Examining linguistic shifts in academic writing before and after the launch of ChatGPT: a study on preprint papers
Open accessIntegrity 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?
A decrease in the frequency of connectives, such as 'therefore,' 'after all,' and 'to begin with,' has been noted.
“Additionally, a decrease in the frequency of connectives, expressions that link sentences, such as ‘therefore,’ ‘after all,’ and ‘to begin with,’ has been noted [22].”
From Delving Into PubMed Records: How AI-Influenced Vocabulary has Transformed Medical Writing since ChatGPT (2025) · cites this paper as [22]
Cites
ChatGPT is fun, but not an author
Thorp, H. H. (2023) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.adg7879 · Cited by 1,437 · see citing works
Measuring Syntactic Complexity in L2 Writing Using Fine‐Grained Clausal and Phrasal Indices
KYLE, K., & CROSSLEY, S. A. (2018) · The Modern Language Journal · doi:10.1111/modl.12468 · Cited by 405 · see citing works
Grammarly as AI-powered English Writing Assistant: Students' Alternative for Writing English
Fitria, T. N. (2021) · Metathesis: Journal of English Language, Literature, and Teaching · doi:10.31002/metathesis.v5i1.3519 · Cited by 221 · see citing works
AI-generated vs human-authored texts: A multidimensional comparison
Berber Sardinha, T. (2024) · Applied Corpus Linguistics · doi:10.1016/j.acorp.2023.100083 · Cited by 139 · see citing works
Mapping the Increasing Use of LLMs in Scientific Papers
Liang, W., Zhang, Y., Wu, Z., Lepp, H., Ji, W., Zhao, X., Cao, H., Liu, S., He, S., Huang, Z., et al. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2404.01268 · Cited by 55 · see citing works
Analysis of the scientific literature's abstract writing style and citations
Hu, H., Wang, D., & Deng, S. (2021) · Online Information Review · doi:10.1108/oir-05-2020-0188 · Cited by 16 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Moreover, writing style influences how readers comprehend and assess the paper’s innovation, ultimately impacting its academic impact and recognition.”
Juzek, T. S., & Ward, Z. B. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.11385 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Matsui, K. (2025) · Perspectives on Medical Education · doi:10.5334/pme.1929 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
“Additionally, a decrease in the frequency of connectives, expressions that link sentences, such as ‘therefore,’ ‘after all,’ and ‘to begin with,’ has been noted [22].”
- Authors
- Bao, T., Zhao, Y., Mao, J., & Zhang, C.
- Affiliations
- Nanjing University of Science and Technology (CN)
- Wuhan University (CN)
- Corresponding author
- Zhang, Chengzhi
- Venue
- Scientometrics
- Published
- 2025-05-24
- Volume
- 130
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 3597-3627
- ISSN
- 0138-9130 (ISSN-L)
- 1588-2861
- OpenAlex
- W4410707203
- Cited by
- 25
- References
- 7
- Citations by year
- 2026: 22 · 2025: 3
- FWCI
- 94.05
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Scientometrics (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Funders
- National Natural Science Foundation of China (72074113)
- Innovative Research Group Project of the National Natural Science Foundation of China (71921002)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Academic Writing and Publishing
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Discourse Analysis in Language Studies
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
- Keywords
- ChatGPT, large language models, academic writing, lexical complexity, syntactic complexity, cohesion, readability, sentiment, English proficiency, disciplinary differences
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
