The Information Professional as an Ethical Sentinel: Academic Integrity, Digital Literacy, and the Artificial Intelligence Challenge in Higher Education

Academic integrity is conventionally framed as a pedagogical, disciplinary, or institutional policy concern, yet its foundations rest squarely upon the principles of information organisation, verification, and ethical use that constitute the core competencies of Library and Information Science (LIS). This paper reports a systematic review of academic integrity research published between 2010 and 2026, undertaken through a distinct LIS lens to trace how information literacy frameworks, scholarly communication practices, and digital curation strategies have shaped, and been shaped by, the ongoing effort to counter academic misconduct. Guided by the PRISMA 2020 protocol, an initial pool of 487 records retrieved from Scopus, Web of Science, and Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts (LISTA) was screened against explicit inclusion criteria, yielding a final corpus of 128 peer-reviewed studies for thematic and chronological analysis. The findings trace a discernible evolution across four phases, from reactive, detection- and deterrence-based policy responses toward proactive, educational frameworks centred on information ethics, culminating in the current AI-driven phase in which authorship itself is being redefined. Four LIS-centred thematic domains were identified: information literacy instruction, digital curation and metadata as integrity tools, the defence of scholarly communication against predatory publishing, and artificial intelligence literacy. On this basis, the review advances two original contributions: it positions LIS professionals as “ethical sentinels” whose expertise in source evaluation, metadata, and digital preservation is indispensable to institutional integrity, and it proposes a new conceptual model, the Information Integrity Ecosystem, which integrates access and curation, literacy and pedagogy, verification and provenance, and equity and ethics into a single sustainable framework. Implications for LIS curricula, institutional policy, and future research agendas are discussed.

Academic integrity; Library and Information Science; information literacy; artificial intelligence; scholarly communication.

1. Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL). (2016). Framework for information literacy for higher education. American Library Association. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Bearman, M., Ryan, J., & Ajjawi, R. (2023). Discourses of artificial intelligence in higher education: A critical literature review. Higher Education, 86(2), 369–385. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Bretag, T. (Ed.). (2016). Handbook of academic integrity. Springer. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Cotton, D. R. E., Cotton, P. A., & Shipway, J. R. (2024). Chatting and cheating: Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 61(2), 228–239. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. De Paola, L., & Harwood, N. (2023). ‘I don’t know if I’m allowed to do this’: The role of L1 and L2 student perspectives on academic integrity in the transition to university. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 63, 101239. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Eaton, S. E. (2020). Academic integrity during COVID-19: Reflections from the University of Calgary. International Studies in Educational Administration, 48(1), 80–85. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Floridi, L. (2013). The ethics of information. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Foltýnek, T., Meuschke, N., & Gipp, B. (2019). Academic plagiarism detection: A systematic literature review. ACM Computing Surveys, 52(6), 1–42. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Haddow, G. (2020). Academic integrity and the role of the academic librarian: A scoping review. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 46(5), 102192. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Katz, E., Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. (1973). Uses and gratifications research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 37(4), 509–523. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Koltay, T. (2023). A new type of information literacy? The role of AI and data literacy. Journal of Documentation, 79(6), 1281–1295. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Mellar, H., Peytcheva-Forsyth, R., Kocdar, S., Karadeniz, A., & Yovkova, B. (2018). Addressing cheating in e-assessment using student authentication and authorship checking systems: Teachers’ perspectives. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 14(1), 1–20. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Morrison, H. (2022). The role of institutional repositories in scholarly communication and integrity. Information Development, 38(4), 627–638. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., et al. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Perkins, M. (2023). Academic integrity considerations of AI large language models in the post-pandemic era: ChatGPT and beyond. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 20(2), Article 07. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Selwyn, N. (2022). The future of AI and education: Some cautionary tales. Learning, Media and Technology, 47(3), 273–286. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Sullivan, B. (2021). Fake news and information literacy: A librarian’s role in combating misinformation. College & Research Libraries News, 82(4), 158. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Tauginėnė, L., Gaižauskaitė, I., Glendinning, I., Kravjar, J., Ojsteršek, M., Ribeiro, L., Odiņeca, T., & Marino, F. (2018). Glossary for academic integrity. European Network for Academic Integrity (ENAI). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. van Dis, E. A. M., Bollen, J., Zuidema, W., van Rooij, R., & Bockting, C. L. (2023). ChatGPT: Five priorities for research. Nature, 614(7947), 224–226. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Walter, S. (2018). Instructional leadership in the age of information literacy: A new role for academic librarians. Rowman & Littlefield. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Weber-Wulff, D., Anohina-Naumeca, A., Bjelobaba, S., Foltýnek, T., Guerrero-Dib, J., Popović, O., Šigut, P., & Waddington, L. (2023). Testing of detection tools for AI-generated text. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 19(1), 26. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Repositioning TVET for Economic Development in Nigeria
• Teachers’ Use of Assure Model Instructional Design on Learners’ Problem Solving Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Bungoma County, Kenya
• “E-Booksan Ang Kaalaman”: Development, Validation, and Utilization of Electronic Book in Academic Performance of Grade 9 Students in Social Studies
• Analyzing EFL University Students’ Academic Speaking Skills Through Self-Recorded Video Presentation
• Major Findings of The Study on Total Quality Management in Teachers’ Education Institutions (TEIs) In Assam – An Evaluative Study