Academic Integrity and Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education (HE) Contexts: A Rapid Scoping Review

Authors : Beatriz Antonieta Moya, Sarah Elaine Eaton, Helen Pethrick, K. Alix Hayden, Robert Brennan, Jason Wiens, Brenda McDermott

Artificial Intelligence (AI) developments challenge higher education institutions’ teaching, learning, assessment, and research practices. To contribute timely and evidence-based recommendations for upholding academic integrity, we conducted a rapid scoping review focusing on what is known about academic integrity and AI in higher education. We followed the Updated Reviewer Manual for Scoping Reviews from the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews Meta-Analysis for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) reporting standards.

Five databases were searched, and the eligibility criteria included higher education stakeholders of any age and gender engaged with AI in the context of academic integrity from 2007 through November 2022 and available in English. The search retrieved 2223 records, of which 14 publications with mixed methods, qualitative, quantitative, randomized controlled trials, and text and opinion studies met the inclusion criteria. The results showed bounded and unbounded ethical implications of AI.

Perspectives included: AI for cheating; AI as legitimate support; an equity, diversity, and inclusion lens into AI; and emerging recommendations to tackle AI implications in higher education. The evidence from the sources provides guidance that can inform educational stakeholders in decision-making processes for AI integration, in the analysis of misconduct cases involving AI, and in the exploration of AI as legitimate assistance. Likewise, this rapid scoping review signals key questions for future research, which we explore in our discussion.

URL : Academic Integrity and Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education (HE) Contexts: A Rapid Scoping Review


Preprints in times of COVID19: the time is ripe for agreeing on terminology and good practices

Authors : Raffaella Ravinetto, Céline Caillet, Muhammad H. Zaman, Jerome Amir Singh, Philippe J. Guerin, Aasim Ahmad, Carlos E. Durán, Amar Jesani, Ana Palmero, Laura Merson, Peter W. Horby, E. Bottieau, Tammy Hoffmann, Paul N. Newton

Over recent years, the research community has been increasingly using preprint servers to share manuscripts that are not yet peer-reviewed. Even if it enables quick dissemination of research findings, this practice raises several challenges in publication ethics and integrity.

In particular, preprints have become an important source of information for stakeholders interested in COVID19 research developments, including traditional media, social media, and policy makers.

Despite caveats about their nature, many users can still confuse pre-prints with peer-reviewed manuscripts. If unconfirmed but already widely shared first-draft results later prove wrong or misinterpreted, it can be very difficult to “unlearn” what we thought was true. Complexity further increases if unconfirmed findings have been used to inform guidelines.

To help achieve a balance between early access to research findings and its negative consequences, we formulated five recommendations: (a) consensus should be sought on a term clearer than ‘pre-print’, such as ‘Unrefereed manuscript’, “Manuscript awaiting peer review” or ‘’Non-reviewed manuscript”; (b) Caveats about unrefereed manuscripts should be prominent on their first page, and each page should include a red watermark stating ‘Caution—Not Peer Reviewed’; (c) pre-print authors should certify that their manuscript will be submitted to a peer-review journal, and should regularly update the manuscript status; (d) high level consultations should be convened, to formulate clear principles and policies for the publication and dissemination of non-peer reviewed research results; (e) in the longer term, an international initiative to certify servers that comply with good practices could be envisaged.

URL : Preprints in times of COVID19: the time is ripe for agreeing on terminology and good practices


Bibliothèques universitaires et intégrité scientifique : quels apports, quelles limites ?

Auteur/Author : Mélissa Defond

L’intégrité scientifique est au coeur de la validité et de la qualité des productions scientifiques. Il s’agit d’un enjeu majeur du monde de la recherche, et un nombre croissant de dispositifs sont en place dans les universités françaises pour répondre aux défis qu’il pose.

Quelle est la place des bibliothèques universitaires dans ce monde de l’intégrité, qui semble si lié aux opérateurs de la recherche ? Que peuvent-elles apporter à la question de l’intégrité scientifique, et quelles sont les limites de leur intervention ?

Nous sommes actuellement à un moment crucial, avec de nombreuses occasions à saisir pour les bibliothèques universitaires afin de se faire une place dans une culture de l’intégrité.

URL : Bibliothèques universitaires et intégrité scientifique : quels apports, quelles limites ?

Alternative location :

La tension entre la pratique de recherche et l’intégrité scientifique : l’exemple de l’activité bibliographique

Auteurs/Authors : Sophie Kennel, Elsa Poupardin

L’activité bibliographique des chercheurs va de la constitution d’une culture savante à l’enrichissement de la connaissance scientifique par la publication. Notre étude interroge le lien entre l’intégrité scientifique et les constituants de cette production scientifique.

Elle permet de situer les connaissances et les positionnements des chercheurs sur la question de l’intégrité scientifique et montre les tensions entre l’activité prescrite, induite et l’activité réelle de lecture et de citation des chercheurs souvent déterminée par les normes d’évaluation.


Working Together to Reduce Plagiarism and Promote Academic Integrity: A Collaborative Initiative at Leicester

This staff student collaboration arose from a staff-led research project that examined the potential for an American-style honor code system to reduce plagiarism in higher education.

This system promotes the positive benefits of good scholarship, encourages students to take responsibility for their own learning and is based on a community of trust between staff and students. Students’ Union Education Officers, student course representatives and academic staff worked together to re-frame advice given to students on plagiarism in a more positive light.

This ongoing collaboration has resulted in joint recommendations from staff and students to the institution on how to reduce plagiarism and promote a culture of academic integrity.”