ArticleBig data and cognitive computing2024
Almost Nobody Is Using ChatGPT to Write Academic Science Papers (Yet).
Article in Big data and cognitive computing, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Beyond disclosure: setting standards for AI use in publishing in the journal Pediatric Research.Pediatric research · 2026Article
- The Blurred Thresholds of AI-Use Disclosure: Health Professions Education Journal Editors' Expectations of Necessity and Sufficiency.Perspectives on medical education · 2025Article
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
Abstract
We assessed 19,000 scientific introductions to measure the level of undisclosed use of ChatGPT in scientific papers published in 2023 and early 2024. We applied a "stylistics" approach that has previously been shown to be effective at differentiating AI-generated text from human-written text in a variety of venues. Ten different MDPI journals were selected for this study, and the rate of use of undisclosed AI writing in these journals was fairly consistent across the journals. We estimate that ChatGPT was used for writing or significant editing in about 1 to 3% of the introductions tested. This analysis is the first systematic study of detecting undisclosed ChatGPT in published manuscripts in cases where obvious indicators, such as phrases like "regenerate response", are not present. The work demonstrates that generative AI is not polluting mainstream journals to any appreciable extent and that the overwhelming majority of scientists remain hesitant to embrace this tool for late-stage writing and editing.
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.