Review
Version 1
Preserved in Portico This version is not peer-reviewed
Generative Artificial Intelligence, AI for Scientific Writing: A Literature Review
Version 1
: Received: 31 May 2024 / Approved: 31 May 2024 / Online: 3 June 2024 (12:01:18 CEST)
How to cite: Shopovski, J. Generative Artificial Intelligence, AI for Scientific Writing: A Literature Review. Preprints 2024, 2024060011. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202406.0011.v1 Shopovski, J. Generative Artificial Intelligence, AI for Scientific Writing: A Literature Review. Preprints 2024, 2024060011. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202406.0011.v1
Abstract
The growing usage of Generative AI tools in scientific writing requires a critical examination of their benefits and challenges. This literature review is aimed at comprehensively analyzing current empirical research articles focused on the application of Generative AI in scientific writing. The Google Scholar database was used to search for the literature. The following keywords were used: "Generative AI" and "academic writing", "LLM" (Large Language Models) and "academic writing", "Generative AI" and "Scientific writing", and "ChatGPT" and "Scientific Writing". The search was restricted to articles published between January 1, 2023, and April 30, 2024. 15 articles were selected as appropriate for the study and analyzed. It was found that, thus far, ChatGPT is the most exploited tool in the studies. AI tools such as Bard (Gemini), Bing, Claude2, and Elicit were also tested. The benefits of Generative AI usage in scientific writing were found to be omnipresent. It can aid in the generation of structured abstracts, titles, introductions, literature reviews, and conclusions of a scientific article. Generative AI also makes writing more efficient and time-saving. Its capabilities in improving language and proofreading are well-established. However, the generation of inaccurate content and references by current commercially available LLMs poses a serious problem. The lack of critical thinking and tendency to produce non-original content are significant drawbacks. Generative AI should be employed with human oversight, serving as an assistant rather than a replacement. Transparency in AI usage in scientific writing is essential, along with the necessity for proper legal regulation.
Keywords
Artificial Intelligence; AI; Generative AI; Large Language Models (LLMs); Scientific Writing; ChatGPT
Subject
Social Sciences, Education
Copyright: This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Comments (0)
We encourage comments and feedback from a broad range of readers. See criteria for comments and our Diversity statement.
Leave a public commentSend a private comment to the author(s)
* All users must log in before leaving a comment
