I worked with a GenAI LLM (Claude) to create an infographic based on this open access article that I wrote:
Eaton, S. E. (2022). New priorities for academic integrity: equity, diversity, inclusion, decolonization and Indigenization. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-022-00105-0
Here’s the result:
AI-Generated infographic summarizing key ideas in a research article.
I wanted to see how #AI could be used to help with knowledge mobilization and communicating complex research ideas in simple and visually appealing ways. I am not 100% happy with this, but I am also not entirely unhappy. I am curious to see how researchers and scholars can use AI to help make our research more digestible to the general public.
At the end of the experiment, I asked Claude: Based on our interaction just now, what would you say are the benefits and drawbacks of working with AI to create infographics to share findings of research articles?
Claude’s reply:
“I can identify several key benefits and drawbacks of using AI to create infographics for research articles:
Benefits:
Rapid Prototyping and Ideation
Quick generation of multiple concept ideas (as shown when I suggested 4 different infographic approaches)
Fast iteration based on feedback (like when we added your name and citation)
Ability to quickly visualize complex concepts from text
Structured Organization
Systematic breakdown of complex research findings into visual elements
Logical arrangement of information hierarchies
Consistent application of design principles
Customization and Flexibility
Ability to modify designs based on specific requests
Easy incorporation of branding elements or author attribution
Adaptable to different formats and styles
Technical Precision
Exact color codes and measurements
Consistent spacing and alignment
Precise vector graphics that maintain quality at any size
Drawbacks:
Format and Output Limitations
Cannot directly generate common file formats like JPG or PowerPoint
Unable to provide downloadable files
Limited to specific output formats (in our case, SVG)
Technical Barriers
Users need to know how to convert or adapt the outputs
May require additional tools or software to get desired final format
Some technical knowledge needed to implement suggestions
Creative Constraints
Limited to certain types of visual representations
May not capture nuanced design choices that a human designer would make
Restricted by pre-programmed design patterns
Implementation Challenges
Gap between AI suggestions and practical implementation
Need for manual conversion or recreation in other software
Extra steps required to get to final usable format
Quality Control Requirements
Need for human oversight and verification
May require professional designer input for polishing
Could need additional refinement for professional publication
For optimal results, it seems the best approach would be to use AI as a rapid prototyping and ideation tool, then work with a professional designer or use appropriate software to create the final, polished version in the desired format. This combines the efficiency of AI for initial concept development with the precision and format flexibility of professional design tools.”
Note: The numbering issue is a function of formatting in WordPress. I’ll fix that later.
This was an interesting experiment. I’ll be interested to see how AI apps can help us better communicate our research and scholarship to members of the general public.
This blog has had over 3.7 million views thanks to readers like you. If you enjoyed this post, please ‘Like’ it using the button below or share it on social media. Thanks!
Sarah Elaine Eaton, PhD, is a Professor and Research Chair in the Werklund School of Education at the University of Calgary, Canada. Opinions are my own and do not represent those of my employer.
The academic world has lost a remarkable educator and mentor with the passing of J. Tim Goddard, former University of Calgary professor and administrator who then went on to serve as Dean of Education at the University of Prince Edward Island. Tim’s impact on higher education extended far beyond his administrative roles – he was a transformative figure in the lives of countless graduate students, myself included.
As my PhD supervisor from 2005 to 2009, Tim demonstrated an extraordinary ability to balance academic rigour with compassionate mentorship. He took a chance on my research into revenue-generating programs in higher education, recognizing the importance of examining how such initiatives could be administered ethically in an era of government funding cuts.
Tim’s dedication to his students was unwavering, even in the face of profound personal tragedy. In 2006, his daughter Captain Nicola Goddard was the first Canadian female soldier to be killed in combat during her time in Afghanistan. Despite this devastating loss, Tim continued to guide and support his graduate students with remarkable strength and grace.
What set Tim apart was his practical wisdom, delivered through memorable maxims that still guide many of us today. “This isn’t your magnum opus!” and “A good thesis is a finished thesis!” were frequent reminders to stay focused on completion rather than perfection. He had an uncanny ability to guide students back to their research path whenever they strayed too far into tangential explorations.
His mentorship extended beyond the academic realm. When I traveled to Charlottetown to write my thesis, Tim and his wife Sally opened their home to me – a gesture typical of how Tim viewed his students as extended family. Yet this warmth never compromised his high standards; his insistence on impeccable writing, citations, and APA formatting shaped many of us into better scholars.
After retiring in 2018, Tim embraced new creative pursuits in painting and novel writing, approaching these endeavours with the same passion he brought to academia. His legacy lives on through the countless educators and researchers he mentored, who continue to apply his teachings in their own work and supervision of the next generation.
Tim Goddard understood that a PhD journey was not just about producing research, but about preparing for a career. He showed us how to be not just scholars, but mentors, teachers, and advocates for our own students. His influence will continue to ripple through generations of educators, researchers, and leaders in higher education.
This blog has had over 3.7 million views thanks to readers like you. If you enjoyed this post, please ‘Like’ it using the button below or share it on social media. Thanks!
Sarah Elaine Eaton, PhD, is a Professor and Research Chair in the Werklund School of Education at the University of Calgary, Canada. Opinions are my own and do not represent those of my employer.
As I prepare for the 2024-2025 Werklund Distinguished Research Lecture, I’ve been reflecting about how important it is to make scholarly work accessible to all. Open access (OA) is more than just a publishing model—it is a philosophy that challenges traditional barriers to knowledge dissemination and embodies the true spirit of academic scholarship.
Breaking Down Barriers to Knowledge
Historically (at least in my lived historical experience in higher education), academic research has been locked behind expensive paywalls, creating a significant divide that extends far beyond academic institutions. This exclusionary model particularly impacts researchers and knowledge seekers who find themselves on the margins of academic privilege. Researchers in middle and low-income countries (LMICs) often struggle to access scholarly and scientific literature and independent scholars and community practitioners face substantial financial barriers to staying current in their fields. Students and educators with limited institutional resources find themselves cut off from the latest scholarly insights, and curious members of the public are shut out from understanding complex academic work that could potentially transform their understanding of the world.
The Ethical Imperative of Sharing
Research is fundamentally about advancing human understanding, and restricting access undermines this core mission. Open access is commitment to knowledge as a public good, enabling a more dynamic and inclusive approach to scholarly communication. By removing economic and institutional barriers, we create opportunities for faster dissemination of critical findings, increased global collaboration, and unprecedented transparency in research methodologies. This approach allows for more rapid scientific and social progress, breaking down the traditional silos that have long constrained academic discourse.
Amplifying Research Impact
Contrary to traditional concerns, open access actually enhances the visibility and influence of scholarly work. Publications that are freely available receive more citations and reach broader audiences. This expanded reach afforded through OA creates opportunities for interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary connections that might otherwise remain unexplored, allowing research to transcend the narrow confines of specialized academic journals and engage with a more diverse intellectual ecosystem.
Personal Commitment and Broader Vision
As I prepare for this lecture, I am reflecting deeply about my commitment to open access (OA). One of my goals is to create a more equitable, informed, and connected world. This isn’t only about making documents freely downloadable, but also about cultivating a more inclusive intellectual landscape where knowledge can flow freely, unencumbered by economic or institutional constraints.
Practical Pathways to Open Access
For researchers considering this path, the journey involves strategic choices and institutional engagement. I am grateful for the privilege of working at the University of Calgary where researchers can self-archive their works into our institutional digital repository, PRISM.
Our university supports infrastructures that recognize and reward open access scholarship. Not everyone has this privilege.
Navigating Copyright and Publisher Agreements
Having said all this, I also recognize that it is important to abide by existing copyright agreements with publishers. Academic publishing involves complex legal and contractual relationships. Each publication typically comes with specific copyright terms that must be honoured (both ethically and legally), which may limit immediate or unrestricted sharing.
Because of this, I won’t be able to share all my work with a Creative Commons licence— not if a publisher holds the copyright. It does mean that I will look for creative and ethical ways to maximize access while maintaining professional integrity and contractual obligations.
Concluding reflections
Open access is not just about free downloads—it’s about free thinking, free exploration, and our commitment to knowledge being a universal right, not a privileged access. The longer I work in higher education, the more I am thinking about the future of knowledge, teaching, learning, and creating opportunities for others to thrive. This is really what is driving me right now — creating opportunities for others to thrive. Making as much of my work freely available as open access resources is one way I can do this.
As we get closer to the lecture, I’ll be making more and more of my work available as free open access downloads. I’ll keep you updated as we get closer to the lecture.
This blog has had over 3 million views thanks to readers like you. If you enjoyed this post, please “like” it or share it on social media. Thanks!
Sarah Elaine Eaton, PhD, is a Professor and Research Chair in the Werklund School of Education at the University of Calgary, Canada. Opinions are my own and do not represent those of my employer.
A question I am often asked is: Is it considered self-plagiarism to publish an article or some other output from one’s thesis?
I will start with a disclaimer: The contents of this post may not represent the views of my employer, an editor, or a publisher. There is no singular or universally accepted definition of self-plagiarism (or even plagiarism, for that matter). This post is based on my expertise as a scholar of plagiarism and academic misconduct. I have written about self-plagiarism in this peer-reviewed article and I dedicate an entire chapter to the topic my book, Plagiarism in Higher Education: Tackling Tough Topics in Academic Integrity.
In this post, I use the word ‘thesis’ to include any kind of student final summative written work including dissertations or other forms of final projects. A thesis can refer to undergraduate (often honours) work or graduate work, which is also called post-graduate work in some countries. In this post, I am talking specifically about student academic work that is supervised by a professor and receives approval and validation through formal evaluation such as a written appraisal of the work, an examination, and/or an oral defence.
In this post I am talking more about a thesis with a traditional format (e.g., five or six chapters) than about a manuscript-based thesis (also called ‘thesis by publication’ or ‘PhD by publication’). The queries I get about self-plagiarism are almost always about theses that follow a historically dominant structure with chapters, which is the kind of thesis that remains prevalent in the humanities and social sciences.
With these details covered, let’s get to the good stuff. Firstly, it is both expected and encouraged that students will publish from their thesis. After the oral defence or final thesis evaluation, a student’s work can be further refined and developed in order for it to be ready for publication. In many cases, student work may require substantive revisions (or even a complete overhaul) before it is suitable for publication in a journal or a book. It is foolhardy to assume that just because a student thesis has passed that it is automatically suitable for publication elsewhere. In some cases, there is still a lot of work to be done.
Here are the few things to think about after the thesis has been approved by the university authorities:
Archiving the Thesis in a Digital Repository
Our friendly institutional librarians at the University of Calgary have clarified for me on a previous occasion that theses are considered ‘unpublished’. Adding a thesis to a digital repository means it is archived, but not published. Learning that distinction was helpful for me.
Request an embargo on the release of the thesis into the public domain
Students can ask for an embargo on the release of the thesis until the results are published (e.g., journal article, book chapter or any other format). There seems to be a distressing but growing predatory practice around graduate student theses (or the data therein) being misappropriated, repackaged, and published under someone else’s name. I have heard of two such instances recently and, anecdotally, it seems this practice is growing internationally, though I have no data to substantiate this assertion.
This recommendation stems not from protecting oneself from self-plagiarism, but rather from predatory bad actors who have the intention of harvesting your work before you yourself have published it.
An embargo on a thesis should be requested for a reasonable and finite period of time, with the goal of making the research publicly accessible at some point within a couple of years of graduation, unless there is a compelling reason to extend the embargo longer than that.
Advice About How to Avoid Allegations of Self-plagiarism
To avoid questions about academic or research misconduct, and specifically self-plagiarism, that can emerge when a student publish works derived from their thesis, there are two points to consider: communication and transparency. Both points should be taken into consideration.
Communication: Correspond with the Editor Prior to Submission
I recommend that students/graduates correspond with the journal editors prior to, orat the time of manuscript submission, in writing, to ensure full transparency. State clearly that the manuscript is drawn from the thesis and parts of it may be replicated exactly (e.g., methods section). Other parts of the manuscript may be derived (and/or significantly revised) from the thesis and if that is the case, offer some details, but avoid going overboard. Ask directly if such a submission would be considered by the journal / publisher. There is no harm is being clear and transparent with journal editors in this regard.
If the journal editor says no, then consider withdrawing the manuscript and trying a different publication. It is important to recognize that editors have the authority to make such judgements, so don’t be rude or try to convince the editor that their decision is wrong. Maintain a polite and professional tone at all times. Thank them for considering your request and move on.
If the editor says yes, then you are ready to proceed. Ensure you are attending to the matter of transparency during the preparation of your manuscript.
If you communicate with an editor orally (e.g., a face-to-face conversation or a video call), follow up in writing to document the conversation. Ask for confirmation that you have understood the agreement correctly.
I recommend keeping a record of your written correspondence in case you ever need it again in the future.
Transparency: Declare the re-use of previous content in the manuscript itself
As you prepare your manuscript for submission, ensure you are being transparent about the re-use of content derived from your thesis. This can be done in a couple of ways:
Explicit transparency statement: Add a declaration to the article/chapter/knowledge output stating that it is derived from your thesis. This way, you are declaring there may be some duplication helps to mitigate concerns about self-plagiarizing. You do not need be excessive with your statement. You can keep it short and simple. Here is some sample text that you are welcome to use, re-use, or adapt (as in, I am openly giving anyone permission to use or adapt this statement):
“This work is derived from my doctoral dissertation. Portions of the text resemble or may replicate the original text from my unpublished PhD thesis and have been reproduced as such with the permission of the editors”.
Note that if you use this statement verbatim, it may (ironically) be picked up by text-matching software used by publishers (i.e., flagged for possible plagiarism). I won’t take responsibility for that, so use some judgement in how you prepare your transparency statement.
Attribution: Self-citation is a contested issue in academic publication and it is prudent to avoid over-citing oneself. There are some circumstances in which self-citation is appropriate and this is one of them. When you are deriving work from your thesis, it is appropriate to cite your thesis in the list of references of your publication.
Be careful and attentive when it comes to attribution in publications derived from your thesis. You still need to cite any original works that your thesis drew from. I once saw a manuscript derived from a student thesis and the only work listed in the references was the student thesis! This is disrespectful to the authors of any original works the student thesis was drawn from, so be sure to give credit where it is due. Ensure you give attribution to the authors whose work informed your thesis and any subsequent publications.
This does not mean that you need to replicate the entire bibliography from your thesis in subsequent publications, unless, of course, you are specifically citing every single source in the publication. Instead, be meticulous and mindful to ensure that the specific sources that inform subsequent publications are cited appropriately. Details matter, and if you are going to publish from your thesis, it is worth it to focus on producing the highest quality publication possible.
Finally, assuming that you have a good relationship with your supervisor, I recommend that you keep them informed. In some cases, co-publication with the supervisor may be appropriate, but not in all cases. Co-publishing with one’s supervisor is a topic for another blog post, so I won’t delve deep into those complexities here. Suffice to say that staying in touch with your supervisor about the publication of your work may be beneficial to you, depending on the circumstances.
The bottom line is that concerns about self-plagiarism might be solved with open communication and transparency.
Bibliography and Further Reading
Eaton, S. E., & Crossman, K. (2018). Self-plagiarism research literature in the social sciences: A scoping review. Interchange: A Quarterly Review of Education, 49(3), 285-311. https://rdcu.be/YR5u
Roig, M. (2005). Re-using text from one’s own previously published papers: An exploratory study of potential self-plagiarism. Psychological Reports, 2005(97), 43-49. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.97.1.43-49
Roig, M. (2008). The debate on self-plagiarism: Inquisitional science or high standards of scholarship? Journal of Cognitive & Behavioral Psychotherapies, 8(2), 245-258.
Roig, M. (2024). On Recycling Our Own Work in the Digital Age. In S. E. Eaton (Ed.), Second Handbook of Academic Integrity (pp. 361-380). Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-54144-5_15
This blog has had over 3.7 million views thanks to readers like you. If you enjoyed this post, please “like” it or share it on social media. Thanks!
Sarah Elaine Eaton, PhD, is a faculty member in the Werklund School of Education at the University of Calgary, Canada. Opinions are my own and do not represent those of my employer.
Sarah Elaine Eaton, PhD, Editor-in-Chief, International Journal for Educational Integrity
Academic misconduct has taken various forms in present-day educational systems. One method that is on the rise is the use of artificially generated software compositions. The capabilities and sophistication of these new technologies are improving steadily. We are conducting a study to gauge the sophistication of the current artificial intelligence (AI) software-generated text. To that end, we are recruiting participants to evaluate the level of writing level of small compositions (260 words in length at most).
Your participation in this study would be to evaluate two small pieces of text presented in a survey and optionally make comments on your observation. We appreciate your consideration in this matter. This research provides an opportunity for the participants to contribute to the state of AI software used for various educational purposes. Participation in this study is voluntary, and you are free to terminate the survey and withdraw at any time and for any reason without censor. There are no known physical, psychological, or social risks associated with participation in the study.
All demographic data collected will be kept strictly confidential. Only the researchers listed in this letter will have access to the raw data. The data (in electronic format) will be retained indefinitely. Participation in the study will be asked for some basic demographic information and then presented with a 260- word length composition. After reading, the participants will be asked to evaluate the level, assign a mark to the composition, and note any pertinent observations. The second piece of composition, also of the same length, will be followed by the same set of questions. The total anticipated time for completing the survey is about 9-12 minutes, but it can vary based on reading speed and consideration afforded to the assigned grade.
If you have any questions or concerns about your participation in this study, you can contact the Principal Investigator, Dr. Sarah Elaine Eaton, seaton (at) ucalgary.ca
This study is funded by a University of Calgary Teaching and Learning Grant. This study has been approved by the Conjoint Faculties Research Ethics Board at the University of Calgary: REB22-0137.
Share this post: Invitation to Participate: Research Study on Artificial Intelligence and Academic Integrity: The Ethics of Teaching and Learning with Algorithmic Writing Technologies – https://wp.me/pNAh3-2U3
This blog has had over 3 million views thanks to readers like you. If you enjoyed this post, please “like” it or share it on social media. Thanks! Sarah Elaine Eaton, PhD, is a faculty member in the Werklund School of Education, and the Educational Leader in Residence, Academic Integrity, University of Calgary, Canada. Opinions are my own and do not represent those of the University of Calgary.
Posted by Sarah Elaine Eaton, Ph.D. 
Learning, Teaching and Leadership 
You must be logged in to post a comment.