The Use of Generative AI Tools in Higher Education: Ethical and Pedagogical Principles
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Large language model (LLM) chatbots exhibit biases favouring certain perspectives.
“It and similar large language model (LLM) chatbots exhibit biases favouring certain perspectives (Bearman et al., 2024;Carrigan, 2024;Nguyen, 2025;Rana et al., 2025).”
From Toward Partnership Ethics for Generative Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education (2026) · cites this paper as Nguyen, 2025
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 41 · Cited by 163
- Authors
- Nguyen, K. V.
- ORCID
- Nguyen, Khoa Viet
- Venue
- Journal of Academic Ethics
- Published
- 2025-02-14
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 1435-1455
- ISSN
- 1570-1727 (ISSN-L)
- 1572-8544
- OpenAlex
- W4407498832
- Cited by
- 163
- References
- 41
- Citations by year
- 2026: 111 · 2025: 52
- FWCI
- 169.49
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Academic Ethics (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Keywords
- generative AI, higher education, AI ethics, teaching principles, academic integrity, critical thinking, human-AI collaboration, algorithmic bias, data privacy, AI literacy, AI policy, faculty training, equitable access, personalized learning
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
