ArticleJournal of Intelligence2025
When ChatGPT Writes Your Research Proposal: Scientific Creativity in the Age of Generative AI.
Article in Journal of Intelligence, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Within the last years, generative artificial intelligence (AI) has not only entered the field of creativity; it might even be marking a turning point for some creative domains. This raises the question of whether AI also poses a turning point for scientific creativity, which comprises the ability to develop new ideas or methodological approaches in science. In this study, we use a new scientific creativity task to investigate the extent to which AI-in this case, ChatGPT-4-can generate creative ideas in a scientific context. Specifically, we compare AI-generated responses with those of graduate students in terms of their ability to generate scientific hypotheses, design experiments, and justify their ideas for a fictitious research scenario in the field of experimental psychology. We asked students to write and prompted ChatGPT to generate a brief version of a research proposal containing four separate assignments (i.e., formulating a hypothesis, designing an experiment, listing the required equipment, and justifying the chosen method). Using a structured (blinded) rating, two experts from the field evaluated students' research proposals and proposals generated by ChatGPT in terms of their scientific creativity. Our results indicate that ChatGPT received significantly higher overall scores, but even more crucially exceeded students in sub-scores measuring originality or meaningfulness of the ideas. In addition to a statistical evaluation, we qualitatively assess our data providing a more detailed report in regards to subtle differences between students' and AI-generated responses. Lastly, we discuss challenges and provide potential future directions for the field.
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.