Latest news with #academicfraud
Malay Mail
9 hours ago
- Malay Mail
Singapore's NTU assembles panel after students penalised over AI use, one of them merely for alphabetising citations with online tool
SINGAPORE, June 26 — Nanyang Technological University (NTU) will convene an appeal review panel including artificial intelligence (AI) experts after a student was accused of academic fraud for allegedly using generative AI tools. CNA reported that NTU allows students to use AI in assignments but requires them to declare usage, ensure accuracy, and cite sources. 'NTU remains committed to our goal of equipping students with the knowledge and skills to use AI technologies productively, ethically and critically,' a spokesman was quoted saying. The university said it had met two of the three students involved to assess the grounds for appeal, though no decisions were made during the consultations. One student's appeal was accepted for review, while another's was rejected. The student whose appeal was processed had earlier shared on Reddit that she was accused of misusing AI after submitting an essay for a module on health and disease politics. An assistant professor questioned whether AI tools were used, prompting the student to submit a time-lapse video of her writing process using the Draftback browser extension. However, she was penalised for using Study Crumb, an AI-powered site, to alphabetise her citations, receiving a zero for the assignment and a 'D' for the module. The student paid S$40 (RM139) to appeal and later demonstrated her writing process and use of the citation tool during a two-hour consultation with a faculty panel. A panel member reportedly agreed the tool was not considered generative AI and assured her that the misconduct would not appear on her permanent record. Two other students from the same class also received zeros, including one who used Citation Machine and ChatGPT to organise citations and conduct limited background research. She said her appeal was rejected after a panel found she violated explicit instructions banning AI tools. NTU said the student had previously admitted to using generative AI in her assignment and noted that instructors may prohibit AI use for certain tasks. A briefing slide for the class stated that AI use in developing essays was prohibited, with zero marks imposed for violations. The third student was penalised for allegedly using fake citations and initially faced a 10-mark deduction, which was later escalated to a zero. He accepted the decision and chose not to contest it further, saying he prioritised passing as he had already secured a job but feared the incident could harm his reputation.
CNA
2 days ago
- CNA
NTU to convene panel with AI experts to consider appeal of student accused of academic fraud
SINGAPORE: Nanyang Technological University (NTU) will convene an appeal review panel that will include artificial intelligence experts following accusations that a student committed academic fraud by using generative AI tools. A spokesperson from the university said on Thursday (Jun 26) that the school met two out of the three students who were accused of academic misconduct for face-to-face consultations this week. The objective of the consultation was to assess the grounds for appeal, and no conclusions were made. One student's appeal was processed following the consultation, while the other student's was rejected, the spokesperson said. The former student had uploaded a post on Reddit last Thursday, detailing her account of being accused of misusing generative AI by her instructor, Assistant Professor Sabrina Luk. After submitting an essay for a module on health, disease outbreaks and politics at the School of Social Sciences in April, she received an email from Asst Prof Luk questioning whether she had used AI tools in her assignment. In response, the student provided a time-lapse video of her writing process, recorded using the Google Chrome extension Draftback to prove that she had written the essay. However, as she had alphabetised her citations on Study Crumb, an AI-powered essay writing site, she was told that she had committed academic fraud. She received a zero for the assignment, which had a weightage of 45 per cent, and received a 'D' grade. A "FAIR HEARING" When the student received her grade in early June, she paid S$40 (US$31) to file a formal appeal. The school arranged for a consultation with a panel of faculty members, which CNA understands comprised an academic chair, the head of her programme and an associate provost. During the consultation, which lasted for two hours, the student was given the opportunity to demonstrate her writing process and show how the alphabetiser worked. She was also tested on her understanding of various academic sources and asked how she retrieved them. According to the student, the panel agreed that the alphabetiser she used was not considered generative AI. They also reassured her that while the academic misconduct would be filed internally, it would not be reflected in her permanent academic record. 'I'm just glad that the hearing was fair, that there was a proper panel this time,' she told CNA, adding that her instructor had previously shut her down and said there was 'no negotiation'. Her next step is to wait for the outcome of the appeal – her final move before she's 'exhausted everything', she said. NOT THE SAME OUTCOME Two other students from the same class were also accused of academic fraud and received a zero for their assignment. One of them had used citation generator Citation Machine and ChatGPT to organise her citations. As there were mistakes in her bibliography, her work was flagged as potentially AI-generated. When Asst Prof Luk questioned whether she had used AI tools, the student disclosed she had used ChatGPT for 'minimal' background research. In her ChatGPT transcript, seen by CNA, the student asked the tool for help with research for a project examining COVID-19 responses. In one out of the five prompts, she requested a statistic related to the number of COVID-19 cases. The student said she did not use the suggested number in her essay. "I accept responsibility that there were errors and there was negligence," she told CNA. "But the punishment being meted out is nowhere near proportionate.' When her efforts to reach the school's academic integrity officer for clarification fell through, she spent the next two months trying to get her case heard. On Wednesday, the student had a meeting with two faculty members, including an associate chair from the School of Social Sciences. However, the outcome of her meeting was 'very different' from the first student's, she said. She said the panel faulted her for using ChatGPT when there was "explicit" mention that AI tools could not be used, and that her penalty still stood. 'I didn't use (ChatGPT) to write anything, not even one line of my essay,' she said. 'They're holding me for the fact that I use it for research … if you're going to fault me for that, how are you going to hold every student for that?' In response to queries from CNA, the spokesperson said the school had rejected the appeal request because the student had 'admitted to using Gen AI for the essay and had shared how it was used' back in April, in her initial hearing with her instructor. The spokesperson added that some instructors may disallow the use of generative AI for 'specific pedagogical reasons'. 'In this case, the professor had disallowed AI use for a specific written assignment to assess students' research skills, and their originality and independent thinking.' In a briefing slide seen by CNA, students from the class were told that the use of ChatGPT and AI tools is not allowed in the 'development or generation' of their essay proposal and long essay. 'You will receive a zero mark for the assignment if you are caught using ChatGPT and other AI tools for writing assignments,' it states. The student claims that apart from the slide, the instructor had not elaborated further. She had assumed that while AI tools could not be used to generate content for the essay, it was acceptable to use them for background research and to alphabetise her citations. 'Right now, it's not so much about my grades anymore,' she said. 'It's become a bigger issue in the sense of justice, and the fact that you cannot penalise what you don't make clear.' The third student, also in his final year, was also accused of academic fraud for allegedly using fake and inaccurate citations. After explaining that he had only used AI tools to summarise information for his background research and to format his citations in APA style, Asst Prof Luk told him that he would receive a 10-mark deduction. But a few days later, the student received an email from the school's academic integrity officer, saying that the decision had been overruled and that he would receive a zero for the assignment. When he wrote in for clarification, the academic integrity officer responded a few hours later to say that the decision was made according to the university's policies to "uphold academic integrity, fairness and consistency". She also referred him to a student care manager for support, based on an email exchange that CNA has seen. The student said he did not pursue the matter further, as he had already found a job and that his top priority was to pass. He eventually scored a 'D' for the module. However, he worries that future employers may come across his academic record. 'It destroys whatever integrity, whatever reputation that you have … over something that we did not do,' he said. CNA has contacted members of the panel about the students' claims. The spokesperson from NTU told CNA that many of its schools across different disciplines use AI as part of learning. In general, students are allowed to use generative AI in their assignments, they added. They said students are asked to declare any use of AI and are 'ultimately responsible' for the content generated when using AI. Students must also ensure factual accuracy and cite all sources properly. 'NTU remains committed to our goal of equipping students with the knowledge and skills to use AI technologies productively, ethically and critically,' they said.
Free Malaysia Today
5 days ago
- Free Malaysia Today
Punished over alleged use of AI, students at S'pore varsity cry foul
Singapore's Nanyang Technological University said the three students were given zero marks after non-existent academic references and statistics were found in their work. (X pic) PETALING JAYA : Three students at Singapore's Nanyang Technological University (NTU) have expressed outrage after failing an assignment for purportedly using generative artificial intelligence (AI) to complete their work. NTU said the students were given zero marks after non-existent academic references and statistics were found in their work, following an investigation in April. The university said the undergraduates were allowed to present their cases during a formal review, The Straits Times reported. It said two of them admitted to using generative AI while the other student claimed to be unaware that a platform used for the assignment was an AI tool. One student expressed her dissatisfaction on Reddit, claiming that she was falsely accused of using AI and committing academic fraud after making citation typos and using a reference organiser. Despite submitting evidence of her writing process, her attempts at appealing the decision were unsuccessful, she said. Another student expressed her grievances with the university's formal review process, claiming that she was yelled at by her professor and not given a proper chance to defend herself. While NTU did not disclose the exact guidelines on AI use for citation and summarising purposes, it said the students had already been told that using generative AI would result in a zero grade for all written assignments this semester.
Independent Singapore
21-06-2025
- Independent Singapore
More students step forward after NTU student says citation typos led to false AI cheating accusation
SINGAPORE: A student at Nanyang Technological University (NTU) has claimed that his future has been upended thanks to being falsely accused of using generative AI in an essay, leading to more students stepping forward with similar grievances against the same professor. In a widely shared Reddit post on the r/SGExams subreddit, a user who goes by the handle u/CurveSad2086 recounted how their professor accused them of academic fraud last semester based on minor citation errors and the use of a citation sorter. 'I made 3 citation mistakes/typos,' the student wrote, adding that they had '20 correct citations' which the professor allegedly dismissed. The professor further claimed that using a citation sorter to alphabetise references was a form of AI assistance. As a result, the student received a zero for the assignment, which they say severely damaged their GPA. They were also issued a permanent academic warning labeling them an 'academic fraud.' Despite appealing the decision and submitting extensive documentation, including Google Docs version history, a paid video reconstruction of their writing process via the Draftback extension, and previous essays to prove a consistent writing style, the appeal was rejected. 'I did everything to show that this essay was written from scratch,' the student wrote. 'I even paid $10 for a Draftback extension that converts my Google Docs typing process into a video.' Efforts to escalate the matter within the university allegedly went nowhere. According to the student, they contacted NTU's head of academics, the dean, the president, and the head of student services. Most provided either no response or generic advice to seek 'the university's welfare services.' The student said they even turned to their Member of Parliament during a Meet-the-People Session. A volunteer promised to send a letter, but no follow-up has been received. In an update posted a day later, the student revealed that they are not alone. At least five students from the same modules, listed as HA4040 and HA3026, have allegedly been accused of AI misuse by the same professor. Two students told the OP that faced the same consequences: a failing grade and a permanent record of academic fraud. See also SG & US join forces to combat online scams None of the accusations, according to the students, were based on the content of their writing being flagged by AI detectors. Instead, they were penalised for formatting-related issues, including citation mistakes or the use of online citation tools, which the professor allegedly deemed indicative of AI use. The group of affected students say they've spent the past two months contacting senior university management but have been 'ghosted.' In light of recent attention to the issue on Reddit, the students have reportedly begun reaching out to local media outlets to spread more awareness and seek justice. The OP, who expressed concern about how universities react to such accusations despite evidence suggesting otherwise, said in his update: 'I felt really alone in my situation before this, but now I'm determined to fight this case, so that future students don't get hurt by the same process.'
Daily Mail
26-05-2025
- Science
- Daily Mail
Harvard fires professor for fabricating research on dishonesty
Harvard University fired a professor after finding that she fabricated research used in studies on dishonesty. Francesca Gino, a star business professor at the Ivy League, was stripped of her title this past week after Harvard administrators informed business faculty of their decision, GHB reported. An investigation into her work was launched in 2023 after a trio of data bloggers - Uri Simonsohn, Leif Nelson and Joe Simmons - presented what they said was evidence of academic fraud in four studies co-authored by Gino, noting that they also 'believe that many more Gino-authored papers contain fake data.' Gino was a rising professional at Harvard and her behavioral research studies relating to cheating, lying and dishonesty received widespread media coverage over the past decade. But questions about her work first emerged regarding a 2012 study she co-authored, which purported to show that making people sign an honesty pledge at the beginning of a form, rather than the end, increases honest responses. That study was retracted in 2021 over apparent data fabrication by a different researcher who worked on the project, which cited three separate lab experiments to draw its conclusion. About four years later, an internal investigation found that Gino manipulated data to support her findings in at least four of her studies. The prestigious university said it hadn't stripped a professor of their tenure in decades and did not comment further on the announcement, per The Daily Beast. An investigation into her work was launched in 2023 after a trio of data bloggers presented what they said was evidence of academic fraud in four studies co-authored by Gino When the investigation first took shape in 2023, Gino took to her personal website denying the claims against her. 'There is one thing I know for sure: I did not commit academic fraud. I did not manipulate data to produce a particular result,' it reads. 'I did not falsify data to bolster any result. I did not commit the offense I am accused of. Period.' After accusations started to spread, Gino was placed on administrative leave. The journal Psychological Science also retracted two articles by Gino, saying it had acted on the recommendation of the Research Integrity Office at Harvard Business School (HBS). In both cases, the journal said an independent forensic firm engaged by HBS had discovered 'discrepancies' between the published data sets and earlier data sets from Gino's behavioral experiments. Separately, Harvard requested that the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology withdraw a third study by Gino, and the journal's publishers plan to retract the article in the September 2023 issue, the Financial Times reported. The two studies recently retracted by Psychological Science were a 2015 paper titled 'The Moral Virtue of Authenticity: How Inauthenticity Produces Feelings of Immorality and Impurity' and a 2014 paper titled 'Evil Genius? How Dishonesty Can Lead to Greater Creativity.' The 2020 article in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology which is slated for retraction was titled 'Why Connect? Moral Consequences of Networking with a Promotion or Prevention Focus.' The paper titled 'Evil Genius' involved five separate lab experiments with human volunteers, who were given the opportunity to behave dishonestly by overreporting their performance on various tasks, and then measured on creative tasks. The article purported to demonstrate that 'acting dishonestly leads to greater creativity in subsequent tasks,' according to the original abstract. In August 2023, Gino fired back at the school and went on to file a $25 million lawsuit alleging she was the target of a 'smear campaign.' The 100-page legal filing, submitted to Massachusetts federal court, claimed Harvard and the three data scientist bloggers defamed her with false claims of academic fraud. I want to be very clear: I have never, ever falsified data or engaged in research misconduct of any kind,' Gino said. In her suit, Gino insisted that any anomalies in the spreadsheets may have simply been the result of research assistants entering data manually from paper worksheets, a process naturally prone to human error. Gino's suit went on to accuse Harvard of using an unfair and biased process to investigate the data fraud allegations, saying the university 'ignored exculpatory evidence' and created a new policy for researching academic fraud claims that applied only to her. The suit also accused the school of defamation, breach of contract, bad faith and gender discrimination, claiming that Gino's male colleagues who faced similar accusations were treated completely differently. 'Harvard's complete and utter disregard for evidence, due process and confidentiality should frighten all academic researchers,' Gino's attorney Andrew T. Miltenberg previously told 'The University's lack of integrity in its review process stripped Prof. Gino of her rights, career and reputation – and failed miserably with respect to gender equity,' he added. Once a superstar in the world of behavioral research, Gino had been lavished with awards and press coverage for her buzzy research, and was among Harvard's most highly paid faculty members, raking in an annual salary of more than $1 million. She was featured in a TedX Talk in April 2021, titled: 'The Power of Why: Unlocking a Curious Mind.' Since accusations around her came to light, people started to attack her in the comment section of the YouTube video. 'Why truly is an excellent question. Like "Why did you fake that data?" and "Why do you think it was ok to lie to so many people?,"' one wrote. 'Thanks for this video with a dishonesty expert, who can contribute invaluable practical experience to the subject matter of dishonesty,' said another. Gino was also a keynote speaker at the Bologna Business School's 2018 graduation.
