Cited by 101Academic integrity and plagiarismAcademic Writing and PublishingAcademic Publishing and Open Access

Is it OK for AI to write science papers? Nature survey shows researchers are split

Kwon, Diana·2025·Nature

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/d41586-025-01463-8

Cites

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?

  • The same surveys reveal widespread uncertainty about how to begin, with many researchers reporting limited familiarity with existing tools, limited confidence in their ability to use them responsibly, and limited institutional guidance on best practices.

    “Second, the same surveys reveal widespread uncertainty about how to begin.Many researchers report limited familiarity with existing tools, limited confidence in their own ability to use them responsibly, and limited institutional guidance on best practices.”
  • Many more researchers express openness to trying AI writing tools in the future.

    “Many more express openness to trying these tools in the future.”
  • Surveys across the scientific community consistently show three dominant themes: high interest, uncertainty about how to begin, and concerns about accuracy, bias, reproducibility, and erosion of critical thinking.

    “Surveys across the scientific community consistently show three dominant themes [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] .”
  • About 10% of researchers believe AI use is never appropriate for editing, while 35% believe it is never appropriate for writing a first draft.

    “While most people are open to using AI for these tasks, about 10% of researchers believe AI use is never appropriate for editing, while 35% believe it is never appropriate for writing a first draft 8 .”
  • Self-reported AI use in writing is relatively modest.

    “Self-reported AI use in writing is relatively modest.”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kwon, D.
Corresponding author
Kwon, Diana
Venue
Nature
Published
2025-05-14
Volume
641
Issue
8063
Pages
574-578
ISSN
  • 0028-0836 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-4687
OpenAlex
W4410378136
Cited by
101
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 69 · 2025: 32
FWCI
104.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Nature (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
  • 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
Keywords
artificial intelligence, AI-generated research, scholarly publishing, researcher attitudes, AI disclosure, authorship, 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