The most frequently cited ethical concerns about GenAI in research were hallucinated facts, fabricated references, and misleading content¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · qualitative r3 · q2
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · recheck by 2029: tool and model accuracy changes quickly

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Participants' ethical concerns were strongly shaped by perceived output quality, with hallucinated facts, fabricated references, or misleading content the most frequently cited concerns. → Wei Dai and Cecilia Ka Yuk Chan 2026

Evidence¶

Wei Dai and Cecilia Ka Yuk Chan 2026¶

Wei Dai and Cecilia Ka Yuk Chan. (2026). Shaping responsible GenAI use in research through AI literacy-oriented guidelines: insights from postgraduate students. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-026-00609-6

q2 · i? · qualitative · r3

RQ3 thematic analysis of focus groups reports these output-quality concerns; participants also raised epistemic bias privileging mainstream perspectives, erosion of scholarly quality, and scepticism about AI reliability for research-critical tasks.

"Participants' ethical concerns were strongly shaped by perceptions of the quality and reliability of AI-generated outputs. The most frequently cited concerns are halluci - nated facts, fabricated references, or misleading content."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Students' top two concerns about educational LLM use are output quality (fabricated or misleading content, 53 mentions) and the verification burden (34 mentions) — related
• AI output errors are frequent: 44.5% fabricated references in drafted research proposals and 5–13% unsafe chatbot medical answers — related
• Students raised ethical concerns about GenAI-assisted data comic creation, most frequently misinformation, bias, ownership, and reduced trustworthiness — related
• Students report negative experiences with ChatGPT including inaccurate outputs, lack of emotional connection, and risk of overreliance, which constrain competence — related
• Qualities metaphors depicted GenAI as unknowable, unreliable and unbounded, with participants unsettled by its opacity — related
• Students remained cautious about relying on GenAI throughout the creative process, citing imperfect outputs and perceived loss of ownership — related
• Critical AI literacy emerged as both a learning-design goal and a condition of teachers' professional mediation — related
• Poorly grounded GenAI self-study risks fabricated content and inferior learning relative to curated resources — related
• Recurring risks of GenAI in STEAM education include hallucination, bias, superficial completion strategies, and compromised assessment validity — related
• The most frequent limitation of AI in instructional design is content reliability and transparency (16 of 28 studies, 57.14%) — related
• Experimental-group students detected AI errors and enacted verification and ethical self-regulation as routine practices — related
• Students perceive LLM chatbots as useful for learning but requiring critical use, reporting hallucinations, overconfidence, and dependency risks — related
• AI-generated ethics exercise materials carried external citations that did not survive checking, ranging from misattributed to apparently fabricated — related
• AI-assisted scientific writing assignments risk fabricated references and altered chemical meaning — related
• GenAI feedback limitations require students to exercise evaluative judgement — related
• Interviewed teachers cite poor AI output quality and risks to students' cognitive engagement as main obstacles, and subject-specific use cases as their top professional-development need — related
• The paper argues authenticity in AI-mediated assessment is achieved through design rather than detection — related
• ChatGPT feedback required doctoral students to validate the procedural accuracy of algorithm-generated outputs, with judgement shaped by prompt quality — related
• Scholars raise three main concerns about AI chatbots in education: reliability and accuracy, fair assessment, and ethical issues — a broader claim this one bears on
• ChatGPT fabricates references: the authors caught it inventing a non-existent 'Ribeiro and Vala, 2020' article with full bibliographic details — related
• Teacher-provided correct answers and pre-prompting reduce erroneous LLM output and hallucinations compared with open chatbot use — related
• Favorable assessments of LLM review workflows frequently coexist with reported unmet reliability or performance requirements — related
• Institutional guidance cautions instructors about privacy (60% of institutions) while syllabi more often flag veracity of GenAI output and hindering learning — related
• Disciplinary expertise alone is insufficient for teachers to detect GenAI representational bias — related