Cited by 41Academic Writing and PublishingAcademic Publishing and Open AccessArtificial Intelligence in Education

Is ChatGPT Making Scientists Hyper-Productive? The Highs and Lows of Using AI

Prillaman, McKenzie·2024·Nature

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/d41586-024-00592-w

Cites

1 of 1 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
Prillaman, M.
Corresponding author
Prillaman, McKenzie
Venue
Nature
Published
2024-02-28
Volume
627
Issue
8002
Pages
16-17
ISSN
  • 0028-0836 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-4687
OpenAlex
W4392231154
Cited by
41
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 19
FWCI
60.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Nature (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Academic Writing and Publishing
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
Keywords
ChatGPT, large language models, scientific writing, scholarly publishing, research productivity, artificial intelligence in science, research ethics

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