CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 221Academic integrity and plagiarismEthics in Business and EducationCorruption and Economic Development

Impact of academic integrity on workplace ethical behaviour

Open access
Guerrero-Dib, Jean Gabriel, Portales, Luis, Heredia-Escorza, Yolanda·2020·International Journal for Educational Integrity
DOI 10.1007/s40979-020-0051-3
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Corruption is a serious problem in Mexico and the available information regarding the levels of academic dishonesty in Mexico is not very encouraging. Academic integrity is essential in any teaching-learning process focussed on achieving the highest standards of excellence and learning. Promoting and experiencing academic integrity within the university context has a twofold purpose: to achieve the necessary learnings and skills to appropriately perform a specific profession and to develop an ethical perspective which leads to correct decision making. The objective of this study is to explore the relationship between academic integrity and ethical behaviour, particularly workplace behaviour. The study adopts a quantitative, hypothetical and deductive approach. A questionnaire was applied to 1203 college students to gather information regarding the frequency in which they undertake acts of dishonesty in different environments and in regards to the severity they assign to each type of infraction. The results reflect that students who report committing acts against academic integrity also report being involved in dishonest activities in other contexts, and that students who consider academic breaches less serious, report being engaged in academic misconduct more frequently in different contexts. In view of these results, it is unavoidable to reflect on the role that educational institutions and businesses can adopt in the development of programmes to promote a culture of academic integrity which: design educational experiences to foster learning, better prepare students to fully meet their academic obligations, highlight the benefits of doing so, prevent the severity and consequences of dishonest actions, discourage cheating and establish clear and efficient processes to sanction those students who are found responsible for academic breaches.

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/s40979-020-0051-3

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • Theoretical discussions often lack practical, evidence-based strategies to guide the ethical use of AI in educational contexts.

    “Furthermore, theoretical discussions often lack practical, evidence-based strategies to guide the ethical use of AI in educational contexts (Guerrero-Dib et al., 2020;Ramdani, 2018;Zawacki-Richter et al., 2019).”

    From Academic Integrity and Students’ Ethical Use of ChatGPT in Higher Education (2026) · cites this paper as Guerrero-Dib et al., 2020

    The Discussion says teaching academic integrity only in a theoretical or conceptual way is insufficient and emphasizes learning through real contexts and practices. It does not discuss ethical AI use or establish that theoretical discussions often lack practical, evidence-based strategies for it. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Existing studies offer limited empirical insight into how students conceptualize ethical responsibility when using generative AI tools.

    “Although existing studies examine AI adoption and traditional academic misconduct, they offer limited empirical insight into how students conceptualize ethical responsibility when using generative AI tools.”

    From Academic Integrity and Students’ Ethical Use of ChatGPT in Higher Education (2026) · cites this paper as Guerrero-Dib et al., 2020

    The Methodology and Discussion examine academic misconduct, students’ perceptions of dishonesty, and ethical behaviour. Neither those passages nor searches for generative AI and AI adoption address how students conceptualize ethical responsibility when using generative AI tools, or establish a gap in empirical research on that question. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Individuals who cheat academically are more prone to unethical practices in the workplace.

    “Extant literature shows that individuals who cheat academically are more prone to unethical practices in the workplace (Abalkina & Libman, 2020;Guerrero-Dib et al., 2020;Teixeira, 2013).”

    From Ethical use of artificial intelligence based tools in higher education: Are future business leaders ready? (2025) · cites this paper as Guerrero-Dib et al., 2020

  • The way business students engage with AI in academic settings will likely mirror their future interactions with similar technologies in the workplace.

    “The way they engage with AI in academic settings will likely mirror their future interactions with similar technologies in the workplace, making the ethical use of AI tools during their education essential for shaping their professional behavior (Guerrero-Dib et al., 2020).”

    From Ethical use of artificial intelligence based tools in higher education: Are future business leaders ready? (2025) · cites this paper as Guerrero-Dib et al., 2020

  • Academic ethics mirror professional behavior.

    “their academic ethics mirror their professional behavior.”

    From Ethical use of artificial intelligence based tools in higher education: Are future business leaders ready? (2025) · cites this paper as Guerrero-Dib et al., 2020

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Bertram-Gallant T (2016) Systems approach to going forward. In: Bretag T (ed) Handbook of academic integrity (First, pp. 975-978). Springer, Singapore
  2. Lang JM (2013) Cheating lessons, learning from academic dishonesty (first). Harvard University Press, Cambridge
  3. Lombardo MM, Eichinger RW (2009) FYI: for your improvement: a guide for development and coaching (5th ed.). Minneapolis, MN: Lominger International: A Korn/Ferry Company.
  4. Winrow AR (2015) Academic integrity and the heterogeneous student body. Glob Educ J 2015(2):77-91 Retrieved from http://eds.b.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=1&sid=4e798cc8-2b70-4094-8a36-117ad8990b24%4 0sessionmgr101

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Guerrero-Dib, J. G., Portales, L., & Heredia-Escorza, Y.
Affiliations
University of Monterrey (MX)
Corresponding author
Guerrero-Dib, Jean Gabriel
ORCID
Venue
International Journal for Educational Integrity
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2020-02-17
Volume
16
Issue
1
ISSN
1833-2595 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1007/s40979-020-0051-3
OpenAlex
W3025752799
Cited by
221
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 23 · 2025: 51 · 2024: 53 · 2023: 37 · 2022: 40 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 1
FWCI
31.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • International Journal for Educational Integrity (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Ethics in Business and Education
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Corruption and Economic Development
Keywords
academic integrity, academic dishonesty, corruption, university students, academic misconduct, cheating, integrity culture

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