Navigating the Impact of ChatGPT/GPT4 on Legal Academic Examinations: Challenges, Opportunities and Recommendations
Open accessAbstract
AbstractIn this paper we explore the impact and implications of AI-driven language systems like ChatGPT/GP-T4 on academic paper writing in the context of universities and other higher educational institutions. We discuss the role of ChatGPT/GPT-4 in aiding students and researchers to streamline the writing process, overcome language barriers, and enhance productivity, while also analysing the potential risks of AI-generated content such as plagiarism, loss of critical thinking skills, and reduced creativity in academic writing. To address namely the issue of paraphrasing plagiarism facilitated by tools like ChatGPT/GPT-4, strengthening plagiarism detection methods might be a solution. However, it is crucial to promote awareness among students and researchers regarding the ethical implications of using AI in academic writing. In the future, the qualification of a text written with ChatGPT/GPT-4 will become more questionable as the border between plagiarism and automated creation is no longer clear. Additionally, we emphasize the importance of proper AI system usage and control, as well as the development of critical skills required to succeed in future professional settings. We propose various strategies for educational institutions to address these concerns and maximize the potential of AI tools, including promoting ethical AI usage, incorporating AI into the educational curriculum, and developing guidelines and regulations surrounding the use of AI in academic settings. By embracing and guiding the integration of AI technologies like ChatGPT/GPT-4 in academic paper writing, institutions can empower students and researchers to harness the full potential of these tools while maintaining academic integrity, fostering the development of critical skills, and supporting the international competitiveness of non-native English speakers in academic research.Keywords: ChatGPT; Plagiarism; University examinations; AI-assisted writing; Legal education.
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
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.
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?
Over-reliance on AI tools may inadvertently hinder the development of deeper cognitive and problem-solving abilities.
“over-reliance on such technologies may inadvertently hinder the development of deeper cognitive and problem-solving abilities.”
From The impact of AI-assisted pair programming on student motivation, programming anxiety, collaborative learning, and programming performance: a comparative study with traditional pair programming and individual approaches (2025) · cites this paper as Koos and Wachsmann, 2023
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
Chatting about ChatGPT: how may AI and GPT impact academia and libraries?
Lund, B. D., & Wang, T. (2023) · Library Hi Tech News · doi:10.1108/lhtn-01-2023-0009 · Cited by 1,355 · see citing works
New Modes of Learning Enabled by AI Chatbots: Three Methods and Assignments
Mollick, E. R., & Mollick, L. (2022) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4300783 · Cited by 176 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 6
- See regarding the issue of plagiarism in Indonesian academic education: Sutarimah Ampuni and others, ' Academic Dishonesty in Indonesian College Students: An Investigation from a Moral Psychology Per- spective' (2020) 18 Journal of Academic Ethics 395 <https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10805-019- 09352-2> accessed 30 April 2023. · DOI
- Lisa Lines, 'Ghostwriters Guaranteeing Grades? The Quality of Online Ghostwriting Services Available to Tertiary Students in Australia' (2016) 21 Teaching in Higher Education 889 <https://doi.org/ 10.1080/13562517.2016.1198759>. 10 Romans Lukashenko, Vita Graudina and Janis Grundspenkis, 'Computer-Based Plagiarism Detection Methods and Tools: An Overview', Conference Proceedings CompSysTech '07 (2007) Art No 40:1-6. · DOI · Paper page
- Rousse, Bulgaria.<https://doi.org/10.1145/1330598.1330642> accessed 30 April 2023. References · DOI · Paper page
- Ampuni S and others, 'Academic Dishonesty in Indonesian College Students: An Investigation from a Moral Psychology Perspective' (2020) 18 Journal of Academic Ethics 395 <https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10805-019-09352-2> accessed 30 April 2023. · DOI
- Lines L, 'Ghostwriters Guaranteeing Grades? The Quality of Online Ghostwriting Services Available to Tertiary Students in Australia' (2016) 21 Teaching in Higher Education 889 <https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2016.1198759>. · DOI · Paper page
- Lukashenko R, Graudina V and Grundspenkis J, 'Computer-Based Plagiarism Detection Methods and Tools: An Overview', Conference Proceedings CompSysTech '07 (2007) Art No 40:1-6. Rousse, Bulgaria.<https://doi.org/10.1145/1330598.1330642> accessed 30 April 2023. · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Zhai, C., Wibowo, S., & Li, L. D. (2024) · Smart Learning Environments · doi:10.1186/s40561-024-00316-7 · Cited by 1,567 · see citing works
Fan, G., Liu, D., Zhang, R., & Pan, L. (2025) · International Journal of STEM Education · doi:10.1186/s40594-025-00537-3 · Cited by 109 · see citing works
“Similarly, Duhaylungsod and Chavez (2023) and Koos and Wachsmann (2023) argue that an excessive reliance on AI for information and content generation can undermine creativity, innovation, and the analytical faculties necessary for constructing logical arguments and integrating diverse sources of…”
Nelson, A. S., Santamaría, P. V., Javens, J. S., & Ricaurte, M. (2025) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci15050611 · Cited by 79 · see citing works
ChatGPT in Academia: University Students’ Attitudes Towards the use of ChatGPT and Plagiarism
Fajt, B., & Schiller, E. (2025) · Journal of Academic Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10805-025-09603-5 · Cited by 47 · see citing works
- Authors
- Koos, S., & Wachsmann, S.
- Affiliations
- Universität der Bundeswehr München (DE)
- ORCID
- Koos, Stefan
- Venue
- Media Iuris
- Publisher
- Universitas Airlangga
- Published
- 2023-06-20
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 255-270
- ISSN
- 2621-5225 (ISSN-L)
- 2721-8384
- OpenAlex
- W4383311764
- Cited by
- 35
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 1
- FWCI
- 8.78
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- Media Iuris (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- European Commission
- 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
- ChatGPT, GPT-4, academic plagiarism, AI-assisted writing, legal education, university examinations, academic integrity, critical thinking, AI ethics in education, non-native English speakers, plagiarism detection
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
