Rethinking Plagiarism in the Era of Generative AI
Open accessAbstract
The emergence of generative artificial intelligence (AI) technologies, such as large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT, has precipitated a paradigm shift in the realms of academic writing, plagiarism, and intellectual property. This article explores the evolving landscape of English composition courses, traditionally designed to develop critical thinking through writing. As AI becomes increasingly integrated into the academic sphere, it necessitates a reevaluation of originality in writing, the purpose of learning research and writing, and the frameworks governing intellectual property (IP) and plagiarism. The paper commences with a statistical analysis contrasting the actual use of LLMs in academic dishonesty with educator perceptions. It then examines the repercussions of AI-enabled content proliferation, referencing the limitation of three books self-published per day in September 2023 by Amazon due to a suspected influx of AI-generated material. The discourse extends to the potential of AI in accelerating research akin to the contributions of digital humanities and computational linguistics, highlighting its accessibility to the general public. The article further delves into the implications of AI on pedagogical approaches to research and writing, contemplating its impact on communication and critical thinking skills, while also considering its role in bridging the digital divide and socio-economic disparities. Finally, it proposes revisions to writing curricula, adapting to the transformative influence of AI in academic contexts.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 64 · Cited by 83
Research works printed but not linked: 6
- [4]4. Fenton, A.L.; Gralla C. Student plagiarism in higher education: A typology and remedial framework for a globalized era. In Academic Misconduct and Plagiarism; Editor Bernard Montoneri; Lexington Books: Maryland, USA, 2020. pp. 109.
- [8]8. Zaheer, M.; Guruganesh, G.; Dubey, K.A.; Ainslie, J.; Alberti, C.; Ontanon, S.; Pham, P.; Ravula, A.; Wang, Q.; Yang, L. et al. A. Big bird: Transformers for longer sequences. Adv. in Neural Inf. Processing Sys. 2020, 33, 17283–17297.
- [12]12. Jambeck, K.K.; Winder, B.D. Vygotsky Werner, and English composition: Paradigms for thinking and writing. Writ. on Edge 1990, 1, 68–79.
- [13]13. Spear, K.I. Thinking and writing: A sequential curriculum for composition. J. Adv. Compos. 1983, 4, 47–63.
- [22]22. Oleksy, E. That thing ain’t human: The artificiality of “human authorship” and the intelligence in expanding copyright authorship to fully-autonomous AI. Clev. St. L. Rev. 2023, 72, 263.
- [68]68. Challenges to Academic Integrity from New Tools-A Survey of Students’ Perceptions and Behaviors of Employing ChatGPT. Available online: https://hdl.handle.net/10125/106385 (accessed on 1 March 2024)
- Authors
- Hutson, J.
- Affiliations
- Lindenwood University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Hutson, James
- ORCID
- Hutson, James
- Venue
- Journal of Intelligent Communication
- Publisher
- UK Scientific Publishing Limited
- Published
- 2024-04-26
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 1
- ISSN
- 2754-5792 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4395673823
- Cited by
- 83
- References
- 64
- Citations by year
- 2026: 22 · 2025: 39 · 2024: 22
- FWCI
- 34.40
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of Intelligent Communication (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Keywords
- plagiarism, generative AI, large language models, ChatGPT, academic dishonesty, intellectual property, originality in writing, English composition, critical thinking, digital divide, AI-generated content
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