ReviewRevista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992)2023
The use of artificial intelligence to improve the scientific writing of non-native english speakers.
Review in Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
37 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 116 citations in OpenAlex.
- Artificial intelligence in oncology publishing: a systematic review and policy analysis of high-impact journals.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Pooled it
- God save the reviewer! Reviewing science in the age of AI.European journal of pediatrics · 2026Article
- Applying Large Language Models in Perioperative Medicine With an Equity-Informed Perspective.Anesthesia and analgesia · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Scientific Writing - Our Editorial Position.JTO clinical and research reports · 2026Article
- How ChatGPT writes scientific titles in medical research: structural and content differences compared to human authors.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2026Article
- [Writing with a system-ChatGPT in the scientific practice of orthopedics and trauma surgery].Orthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence in Scientific Writing: Balancing Innovation and Efficiency with Integrity: Perspectives and Position Statements of Global Andrology Forum Expert Group.The world journal of men's health · 2026Article
- The landscape of artificial intelligence tools and platforms for evidence synthesis: a scoping review.Systematic reviews · 2026Article
- Linking growth mindset to engagement via ideal L2 self and enjoyment in AI-mediated EFL writing: a mixed-methods study.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Disclosure in the era of generative artificial intelligence.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- Survey of Guidance for Authors on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Pharmaceutical Journals.The Canadian journal of hospital pharmacy · 2026Article
- ChatGPT assisted generation of systematic review ideas in urooncology.Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992) · 2026Article
- Towards a transparent and reproducible AI-assisted research paper writing.Genomics & informatics · 2025Article
- The missing disclosure: is generative AI use in bioethics scholarship going largely unreported?BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- ChatGPT-polished writing boosts the risk of human-authored manuscripts being miscredited as AI-generated.JAAD international · 2025Article
- Writing about health inequality: recommendations for accurate and impactful presentation of evidence.International journal for equity in health · 2025Review
- Assessing the Accuracy and Completeness of AI-Generated Dental Responses: An Evaluation of the Chat-GPT Model.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- How Can We Make Scientific Events More Inclusive? Insights From Q&A Sessions and Surveys From an International Conference.Ecology and evolution · 2025Article
- Will ChatGPT-4 improve the quality of medical abstracts?Paediatrics & child health · 2025Article
- Perception and Knowledge of Hospital Workers Toward Using Artificial Intelligence: A Descriptive Study.Health science reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveScientific writing in English is a daunting task for non-native English speakers. The challenges of writing in a foreign language are evident in the scientific literature where texts by non-native English-speaking scientists tend to be less clear and succinct, contain grammatical errors, and are often rejected by prestigious journals.
methodsWe conducted a non-systematic review of the most recent literature using the terms "Artificial Intelligence," "Scientific Writing," and "Non-English Speaking" to create a narrative review.
resultsArtificial intelligence can be a solution to improve scientific writing, especially for non-native English-speaking scientists. Artificial intelligence can assist in the search for pertinent scientific papers, generate summaries, and help with the writing of different sections of the manuscript, including the abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion. Artificial intelligence-based programs can correct grammatical errors and improve writing style, both of which are particularly helpful for non-native English speakers. Two artificial intelligence programs that can help with the search for pertinent scientific papers on the internet are Elicit and ResearchRabbit. Scispace Copilot can be used to summarize the retrieved reference. The artificial intelligence software programs such as Grammarly and Paperpal can correct grammatical and spelling errors, while ChatGPT can also restructure sentences and paragraphs, reword text, and suggest appropriate words and phrases.
conclusionOverall, artificial intelligence can be an effective tool to improve the clarity, style, and coherence of scientific writing, helping non-native English-speaking scientists to communicate their research more effectively.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.