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