Cited by 52Creativity in Education and NeuroscienceEthics and Social Impacts of AIArtificial Intelligence in Education

Creative scar without generative AI: individual creativity fails to sustain while homogeneity keeps climbing

Zhou, Yiyong, Liu, Qinghan, Huang, Jihao, Li, Guiquan·2026·Technology in Society

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.techsoc.2025.103087

Cites

80 of 80 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zhou, Y., Liu, Q., Huang, J., & Li, G.
Affiliations
  • Peking University (CN)
  • Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China (CN)
Corresponding author
Li, Guiquan
Venue
Technology in Society
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2026-03
Volume
84
Pages
103087
ISSN
0160-791X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4414497210
Cited by
24
References
78
Citations by year
2026: 24
FWCI
25.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Technology in Society (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Natural Science Foundation of China (32471129)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Creativity in Education and Neuroscience
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
Keywords
generative AI, ChatGPT, individual creativity, creative output, content homogeneity, AI dependency, scholarly publishing, journal rankings, creative tasks

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