Generative Artificial Intelligence and Research Integrity: A Responsibility-Centred Framework
José António C. Santos, Miguel Puig-Cabrera, Margarida Custódio Santos, Alfonso Vargas-Sánchez, Antonio Juan Briones-Peñalver · Tourism & Management Studies · 2026
AI-generated evidence extraction, verified across multiple analytical personas. Not a substitute for the peer-reviewed original.
This is an AI analysis. Read the peer-reviewed original at the publisher: https://doi.org/10.18089/tms.20260203
Methodology & findings
Study design
Integrative narrative review and conceptual synthesis of a large interdisciplinary corpus of Scopus-indexed literature on AI in academic research, publishing ethics, and editorial decision-making.
Main result
The study identifies that "human epistemic responsibility as the central ethical concern, showing that risks arise not from AI itself but from the displacement or obscuring of accountable scholarly judgment." The analysis systematises AI-assisted scholarly practices by distinguishing among integrity-compromising uses, ethically responsible uses, and persistent grey zones in which norms remain contested.
Reports effect sizes.
Research paradigm
Interpretivist/hermeneutic
Author conclusions
The paper "contributes a framework for the responsible integration of GenAI into scholarly research and publishing" and emphasizes that a "human-centred, context-sensitive governance perspective" is needed to guide authors, reviewers, and editors in navigating ethical challenges.
Risk of bias
Narrative review format (non-systematic) carries inherent selection bias risk in literature identification; No explicit search strategy reported for Scopus corpus; Potential for subjective classification of uses as 'integrity-compromising', 'ethically responsible', or 'grey zones'; No inter-rater reliability measures mentioned for conceptual synthesis
Explore related topics
Related papers
- Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statementDavid Moher · 2009 · 83,271 citations
- PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and ExplanationAndrea C. Tricco · 2018 · 40,391 citations
- Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions2019 · 14,420 citations
- PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviewsMatthew J. Page · 2021 · 10,956 citations
- Estimating the reproducibility of psychological scienceAlexander A. Aarts · 2015 · 8,669 citations
- Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviewsMicah D.J. Peters · 2020 · 6,688 citations