Cited by 47Academic Writing and PublishingEFL/ESL Teaching and LearningDiscourse Analysis in Language Studies

Exploring the use of grammarly in assessing English academic writing

Open access
Abu Qub'a, Abdallah, Abu Guba, Mohammed Nour, Fareh, Shehdeh·2024·Heliyon

Abstract

This study explores the extent to which Grammarly can be a reliable assessment tool for academic English writing. Ten articles published in high-status scholarly Q.1 journals and written by specialist English native speakers were used to evaluate the accuracy of Grammarly's flagged issues. The results showed that Grammarly tends to over-flag many issues resulting in many false positives; besides, it does not take into consideration optional usage in English. The study concluded that although Grammarly can identify many ambiguous instances of language use that writers would do well to review and consider for revision, it does not seem to be a reliable tool for assessing academic written English.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e34893

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 27 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Abu Qub'a, A., Abu Guba, M. N., & Fareh, S.
Affiliations
University of Sharjah (AE)
Corresponding author
Fareh, Shehdeh
Venue
Heliyon
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2024-08
Volume
10
Issue
15
Pages
e34893
ISSN
2405-8440 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4400881016
Cited by
15
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 2
FWCI
22.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Heliyon (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • King Faisal University (6194)
  • Deanship of Scientific Research, King Saud University
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Academic Writing and Publishing
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Discourse Analysis in Language Studies
Keywords
Grammarly, automated writing evaluation, English academic writing, false positives, scholarly journal articles

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