A systematic critical review of generative AI's impact on authorship, pedagogy, and integrity (2023–2025)
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 22168281 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Zouhaier Slimi (0000-0001-8521-2536, U.S. National Science Foundation, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2026 |
| Volume | 11 |
| Publication date | 2026-04-29 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Frontiers in Education (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 2504-284X • E-ISSN: 2504-284X |
| Publisher | Frontiers Media SA (PUBLISHER • CH) |
| DOI | 10.3389/feduc.2026.1769680 |
| OpenAlex | W7159651521 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 38 |
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
Corporate governance · Discipline · Generative grammar · Sociotechnical system · AI in Service Interactions · Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education · Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Sociomaterial Practices
Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar
Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews
A typology of reviews
From Informal to Formal
Writing with machines? Reconceptualizing student work in the age of AI
Generative artificial intelligence in higher education
The Purity Myth
| Citation velocity | historical |
|---|---|
| Highly cited | No |