The DOI matches its Crossref record; 31 of the 31 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Can linguists distinguish between ChatGPT/AI and human writing?: A study of research ethics and academic publishing
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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?
In the citing paper
“Previous studies suggested that human users often fail to recognise AI-generated text and are generally overconfident in their ability to do so (Casal & Kessler, 2023;Fleckenstein et al., 2024).”
From “ ChatGPT can make mistakes. Check important info.” Epistemic beliefs and metacognitive accuracy in students' integration of ChatGPT content into academic writing (2025) · cites this paper as Casal & Kessler, 2023
In the citing paper
“This is heightened by the fact that even experts, such as professional linguists and teachers, are unable to effectively distinguish between human-written and AI-generated text (Casal & Kessler, 2023;Fleckenstein et al., 2024).”
From “ ChatGPT can make mistakes. Check important info.” Epistemic beliefs and metacognitive accuracy in students' integration of ChatGPT content into academic writing (2025) · cites this paper as Casal & Kessler, 2023
In the citing paper
“Large language models (LLMs) have achieved a level of fluency and coherence that makes their outputs increasingly indistinguishable from those by humans.1,2”
In the citing paper
“By adopting similar designs with objective linguistic criteria, we found that both the reviewer success rate and answer alternation reasons (“Suspicious wording” and “Both not mentioning critical features”) were associated with the writing style (“Familiarity and voice” and “Specificity or vagueness of details”) rather than the sentence-level writing quality and coherence34.”
From Towards a holistic framework for multimodal LLM in 3D brain CT radiology report generation (2025) · cites this paper as [34]
In the citing paper
“traits of “Familiarity and voice” (29%), “Specificity or vagueness of details” (37.60%), “Continuity and Coherence” (33.33%), and “Writing quality at sentence level” (33.33%) were significant factors when medical experts attribute a human origin behind a radiology report”
From Towards a holistic framework for multimodal LLM in 3D brain CT radiology report generation (2025) · cites this paper as [34]
Citations
Cites
Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (1988) · Cited by 20,701
ChatGPT for Good? On Opportunities and Challenges of Large Language Models for Education
Kasneci, E., Seßler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., Gasser, U., Groh, G., Günnemann, S., Hüllermeier, E., et al. (2023) · doi:10.35542/osf.io/5er8f · Cited by 7,552
ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education
Kasneci, E., Sessler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., Gasser, U., Groh, G., Günnemann, S., Hüllermeier, E., et al. (2023) · Learning and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274 · Cited by 7,326
On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big? 🦜
Bender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., & Shmitchell, S. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3442188.3445922 · Cited by 6,988
The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines
Jobin, A., Ienca, M., & Vayena, E. (2019) · Nature Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1038/s42256-019-0088-2 · Cited by 6,220
The Ethics of AI Ethics: An Evaluation of Guidelines
Hagendorff, T. (2020) · Minds and Machines · doi:10.1007/s11023-020-09517-8 · Cited by 1,911
The Ethics of AI Ethics -- An Evaluation of Guidelines
Hagendorff, T. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1903.03425 · Cited by 1,907
Principles alone cannot guarantee ethical AI
Mittelstadt, B. (2019) · Nature Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1038/s42256-019-0114-4 · Cited by 1,886
ChatGPT for Language Teaching and Learning
Kohnke, L., Moorhouse, B. L., & Zou, D. (2023) · RELC Journal · doi:10.1177/00336882231162868 · Cited by 1,371
ChatGPT and other large language models are double-edged swords
Shen, Y., Heacock, L., Elias, J., Hentel, K. D., Reig, B., Shih, G., & Moy, L. (2023) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.230163 · Cited by 1,008
Artificial Intelligence (AI) Ethics: Ethics of AI and Ethical AI
Siau, K., & Wang, W. (2020) · Journal of Database Management · doi:10.4018/jdm.2020040105 · Cited by 533
All the News That’s Fit to Fabricate: AI-Generated Text as a Tool of Media Misinformation
Kreps, S., McCain, R. M., & Brundage, M. (2022) · Journal of Experimental Political Science · doi:10.1017/xps.2020.37 · Cited by 360
Kubanyiova, M. (2008) · Modern Language Journal · doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00784.x · Cited by 199
Plonsky, L. (2014) · Modern Language Journal · doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2014.12058.x · Cited by 187
AI vs. Human -- Differentiation Analysis of Scientific Content GenerationPreprint
Ma, Y., Liu, J., Fan, Y., Cheng, Q., Huang, Y., Lu, W., & Liu, X. (2023) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2301.10416 · Cited by 161
Omidian, T., Shahriari, H., & Siyanova‐Chanturia, A. (2018) · Journal of English for Academic Purposes · doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2018.08.002 · Cited by 144
Coming of age: the past, present, and future of quantitative SLA research
Gass, S. M., Loewen, S., & Plonsky, L. (2020) · Language Teaching · doi:10.1017/s0261444819000430 · Cited by 122
Isbell, D. R., BROWN, D., Chen, M., Derrick, D. J., Ghanem, R., Arvizu, M. N. G., Schnur, E., Zhang, M., & Plonsky, L. (2022) · Modern Language Journal · doi:10.1111/modl.12760 · Cited by 108
Rhetorical moves in TESOL conference proposals
Halleck, G. B., & Connor, U. (2006) · Journal of English for Academic Purposes · doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2005.08.001 · Cited by 91
Understanding, Evaluating, and Conducting Second Language Writing Research
Polio, C. G., & Friedman, D. A. (2016) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781315747293 · Cited by 88
On the frequency, prevalence, and perceived severity of questionable research practices
Larsson, T., Plonsky, L., Sterling, S., Kytö, M., Yaw, K., & Wood, M. (2023) · Research Methods in Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1016/j.rmal.2023.100064 · Cited by 77
Kurian, N., Cherian, J. M., Sudharson, N. A., Varghese, K. G., & Wadhwa, S. (2023) · BDJ · doi:10.1038/s41415-023-5461-1 · Cited by 65
Research tasks on ethics in applied linguistics
Costa, P. I. D., Sterling, S., Lee, J., Li, W., & Rawal, H. (2020) · Language Teaching · doi:10.1017/s0261444820000257 · Cited by 64
Research ethics in applied linguistics
Yaw, K., Plonsky, L., Larsson, T., Sterling, S., & Kytö, M. (2023) · Language Teaching · doi:10.1017/s0261444823000010 · Cited by 47
Sterling, S., & Gass, S. M. (2017) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2017.08.010 · Cited by 40
Yoon, J., & Casal, J. E. (2020) · International Journal of Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1111/ijal.12300 · Cited by 40
Self-citationSamar, R. G., Talebzadeh, H., Kiany, G. R., & Akbari, R. (2014) · Text and Talk · doi:10.1515/text-2014-0023 · Cited by 37
Kessler, M., Marino, F., & Liska, D. (2023) · Research Methods in Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1016/j.rmal.2023.100082 · Cited by 28
Self-citationCasal, J. E., & Yoon, J. (2023) · English for Specific Purposes · doi:10.1016/j.esp.2023.03.004 · Cited by 21
Self-citationThe Routledge Handbook of Research Methods in Applied Linguistics
Khodadust, M. R., & Mohammadi, S. (2021) · DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · doi:10.30466/ijltr.2021.121051 · Cited by 3
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Marino, F., Liska, D., & Kessler, M. (In press). Ethical considerations for research involving computer-assisted language learning, social media, and online environments. In P. I. De Costa, A. Rabie-Ahmed, & C. Cinaglia (Eds.), Ethical issues in applied linguistics scholarship. John Benjamins.
- Spilioti, 2017, Ethics of online research methods in applied linguistics, Applied Linguistics Review, 8
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Generative AI tools and assessment: Guidelines of the world's top-ranking universities
Moorhouse, B. L., Yeo, M. A., & Wan, Y. (2023) · Computers and Education Open · doi:10.1016/j.caeo.2023.100151 · Cited by 461
Moorhouse, B. L., & Kohnke, L. (2024) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2024.103290 · Cited by 352
Koltovskaia, S., Rahmati, P., & Saeli, H. (2024) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2024.101130 · Cited by 241
Khlaif, Z. N., Ayyoub, A., Hamamra, B., Bensalem, E., Mitwally, M. A. A., Ayyoub, A., Hattab, M. K., & Shadid, F. (2024) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci14101090 · Cited by 177
Assessing the nexus of Generative AI adoption, ethical considerations and organizational performance
Rana, N. P., Pillai, R., Sivathanu, B., & Malik, N. (2024) · Technovation · doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2024.103064 · Cited by 199
Metadata
- Authors
- Casal, J. E., & Kessler, M.
- Affiliations
- University of Memphis (US)
- University of South Florida (US)
- Corresponding author
- Casal, J. Elliott
- Venue
- Research Methods in Applied Linguistics
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2023-12
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 100068
- ISSN
- 2772-7661 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4385628481
- Semantic Scholar
- 678298191a35694083bd01d4fac2f9a229dab98b
- Cited by
- 261
- References
- 28
- Citations by year
- 2026: 69 · 2025: 97 · 2024: 83 · 2023: 12
- FWCI
- 65.31
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- Research Methods in Applied Linguistics (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Academic integrity and plagiarism
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Authorship Attribution and Profiling
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Academic Writing and Publishing
- Keywords
- ChatGPT, large language models, AI-generated text detection, peer review, journal editors, research ethics, scholarly publishing, artificial intelligence in research, applied linguistics journals
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
