There have been giant leaps in the field of education in the past 1–2 years.. Schools and colleges are transitioning online to provide more resources to their students. The COVID-19 pandemic has provided students more opportunities to learn and improve themselves at their own pace. Online proctoring services (part of assessment) are also on the rise, and AI-based proctoring systems (henceforth called as AIPS) have taken the market by storm. Online proctoring systems (henceforth called as OPS), in general, makes use of online tools to maintain the sanctity of the examination. While most of this software uses various modules, the sensitive information they collect raises concerns among the student community. There are various psychological, cultural and technological parameters need to be considered while developing AIPS. This paper systematically reviews existing AI and non-AI-based proctoring systems. Through the systematic search on Scopus, Web of Science and ERIC repositories, 43 paper were listed out from the year 2015 to 2021. We addressed 4 primary research questions which were focusing on existing architecture of AIPS, Parameters to be considered for AIPS, trends and Issues in AIPS and Future of AIPS. Our 360-degree analysis on OPS and AIPS reveals that security issues associated with AIPS are multiplying and are a cause of legitimate concern. Major issues include Security and Privacy concerns, ethical concerns, Trust in AI-based technology, lack of training among usage of technology, cost and many more. It is difficult to know whether the benefits of these Online Proctoring technologies outweigh their risks. The most reasonable conclusion we can reach in the present is that the ethical justification of these technologies and their various capabilities requires us to rigorously ensure that a balance is struck between the concerns with the possible benefits to the best of our abilities. To the best of our knowledge, there is no such analysis on AIPS and OPS. Our work further addresses the issues in AIPS in human and technological aspect. It also lists out key points and new technologies that have only recently been introduced but could significantly impact online education and OPS in the years to come.

Some of the text in the Conclusion section of our article was copied from the equivalent section of an article by (Coghlan et al., 2020). However, the facts presented in (Coghlan et al., 2020) concerning remote proctoring systems were based on exam integrity, the privacy of the user, Trust factor, Transparency, etc. (Which is more philosophical as well as technical factors).In turn, the overall conclusion of both the articles states that the advantages of these Online Proctoring technologies with Artificial Intelligence based assessment/ judgment are enough for us to use them in their current state even with the inherent risks such as privacy and trust are involved.This error could be attributed to our inexperience and the superior impression that the said paper had on our minds. There was no malicious intent at our end and we agree that it should not have occurred.We sincerely apologize for the inappropriate overlap between the two publications and our lack of transparency about the similarities between these articles.