<i>Foreign Language Annals</i> forthcoming policy on the use of GenAI

The widespread availability of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) has created challenges for academic publishing, particularly within a "publish or perish" culture where publication metrics drive career progression and funding.This pressure is reflected in recent empirical evidence.Researchers analyzed over 26,000 published abstracts in linguistics from 2020 to 2024.They found a 28% increase in the frequency of AI-associated words, such as "delve," "enhancing," and "pivotal," in 2024 compared to the previous 3 years ( Botes et al., 2025).The implications of such shifts extend far beyond stylistic word choices to an emerging crisis in editors' ability to verify the human authorship of submitted manuscripts.The sophistication of GenAI platforms means that AI-assisted writing often exhibits human-like characteristics, but it may also lack disciplinary expertise and provide inaccurate information (Moorhouse et al., 2025).Distinguishing the use of GenAI has proven remarkably difficult, as AI detection tools demonstrate significant unreliability and can be easily circumvented (Perkins et al., 2024).Editors find themselves in a precarious situation at risk of both false accusations against legitimate authors and the undetected publication of AI-generated content (Moorhouse et al., 2025).Compounding this challenge is the reality that many publisher and journal policies on GenAI are ambiguous, while others have no policies at all (Yin & Chapelle, 2025).This ambiguity and absence can result in confusing and questionable research practices.Yin and Chapelle (2025) analyzed the scope and nature of GenAI use guidelines in 170 high-impact applied linguistics journals and found that fewer than half had policies in place.Of those that did, they found substantial variation in guidance related to uses such as manuscript drafting, idea generation, image creation, and data-related tasks.