Cited by 26Academic integrity and plagiarismArtificial Intelligence in EducationArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education

AI chatbots: A disguised enemy for academic integrity?

Open access
Niloy, Ahnaf Chowdhury, Hafiz, Reaz, Hossain, Bhuiyan Md.Tasnim, Gulmeher, Farhana, Sultana, Naznin, Islam, Khondokar Fardin, Bushra, Fabiha, Islam, Samiya +3 more·2024·International Journal of Educational Research Open

Abstract

The widespread popularity of ChatGPT and other AI chatbots has sparked debate within the scientific community, particularly regarding their impact on academic integrity among students. While several studies have examined AI's role in education, a significant gap remains concerning how AI chatbot usage affects students’ perceptions of academic integrity. This study aims to address this gap through rigorous quantitative techniques to explore the dynamics of student interactions with AI chatbots and assess whether this engagement diminishes academic integrity in higher education. Using a non-experimental design, the research investigates the causal relationship between AI chatbot usage and academic integrity, focusing on eight latent variables identified in the literature. A stratified sampling technique was employed to collect a representative sample of 594 participants via a 5-point Likert scale survey from four Southern Asian countries. The dataset underwent extensive statistical analysis using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) techniques. The findings establish significant links between motivations for using AI chatbots and a decline in academic integrity. The study identifies a behavioral link between academic integrity and pedagogical limitations, highlighting traditional classroom-based pedagogy as the most impactful factor influencing students’ motivation to engage with AI chatbots. This research not only quantitatively addresses ethical concerns related to AI in academia but also offers insights into user behavior by assigning distinct weights to post-usage behavioral factors, differentiating it from earlier studies that treated these factors equally.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ijedro.2024.100396

Cites

110 of 110 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 112 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Niloy, A. C., Hafiz, R., Hossain, B. M., Gulmeher, F., Sultana, N., Islam, K. F., Bushra, F., Islam, S., Hoque, S. I., Rahman, M., & Kabir, S.
Affiliations
East West University (BD)
Corresponding author
Niloy, Ahnaf Chowdhury
Venue
International Journal of Educational Research Open
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2024-12
Volume
7
Pages
100396
ISSN
2666-3740 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4403946826
Cited by
26
References
112
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 12
FWCI
10.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of Educational Research Open (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
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
AI chatbots, ChatGPT, academic integrity, student perceptions, university students, artificial intelligence in education, student behavior

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