Exploring the Opportunities and Challenges of ChatGPT in Academic Writing: a Roundtable Discussion
Open accessThe claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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 growing share of scholars use tools such as ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini to draft manuscripts, generate literature reviews, and suggest/compile reference lists.
“Recent surveys of researchers across disciplines indicate that a growing share of scholars use tools such as ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini to draft manuscripts, generate literature reviews, and suggest/compile reference lists [1,2].”
From How LLMs Cite and Why It Matters: A Cross-Model Audit of Reference Fabrication in AI-Assisted Academic Writing and Methods to Detect Phantom Citations (2026) · cites this paper as [2]
The roundtable discussion (indexed under Abstract; page unavailable) describes participants using ChatGPT to draft writing, find literature, and suggest references. It does not report surveys across disciplines or establish that a growing share of scholars use these tools; the cited passages also do not discuss Claude or Gemini or specifically document generation of literature reviews. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredLarge language models such as ChatGPT have demonstrated remarkable fluency in producing coherent and technically structured scientific texts across various disciplines, including health sciences and rehabilitation domains.
“Among these technologies, large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT have demonstrated remarkable fluency in producing coherent and technically structured scientific texts across various disciplines, including health sciences and rehabilitation domains.”
From Fabricated or accurate? Ethical concerns and citation hallucination in aI-generated scientific writing on musculoskeletal topics (2025) · cites this paper as [2]
The Abstract (page unavailable) says ChatGPT generates high-quality sentences and can help draft abstracts and paper outlines in a medical research context. It does not establish that it produces technically structured scientific texts across various disciplines, including rehabilitation; it also says generated text may not match academic-paper formats and can require substantial editing. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
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
ChatGPT listed as author on research papers: many scientists disapprove
Stokel-Walker, C. (2023) · Nature · doi:10.1038/d41586-023-00107-z · Cited by 868 · see citing works
Tools such as ChatGPT threaten transparent science; here are our ground rules for their use
(2023) · Nature · doi:10.1038/d41586-023-00191-1 · Cited by 605 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Using ChatGPT in academic writing is (not) a form of plagiarism: What does the literature say?
Jarrah, A. M., Wardat, Y., & Fidalgo, P. (2023) · Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies · doi:10.30935/ojcmt/13572 · Cited by 220 · see citing works
Sohail, S. S., Farhat, F., Himeur, Y., Nadeem, M., Madsen, D. Ø., Singh, Y., Atalla, S., & Mansoor, W. (2023) · Journal of King Saud University - Computer and Information Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.jksuci.2023.101675 · Cited by 192 · see citing works
A scoping review of ChatGPT's role in healthcare education and research
Shorey, S., Mattar, C., Pereira, T. L.-B., & Choolani, M. (2024) · Nurse Education Today · doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2024.106121 · Cited by 96 · see citing works
From Intention To Implementation: Automating Biomedical Research via LLMs
Luo, Y., Shi, L., Li, Y., Zhuang, A., Gong, Y., Liu, L., & Lin, C. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.09429 · Cited by 53
ChatGPT in Academia: University Students’ Attitudes Towards the use of ChatGPT and Plagiarism
Fajt, B., & Schiller, E. (2025) · Journal of Academic Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10805-025-09603-5 · Cited by 47 · see citing works
Rescriber: Smaller-LLM-Powered User-Led Data Minimization for LLM-Based Chatbots
Zhou, J., Xu, E., Wu, Y., & Li, T. (2025) · Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3706598.3713701 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
Safran, E., & Çalı, A. (2025) · Anatolian Current Medical Journal · doi:10.38053/acmj.1746227 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Naser, M. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.03299 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
“Recent surveys of researchers across disciplines indicate that a growing share of scholars use tools such as ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini to draft manuscripts, generate literature reviews, and suggest/compile reference lists [1,2].”
- Authors
- Bom, H.-S. H.
- Affiliations
- Chonnam National University Hwasun Hospital (KR)
- Corresponding author
- Bom, Hee-Seung Henry
- ORCID
- Bom, Hee-Seung Henry
- Venue
- Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
- Published
- 2023-05-23
- Volume
- 57
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 165-167
- ISSN
- 1869-3474 (ISSN-L)
- 1869-3482
- PMC
- PMC10359226
- OpenAlex
- W4377823405
- Cited by
- 50
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 6
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Academic Writing and Publishing
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Publishing and Scholarly Communication
- Keywords
- ChatGPT, large language models, academic writing, AI in scientific publishing, research integrity, AI-generated text, nuclear medicine research, editorial policy
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
