Cited by 602Academic integrity and plagiarismArtificial Intelligence in EducationArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education

A Conversation on Artificial Intelligence, Chatbots, and Plagiarism in Higher Education

Open access
King, Michael R., chatGPT·2023·Cellular and Molecular Bioengineering

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s12195-022-00754-8

Cites

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Several authors have noted that ChatGPT tends to cite works that do not actually exist.

    “Several authors have noted that ChatGPT tends to cite works that do not actually exist12,16–25”

    From Fabrication and errors in the bibliographic citations generated by ChatGPT (2023) · cites this paper as [21]

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • ChatGPT has been listed as the first author of four papers.

    “ChatGPT has been listed as the first author of four papers, (26, 40, 41, 42)”
  • AI tools can aid the researcher in collecting relevant research articles, identifying knowledge gaps in the literature, formulating research questions, recommending appropriate statistical methods for the available data, creating a graphical representation of the data, and manuscript writing.

    “AI tools can aid the researcher in collecting relevant research articles, identifying the knowledge gaps in the literature, formulating research questions, recommending appropriate statistical methods for the available data, creating a graphical representation of the data, and manuscript writing [32-35].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. [1]1. Ali, S., and M. Imran. Fighting plagiarism in higher education: a review of anti-plagiarism strategies. Int. J. Educ. Res. 4(3):91-100, 2016.
  2. [2]2. Bapna, R. The ethics of AI and chatbots: a frame- work for discussion. J. Bus. Ethics. 147(2):259-276, 2017.
  3. [3]3. Lee, K.-H., and J.-Y. Lin. The role of chatbots in higher education: opportunities and challenges. Educ. Technol. Soc. 20(1):70-79, 2017.
  4. [4]4. Mohit, M. Chatbots and AI: the future of com- munication? Commun. ACM. 60(1):55-57, 2017.
  5. [5]5. Ro¨mer, U. Plagiarism in the digital age: challenges and solutions. J. Educ. Learn. 4(4):62-68, 2015.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
King, M. R., & chatGPT
Affiliations
Vanderbilt University (US)
Corresponding author
King, Michael R.
Venue
Cellular and Molecular Bioengineering
Published
2023-01-02
Volume
16
Issue
1
Pages
1-2
ISSN
  • 1865-5025 (ISSN-L)
  • 1865-5033
OpenAlex
W4313479734
Cited by
602
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 43 · 2025: 93 · 2024: 215 · 2023: 248 · 2022: 2
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cellular and Molecular Bioengineering (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Keywords
artificial intelligence, chatbots, plagiarism, academic integrity, higher education

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