ArticleScientific reports2026
Faculty perceptions of ChatGPT on academic integrity and institutional roles in higher education.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The rapid expansion of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) tools such as ChatGPT has raised growing concerns in higher education, particularly regarding assessment practices and academic integrity. This study examines faculty perceptions of ChatGPT in public universities in Saudi Arabia, with a focus on differences related to academic rank and institutional role. Using a sequential explanatory mixed-methods design, survey data were collected from 202 faculty members across eight public universities and analyzed using descriptive statistics and the Kruskal-Wallis test. Qualitative responses were analyzed thematically to explain and contextualize the quantitative findings. The results indicate variation in faculty perceptions. Assistant and associate professors reported higher concern regarding issues such as cheating, unequal evaluation, and the impact of AI on student performance and skills. Qualitative findings help explain these patterns by highlighting concerns about students' reliance on AI-generated content and its effects on writing and learning processes. Faculty members in administrative roles emphasized institutional challenges, particularly the need for clearer guidelines on AI use in assessment and academic integrity procedures. The findings suggest that faculty perceptions of generative AI are shaped by professional responsibilities within specific institutional contexts. Practical implications include the need to develop clear institutional guidelines for AI use, redesign assessment practices to reduce misuse, and provide targeted faculty training on AI-aware teaching and evaluation strategies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.