Generative artificial intelligence usage by researchers at work: Effects of gender, career stage, type of workplace, and perceived barriers
Open accessAbstract
The integration of generative artificial intelligence technology into research environments has become increasingly common in recent years, representing a significant shift in the way researchers approach their work. This paper seeks to explore the factors underlying the frequency of use of generative AI amongst researchers in their professional environments. As survey data may be influenced by a bias towards scientists interested in AI, potentially skewing the results towards the perspectives of these researchers, this study uses a regression model to isolate the impact of specific factors such as gender, career stage, type of workplace, and perceived barriers to using AI technology on the frequency of use of generative AI. It also controls for other relevant variables such as direct involvement in AI research or development, collaboration with AI companies, geographic location, and scientific discipline. Our results show that researchers who face barriers to AI adoption experience an 11 % increase in tool use, while those who cite insufficient training resources experience an 8 % decrease. Female researchers experience a 7 % decrease in AI tool usage compared to men, while advanced career researchers experience a significant 19 % decrease. Researchers associated with government advisory groups are 45 % more likely to use AI tools frequently than those in government roles. Researchers in for-profit companies show an increase of 19 %, while those in medical research institutions and hospitals show an increase of 16 % and 15 %, respectively. This paper contributes to a deeper understanding of the mechanisms driving the use of generative AI tools amongst researchers, with valuable implications for both academia and industry.
Integrity 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?
The survey items were developed for this study, informed by previous surveys of LLM use in other disciplines, key literature on LLM applications in mental health research, and the author team's expertise.
“Items were developed for this study, informed by previous surveys of LLM use in other disciplines,16 17 key literature on LLM applications in mental health research14 and the author team’s expertise.”
From Role of large language models in mental health research: an international survey of researchers' practices and perspectives (2025) · cites this paper as [17]
Cites
Scientific discovery in the age of artificial intelligence.
Wang, H., Fu, T., Du, Y., Gao, W., Huang, K., Liu, Z., Chandak, P., Liu, S., Van Katwyk, P., Deac, A., et al. (2023) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06221-2 · Cited by 1,823 · see citing works
Artificial Intelligence in Medicine: Today and Tomorrow
Briganti, G., & Le Moine, O. (2020) · Frontiers in Medicine · doi:10.3389/fmed.2020.00027 · Cited by 743 · see citing works
Multimodal Language Processing in Human Communication
Holler, J., & Levinson, S. C. (2019) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2019.05.006 · Cited by 441 · see citing works
Use of ChatGPT in academia: Academic integrity hangs in the balance
Bin-Nashwan, S. A., Sadallah, M., & Bouteraa, M. (2023) · Technology in Society · doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2023.102370 · Cited by 394 · see citing works
AI and science: what 1,600 researchers think
Van Noorden, R., & Perkel, J. M. (2023) · Nature · doi:10.1038/d41586-023-02980-0 · Cited by 383 · cited 5× · see citing works
“However, they also expressed strong concerns about how artificial int elligence is changing the way science is conducted, such as the risk of recognizing patterns without understanding them , bias or discrimination in the data, fraud, or irreproducibility (Van Noorden and Perkel, 2023).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialChatGPT and other artificial intelligence applications speed up scientific writing
Chen, T.-J. (2023) · Journal of the Chinese Medical Association · doi:10.1097/jcma.0000000000000900 · Cited by 240 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Barriers to AI adoption for women in higher education: a systematic review of the Asian context
Kalim, U., Kanwar, A., Sha, J., & Huang, R. (2025) · Smart Learning Environments · doi:10.1186/s40561-025-00390-5 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
Linardon, J., Messer, M., Anderson, C., Liu, C., McClure, Z., Jarman, H. K., Goldberg, S. B., & Torous, J. (2025) · BMJ Mental Health · doi:10.1136/bmjment-2025-301787 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
- Authors
- Dorta-González, P., López-Puig, A. J., Dorta-González, M. I., & González-Betancor, S. M.
- Affiliations
- Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria (ES)
- Universidad de La Laguna (ES)
- Venue
- Telematics and Informatics
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2024-10
- Volume
- 94
- Pages
- 102187
- ISSN
- 0736-5853 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4402115616
- Cited by
- 36
- References
- 6
- Citations by year
- 2026: 17 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 1
- FWCI
- 5.33
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Telematics and Informatics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Acceda (Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence Applications
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Keywords
- generative AI, researchers, gender differences, career stages, workplace type, perceived barriers, training materials, for-profit corporations, medical research institutions
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