arXiv (All)
open access
Why AI Detection Fails for Academic Integrity
Institutions use commercial AI detectors for academic integrity, yet detectors cannot distinguish AI editing from full LLM drafts and may treat both as misconduct. In a controlled study of published English abstracts (four domains; 2013 to 2015 vs. 2023 to 2025), we quantify this policy failure unde
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- Redefining Scientific Authorship in the Age of AI: Challenges for Editors and Institutions#427278
- Academic Publishing and Scientific Integrity: Case Studies of Editorial Interference by Taylor & Francis#689822
- "Give a Positive Review Only": An Early Investigation Into In-Paper Prompt Injection Attacks and Defenses for AI Reviewers#984083
- Forging LLM Authorship Fingerprints with Targeted Rewriting#1143432
- How ChatGPT undermines my research productivity#95781
Record · ID 1343669
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive