Is it OK for AI to write science papers? Nature survey shows researchers are split
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 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.”
From Reimagining biomedical science workflows in the age of large language models (2026) · cites this paper as [8]
Many more researchers express openness to trying AI writing tools in the future.
“Many more express openness to trying these tools in the future.”
From Reimagining biomedical science workflows in the age of large language models (2026) · cites this paper as [8]
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] .”
From Reimagining biomedical science workflows in the age of large language models (2026) · cites this paper as [8]
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 .”
From Reimagining biomedical science workflows in the age of large language models (2026) · cites this paper as [8]
Self-reported AI use in writing is relatively modest.
“Self-reported AI use in writing is relatively modest.”
From Reimagining biomedical science workflows in the age of large language models (2026) · cites this paper as [8]
Roughly 28% of researchers have used AI to edit a manuscript, and only 8% report using AI to write a first draft.
“Roughly 28% of researchers say they have used AI to edit a manuscript, and only 8% report using AI to write a first draft 8 .”
From Reimagining biomedical science workflows in the age of large language models (2026) · cites this paper as [8]
Interest in using AI to support research is extremely high.
“First, interest in using AI to support research is extremely high (Fig. 1).”
From Reimagining biomedical science workflows in the age of large language models (2026) · cites this paper as [8]
The Nature Kwon study is likely low due to specifically asking about use in writing.
“the Nature Kwon study 8 is likely low due to specifically asking about use in writing.”
From Reimagining biomedical science workflows in the age of large language models (2026) · cites this paper as [8]
Among those comfortable with AI-assisted drafting, many believe disclosure is necessary, and some feel authors should disclose the prompts used when generating text.
“Among those who are comfortable with AI-assisted drafting, many believe that disclosure is necessary, and some feel that authors should disclose the prompts used when generating text.”
From Reimagining biomedical science workflows in the age of large language models (2026) · cites this paper as [8]
Early career researchers and scientists for whom English is not a first language show higher willingness to use AI for writing tasks.
“Early career researchers and scientists for whom English is not a first language show higher willingness to use AI for writing tasks.”
From Reimagining biomedical science workflows in the age of large language models (2026) · cites this paper as [8]
Survey data show a sharp distinction between editing and drafting in AI use.
“Within the domain of writing, survey data show a sharp distinction between editing and drafting.”
From Reimagining biomedical science workflows in the age of large language models (2026) · cites this paper as [8]
Different surveys report mixed, but generally increasing adoption of AI by the scientific community.
“Different surveys report mixed, but generally increasing adoption of AI by the scientific community.”
From Reimagining biomedical science workflows in the age of large language models (2026) · cites this paper as [8]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Reimagining biomedical science workflows in the age of large language models
Roberts, K. F., Koutarapu, S., Melendez, J., Landsness, E. C., Reese, J. T., Elbert, D. L., & Bateman, R. J. (2026) · npj Dementia · doi:10.1038/s44400-026-00126-3
- Authors
- Kwon, D.
- Corresponding author
- Kwon, Diana
- ORCID
- 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
- Licence
- 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