Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40545657›Full record

ArticleJournal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE2025

ChatGPT in Academic Writing: A Scientometric Analysis of Literature Published Between 2022 and 2023.

Gergely Ferenc Lendvai

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE, 2025. 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. Clarity Without Credibility? Human Versus AI Abstracts in Otolaryngology.World journal of otorhinolaryngology - head and neck surgery · 2026
    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

1 author.

Gergely Ferenc LendvaiLudovika University of Public Service, Budapest, Hungary.ORCID 0000-0003-3298-8087

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This paper reviews the disruptive role of ChatGPT in academic writing, focusing on its implications for scholarly practices and emerging ethical challenges. Using document co-citation analysis (DCA), it maps the thematic and intellectual structure of the discourse on ChatGPT in academic knowledge production. Drawing on a dataset of 171 peer-reviewed articles from Scopus, the analysis, conducted using CiteSpace, identified 10 major thematic clusters, including ethical risks, practical applications, and pedagogical innovations. The resulting high-modularity network (

Indexed as

BibliometricsWritingAuthorshipGenerative Artificial IntelligenceHumansPlagiarismacademic writingAI and researchChatGPTethical challengesscholarly innovation

Identifiers

PMID40545657
PMCPMC12231813

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.