Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39583913›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in research metrics and analytics2024

Global insights: ChatGPT's influence on academic and research writing, creativity, and plagiarism policies.

Muhammad Abid Malik, Amjad Islam Amjad, Sarfraz Aslam, Abdulnaser Fakhrou

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in research metrics and analytics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. ChatGPT in Academic Writing: A Scientometric Analysis of Literature Published Between 2022 and 2023.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Muhammad Abid MalikShandong Vocational University of Foreign Affairs, Jinan, China.
Amjad Islam AmjadDepartment of School Education, Kasur, Punjab, Pakistan.
Sarfraz AslamDoctoral Studies Department, Faculty of Education and Humanities, UNITAR International University, Petaling Jaya, Malaysia.
Abdulnaser FakhrouDepartment of Psychological Sciences, College of Education, Qatar University, Doha, Qatar.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: The current study explored the influence of Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer (ChatGPT) on the concepts, parameters, policies, and practices of creativity and plagiarism in academic and research writing. Methods: Data were collected from 10 researchers from 10 different countries (Australia, China, the UK, Brazil, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Iran, Nigeria, Trinidad and Tobago, and Turkiye) using semi-structured interviews. NVivo was employed for data analysis. Results: Based on the responses, five themes about the influence of ChatGPT on academic and research writing were generated, i.e., opportunity, human assistance, thought-provoking, time-saving, and negative attitude. Although the researchers were mostly positive about it, some feared it would degrade their writing skills and lead to plagiarism. Many of them believed that ChatGPT would redefine the concepts, parameters, and practices of creativity and plagiarism. Discussion: Creativity may no longer be restricted to the ability to write, but also to use ChatGPT or other large language models (LLMs) to write creatively. Some suggested that machine-generated text might be accepted as the new norm; however, using it without proper acknowledgment would be considered plagiarism. The researchers recommended allowing ChatGPT for academic and research writing; however, they strongly advised it to be regulated with limited use and proper acknowledgment.

Indexed as

academic writingartificial intelligenceChatGPTcreativityplagiarismpolicy recommendations

Identifiers

PMID39583913
PMCPMC11582041

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.