www.ijcrsee.com
87
Narančić, M., et al. (2026). Ethical, Legal and Security Aspects of the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Education, International
Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 14(1), 87-95.
Review Article
Received: November 26, 2025.
Revised: March 07, 2026.
Accepted: March 23, 2026.
UDC:
37.015.3:159.953
172:004.8
37.025/.026:004.8
10.23947/2334-8496-2026-14-1-087-095
© 2026 by the authors. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the
Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
*
Corresponding author: manenarancic.1969@gmail.com
Abstract: The application of artificial intelligence in education and scientific research offers significant opportunities
for enhancing learning personalization, analytics, and the efficiency of research processes, while simultaneously raising
complex ethical and legal issues. This paper examines the ethical and legal aspects of the use of artificial intelligence in
teaching, assessment, and scientific research, with particular attention to the fairness of algorithmic decision-making, system
transparency and explainability, data protection and privacy, academic integrity, and the preservation of human responsibil-
ity. The paper highlights the risks associated with automated assessment and the potential erosion of teachers’ professional
autonomy, as well as methodological challenges related to the use of artificial intelligence in research, including bias, verifiability
of results, authorship, and mandatory disclosure of AI use. It concludes that sustainable and ethically justified implementa-
tion of artificial intelligence requires a human-in-the-loop approach, clear institutional policies, transparent documentation,
and continuous oversight, in order to align technological innovation with the fundamental values of education and science.
Keywords: artificial intelligence, ethics, education, scientific research, privacy, responsibility.
Mane Narančić
1
, Vladimir Lović
2
, Miloš Dimitrijević
3
, Aleksandra Pavićević
4
1
Faculty of Business and Law, University “MB”,Belgrade, Serbia, e-mail: manenarancic.1969@gmail.com
2
International Center for Economics and Public Policy, Belgrade, e-mail: vladalovic@yahoo.com
3
“MB” University, Faculty of Business and Law, Belgrade, e-mail: midi1983@gmail.com
4
Faculty for Business Studies and Law, University Union - Nikola Tesla Belgrade, e-mail: aleksandra.pavicevic@fpsp.edu.rs
Ethical, Legal and Security Aspects of the Use of Artificial Intelligence
in
Education
Introduction
Artificial intelligence (AI)-based technologies are a major force behind pedagogical innovation in
the modern educational setting. These technologies range from adaptive systems and personalized learn-
ing to automated assessment and data analytics that allow for in-depth tracking of student performance
and learning. But this transformational potential comes with complicated legal and ethical issues that
call for a methodical, interdisciplinary approach (Dašić et al., 2024b). The ethical aspects of algorithmic
fairness, transparency, system explainability, teacher and student autonomy, and academic integrity are
therefore given special attention in this paper, along with the legal framework, which includes data protec-
tion and privacy, liability, copyright, and the special protection of children and vulnerable groups (Holmes
et al., 2021; Nguyen et al., 2023; Colonna, 2023).
There are many prospects for artificial intelligence in education: automated systems can free up
teachers’ time for pedagogical creativity, while intelligent tutoring and adaptive learning systems can bet-
ter meet the unique needs of students (Chan, 2023). But, as Nguyen et al. (2023) point out, the drive
for creative AI applications also necessitates that, in the lack of sufficient protections and regulations,
fundamental rights, moral values, and educational autonomy not be jeopardized. In actuality, this means
that it is necessary to proactively assess how AI systems used in educational institutions affect instructors,
students, parents, and other stakeholders (Rousi, Alanen, Wilson, 2022).
The use of artificial intelligence presents a number of ethical concerns, such as those pertaining
to accountability, transparency, and the defense of fundamental rights (Stanković et al., 2024). Important
www.ijcrsee.com
88
Narančić, M., et al. (2026). Ethical, Legal and Security Aspects of the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Education, International
Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 14(1), 87-95.
concepts such algorithmic fairness and non-discrimination, privacy and data security, explainability and
accountability in AI-driven decision-making, and the maintenance of autonomy in teaching and learning
processes are highlighted in the literature (Holmes et al., 2021; Taddeo et al., 2024). For instance, Colonna
(2023) contends that potential and hazards must be carefully balanced and highlights the necessity of a
global consensus on ethical norms for AI in education. In addition, automated assessment systems raise
questions about whether teachers remain “in the loop” and whether legal requirements—such as those set
out in Article 22 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)—are adequately met.
Legally speaking, the use of AI in education necessitates regulation in a number of areas, such as
the processing of student and teacher data, protections against discrimination or unjustified profiling, the
distribution of liability for mistakes or harm caused by AI use, and issues of authorship and rights
pertain-
ing to AI-generated content (Ismail, Aloshi, 2023). While Colonna (2023) emphasizes Article 22 of the GDPR
as a basis for the legal and ethical oversight of automated decision-making systems, Holmes et al. (2021)
state that educational uses of AI systems must be in line with the ethical ideals of “respect, fairness, and
transparency.Furthermore, some authors point out that the introduction of generative AI into educational
processes is particularly sensitive from the perspective of privacy rights, content ownership, and respon-
sibility for outcomes (García-López, Trujillo-Liñán, 2025).
Secondary and higher education institutions must approach the use of AI in the educational setting
through institutional governance mechanisms that guarantee the protection of students’ and teachers’ fun-
damental rights, particularly with regard to privacy and data processing, and establish clear accountability
for the use of AI systems in learning support and decision-making. This includes the creation of oversight
procedures and ongoing monitoring of system performance (accuracy, bias, unintended consequences),
the obligations of transparency (e.g., what data are collected, for what purposes, who has access, and
how results are interpreted), and the participation of pertinent stakeholders (students, teachers, admin-
istrators) in the creation and execution of usage policies. Such an approach aligns with the literature on
ethical and privacy principles in learning analytics and digital educational systems, which emphasizes
that legitimate and sustainable deployment of analytics and AI solutions requires transparent practices,
institutional responsibility, and clear data protection frameworks (Pardo, Siemens, 2014; Slade, Prinsloo,
2013; Ifenthaler, Schumacher, 2016).
Therefore, a “human-in-the-loop” strategy is advised since it guarantees that AI systems do not
function as opaque “black boxes” and promotes teacher autonomy in monitoring and interfering in them
(Colonna, 2023). This is especially crucial when it comes to academic integrity, since AI technologies have
the potential to be both helpful and harmful (Rousi et al., 2024; Huang, 2023).
This analysis focuses on the ethical and legal aspects of AI usage in secondary and higher educa-
tion while taking into account the larger social and institutional environment, given the complexity and
quick speed of AI adoption in educational systems (Vuković et al., 2025; Lunić, Òesarević, 2025). Within
this framework, the article looks at potential value conflicts, the consequences for current legal and regula-
tory frameworks, and the main opportunities and problems that AI presents to educational practice. As an
example of the multidisciplinary character of these challenges, special attention is given to the application
of AI in scientific research, legal elements of data protection, copyright, and liability, and ethical issues in
teaching and evaluation. In line with contemporary approaches to responsible AI development and de-
ployment, the paper emphasizes the need for governance models that incorporate the human-in-the-loop
principle, fundamental rights impact assessments, regular oversight and algorithmic audits, transparent
documentation of data sources and processing methods, and the active involvement of relevant stakehold-
ers, including teachers, students, parents, and technical services (Floridi et al., 2018). This paper adopts
a structured narrative review approach, primarily drawing on peer-reviewed literature indexed in Web of
Science and Scopus, complemented by relevant policy documents, editorial guidelines, and selected au-
thoritative sources outside these databases. The aim is to synthesize ethical, legal, and methodological
challenges associated with the use of artificial intelligence in secondary and higher education, as well as
in scientific research. The analysis focuses on normative issues rather than technical system performance,
with particular attention to accountability, transparency, and human responsibility.
www.ijcrsee.com
89
Narančić, M., et al. (2026). Ethical, Legal and Security Aspects of the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Education, International
Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 14(1), 87-95.
Ethical Issues in the Application of AI in Teaching and Assessment
The biggest IT businesses in the world have started an unprecedented investment wave to main-
tain competitive advantage and construct the infrastructure required for the AI revolution as the global AI
boom continues. It is anticipated that Meta, Alphabet, Amazon, and Microsoft will invest between USD
350 and 400 billion in capital projects this year alone, with the majority going toward building AI data cent-
ers—the foundation of all AI applications. This amount of investment is more than twice as much as it was
just two years ago, and experts say the “AI arms race,” which is becoming more and more popular, is far
from over (Richter, 2025).
The worldwide AI market was estimated to be worth around USD 260 billion in 2025 and is ex-
pected to expand to over USD 1.2 trillion by 2030, a fourfold increase, according to estimations released
by Statista Market Insights in October. This projected rise makes it evident that artificial intelligence is
becoming more and more integrated into a variety of businesses, thanks to advancements in algorithms,
infrastructure development, and consistent, substantial investment in R&D.
The two biggest segments of the AI market are machine learning and natural language processing
(the interaction of computers and human language), as seen in Figure 1. When taken as a whole, they
make up over half of the market value and are predicted to continue to be significant until 2030. Further-
more, computer vision, AI robots, and natural language processing are thought to be the most dynamic
fields; during the next five years, all three are expected to develop more quickly than the industry average.
These industries are anticipated to grow significantly due to the growing use of AI solutions in consumer,
healthcare, and corporate markets.
Figure 1. AI Market Projected to More Than Qaudruple by 2030
Source: Gaudiaut, T. (2025)
Artificial intelligence’s implementation in educational institutions has been further expedited by
global investments made by governments and tech businesses, especially in the fields of learning analyt-
ics, instructional customisation, and automated assessment. However, ethical considerations become
crucial in the areas of teaching and evaluation, when choices are made that have long-term effects on
students’ academic and career paths (Dašić, 2024a). According to academic research, the use of AI in
education is a complicated normative and pedagogical challenge rather than just a technological or or-
ganizational issue. (Zawacki-Richter, et al., 2019).
The fairness of algorithmic systems used to support instructional and evaluative choices is one of
the main ethical concerns. According to empirical studies, machine-learning-based systems that are trained
on biased data or whose results are used carelessly in practice have the potential to replicate or even ex-
acerbate current social and educational disparities (Baker, Hawn, 2022). Such prejudice may lead to the
systematic adverse treatment of specific student groups in the context of assessment, undermining the idea
of equal educational opportunity. From a technical and ethical standpoint, fairness in educational AI systems
should therefore be assessed through a combination of pre-deployment bias audits, subgroup performance
analysis, and post-deployment monitoring, as recommended in recent AI governance literature.
The use of automated assessment of written work is particularly problematic, as algorithms are
tasked with evaluating the quality of argumentation, structure, or the use of evidence. Studies indicate
that different models may produce divergent evaluations depending on linguistic style or the socio-cultural
www.ijcrsee.com
90
Narančić, M., et al. (2026). Ethical, Legal and Security Aspects of the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Education, International
Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 14(1), 87-95.
characteristics of authors, raising serious concerns regarding the validity and ethical justification of such
systems (Litman, et al., 2021). For this reason, fairness must be an explicit dimension of AI system evalu-
ation prior to their institutional deployment.
Another important ethical issue relates to the transparency and explainability of algorithmic deci-
sions. In many educational contexts, teachers and students lack clear insight into the criteria on which
systems base their recommendations or evaluations, which hinders critical assessment and the ability
to challenge outcomes. A lack of transparency can erode trust in assessment systems and weaken the
legitimacy of educational institutions.
The concept of explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) in education has emerged precisely in re-
sponse to these challenges. Khosravi, et al. (2022) emphasize that explanations of algorithmic decisions
must be tailored to different educational stakeholders—teachers, students, and administrators—in order
to possess genuine pedagogical and ethical value. In this sense, explainability is not merely a technical
feature of a system, but a normative requirement linked to accountability and fairness.
Concerns about accountability and the professional autonomy of educators constitute a third ethi-
cal facet. Teachers’ roles as important pedagogical actors may be diminished by an over-reliance on
algorithmic recommendations in instruction and evaluation, which could depersonalize the learning pro-
cess. According to research, there is a chance that technical system outputs will take the place of expert
judgment, hiding accountability for educational results (Zawacki-Richter, et al., 2019). In order for the use
of artificial intelligence to be ethically justified, final assessment choices must stay within the purview of
human accountability and have well-defined opportunities for intervention, correction, and justification. In-
stead of taking the place of teachers’ pedagogical judgment, AI systems should be used as support tools.
The veracity of what AI systems measure and assess is another important ethical issue. Complex
learning processes, such critical thinking, creativity, and reflection, run the risk of being reduced to readily
quantifiable metrics that fall short of fully capturing the range of educational goals. Williamson and Eynon
(2020) caution that technology advancements in artificial intelligence for education frequently come be-
fore explicit pedagogical goals are articulated. This can cause a normative shift from what is beneficial to
education to what is technically possible.
Beyond technical challenges related to algorithmic bias and limited transparency, contemporary
literature clearly indicates that the application of artificial intelligence in teaching and assessment raises
broader ethical issues that transcend individual system deployments. Because automated systems can
not only influence assessment results but also redefine power dynamics in classrooms and between
teachers and students, ethics in AI for education necessitates careful consideration of how technology
affects the rights and autonomy of all participants in the educational process. How to guarantee that
AI-assisted decisions stay in line with the values of justice, accountability, and pedagogical validity is a
crucial ethical question in this context, especially since automated systems may unintentionally marginal-
ize particular student groups or jeopardize teachers’ professional autonomy if technology is seen as a
neutral or superior arbiter. Additionally, the literature highlights that institutional AI implementation must
be accompanied by suitable mechanisms for oversight, evaluation, and value-based deliberation because
algorithmic advancements alone are insufficient to address the ethical and social conflicts that emerge
in educational settings. This suggests that in order to safeguard educational objectives and fundamental
values, systemic concerns—such as open communication among all stakeholders, participatory decision-
making, and ongoing monitoring of AI impacts—must be incorporated into the design and assessment of
AI solutions (Fu, Weng, 2024; Gouseti, et al., 2025).
For these reasons, rather than relying only on statistical measures of correctness or efficiency, artifi-
cial intelligence systems employed in teaching and evaluation must be regularly reviewed in connection to
pedagogical aims and values. The aforementioned research leads to the conclusion that ethical concerns
with the use of AI in instruction and evaluation are structural rather than incidental. The development,
application, and assessment of AI systems in education must incorporate fairness, transparency, human
responsibility, and pedagogical validity. Without such a strategy, there is a genuine risk that, in spite of
large investments and great expectations, technological advancements could exacerbate already-existing
disparities and threaten the core principles of education (Baker, Hawn, 2022; Williamson, Eynon, 2020).
www.ijcrsee.com
91
Narančić, M., et al. (2026). Ethical, Legal and Security Aspects of the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Education, International
Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 14(1), 87-95.
The Use of Artificial Intelligence in Scientific Research
The impact of artificial intelligence has become more apparent in scientific research practice under
conditions of significant worldwide investment, from problem formulation and literature search to data pro-
cessing and model development to manuscript writing, authorship management, and editorial decision-
making. However, discussions of AI’s use must concurrently address ethics, methodology, technology,
and the governance of research practices, with clearly defined human responsibility and verifiability of
scientific claims, because AI is becoming more and more integrated into important phases of the research
process (Resnik, Hosseini, 2025).
In reality, AI multiplies productivity at several stages of the research cycle: it speeds up the mapping
of concepts and important publications, helps organize research questions and hypotheses, automates
certain steps in the analytical workflow (like scripting and data cleaning), aids in the interpretation of
results, and harmonizes the language and style of manuscripts. Although these applications can boost
output, they also raise the possibility of “illusory accuracy,” in which AI systems provide credible but false
or unsubstantiated claims. Strict verification and documentation of research procedures are therefore
required, especially when AI is utilized to create or modify manuscript material (Rentier, 2024).
When AI is used for modeling and inference, particularly when predictive models are used (e.g., in
medical, social sciences, economics, and sports sciences), the most significant methodological problem
emerges. In order to guarantee verifiability and reproducibility of findings, current standards for transpar-
ent reporting emphasize that studies creating or validating models must explicitly describe data sources,
predictors, outcomes, processing procedures, validation methods, performance metrics, and limitations
(Collins, et al., 2024). The PROBAST+AI framework offers an updated tool for assessing risk of bias and
applicability in prediction models using regression and/or AI methods, strengthening methodological con-
trol over AI-driven conclusions. However, assessments of quality and risk of bias must not be improvised
(Moons et al., 2025).
The implication for scientific research practice is clear: when AI participates in the analytical core of
a study, reporting standards and bias-assessment tools should constitute mandatory components of the
methodological framework (Collins, et al., 2024; Moons et al., 2025).
The use of AI in research raises ethical concerns that are especially delicate when it comes to au-
thorship, accountability, and contribution attribution. The traditional authorship model is frequently insuf-
ficient in modern collaborative research to appropriately reflect responsibility for particular study compo-
nents; as a result, contributorship-based approaches are becoming more and more important, particularly
when portions of the work are produced with the aid of AI tools (Vasilevsky, et al., 2021).
In practice, this means that research teams should define in advance: (a) where AI is used (e.g.,
search, coding, analysis, writing), (b) who is responsible for verifying AI outputs, and (c) how these con-
tributions are documented in the manuscript and internal project records. Normatively, AI cannot assume
responsibility for the truthfulness or integrity of scientific work; responsibility remains with human authors
and institutions (Vasilevsky, et al., 2021).
AI-related editorial and publishing practices have changed quickly in recent years, yet there are still
significant variations within disciplines. Guidelines for imaging and medical journals underline the need for
humans to maintain complete control over content and the secrecy of the peer-review process, forbid list-
ing AI as an author, and require editors to be transparent (Moy, 2023). According to norms in biomedical
publication, authors must proofread and verify information, maintain accountability for correctness, and fully
declare the use of generative AI, even when it may be employed to increase readability (Lubowitz, 2024).
At the level of broader ethical frameworks, Resnik and Hosseini (2025) propose a differentiated
approach to disclosure: when AI use may affect interpretation or reliability, or when it constitutes a deliber-
ate and substantive component of the work, disclosure should be mandatory; in other cases, it may be
optional or unnecessary, provided that criteria are clearly articulated and justified. Disclosure of AI use
should be considered mandatory whenever AI systems contribute to data analysis, model development,
or interpretation of results, whereas optional disclosure may be acceptable when AI is used solely for
language editing without influencing scientific claims.
Based on recent research (Vasilevsky, et al., 2021; Rentier, 2024; Resnik, Hosseini, 2025), a co-
gent framework that prioritizes a clear comprehension and documentation of AI’s role within the research
www.ijcrsee.com
92
Narančić, M., et al. (2026). Ethical, Legal and Security Aspects of the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Education, International
Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 14(1), 87-95.
process can operationalize the responsible use of AI in scientific research. In order to enable transpar-
ency of research processes and facilitate later evaluation, this involves methodically mapping the ways,
stages, and goals for which AI is employed throughout a research project. The identification and mitigation
of bias hazards presented by automated systems, as well as the transparent reporting of AI use in data
analysis, modeling, and inference, require specific attention. In this context, the significance of verification
and auditability is highlighted, including the need for human review of important research decisions and
outcomes as well as the preservation of pertinent research traces, such as information on tools used, their
versions, input and output data, and applied parameters and procedures. However, in order to maintain
both individual and group accountability for scientific findings, ethical AI use necessitates a well defined
distribution of duties and responsibilities within research teams, especially for components developed with
automated aid. Lastly, the literature emphasizes the necessity of proportionate and consistent disclosure
of AI use, to the extent that it is pertinent for evaluating research integrity, reproducibility, and depend-
ability using criteria that are verifiable, justified, and properly described.
When used as a tool to supplement human competence rather than take the place of methodologi-
cal responsibility, artificial intelligence can provide real advantages for scientific research. Four fundamen-
tal requirements have been identified by recent literature: appropriate, consistent disclosure, unambigu-
ous distribution of contributions and responsibilities, assessment of bias risk, and transparent reporting. If
this isn’t done, there is a risk of systemic degradation of verifiability and trust in the scientific method rather
than just isolated errors (Collins, et al., 2024; Moons et al., 2025; Resnik, Hosseini, 2025).
It is also crucial to stress that integrating AI into more general open and reproducible science pro-
cedures is essential to the long-term viability of its usage in scientific research. As automation of analysis,
code generation, and text production may impede subsequent verification unless clear standards for
sharing data, models, and procedures are established, modern scholars observe that AI-assisted re-
search workflows can worsen already-existing reproducibility issues. In this way, it is both an ethical and
an epistemological need of contemporary science to insist on the transparency of methodological proce-
dures, the availability of analytical products, and the explicit documenting of judgments supported by AI.
However, the literature warns that generative and predictive systems can only greatly speed up scientific
discovery if they foster critical thinking rather than acting as stand-ins for human judgment or masking
ambiguity in data and models. In order to maintain confidence in scientific knowledge in a setting where
artificial intelligence has become an essential component of research infrastructure, more focus is being
placed on creating research cultures that integrate technological innovation with standards of transpar-
ency, accountability, and group quality control (Haibe-Kains, et al., 2020; van Dis, et al., 2023).
Conclusion
The examination of ethical concerns in the use of AI in scientific research and in teaching and as-
sessment shows that modern educational and research systems are going through a phase of significant
technological change that goes beyond the simple addition of new tools. Artificial intelligence is progres-
sively becoming a structural element of decision-making processes, ranging from designing research
investigations, analyzing data, and producing scientific information to evaluating students’ knowledge
and progress. Because of this, the issue of AI deployment necessitates normative, methodological, and
institutional consideration rather than merely focusing on technical efficiency.
The investigation has revealed that the fairness of algorithmic decisions, system transparency and
explainability, the protection of instructors’ professional autonomy, and the validity of pedagogical as-
sessments are important ethical issues in the field of teaching and assessment. Although automated and
semi-automated systems can increase efficiency and consistency, they also run the risk of perpetuating
current disparities, simplifying difficult educational objectives into readily quantifiable metrics, and erod-
ing confidence in knowledge assessment procedures. As a result, rather than taking the place of human
pedagogical judgment, artificial intelligence in education must continue to be a supporting tool.
Artificial intelligence, on the other hand, has become a potent productivity and analytical capacity
accelerator in scientific research, allowing for quicker processing of massive datasets, more complex
models, and more effective administration of research workflows. These advantages come with higher
expectations for methodological rigor, open reporting, and responsibility allocation, though. Particular
www.ijcrsee.com
93
Narančić, M., et al. (2026). Ethical, Legal and Security Aspects of the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Education, International
Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 14(1), 87-95.
emphasis is placed on the necessity of precisely defining the role of AI in research, applying standards
for evaluating the risk of bias, and establishing clear guidelines regarding authorship, contribution, and
required disclosure of AI use—where such use may affect interpretation and trust in findings.
A broad conclusion can be reached by combining the two areas of analysis: ethical concerns about
the use of AI in science and education cannot be resolved piecemeal; rather, they must be viewed as
a component of a cohesive framework of responsible knowledge governance. Regardless of the level
of automation, human actors—teachers, researchers, editors, and institutions—must retain ultimate ac-
countability for educational and scientific judgments. This is what unites all situations. In this way, rather
than taking normative control over decision-making, artificial intelligence should be incorporated as an
operational and epistemological tool that improves its quality.
Ultimately, it may be said that stable ethical and methodological frameworks that are transdisci-
plinary, verifiable, and cross-disciplinary are necessary for the continued development and use of AI in
teaching, assessment, and scientific research. The only way to guarantee that technology progress is
in line with the core principles of science and education—fairness, transparency, knowledge verifiability,
and social responsibility—is through such an approach. By synthesizing recent ethical, legal, and meth-
odological literature, this paper demonstrates that responsible AI integration in education and scientific
research requires governance models that explicitly preserve human accountability, ensure transparency,
and support verifiability of knowledge production. At the same time, the scientific literature also highlights
certain risks associated with the use of artificial intelligence, including algorithmic bias, the generation of
inaccurate or misleading information, challenges related to data privacy and security, and the potential
weakening of critical thinking due to excessive reliance on AI systems. Therefore, the responsible and
ethically grounded use of AI remains essential in order to mitigate these risks and ensure that technologi-
cal development supports the fundamental values of science and education
Conflict of interests
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, M.N.; methodology,M.N. and A.P.; software, V.L. ; formal analy-sis, V.L. and
M.D; writing-original draft preparation, M.N.; writing-review and editing, A.P. and M.N. All authors have
read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research recived no external funding.
Data Availability Statement
The data supporting the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author
upon reasonable request.
References
Baker, R. S., & Hawn, A. (2022). Algorithmic bias in education. International Journal of Articial Intelligence in Education, 32,
1052–1092. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-021-00285-9
Chan, C. K. Y. (2023). A comprehensive AI policy education framework for university teaching and learning. International Jour-
nal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20, 38. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00408-3
Collins, G. S., Reitsma, J. B., & Moons, K. G. M. et al. (2024). TRIPOD+AI statement: Updated guidance for reporting clinical
prediction models that use regression or machine learning methods. BMJ, 385, e078378. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-
2023-078378
Colonna, L. (2023). Teachers in the loop? An analysis of automatic assessment systems under Article 22 GDPR. International
Data Privacy Law, 14(1), 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1093/idpl/ipad024
Dašić, D., Ilievska Kostadinović, M., Vlajković, M., Pavlović, M. (2024a) Digital literacy in the service of science and scientic
knowledge. International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 12(1),
219-227. https://doi.org/10.23947/2334-8496-2024-12-1-219-227
www.ijcrsee.com
94
Narančić, M., et al. (2026). Ethical, Legal and Security Aspects of the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Education, International
Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 14(1), 87-95.
Dašić, D., Vitković, B., & Ilievska Kostadinović, M. (2024b). The Inuence оf E-Sports оn Economy Education аnd Cultural
Communication. International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 12(3),
647–655. https://www.ijcrsee.com/index.php/ijcrsee/article/view/3024/1103
Floridi, L., Cowls, J., Beltrametti, M., Chatila, R., Chazerand, P., Dignum, V., Luetge, C., Madelin, R., Pagallo, U., Rossi, F., Scha-
fer, B., Valcke, P., & Vayena, E. (2018). AI4People—An ethical framework for a good AI society: Opportunities, risks,
principles, and recommendations. Minds and Machines, 28(4), 689–707. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-018-9482-5
Fu, Y., & Weng, Z. (2024). Navigating the ethical terrain of AI in education: A systematic review on framing responsible human-
centered AI practices. Computers and Education: Articial Intelligence, 7, Article 100306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
caeai.2024.100306
García-López, I. M., & Trujillo-Liñán, L. (2025, June 30). Ethical and regulatory challenges of Generative AI in education: A
systematic review. Frontiers in Education, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1565938
Gaudiaut, T. (2025). The AI Market Is Poised for Explosive Growth. https://www.statista.com/chart/35510/ai-market-growth-
forecasts-by-segment/?srsltid=AfmBOopXcimuAw7KnQOiwDruyfa7Vn8Ocjx2S38IcHGJo20nUYsrLWEI
Gouseti, A., James, F., Fallin, L., & Burden, K. (2024). The ethics of using AI in K-12 education: A systematic literature review.
Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 34(2), 161–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2024.2428601
Haibe-Kains, B., Adam, G. A., Hosny, A., Khodakarami, F., et al. (2020). Transparency and reproducibility in articial intel-
ligence. Nature, 586(7829), E14–E16. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2766-y
Holmes, W., Porayska-Pomsta, K., Holstein, K., Sutherland, E., Baker, T., Shum, S. B., Santos, O. C., Rodrigo, M. T., Cuku-
rova, M., & Bittencourt, I. I. (2021). Ethics of articial intelligence in education: Towards a community-wide framework.
International Journal of Articial Intelligence in Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-021-00239-1
Huang, L. (2023). Ethics of Articial Intelligence in Education: Student Privacy and Data Protection. Science Insights Education
Frontiers, 16(2), 2577–2587. https://doi.org/10.15354/sief.23.re202
Ifenthaler, D., & Schumacher, C. (2016). Student perceptions of privacy principles for learning analytics. Educational Technol-
ogy Research and Development, 64, 923–938. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9477-y
Ismail, I. A., & Aloshi, J. M. (2023). Data privacy in AI-driven education: An in-depth exploration into the data privacy concerns
and potential solutions. In Resnik and Hosseini (2025) (pp. 223–252). IGI Global.
Khosravi, H., Buckingham Shum, S., Chen, G., Conati, C., Tsai, Y.-S., Kay, J., Knight, S., Martinez-Maldonado, R., Sadiq, S.,
& Gašević, D. (2022). Explainable Articial Intelligence in education. Computers and Education: Articial Intelligence,
3, 100074. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100074
Litman, D., Zhang, H., Correnti, R., Matsumura, L. C., & Wang, E. L. (2021). A fairness evaluation of automated methods for scor-
ing text evidence usage in writing. In M. Mavrikis, V. I. Marín, J. Carmona, & S. Hsiao (Eds.), Articial Intelligence in Edu-
cation (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 12748, 255–267). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78292-4_21
Lubowitz, J. H. (2024). Guidelines for the use of generative articial intelligence tools for biomedical journal authors and reviewers.
Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery, 40(3), 651–652. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2023.10.037
Lunić, T., & Ćesarević, J. (2025). Articial intelligence and the future of planet. Management horizons, 5(1), 93–111. https://
hm.edu.rs/index.php/hm/article/view/8
Moons, K. G. M., et al. (2025). PROBAST+AI: An updated quality, risk of bias, and applicability assessment tool for prediction
models using regression or articial intelligence methods. BMJ, 388, e082505. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2024-082505
Moy, L. (2023). Guidelines for use of large language models by authors, reviewers, and editors: Considerations for imaging
journals. Radiology, 309(1), e239024. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.239024f
Nguyen, A., Ngo, H. N., Hong, Y., Dang, B., & Nguyen, B.-P. T. (2023). Ethical principles for articial intelligence in education.
Education and Information Technologies, 28(4), 4221–4241. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11316-w
Pardo, A., & Siemens, G. (2014). Ethical and privacy principles for learning analytics. British Journal of Educational Technology,
45(3), 438–450. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12152
Rentier, E. S. (2024). To use or not to use: Exploring the ethical implications of using generative AI in academic writing. AI and
Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-024-00649-6
Resnik, D. B., & Hosseini, M. (2025). Disclosing articial intelligence use in scientic research and publication: When should
disclosure be mandatory, optional, or unnecessary? Accountability in Research, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989
621.2025.2481949
Richter, F. (2025). Tech’s AI-Fueled Spending Surge. https://www.statista.com/chart/35046/capital-expenditure-of-meta-
alphabet-amazon-and-microsoft/?lid=sxmtw4xt6cqo&utm_source=braze&utm_medium=email&utm_id=&utm_
campaign=COM_DailyData_Sat_25_KW48_TG&utm_term=
Rousi, R., Alanen, H.-K., & Wilson, A. S. (2024). Data privacy, ethics and education in the era of AI: A university student per-
spective. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, 3901, 49–56. http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3901/paper_6.pdf
Slade, S., & Prinsloo, P. (2013). Learning analytics: Ethical issues and dilemmas. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(10),
1509–1528. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764213479366
Stanković, B., Pavlović, Lj., & Stanković, M. (2024). Education for research and the moral responsibility of researchers. Srpska
www.ijcrsee.com
95
Narančić, M., et al. (2026). Ethical, Legal and Security Aspects of the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Education, International
Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 14(1), 87-95.
Akademska Misao, 9(1), 19–33. https://www.sam.edu.rs/index.php/sam/article/view/64
Taddeo, M., Blanchard, A., & Thomas, C. (2024). From AI ethics principles to practices: A teleological methodology to apply AI
ethics principles in the defence domain. Philosophy & Technology, 37, Article 70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-024-
00710-6
van Dis, E. A. M., Bollen, J., Zuidema, W., van Rooij, R., & Bockting, C. L. H. (2023). ChatGPT: Five priorities for research.
Nature, 614, 224–226. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-00288-7
Vasilevsky, N. A., Hosseini, M., Teplitzky, S., et al. (2021). Is authorship sufcient for today’s collaborative research? A call for
contributor roles. Accountability in Research, 28(1), 23–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2020.1779591
Vuković, S., Vlajković Bojić, V., & Lazić, S. (2025). Menagement in education for democracy through the application of compe-
tences for democratic culture. Management horizons, 5(1), 73–92. https://hm.edu.rs/index.php/hm/article/view/7
Williamson, B., & Eynon, R. (2020). Historical threads, missing links, and future directions in AI in education. Learning, Media
and Technology, 45(3), 223–235. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2020.1798995
Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V. I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019). Systematic review of research on articial intelligence
applications in higher education – where are the educators? International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher
Education, 16, 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0
