Generative Artificial Intelligence and Research Integrity: A Responsibility-Centred Framework

Jose António C. Santos et al.

Tourism & Management Studies2026https://doi.org/10.18089/tms.20260203article
ABDC C
Weight
0.50

What the paper says

Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) is increasingly integrated into academic writing, research workflows, and editorial processes, raising fundamental ethical and governance concerns for scholarly publishing. This paper presents an integrative narrative review and conceptual synthesis of a large interdisciplinary corpus of Scopus-indexed literature on AI in academic research, publishing ethics, and editorial decision-making. The study pursues three interrelated aims: to clarify the ethical challenges associated with GenAI across research, peer review, and editorial decision-making; to systematise AI-assisted scholarly practices by distinguishing among integrity-compromising uses, ethically responsible uses, and persistent grey zones in which norms remain contested; and to develop a human-centred, context-sensitive governance perspective to guide authors, reviewers, and editors. The analysis identifies human epistemic responsibility as the central ethical concern, showing that risks arise not from AI itself but from the displacement or obscuring of accountable scholarly judgment. The study contributes a framework for the responsible integration of GenAI into scholarly research and publishing.

Open paper page →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.18089/tms.20260203

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{jose2026,
  title        = {{Generative Artificial Intelligence and Research Integrity: A Responsibility-Centred Framework}},
  author       = {Jose António C. Santos et al.},
  journal      = {Tourism & Management Studies},
  year         = {2026},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.18089/tms.20260203},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Generative Artificial Intelligence and Research Integrity: A Responsibility-Centred Framework

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.


Evidence weight

0.50

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20
M · momentum0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.