The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The digital erosion of intellectual integrity: why misuse of generative AI is worse than plagiarism
Open accessAbstract
Sometimes students cheat. Sometimes academic staff do too, but historically, the most common manifestation of unethical academic behaviour has been plagiarism by students: instead of writing his or her own essay or assignment, a student copies existing text, in whole or in part. In addition to educating students about the unethical nature of plagiarism, universities and other learning institutions have developed various methods of detecting incidents of and reducing the incidence of plagiarism, primarily through a combination of clear rules forbidding plagiarism, plagiarism detection software such as Turnitin, and punishment for students caught plagiarising.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Developing the HAKI model as a conceptual framework for AI-assisted academic research
Shahini, A. (2026) · Discover Education · doi:10.1007/s44217-026-02041-4
“These concerns are consistent with previous studies suggesting that generative AI challenges conventional understandings of originality, authorship, and academic honesty by creating new forms of text production that do not fit neatly within traditional definitions of plagiarism [39, 72].”
Metadata
- Authors
- Shaw, D.
- Affiliations
- University of Basel (CH)
- Corresponding author
- Shaw, David
- ORCID
- Shaw, David
- Venue
- AI & SOCIETY
- Published
- 2025-04-24
- Volume
- 40
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 5819-5821
- ISSN
- 0951-5666 (ISSN-L)
- 1435-5655
- OpenAlex
- W4409767678
- Cited by
- 32
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 25 · 2025: 7
- FWCI
- 33.46
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- AI & Society (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Research Publications (Maastricht University) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Academic integrity and plagiarism
- Social Sciences › Education › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Keywords
- generative AI misuse, plagiarism, academic integrity, academic misconduct, AI-generated text, plagiarism detection software, Turnitin, academic dishonesty
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
