The DOI matches its Crossref record; 65 of the 65 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Generative AI, Research Ethics, and Higher Education Research: Insights from a Scientometric Analysis
Open accessAbstract
In the digital age, the intersection of artificial intelligence (AI) and higher education (HE) poses novel ethical considerations, necessitating a comprehensive exploration of this multifaceted relationship. This study aims to quantify and characterize the current research trends and critically assess the discourse on ethical AI applications within HE. Employing a mixed-methods design, we integrated quantitative data from the Web of Science, Scopus, and the Lens databases with qualitative insights from selected studies to perform scientometric and content analyses, yielding a nuanced landscape of AI utilization in HE. Our results identified vital research areas through citation bursts, keyword co-occurrence, and thematic clusters. We provided a conceptual model for ethical AI integration in HE, encapsulating dichotomous perspectives on AI’s role in education. Three thematic clusters were identified: ethical frameworks and policy development, academic integrity and content creation, and student interaction with AI. The study concludes that, while AI offers substantial benefits for educational advancement, it also brings challenges that necessitate vigilant governance to uphold academic integrity and ethical standards. The implications extend to policymakers, educators, and AI developers, highlighting the need for ethical guidelines, AI literacy, and human-centered AI tools.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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?
In the citing paper
“Recent studies show that students who learn in an environment where ethical values are lived-not just stated-are more receptive to topics related to algorithmic responsibility and show a greater willingness to engage in reflections on the regulation of AI [43,48-50].”
Citations
Cites
Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V. I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0 · Cited by 7,242
The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines
Jobin, A., Ienca, M., & Vayena, E. (2019) · Nature Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1038/s42256-019-0088-2 · Cited by 6,220
A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models
Chang, Y., Wang, X., Wang, J., Wu, Y., Yang, L., Zhu, K., Chen, H., Yi, X., Wang, C., Wang, Y., et al. (2024) · ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology · doi:10.1145/3641289 · Cited by 4,254
Sallam, M. (2023) · Healthcare · doi:10.3390/healthcare11060887 · Cited by 3,126
The Ethics of AI Ethics: An Evaluation of Guidelines
Hagendorff, T. (2020) · Minds and Machines · doi:10.1007/s11023-020-09517-8 · Cited by 1,911
The Ethics of AI Ethics -- An Evaluation of Guidelines
Hagendorff, T. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1903.03425 · Cited by 1,907
ChatGPT: five priorities for research
van Dis, E. A. M., Bollen, J., Zuidema, W., van Rooij, R., & Bockting, C. L. (2023) · Nature · doi:10.1038/d41586-023-00288-7 · Cited by 1,842
A comprehensive AI policy education framework for university teaching and learning
Chan, C. K. Y. (2023) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-023-00408-3 · Cited by 1,577
Practical and ethical challenges of large language models in education: A systematic scoping review
Yan, L., Sha, L., Zhao, L., Li, Y., Martinez‐Maldonado, R., Chen, G., Li, X., Jin, Y., & Gašević, D. (2024) · British Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.1111/bjet.13370 · Cited by 1,435
Gao, C. A., Howard, F. M., Markov, N. S., Dyer, E. C., Ramesh, S., Luo, Y., & Pearson, A. T. (2023) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-023-00819-6 · Cited by 1,099
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 7
- Coffey, L. (2024, April 01). AI and Peer Review: Enemies or Allies?—Inside Higher Ed. Available online: https://ahrecs.com/latestnews/ai-and-peer-review-enemies-or-allies-inside-higher-ed-lauren-coffey-october-2023/.
- Zhang, J., Ji, X., Zhao, Z., Hei, X., and Choo, K.-K.R. (2023). Ethical Considerations and Policy Implications for Large Language Models: Guiding Responsible Development and Deployment. arXiv.
- Weidinger, L., Mellor, J.F.J., Rauh, M., Griffin, C., Uesato, J., Huang, P.-S., Cheng, M., Glaese, M., Balle, B., and Kasirzadeh, A. (2021). Ethical and Social Risks of Harm from Language Models. arXiv.
- Boyko, J., Cohen, J., Fox, N., Veiga, M.H., Li, J.I.-H., Liu, J., Modenesi, B., Rauch, A.H., Reid, K.N., and Tribedi, S. (2023). An Interdisciplinary Outlook on Large Language Models for Scientific Research. arXiv.
- Airaj, M. (2024). Education and Information Technologies, Springer.
- Khalaf, M.A. (2024). AI and Ethics, Springer.
- Qadhi, S., Alduais, A.M.S., Chaaban, Y., and Khraisheh, M. (2024). Experiences of Academics, Graduates, and Undergraduates in Using Generative AI in Research (Un)ethically and (Ir)responsibly: A Title Registration of Systematic Review of Qualitative Synthesis Protocol, Registered.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 101–106 of 106
Exploring Generative AI Research: A Scientometric Study Using Biblioshiny and VOSviewer
Balamurugan, B., Anbukkarasi, S., Sudha, K., Kanna, G. V., Nattar, S., & Sivasekaran, K. (2026) · International Conference on Smart Technologies for Sustainable Development Goals (ICSTSDG) · doi:10.1109/icstsdg69220.2026.11708155
Artificial Intelligence and the Transformation of Academic Knowledge Production and Dissemination
Shoroma, M. A. (2026) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-9868-6.ch012
Ethical Generative AI Use in Higher Education: An Action Research Study Using the Think Aloud Method
Karaki, S., & Baroudi, S. (2026) · Journal of Computer Assisted Learning · doi:10.1002/jcal.70352
Prácticas académicas significativas y de impacto en la educación virtual e híbrida
Alina, E., Montoya, E. A. H., & Capilla, A. (2026) · doi:10.22490/unad.9786287857650
Saavedra-Alamillas, C., & Alcántara, H. A. F. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197851425.003.2045
Pachuashvili, N. (2026) · MAP Education and Humanities · doi:10.53880/2744-2373.2026.7.93
Metadata
- Authors
- Qadhi, S. M., Alduais, A., Chaaban, Y., & Khraisheh, M.
- Affiliations
- Qatar University (QA)
- University of Verona (IT)
- Corresponding author
- Qadhi, Saba Mansoor
- Alduais, Ahmed
- Venue
- Information
- Publisher
- MDPI AG
- Published
- 2024-06-02
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 325
- ISSN
- 2078-2489 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4399292151
- Cited by
- 106
- References
- 64
- Citations by year
- 2026: 54 · 2025: 42 · 2024: 10
- FWCI
- 39.98
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Information (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Qatar University QSpace (Qatar University) (submittedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Qatar National Research Fund (QNRF), Academic Research Grant (ARG), granted to the College of Education, Qatar University (ARG01-0516-230177)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Social Sciences › Education › Academic integrity and plagiarism
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Keywords
- generative AI, research ethics, higher education research, ethical AI, artificial intelligence in education, academic integrity, AI-generated content, student-AI interaction, AI governance, AI literacy, research trends
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