How is ChatGPT acknowledged in academic publications?
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Most ChatGPT acknowledgements (80%) in academic papers relate to text editing and proofreading, rather than to more complex tasks such as coding or data analysis.
“For example, most ChatGPT acknowledgements (80%) in academic papers relate to text editing and proofreading, rather than to more complex tasks such as coding or data analysis (Kousha, 2024).”
From How much are LLMs changing the language of academic papers after ChatGPT? A multi-database and full text analysis (2026) · cites this paper as Kousha, 2024
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 33 · Cited by 23
- Authors
- Kousha, K.
- Affiliations
- University of Wolverhampton (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Kousha, Kayvan
- ORCID
- Kousha, Kayvan
- Venue
- Scientometrics
- Published
- 2024-11-12
- Volume
- 129
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 7959-7969
- ISSN
- 0138-9130 (ISSN-L)
- 1588-2861
- OpenAlex
- W4404292044
- Cited by
- 23
- References
- 33
- Citations by year
- 2026: 13 · 2025: 10
- FWCI
- 6.45
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- Scientometrics (publishedVersion)
- Wolverhampton Intellectual Repository and E-Theses (University of Wolverhampton) (acceptedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Academic Writing and Publishing
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
- Keywords
- ChatGPT, large language models, scholarly publishing, manuscript preparation, research transparency, corresponding authors, artificial intelligence in research
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
