Category: Submissions

With or Without AI: Ethical Use of Generative AI in Research and Scholarly Publishing

Recent developments in generative artificial intelligence have also been influencing the field of research. As GenAI tools can be beneficial in various aspects of academic work, it is crucial to ensure their use aligns with ethical standards and research integrity.

To support this, we have compiled useful guidelines and policies on the use of generative AI tools in research and scholarly publishing, which we hope will be valuable for PSR authors and the research community.

1. Artificial Intelligence Policy | SAGE Publications Inc

The key resource for PSR authors. SAGE’s policy distinguishes, among other things, between assistive AI tools, which do not require disclosure, and generative AI tools, which must be disclosed when used by authors or reviewers.

2. Use of generative artificial intelligence in application preparation and assessment – UKRI

This document outlines UKRI’s policy on the use of generative AI in funding applications and assessments.

3. AI in research – UK Research Integrity Office (ukrio.org)

A guidance document on the use of GenAI in education and research, addressing the rapid emergence of these tools and the need for regulatory frameworks in most countries.

4. Insights 2024: Attitudes To AI Full Report.pdf (Taylor&Francis)

A comprehensive report by Elsevier examines researchers’ and clinicians’ perspectives on generative artificial intelligence.

5. Guidance for generative AI in education and research | UNESCO

A comprehensive guidance document on the use of generative AI in education and research. It proposes a human-centred approach to regulating and using GenAI tools in educational and research settings.

gathered by Eliza Kania

The Null Hypothesis: now up to 8000 words

Many research projects produce results where the hypotheses are rejected, but where the results are nonetheless interesting. PSR publishes papers where there was a sound theoretical reason for stipulating hypotheses but where these hypotheses had to be rejected.

The PSR Null Hypothesis papers can now have up to 𝟖𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐬, just like regular Research Articles.

THE NULL HYPOTHESIS PSR PAPERS

2023

2022

2021

2020

More about article types

The Null Hypothesis

Many research projects produce results where the hypotheses are rejected, but where the results are nonetheless interesting. PSR publishes papers where there was a sound theoretical reason for stipulating hypotheses but where these hypotheses had to be rejected.

Papers in the Null Hypothesis section are limited to  8000 words inclusive of all notes and references.

THE NULL HYPOTHESIS PSR PAPERS

2023

2022

2021

2020

More about article types

Early Results

Many research projects produce exciting early results where the immediacy (and impact) is then lost as researchers seek to fashion full-length articles. In the Early Results section, authors can release early project findings without excessive theoretical setup or a long literature review.

In essence, these articles will be akin to working papers, where the results will ultimately feature in full articles with an extended argument (in other journals or PSR). This will provide not only a means by which early findings can be published but also an arena in which new ideas can be explored, promoted and tested.

Early Results submissions are limited to 3000 words inclusive of all notes and references.

PSR EARLY RESULTS ARTICLES

2022

2021

2020

2019

More about article types

PSR Symposia and New Ideas

PSR is a forum for publishing results from symposia. These can be early versions of what may become more extensive articles, exploring and fleshing out new ideas and directions for study. 

Papers in the Symposia and New Ideas section are limited to 3000 words inclusive of all notes and references. 

PSR SYMPOSIA

2/2022: SYMPOSIUM “EXPERIMENTS WITH POLITICIANS: ETHICS, POWER, AND THE BOUNDARIES OF POLITICAL SCIENCE”

Issue 2/2022

1/2022: SYMPOSIUM “PLURALISM AND POLITICAL STUDIES IN THE UK”

Issue: 1/2022

3/2021 SYMPOSIUM “FREE SPEECH AND ACADEMIC PUBLISHING”

Issue 3/2021

2/2021: SYMPOSIUM “DEMOCRATIC DELIBERATION AND UNDER-REPRESENTED GROUPS”

Issue 2/2021

The Best Paper Award: 2021

We are happy to announce, that the PSR Best Paper Award for 2021 goes to Prof. Jacob S. Lewis (Corruption Perceptions and Contentious Politics in Africa: How Different Types of Corruption Have Shaped Africa’s Third Wave of Protest).

This excellent article asks the following question: Does corruption increase general and anti-government protests? As the author claims scholarship has produced seemingly incompatible results, with some research demonstrating a strong connection between corruption and the onset of contentious politics and other research finding that heightened perceptions of corruption decrease activism.

The article addresses this puzzle by examining how different types of corruption condition diverging contentious outcomes. Focusing on two highly salient forms of corruption in the African context—elite corruption and police corruption—this article argues that the different consequences, salience, and costs associated with these two forms help to condition whether citizens rise up or stay home.

This argument is tested via two methods. First, it draws from a survey experiment conducted in five Nigerian states in 2017. The survey experiment tests whether exposure to different types of corruption affects willingness to join in protests. Second, it draws from statistical analysis of geo-located perceptions of corruption and protest across Africa, incorporating checks for both collinearity and endogeneity into the model. The statistical analysis examines whether heightened perceptions of corruption correlate with increased counts of general and anti-government protests. The results from both methods demonstrate that elite corruption is positively correlated with protest, whereas police corruption is not.

Congratulations!

More: http://tiny.cc/0vqpuz

The Best Paper Award: 2020

We are happy to announce, that the PSR Best Paper Award for 2020 goes to Dr Michael Koß (Executive Prerogatives in the Legislative Process and Democratic Stability: Evidence from Non-Presidential Systems).

This excellent article asks whether understanding executive prerogatives over legislation as a potential threat to democratic stability is also valid beyond presidential systems. A long-term analysis of four cases (Britain, France, Sweden and Germany) over the 1866–2015 period leads to three preliminarily conclusions. First, executive prerogatives – the veto, privileges in the introduction of certain pieces of legislation and decree powers – can also be found in (emerging) parliamentary and semi-presidential systems. Second, even legislatures in non-presidential systems are able to balance the representativeness and efficiency of legislation. Third, there is evidence that the origins of this ability lie in the occurrence of and successful defences against vital threats to legislative democracy. Taken together, these findings suggest that executive prerogatives over legislation are not a problem (as envisaged by Shugart and Carey) but a potential solution with respect to democratic stability.

Congratulations!

More: http://tiny.cc/ntzvtz