Assessing Artificial Intelligence Plagiarism Risk: ChatGPT vs Scite Among Islamic Education Students

Ismail Ismail; Suja'i Suja'i; Silviatul Hasanah

doi:10.31958/jt.v28i2.16117

Authors

Ismail Ismail Universitas Islam Negeri Walisongo Semarang, Indonesia
Suja'i Suja'i Walisongo State Islamic University
Silviatul Hasanah Universitas Islam Negeri Walisongo Semarang

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.31958/jt.v28i2.16117

Keywords:

chatgpt, scite_ai, plagiarism, Islamic education

Abstract

This study examines and compares the effects of ChatGPT and Scite_AI, on plagiarism tendencies among students of Islamic Religious Education in Indonesia. Adopting a quantitative research design, the study employed multiple linear regression analysis to evaluate both the partial and simultaneous influences of these tools on academic plagiarism. Prior to regression analysis, classical assumption tests—including normality (Prior to the regression analysis, classical assumption tests—including normality (Kolmogorov-Smirnov p = 0.088), multicollinearity (VIF < 10), multicollinearity (VIF < 10), heteroscedasticity (Breusch-Pagan test), and linearity (scatterplot of residuals)—were rigorously conducted to ensure model validity. The results reveal that both AI tools significantly contribute to increased plagiarism tendencies; however, ChatGPT demonstrates a markedly stronger effect (β = 0.4941; p < 0.001) compared to Scite (β = 0.1042; p < 0.001). The overall regression model is statistically significant (F = 87.32, p = 0.000) and satisfies all classical assumptions, confirming its reliability. Theoretically, this research enriches academic integrity literature by positioning AI tool typology—particularly the distinction between generative and verification tools—as a critical predictor of plagiarism behavior. Practically, it calls for differentiated AI literacy strategies in Islamic higher education, advocating for the integration of adab al-‘ilmu (ethics of knowledge) into digital literacy curricula to foster moral discernment and responsible technology use among future religious educators.

References

Arianto, N., & Octavia, B. (2021). The effect of service quality and distribution on purchase decisions. Journal of Business Disruption, 4(2), 98. https://doi.org/10.32493/drb.v4i2.9867

Božić, V., & Poola, I. (2023). Chat GPT and education (Preprint). https://doi.org/10.31217/osf.io/8xgj6

Buragohain, D., & Chaudhary, S. (2025). Navigating ChatGPT in ASEAN higher education: Ethical and pedagogical perspectives. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 33(4). https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.70062

deLaubell, L. (2023). Scite. The Charleston Advisor, 24(4), 60–63. https://doi.org/10.5260/chara.24.4.60

Fırat, M. (2023). What ChatGPT means for universities: Perceptions of scholars and students. Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.22

Fitri, Y., & Arum, P. (2023). Analysis of factors that affect the human development index based on districts/cities in Central Java. J Statistika: Jurnal Ilmiah Teori Dan Aplikasi Statistika, 16(1), 424–433. https://doi.org/10.36456/jstat.vol16.no1.a7079

Golzar, J., Noor, S., & Tajik, O. (2022). Convenience sampling. International Journal of Education & Language Studies, 1(2), 72–77.

Hasanein, A., & Sobaih, A. (2023). Drivers and consequences of ChatGPT use in higher education: Key stakeholder perspectives. European Journal of Investigation in Health Psychology and Education, 13(11), 2599–2614. https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe13110181

Holmner, M. (2025). The future of academic writing in the age of generative AI. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 62(1), 1241–1243. https://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.1374

Joshi, A., Kale, S., Chandel, S., & Pal, D. K. (2015). Likert scale: Explored and explained. British Journal of Applied Science & Technology, 7(4), 396.

Khalil, M., & Er, E. (2023). Will ChatGPT get you caught? Rethinking of plagiarism detection. https://doi.org/10.35542/osf.io/fnh48

Klein, N. (2024). Distributional regression for data analysis. Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application, 11, 321–346.

Liang, Y., Wu, C., Song, T., Wu, W., Xia, Y., Liu, Y., … Duan, N. (2024). TaskMatrix.AI: Completing tasks by connecting foundation models with millions of APIs. Intelligent Computing, 3, 0063.

Lund, B., & Shamsi, A. (2023). Examining the use of supportive and contrasting citations in different disciplines: A brief study using Scite (scite.ai) data. Scientometrics, 128(8), 4895–4900.

Lyu, B., & Li, J. (2024). Multiple-model polynomial regression and efficient algorithms for data analysis. Theoretical Computer Science, 1021, 114878.

Maalouf, M. (2011). Logistic regression in data analysis: An overview. International Journal of Data Analysis Techniques and Strategies, 3(3), 281–299.

Martens, H. A., & Dardenne, P. (1998). Validation and verification of regression in small data sets. Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems, 44(1–2), 99–121.

Morris, E. (2018). Academic integrity matters: Five considerations for addressing contract cheating. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-018-0038-5

Muluk, S., Habiburrahim, H., & Safrul, M. (2021). EFL students’ perception on plagiarism in higher education: Triggering factors and avoiding strategies. Jurnal Ilmiah Didaktika: Media Ilmiah Pendidikan Dan Pengajaran, 22(1), 20. https://doi.org/10.22373/jid.v22i1.8944

Nicholson, J., Mordaunt, M., Lopez, P., Uppala, A., Rosati, D., Rodrigues, N., … Rife, S. (2021). Scite: A smart citation index that displays the context of citations and classifies their intent using deep learning. https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.03.15.435418

Okoro, E. (2011). Academic integrity and student plagiarism: Guided instructional strategies for business communication assignments. Business Communication Quarterly, 74(2), 173–178. https://doi.org/10.1177/1080569911404064

Özden, M. G., Liu, X., Wilkinson, T. J., Üstün-Yavuz, M. S., & Morley, N. A. (2024). Predictive modelling of laser powder bed fusion of Fe-based nanocrystalline alloys based on experimental data using multiple linear regression analysis. Heliyon, 10(15).

Perkins, M., & Roe, J. (2024). Decoding academic integrity policies: A corpus linguistics investigation of AI and other technological threats. Higher Education Policy, 37(3), 633–653.

Roustaei, N. (2024). Application and interpretation of linear-regression analysis. Medical Hypothesis, Discovery and Innovation in Ophthalmology, 13(3), 151.

Segovia-Juárez, J., & Baumgartner, R. (2023). The use of artificial intelligence applications for education and scientific research. Hatun Yachay Wasi, 3(1), 98–111. https://doi.org/10.57107/hyw.v3i1.61

Selemani, A., Chawinga, W., & Dube, G. (2018). Why do postgraduate students commit plagiarism? An empirical study. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-018-0029-6

Sterner, E. (2021). Scite: Providing additional context for citation statements. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship, (98). https://doi.org/10.29173/istl74

Sullivan, M., Kelly, A., & McLaughlan, P. (2023). ChatGPT in higher education: Considerations for academic integrity and student learning. Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.17

Williams, R. (2024). The ethical implications of using generative chatbots in higher education. Frontiers in Education, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1331607

Zeide, H., Lutsenko, O., Svyrydiuk, T., & Seminikhyna, N. (2024). Empowering language learners’ critical thinking: Evaluating ChatGPT’s role in English course implementation. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/fh6v8

Zhang, S., Zhao, X., Zhou, T., & Kim, J. H. (2024). Do you have AI dependency? The roles of academic self-efficacy, academic stress, and performance expectations on problematic AI usage behavior. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 21(1), 34.