Науковий вісник НГУ

GenAI provokes violations of academic integrity: myth or reality?

• 
• 

User Rating:  / 0

PoorBest 

Details

Category: Content №2 2026

Last Updated on 25 April 2026

Published on 30 November -0001

Hits: 1480

Authors:

A. Artyukhov orcid.org/0000-0003-1112-6891, Bratislava University of Economics and Business, Bratislava, Slovak Republic; Sumy State University, Sumy, Ukraine, e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

O. Dluhopolskyi*, orcid.org/0000-0002-2040-8762, West Ukrainian National University, Ternopil, Ukraine; WSEI University, Lublin, Republic of Poland, e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

N. Artyukhova, orcid.org/0000-0002-2408-5737, Bratislava University of Economics and Business, Bratislava, Slovak Republic; Sumy State University, Sumy, Ukraine, e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

D. Chumachenko, orcid.org/0000-0003-2623-3294, National Aerospace University “Kharkiv Aviation Institute”, Kharkiv, Ukraine; University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

M. Lyzun, orcid.org/0000-0003-3222-2962, West Ukrainian National University, Ternopil, Ukraine; e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

* Corresponding author e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

повний текст / full article

Naukovyi Visnyk Natsionalnoho Hirnychoho Universytetu. 2026, (2): 121 - 130

https://doi.org/10.33271/nvngu/2026-2/121

Abstract:

Purpose. The purpose of this article is to empirically test whether the use of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) provokes violations of academic integrity.

Methodology. The study is based on a bibliometric analysis and a cross-national survey of academic stakeholders from the European Union, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States, and other regions. The total sample comprises 496 respondents. The survey was conducted anonymously via Google Forms and used a five-point Likert scale to assess agreement with the statement that the use of GenAI leads to violations of academic integrity. Cochran’s formula was applied to justify the representativeness of the sample.

Findings. The results indicate a moderately high level of concern among academic communities regarding the impact of GenAI on academic integrity (mean value of 3.42, with a neutral benchmark of 3.0), thereby supporting hypothesis H₁ that GenAI is perceived as a potential threat to academic integrity. Substantial cross-country differences were identified, ranging from relatively low levels of concern in Italy and Poland to high levels in Germany, Switzerland, Lithuania, and Canada. Clear regional and cultural clustering patterns are observed, including heightened caution in German-speaking countries and more pragmatic attitudes in Eastern European countries. These findings highlight the significant influence of national educational traditions, institutional frameworks, and regulatory approaches on perceptions of GenAI-related risks.

Originality. The first cross-national empirical analysis is provided of perceptions regarding the relationship between GenAI use and violations of academic integrity based on a broad international sample. The article offers a systematic perspective on how cultural, regional, and institutional factors shape attitudes towards GenAI in academic environments.

Practical value. The practical value of the study lies in the potential application of its findings in the development of national and institutional policies for integrating GenAI into the educational process. The identified cross-country and regional differences demonstrate the limitations of one-size-fits-all regulatory approaches and underscore the need for culturally sensitive, context-specific strategies. The results may be used by university administrations, academic integrity committees, curriculum developers, and education authorities to design balanced approaches to GenAI use that combine innovation with the preservation of core academic values.

Keywords: GenAI, academic integrity, survey, violation

References.

1. Cotton, D. R., Cotton, P. A., & Shipway, J. R. (2023). Chatting and cheating: Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 61(2), 228-239. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2023.2190148

2. Rudolph, J., Tan, S., & Tan, S. (2023). War of the chatbots: Bard, Bing Chat, ChatGPT, Ernie and beyond. The new AI gold rush and its impact on higher education. Journal of Applied Learning and ­Teaching, 6(1), 364-389. https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.23

3. Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V.I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019). Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education – where are the educators? International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16(1), 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0

4. Holmes, W., & Porayska-Pomsta, K. (2022). The ethics of artificial intelligence in education. Practices, Challenges, and Debates. Routledge, 312 p. ISBN 9780367349721.

5. International Center for Academic Integrity (2021). The fundamental values of academic integrity (3 ^rd ed.). ICAI. Retrieved from https://academicintegrity.org/aws/ICAI/asset_manager/get_file/911282?ver=1

6. Fishman, T. (2009). “We know it when we see it” is not good enough: Toward a standard definition of plagiarism that transcends theft, fraud, and copyright. Proceedings of the 4 ^th Asia Pacific Conference on Educational Integrity. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/10779/uow.27825690

7. Bertram Gallant, T. (2017). Academic integrity in the twenty-first century: A teaching and learning imperative. Jossey-Bass. 143 p. ISBN 978-0470373668.

8. Sutherland-Smith, W. (2008). Plagiarism, the Internet, and student learning: Improving academic integrity. Routledge. ISBN 9780415432931.

9. Mujtaba, B. (2024). Clarifying Ethical Dilemmas in Sharpening Students’ Artificial Intelligence Proficiency: Dispelling Myths About Using AI Tools in Higher Education. Business Ethics and Leadership, 8(2), 107-127. https://doi.org/10.61093/bel.8(2).107-127.2024

10.      Vaswani, A., Shazeer, N., Parmar, N., Uszkoreit, J., Jones, L., Gomez, A. N., Kaiser, L., & Polosukhin, I. (2017). Attention is all you need. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 30, 5998-6008. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1706.03762

11.      OpenAI (2023). GPT-4 technical report. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2303.08774

12.      Adiguzel, T., Kaya, M. H., & Cansu, F. K. (2023). Revolutionizing education with AI: Exploring the transformative potential of ­ChatGPT. Contemporary Educational Technology, 15(3), ep429. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/13152

13.      Weber-Wulff, D., Anohina-Naumeca, A., Bjelobaba, S., Foltýnek, T., Guerrero-Dib, J., Popoola, O., Šigut, P., & Waddington, L. (2023). Testing of detection tools for AI-generated text. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 19, 26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-023-00146-z

14.      Howard, R. M., & Davies, L. J. (2009). Plagiarism in the Internet age. Educational Leadership, 66(6), 64-67. Retrieved from https://www.ascd.org/el/articles/plagiarism-in-the-internet-age

15.      Vie, S. (2013). A pedagogy of resistance toward plagiarism detection technologies. Computers and Composition, 30, 3-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2013.01.002

16.      Rahman, M. M., & Watanobe, Y. (2023). ChatGPT for education and research: Opportunities, threats, and strategies. Applied Sciences, 13(9), 5783. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13095783

17.      Bretag, T. (2016). Handbook of academic integrity. Springer. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/referencework/10.1007/978-981-287-098-8

18.      Morris, E. J. (2018). Academic integrity matters: Five considerations for addressing contract cheating. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 14, 15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-018-0038-5

19.      Zámek, D., & Zakharkina, Z. (2024). Research Trends in the Impact of Digitization and Transparency on National Security: Bibliometric Analysis. Financial Markets, Institutions and Risks, 8(1), 173-188. https://doi.org/10.61093/fmir.8(1).173-188.2024

20.      Piven, A. (2023). Analysis of Financial Reports in Companies Using Machine Learning. Financial Markets, Institutions and Risks, 7(4), 135-154. https://doi.org/10.61093/fmir.7(4).135-154.2023

21.      Borissov, D., & Liuta, O. (2025). Ethical Practices in Modern Academia: Does Length of Educational Experience and Quality of Governance Contribute to a Deeper Understanding of Academic Integrity? Business Ethics and Leadership, 9(1), 95-108. https://doi.org/10.61093/bel.9(1).95‒108.2025

22.      Plastun, A., & Kozmenko, S. (2025). Stolen Ukrainian universities: An invisible russian weapon. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 23(2), 151-175. https://doi.org/10.21511/ppm.23(2-si).2025.11

23.      Yarovenko, H., Horbachova, O., Bylbas, R., & Latysh, D. (2025). Digitalization As a Socioeconomic Challenge: Modeling the Impact On the Level of Cybercrime Considering Socioeconomic, Technological and Institutional Factors. SocioEconomic Challenges, 9(2), 282-315. https://doi.org/10.61093/sec.9(2).282-315.2025

24.      Tarasenko, S., Vorontsova, A., Régent, V., Soss, J., & Mylenkova, R. (2025). Science mapping analysis of challenges surrounding cloud universities and their impact on the resilience of higher education. Knowledge and Performance Management, 9(2), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.21511/kpm.09(2).2025.01

25.      Iurchenko, M., & Ponomarenko, M. (2025). Ukrainian Educational and Scientific Potential After the Full-Scale Invasion: Socieconomic Challenges and Prospects. SocioEconomic Challenges, 9(1), 21-38. https://doi.org/10.61093/sec.9(1).21-38.2025

26.      Hrytsenko, L., Pakhnenko, O., Kuzior, A., & Kozhushko, I. (2024). Smart technologies in banking. Financial Markets, Institutions and Risks, 8(1), 81-93. https://doi.org/10.61093/fmir.8(1).81-93.2024

27.      Yefimenko, A., Boronos, V., Serpeninova, Yu., & Koldovskyi, A. (2025). Innovative and Technological Determinants of Corruption Reduction: How do Knowledge and Technology Contribute to Public Integrity and Transparency? Knowledge Economy and Lifelong Learning, 1(1), 21-34. https://doi.org/10.61093/kell.1(1).21-34.2025

28.      Haley, P. (2025). Artificial Intelligence and Ethical Dimensions of Automated Traffic Enforcement: Implications for Public Health, Healthcare Equity, and Social Justice. Health Economics and Management Review, 6(2), 32-49. https://doi.org/10.61093/hem.2025.2-03

29.      Haley, P., & Burrell, D.N. (2025). Integrating Artificial Intelligence into Law Enforcement: Socioeconomic and Ethical Challenges. SocioEconomic Challenges, 9(2), 60-77. https://doi.org/10.61093/sec.9(2).60-77.2025

30.      Yarovenko, H., Kuzior, A., Norek, T., & Lopatka, A. (2024). The future of artificial intelligence: Fear, hope or indifference? Human Technology, 20(3), 611-639. https://doi.org/10.14254/1795-6889.2024.20-3.10

31.      Kaczorowska-Spychalska, D., Kotula, N., Mazurek, G., & Sułkowski, Ł. (2024). Generative AI as source of change of knowledge management paradigm. Human Technology, 20(1), 131-154.
https://doi.org/10.14254/1795-6889.2024.20-1.7

32.      Napieralski, P., Wojciechowski, A., & Korjonen-Kuusipuro, K. (2024). Artificial intelligence for scientific research – large language models in manuscript preparation. Human Technology, 20(3), 416-419. https://doi.org/10.14254/1795-6889.2024.20-3.0

• < Prev
• Next >