ArticlePloS one2025
Generative AI and academic scientists in US universities: Perception, experience, and adoption intentions.
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.
- Loneliness and AI chatbot dependence in young adults: the mediating role of perceived social support.BMC psychology · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The integration of generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) into academia has sparked interest and debate among academic scientists. This paper explores the early adoption and perceptions of US academic scientists regarding the use of generative AI in teaching and research activities. To do so, this analysis focuses exclusively on STEM fields due to their high exposure to rapid technological advancements. Drawing from a nationally representative survey of 232 respondents, we examine academic scientists' attitudes, experiences, and intentions regarding AI adoption. Results indicate that 65% of respondents have utilized generative AI in teaching or research activities, with 20% applying it in both areas. Among those currently using AI, 84% intend to continue its application, indicating a high level of confidence in its perceived benefits. AI is most frequently used in teaching to develop pedagogical materials (51%) and in research for writing, reviewing, and editing tasks (40%). Despite concerns about misinformation, with 78% of respondents indicating it as their top concern regarding AI, there is broad recognition of AI's potential impact on society. Most academic scientists have already integrated AI into their academic activities, demonstrating cautious yet optimistic adoption due to perceived risks. Furthermore, there is strong support for academic-led regulation of AI, highlighting the need for responsible governance to maximize benefits while minimizing risks in educational and research settings.
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.