2026-10-18T23:16:21Zhttps://ebyu-rdlopen.rawdatalibrary.net/oai/requestoai:ebyu-rdlopen.rawdatalibrary.net:ebyu/111492026-10-18T20:33:39Zopenairedrivercom_ebyu_10000col_ebyu_10001What will our academic future hold in the face of dramatic artificial intelligence advancements?–a response to Rakap et alAydin, OrhanAIartificial intelligenceChatGPTdilemmasserving as a revieweracademiaeconomic incentivegraduate studenthumanNotepsychologyskillspecial educationRakap and his colleagues suggest that artificial intelligence (AI) tools can serve as a reviewer in evaluating scientific manuscripts. They substantiate this suggestive information through an empirical study that aims to compare ratings from human reviewers and ChatGPT for 18 unpublished manuscripts in the fields of special education and psychology. This proposal addresses a vital topic, as AI tools can be more objective, rapid, and standardized in evaluating scientific manuscripts than human reviewers. However, there are various dilemmas surrounding the use of AI tools. This response paper addresses several dilemmas associated with using AI tools, such as ChatGPT, as reviewers and highlights the potential threats to the future of academia. © 2025 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.Routledge2025Articlehttps://rdlopen.rawdatalibrary.net/r/ebyu/11149https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2025.25335690885-6257enEuropean Journal of Special Needs Educationinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlehttps://ebyu-rdlopen.rawdatalibrary.net/tr/items/ebyu/11149