.V. Discussion of results in original research: Rhetorical moves and their implementation. Science Editor and Publisher. 2024;9(1):6–37. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24069/SEP-24-14
9. Tikhonova E.V., Kosycheva M.A., Golechkova T.Yu. Research article discussion moves and steps in papers on medicine: academic literacy and respect for readers. Research Result. Theoretical and Applied Linguistics. 2023;9(2):97–128. https://doi.org/10.18413/2313-8912-2023-9-2-0-6
10. Swales J. Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1990.
11. Ding L., Lawson C., Shapira P. Rise of generative artificial intelligence in science. Scientometrics. 2025;130(9):5093–5114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-025-05413-z
12. Merton R. K. Social structure and anomie. American Sociological Review. 1938;3(5): 672–682. https://doi.org/10.2307/2084686
13. Filley D. Forbidden Fruit. When prohibition increases the harm it is supposed to reduce. The Independent Review. 1999;3(3):441–451. Available at: https://www.independent.org/tir/1998-99-winter/forbidden-fruit/ (accessed: 01.07.2026)
14. Василенко Л. А. «Нормальная аномия»: трансформация институтов в условиях сложного социума. Научный результат. Социология и управление. 2018; 4(3):45–56. https://doi.org/10.18413/2408-9338-2018-4-3-0-4
15. Vasilenko L. A. “Normal anomie”: transformation of institutions in a complex society. Research result. Sociology and Management. 2018;4(3):45–56. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.18413/2408-9338-2018-4-3-0-4
16. Elkhatat A. M., Elsaid K., Almeer S. Evaluating the efficacy of AI content detection tools in differentiating between human and AI-generated text. International Journal for Educational Integrity. 2023;19:17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-023-00140-5
17. Liang W., Yuksekgonul M., Mao Y., Wu E., Zou, J. GPT detectors are biased against non-native English writers. Patterns. 2023;4(7):100779. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patter.2023.100779
18. Kobak, D., González-Márquez, R., Horvát, E.-A., Lause, J. Delving into LLM-assisted writing in biomedical publications through excess vocabulary. Science Advances. 2025;11(27):eadt3813. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adt3813
19. Liang W., Zhang Y., Wu Z., Lepp H., Ji W., Zhao X., et al. Quantifying large language model usage in scientific papers. Nature Human Behaviour. 2025;9:2599–2609. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-025-02273-8
20. McKie, A. Universities are relying on AI-detection software to catch cheating. How well do the programs work? Nature. 2026;655:535–537. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-026-01358-2
21. Tools such as ChatGPT threaten transparent science; here are our ground rules for their use [Editorial]. Nature, 2023;613(7945),5–6. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-00191-1
22. Dasse T. Forms of death of professional human translators in the era of machine translation technologies. International Journal of Translation and Interpretation Studies. 2025;5(1):34–45. https://doi.org/10.32996/ijtis.2025.5.1.4
23. Lommel A. R. Augmented translation: a new approach to combining human and machine capabilities. In Proceedings of the 13th Conference of the Association for Machine Translation in the Americas (Volume 2: User Track). Association for Machine Translation in the Americas; 2018. https://aclanthology.org/W18-1905/
Review
For citations:
Pocheshkhova E.A., Popova N.G., Nurbaev S.D., Pocheshkhov N.A. AI detectors, academic freedom, and scientific communication: A transition from prohibition to regulated disclosure. Science Editor and Publisher. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24069/sep.26.11.49
Views:
10
JATS XML
Email this article 
