Back to claim
SourceThe cases citing it, and what each argues, are listed below.

Testing of detection tools for AI-generated text - International Journal for Educational Integrity

SpringerLink6 Oct 2026
Source type
Academic Paper
Published
6 Oct 2026
Added by
IKECHUKWUKoinovera team
Added
6 Oct 2026

Contributor evidence

What this source establishes

The study claims that AI-generated text detection tools are neither accurate nor reliable enough for academic use. This is because the 12 publicly available tools and two commercial systems tested often classified AI-generated text as human-written, and their performance became significantly worse when the text was modified or obfuscated.

Limitations

Test corpus and tool versions are dated; no conclusion about every future detector.

Supporting excerpt

Abstract Recent advances in generative pre-trained transformer large language models have emphasised the potential risks of unfair use of artificial intelligence (AI) generated content in an academic environment and intensified efforts in searching for solutions to detect such content. The paper examines the general functionality of detection tools for AI-generated text and evaluates them based on accuracy and error type analysis. Specifically, the study seeks to answer research questions about whether existing detection tools can reliably differentiate between human-written text and ChatGPT-generated text, and whether machine translation and content obfuscation techniques affect the detection of AI-generated text. The research covers 12 publicly available tools and two commercial systems (Turnitin and PlagiarismCheck) that are widely used in the academic setting. The researchers conclude that the available detection tools are neither accurate nor reliable and have a main bias towards classifying the output as human-written rather than detecting AI-generated text. Furthermore, content obfuscation techniques significantly worsen the performance of tools. The study makes several significant contributions. First, it summarises up-to-date similar scientific and non-scientific efforts in the field. Second, it presents the result of one of the most comprehensive tests conducted so far, based on a rigorous research methodology, an original document set, and a broad coverage of tools. Third, it discusses the implications and drawbacks of using detection tools for AI-generated text in academic settings.

AI evidence analysis

Koinovera can compare extracted source evidence against this claim. The result is advisory and may be wrong.

Sign in to analyse evidence

How readers rated this source

These rate the source itself, wherever it is cited. The reasoning built on it is rated on each case.

No one has rated this source yet.

Sign in to rate this source
Open source

Share source

Anyone with the link can read this page. They do not need an account.

Cited in

A source does not take a side by itself. These are the cases that use it, and what each argues.

Loading the cases that cite this source…

Review notes

Short, specific corrections about this source itself. They show wherever the source is cited.

Sign in to add note

Loading review notes…

Gathering the latest community-submitted evidence.