Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39897937›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in research metrics and analytics2024

The ethics of artificial intelligence use in university libraries in Zimbabwe.

Stephen Tsekea, Edward Mandoga

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in research metrics and analytics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Stephen TsekeaDepartment of Information Science and Records Management, Zimbabwe Open University, Harare, Zimbabwe.
Edward MandogaDepartment of Teacher Development, Zimbabwe Open University, Harare, Zimbabwe.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: The emergence of artificial intelligence (AI) has revolutionised higher education teaching and learning. AI has the power to analyse large amounts of data and make intelligent predictions thus changing the whole teaching and learning processes. However, such a rise has led to institutions questioning the morality of these applications. The changes have left librarians and educators worried about the major ethical questions surrounding privacy, equality of information, protection of intellectual property, cheating, misinformation and job security. Libraries have always been concerned about ethics and many go out of their way to make sure communities are educated about the ethical question. However, the emergence of artificial intelligence has caught them unaware. Methods: This research investigates the preparedness of higher education librarians to support the ethical use of information within the higher and tertiary education fraternity. A qualitative approach was used for this study. Interviews were done with thirty purposively selected librarians and academics from universities in Zimbabwe. Results: Findings indicated that many university libraries in Zimbabwe are still at the adoption stage of artificial intelligence. It was also found that institutions and libraries are not yet prepared for AI use and are still crafting policies on the use of AI. Discussion: Libraries seem prepared to adopt AI. They are also prepared to offer training on how to protect intellectual property but have serious challenges in issues of transparency, data security, plagiarism detection and concerns about job losses. However, with no major ethical policies having been crafted on AI use, it becomes challenging for libraries to full adopt its usage.

Indexed as

artificial intelligenceethicshigher educationhigher education integrityuniversity libraries

Identifiers

PMID39897937
PMCPMC11782261

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.