ArticlePloS one2025
Adoption of AI writing tools among academic researchers: A Theory of Reasoned Action approach.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Ethical engagement with artificial intelligence in faculty research education: evaluation of the New Knowledge Help (NKH) approach.BMC medical education · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This research explores the determinants affecting academic researchers' acceptance of AI writing tools using the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA). The impact of attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived barriers on researchers' intentions to adopt these technologies is examined through a cross-sectional survey of 150 researchers. Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) is employed to evaluate the measurement and structural models. Findings confirm the positive influence of favorable attitudes and subjective norms on intentions to use AI writing tools. Interestingly, perceived barriers did not significantly impact attitudes or intentions, suggesting that in the academic context, potential benefits may outweigh perceived obstacles to AI writing tool adoption. Contrarily, perceived barriers do not significantly affect attitudes and intentions directly. The TRA model demonstrates considerable explanatory and predictive capabilities, indicating its effectiveness in understanding AI writing tool adoption among researchers. The study's diverse sample across various disciplines and career stages provides insights that may be generalizable to similar academic contexts, though further research with larger samples is needed to confirm broader applicability. Results offer practical guidance for tool developers, academic institutions, and publishers aiming to foster responsible and efficient AI writing tool use in academia. Findings suggest strategies such as demonstrating clear productivity gains, establishing AI Writing Tool programs, and developing comprehensive training initiatives could promote responsible adoption. Strategies focusing on cultivating positive attitudes, leveraging social influence, and addressing perceived barriers could be particularly effective in promoting adoption. This pioneering study investigates researchers' acceptance of AI writing tools using a technology acceptance model, contributing to the understanding of technology adoption in professional contexts and highlighting the importance of field-specific factors in examining adoption intentions and behaviors.
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.