CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 46

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Academic Integrity and Artificial Intelligence: An Overview

Kumar, Rahul, Eaton, Sarah Elaine, Mindzak, Michael, Morrison, Ryan·2024·Springer International Handbooks of Education
DOI 10.1007/978-3-031-54144-5_153
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/978-3-031-54144-5_153

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 29

  1. Abd-Elaal, E.-S., Gamage, S. H. P. W., & Mills, J. E. (2019, December 8–11). Artificial intelligence is a tool for cheating academic integrity [Paper presentation]. AAEE 2019 Annual conference, Brisbane, Australia. https://aaee.net.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/AAEE2019_Annual_Conference_paper_180.pdf
  2. Abd-Elaal, E.-S., Gamage, S. H. P. W., & Mills, J. E. (2022). Assisting academics to identify computer generated writing. European Journal of Engineering Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2022.2046709 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Babaii, E., & Nejadghanbar, H. (2017). Plagiarism among Iranian graduate students of language studies: Perspectives and causes. Ethics & Behavior, 27(3), 240–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2016.1138864 · DOI
  4. Barnes, C. M., Schaubroeck, J. M., Huth, M., & Ghumman, S. (2011). Lack of sleep and unethical behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115(2), 169–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.01.009 · DOI
  5. Berg, M., & Seeber, B. K. (2016). The slow professor: Challenging the culture of speed in the academy. University of Toronto Press. · DOI
  6. Bertram Gallant, T. (2008). Academic integrity in the twenty-first century: A teaching and learning imperative. Wiley.
  7. Bowers, W. J. (1964). Student dishonesty and its control in college. Columbia University Press.
  8. Bretag, T., Mahmud, S., East, J., Green, M., & James, C. (2011a). Academic integrity standards: A preliminary analysis of the academic integrity policies at Australian universities. In Proceedings of AuQF 2011 demonstrating quality (pp. 48–53). AuQF. https://ro.uow.edu.au/asdpapers/323/
  9. Bretag, T., Mahmud, S., Wallace, M., Walker, R., James, C., Green, M., East, J., McGowan, U., & Partridge, L. (2011b). Core elements of exemplary academic integrity policy in Australian higher education. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 7(2), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.21913/IJEI.v7i2.759 · DOI
  10. Devlin, M. (2006). Policy, preparation, and prevention: Proactive minimization of student plagiarism. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 28(1), 45–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600800500283791 · DOI
  11. Drake, C. A. (1941). Why students cheat. The Journal of Higher Education, 12(8), 418–420. https://doi.org/10.2307/1976003 · DOI
  12. Eaton, S. E., Stoesz, B. M., Miron, J., McKenzie, A., Devereaux, L., Steeves, M., Godfrey Anderson, J. R., & LeBlanc-Haley, J. (2021, June 22–23). Contract cheating in Canada: National policy analysis project update and results for 2021 [Paper presentation]. Canadian symposium on academic integrity (CSAI) 2021 (Online). Kamloops, BC, Canada. http://hdl.handle.net/1880/113516 · DOI
  13. Ellis, C., Zucker, I. M., & Randall, D. (2018). The infernal business of contract cheating: Understanding the business processes and models of academic custom writing sites. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 14(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-017-0024-3 · DOI
  14. Foltýnek, T., Meuschke, N., & Gipp, B. (2019). Academic plagiarism detection: A systematic literature review. ACM Computing Surveys, 52(6), 1. https://doi.org/10.1145/3345317 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Fyfe, P. (2022). How to cheat on your final paper: Assigning AI for student writing. AI & Society. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-022-01397-z · DOI · Paper page
  16. Gao, L., Biderman, S., Black, S., Golding, L., Hoppe, T., Foster, C., Phang, J., He, H., Thite, A., Nabeshima, N., Presser, S., & Leahy, C. (2020, December 31). The pile: An 800GB dataset of diverse text for language modeling. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2101.00027 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Gino, F., Schweitzer, M. E., Mead, N. L., & Ariely, D. (2011). Unable to resist temptation: How self-control depletion promotes unethical behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115(2011), 191–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.03.001 · DOI
  18. GPT-3, Thunström, A.O., & Steingrimsson, S. (2022). Can GPT-3 write an academic paper on itself, with minimal human input? HAL Open Science. https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-03701250v1
  19. Guzman, A. L., & Lewis, S. C. (2019). Artificial intelligence and communication: A human-machine communication research agenda. New Media & Society, 22(1), 70–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819858691 · DOI
  20. Hutton, P. A. (2006). Understanding student cheating and what educators can do about it. College Teaching, 54(1), 171–176. https://doi.org/10.3200/CTCH.54.1.171-176 · DOI
  21. Lee, J.-Y., Hilty, R., & Liu, K-C. (Eds.). (2021). Artificial intelligence & intellectual property. Oxford University Press. · DOI
  22. Liao, A. Y. H., Hsieh, Y., Yang, C., & Hwang, M. (2022). Research on the trusted online examination systems. International Journal of Network Security, 24(3), 541–550. https://doi.org/10.6633/IJNS.202205_24(3).17 · DOI
  23. Lu, X. (2019). An empirical study on the artificial intelligence writing evaluation system in China CET. Big Data, 7(2), 121–129. https://doi.org/10.1089/big.2018.0151 · DOI
  24. Morrison, R., GPT-3, & GPT-2. (2022). Large language models and text generators: An overview for educators [White paper]. George Brown College. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.36505.70244/1. · DOI
  25. Roe, J., & Perkins, M. (2022). What are automated paraphrasing tools and how do we address them? A review of a growing threat to academic integrity? International Journal for Educational Integrity, 18, Article 15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-022-00109-w · DOI · Paper page
  26. Rogerson, A. M. (2020). The use and misuse of online paraphrasing, editing and translation software. In T. Bretag (Ed.), A research agenda for academic integrity (pp. 163–174). Edward Elgar.
  27. Stoesz, B. M., & Eaton, S. E. (2020). Academic integrity policies of publicly funded universities in western Canada. Educational Policy, 36(6), 1529–1548. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904820983032 · DOI
  28. Tay, D. (2021). Automated lexical and time series modelling for critical discourse research: A case study of Hong Kong protest editorials. Lingua, 255, Article 103056. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2021.103056 · DOI
  29. Voelker, T. A., Love, L. G., & Pentina, I. (2012). Plagiarism: What don’t they know? Journal of Education for Business, 87(1), 36–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2011.552536 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 46

Metadata

Authors
Kumar, R., Eaton, S. E., Mindzak, M., & Morrison, R.
Venue
Springer International Handbooks of Education
Publisher
Springer Nature Switzerland
Published
2024
Pages
1583-1596
ISSN
  • 2197-1951
  • 2197-196X
DOI
10.1007/978-3-031-54144-5_153
Cited by
46
References
8
Language
en
Licence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review