PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
May 4, 2026SHILAP Revista de lepidopterología3 citationsOpen Access

A systematic critical review of generative AI's impact on authorship, pedagogy, and integrity (2023–2025)

ZSZouhaier Slimi

Key Points

  • This review aims to analyze the impact of generative AI on authorship, pedagogy, and integrity in higher education.
  • Systematic critical review of 54 peer-reviewed studies from 2023 to 2025 and 6 international policy documents.
  • Utilized thematic synthesis within a critical sociotechnical framework to identify key themes.
  • Identified four key themes: authorship reconfiguration, pedagogy transformation, integrity dynamics, and ethical ramifications.
  • Highlighted significant policy fragmentation and inconsistent efficacy in detection methods.
  • Found that while GenAI improves accessibility and productivity, it risks originality and critical thinking.

Abstract

The rapid integration of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) into academic workflows marks a critical inflexion point for higher education and scholarly publishing. This systematic critical review synthesises and evaluates 54 peer-reviewed studies (2023–2025) alongside 6 key international policy documents to map the contested terrain of GenAI's multifaceted impact. Employing a thematic synthesis approach within a critical sociotechnical framework, the analysis identifies four dominant, interrelated themes: (1) the reconfiguration of authorship and attribution, (2) the transformation of pedagogy and assessment, (3) the evolving dynamics of integrity, trust, and detection, and (4) the emergent ethical and sociopolitical ramifications. Findings reveal a field characterised by significant policy fragmentation, inconsistent detection efficacy, and profound disciplinary divergence in adoption and concern. While GenAI is leveraged to enhance accessibility and productivity, it simultaneously poses risks to originality, critical thinking, and epistemic justice. The discussion argues that prevailing, reactive policy frameworks are inadequate. Instead, this paper advocates for a paradigm shift toward proactive, pedagogically grounded, and equity-focused governance that treats GenAI not merely as a disruptive tool but as a constitutive element of a rapidly evolving scholarly ecosystem. The review concludes by outlining key limitations and proposing a focused agenda for future research, policy, and practice.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Zouhaier Slimi (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69f836aa3ed186a739980e39https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2026.1769680
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Pedagogical Use of Responsible Generative AI in Higher Education; Opportunities and Challenges: A Systematic Literature Review2026 · 5 citations
  2. 2Ensuring ethical standards in scholarly publishing2025
  3. 3Generative AI in education: Process-aware pedagogy, assessment integrity, and institutional governance2026 · 1 citations
  4. 4Safeguarding students' academic integrity in the age of generative AI: challenges and solutions2026
  5. 5The 2025 Landscape of Generative AI in Scholarly Writing and Publishing: A Scoping Review of Uses and Ethical Approaches2025 · 4 citations