CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 61Artificial Intelligence in EducationAcademic integrity and plagiarismEthics and Social Impacts of AI

SDG 4, Academic Integrity and Artificial Intelligence: Clash or Win-Win Cooperation?

Open access
Artyukhov, Artem, Wołowiec, Tomasz, Artyukhova, Nadiia, Bogacki, Sylwester, Vasylieva, Tetiana·2024·Sustainability
DOI 10.3390/su16198483
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This article investigates the relationship between Sustainable Development Goal 4 (SDG 4), academic integrity as its part, and artificial intelligence (AI) through a bibliometric analysis, assessing whether this intersection represents a clash or win-win cooperation. SDG 4 aims to ensure equitable access to quality education, while AI technologies have the potential to enhance educational practices but demote academic integrity. By analyzing a comprehensive body of the literature, this study identifies key trends and thematic areas where AI is applied in educational settings, particularly concerning maintaining academic integrity. The findings reveal a growing body of research highlighting AI’s role in personalizing learning experiences, improving educational accessibility, and supporting educators’ teaching methodologies. However, challenges such as ethical considerations, data privacy, and the digital divide are also addressed, indicating potential conflicts that need to be navigated. Ultimately, this analysis suggests that while there are significant opportunities for synergy between AI and SDG 4, the management of careful implementation and policy frameworks is essential to ensure that AI serves as a tool for promoting inclusive and sustainable education rather than exacerbating existing inequalities. AI transforms science management by enhancing data analysis, streamlining research processes, and improving decision-making, ultimately leading to more efficient and effective scientific research and innovation. The findings reveal that while AI can facilitate personalized learning and enhance educational accessibility, it also poses challenges related to academic misconduct, such as plagiarism and the misuse of AI-generated content. This duality highlights the need for educational institutions to develop robust frameworks that leverage AI’s capabilities while safeguarding academic integrity. The article concludes that a collaborative approach, integrating AI into educational practices with a strong emphasis on ethical considerations and integrity, can lead to a synergistic relationship that supports the goals of SDG 4. Recommendations for future research and practical implications for managers, educators, scientists, and policymakers are also discussed, emphasizing the importance of fostering an educational environment that embraces innovation while upholding ethical standards.

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 · 10.3390/su16198483

Cites

52 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 1 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?

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: 1

  1. Holmes, W.; Tuomi, I. State of the art and practice in AI in education. Eur. J. Educ. 2022, 57, 542-570.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Artyukhov, A., Wołowiec, T., Artyukhova, N., Bogacki, S., & Vasylieva, T.
Affiliations
  • Institute of Public Administration and Business, Higher School of Economics and Innovation of Lublin, 20-209 Lublin, Poland
  • University of Economics and Innovation (PL)
  • Faculty of Commerce, University of Economics in Bratislava, 852-35 Bratislava, Slovakia
  • Sumy State University (UA)
ORCID
Venue
Sustainability
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2024-09-29
Volume
16
Issue
19
Pages
8483
ISSN
2071-1050 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3390/su16198483
OpenAlex
W4402964370
Cited by
42
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 2
FWCI
15.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Sustainability (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine (0124U000545, 09I03-03-V01-00130)
  • EU NextGenerationEU (0124U000545, 09I03-03-V01-00130)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Keywords
Sustainable Development Goal 4, academic integrity, artificial intelligence in education, quality education, personalized learning, access to education, academic misconduct, plagiarism, AI-generated content, data privacy, digital divide, AI ethics, inclusive education, education policy

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