ArticlePeerJ. Computer science2025
The accuracy-bias trade-offs in AI text detection tools and their impact on fairness in scholarly publication.
Article in PeerJ. Computer science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Mapping the impact of generative AI in higher education: a scoping review of psychological and equity dimensions.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Pooled it
- AI hallucinations in academic writing: implications for research integrity.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Review
- Un-AI-ing: Compliance, Evasion, and the Distortion of Research Writing in the Age of AI Detection.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2026Article
- Response to "ChatGPT-polished scientific writing and artificial intelligence detection: Cohorts, baselines, fairness".JAAD international · 2026Article
- The adaptive learning taxonomy for responsible large language model integration in higher education.Discover artificial intelligence · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) text detection tools are considered a means of preserving the integrity of scholarly publication by identifying whether a text is written by humans or generated by AI. This study evaluates three popular tools (GPTZero, ZeroGPT, and DetectGPT) through two experiments: first, distinguishing human-written abstracts from those generated by ChatGPT o1 and Gemini 2.0 Pro Experimental; second, evaluating AI-assisted abstracts where the original text has been enhanced by these large language models (LLMs) to improve readability. Results reveal notable trade-offs in accuracy and bias, disproportionately affecting non-native speakers and certain disciplines. This study highlights the limitations of detection-focused approaches and advocates a shift toward ethical, responsible, and transparent use of LLMs in scholarly publication.
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.