Almost Nobody Is Using ChatGPT to Write Academic Science Papers (Yet)

We assessed 19,000 scientific introductions to measure the level of undisclosed use of ChatGPT in scientific papers published in 2023 and early 2024. We applied a "stylistics" approach that has previously been shown to be effective at differentiating AI-generated text from human-written text in a variety of venues. Ten different MDPI journals were selected for this study, and the rate of use of undisclosed AI writing in these journals was fairly consistent across the journals. We estimate that ChatGPT was used for writing or significant editing in about 1 to 3% of the introductions tested. This analysis is the first systematic study of detecting undisclosed ChatGPT in published manuscripts in cases where obvious indicators, such as phrases like "regenerate response", are not present. The work demonstrates that generative AI is not polluting mainstream journals to any appreciable extent and that the overwhelming majority of scientists remain hesitant to embrace this tool for late-stage writing and editing.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Big Data and Cognitive Computing
Published
2024-10-11
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/bdcc8100133
Citations
4
Primary Topic
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.48

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Almost Nobody Is Using ChatGPT to Write Academic Science Papers (Yet)

Madeline Isom, David Hua, Heather Desaire
4 citations
Big Data and Cognitive Computing
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
0.48
article

Almost Nobody Is Using ChatGPT to Write Academic Science Papers (Yet)

Madeline Isom, David Hua, Heather Desaire
article en
4 citations

Abstract

We assessed 19,000 scientific introductions to measure the level of undisclosed use of ChatGPT in scientific papers published in 2023 and early 2024. We applied a "stylistics" approach that has previously been shown to be effective at differentiating AI-generated text from human-written text in a variety of venues. Ten different MDPI journals were selected for this study, and the rate of use of undisclosed AI writing in these journals was fairly consistent across the journals. We estimate that ChatGPT was used for writing or significant editing in about 1 to 3% of the introductions tested. This analysis is the first systematic study of detecting undisclosed ChatGPT in published manuscripts in cases where obvious indicators, such as phrases like "regenerate response", are not present. The work demonstrates that generative AI is not polluting mainstream journals to any appreciable extent and that the overwhelming majority of scientists remain hesitant to embrace this tool for late-stage writing and editing.

Big Data and Cognitive ComputingVol. 8(10)
University of Kansas (US)
National Institutes of Health
Quality Education
Openalex Percentile: Top 31%
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
0.48
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.