Techniques for supercharging academic writing with generative AI
Open accessAbstract
Academic writing is an indispensable yet laborious part of the research enterprise. This article maps out principles and methods for using generative artificial intelligence (AI), specifically large language models (LLMs), to elevate the quality and efficiency of academic writing. It introduces a human–AI collaborative framework that delineates the rationale (“why”), process (“how”), and nature (“what”) of AI engagement in writing. The framework pinpoints both short-term and long-term reasons for engagement, their underlying mechanisms (e.g., cognitive offloading and imaginative stimulation), and the need for a learning mindset to avoid overreliance on AI. It reveals the role of AI throughout the writing process, conceptualized through a two-stage model for human–AI collaborative writing, and the nature of AI assistance in writing, represented through a model of writing-assistance types and levels. Building on this framework, it then describes effective prompting techniques for incorporating AI into the writing routine—outlining, drafting, and editing—as well as strategies for maintaining rigor and adhering to ethics and policies. Ultimately, the prudent integration of AI into academic writing can ease the communication burden, empower authors, accelerate discovery, and promote diversity in science.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
A structured workflow can help researchers integrate AI into scientific writing while maintaining rigor.
“A structured workflow can help researchers integrate AI into scientific writing while maintaining rigor 32 .”
From Reimagining biomedical science workflows in the age of large language models (2026) · cites this paper as [32]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
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
Impact of ChatGPT on learners in a L2 writing practicum: an exploratory investigation
Yan, D. (2023) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-023-11742-4 · Cited by 713 · see citing works
Nazari, N., Shabbir, M. S., & Setiawan, R. (2021) · Heliyon · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07014 · Cited by 405 · see citing works
Science in the age of large language models
Birhane, A., Kasirzadeh, A., Leslie, D., & Wachter, S. (2023) · Nature Reviews Physics · doi:10.1038/s42254-023-00581-4 · Cited by 344 · see citing works
Casal, J. E., & Kessler, M. (2023) · Research Methods in Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1016/j.rmal.2023.100068 · Cited by 261 · see citing works
Why and how to embrace AI such as ChatGPT in your academic life
Lin, Z. (2023) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/sdx3j · Cited by 202 · see citing works
Self-citationArtificial intelligence in academic writing: a paradigm-shifting technological advance
Golan, R., Reddy, R., Muthigi, A., & Ramasamy, R. (2023) · Nature Reviews Urology · doi:10.1038/s41585-023-00746-x · Cited by 136 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 20
- Amano, T. et al. The manifold costs of being a non-native English speaker in science. PLoS Biol. 21, e3002184, doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3002184 (2023). · DOI
- Lin, Z. & Li, N. Global diversity of authors, editors, and journal ownership across subdisciplines of psychology: Current state and policy implications. Perspect Psychol Sci 18, 358-377, doi:10.1177/17456916221091831 (2023). · DOI
- Thirunavukarasu, A. J. et al. Large language models in medicine. Nat. Med. 29, 1930- 1940, doi:10.1038/s41591-023-02448-8 (2023). · DOI · Paper page
- Milano, S., McGrane, J. A. & Leonelli, S. Large language models challenge the future of higher education. Nat Mach Intell 5, 333-334, doi:10.1038/s42256-023-00644-2 (2023). · DOI
- White, A. D. The future of chemistry is language. Nat Rev Chem 7, 457-458, doi:10.1038/s41570-023-00502-0 (2023). · DOI
- Dergaa, I., Chamari, K., Zmijewski, P. & Ben Saad, H. From human writing to artificial intelligence generated text: examining the prospects and potential threats of ChatGPT in academic writing. Biol Sport 40, 615-622, doi:10.5114/biolsport.2023.125623 (2023). · DOI · Paper page
- Hwang, S. I. et al. Is ChatGPT a "Fire of Prometheus" for Non-Native English-Speaking Researchers in Academic Writing? Korean J. Radiol. 24, 952-959, doi:10.3348/kjr.2023.0773 (2023). · DOI · Paper page
- Bell, S. The write algorithm: promoting responsible artificial intelligence usage and accountability in academic writing. BMC Med. 21, 334, doi:10.1186/s12916-023-03039-7 (2023). · DOI
- Chamba, N., Knapen, J. H. & Black, D. How to plan your astronomy research paper in ten steps. Nat Astron 6, 1015-1020, doi:10.1038/s41550-022-01757-1 (2022). · DOI
- Croxson, P. L., Neeley, L. & Schiller, D. You have to read this. Nat Hum Behav 5, 1466- 1468, doi:10.1038/s41562-021-01221-6 (2021). · DOI
- Luna, R. E. The art of scientific storytelling: framing stories to get where you want to go. Nat Rev Mol Cell Bio 21, 653-654, doi:10.1038/s41580-020-00293-y (2020). · DOI
- Merow, C., Serra-Diaz, J. M., Enquist, B. J. & Wilson, A. M. AI chatbots can boost scientific coding. Nat Ecol Evol 7, 960-962, doi:10.1038/s41559-023-02063-3 (2023). · DOI
- Lin, Z. Ten simple rules for crafting effective prompts for large language models. PsyArXiv, doi:10.31234/osf.io/r78fc (2023). · DOI
- Yurkewicz, K. Three steps to better science communication. Nat Rev Mater 7, 673-674, doi:10.1038/s41578-022-00472-7 (2022). · DOI
- King, A. A. Writing a useful empirical journal article. Journal of Management Scientific Reports, doi:10.1177/27550311231187068 (2023). · DOI
- Patriotta, G. Crafting Papers for Publication: Novelty and Convention in Academic Writing. J Manage Stud 54, 747-759, doi:10.1111/joms.12280 (2017). · DOI
- Gernsbacher, M. A. Writing Empirical Articles: Transparency, Reproducibility, Clarity, and Memorability. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science 1, 403- 414, doi:10.1177/2515245918754485 (2018). · DOI
- Semrl, N. et al. AI language models in human reproduction research: exploring ChatGPT's potential to assist academic writing. Hum. Reprod., doi:10.1093/humrep/dead207 (2023). · DOI
- Lin, Z. Standing on the shoulders of AI: Toward a policy framework for AI use in scholarly publishing. PsyArXiv, doi:10.31234/osf.io/jgck4 (2023). · DOI
- Lin, Z. Responsible integration of AI in academic research: detection, attribution, and documentation. PsyArXiv, doi:10.31234/osf.io/w75gs (2023). · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Shi, J., Liu, W., & Hu, K. (2025) · Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.3390/bs15050705 · Cited by 77 · see citing works
Matsui, K. (2025) · Perspectives on Medical Education · doi:10.5334/pme.1929 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
“The use of LLMs can be applied in various ways in academic writing [1, 5] and are also important for the research activities of non-native researchers whose first language is not English [6–8].”
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
“A structured work fl ow can help researchers integrate AI into scienti fi c writing while maintaining rigor 32 .”
- Authors
- Lin, Z.
- Affiliations
- University of Science and Technology of China (CN)
- Corresponding author
- Lin, Zhicheng
- ORCID
- Lin, Zhicheng
- Venue
- Nature Biomedical Engineering
- Published
- 2024-03-18
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 426-431
- ISSN
- 2157-846X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4392897370
- Cited by
- 87
- References
- 7
- Citations by year
- 2026: 30 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 4
- FWCI
- 122.98
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Nature Biomedical Engineering (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Funders
- National Natural Science Foundation of China (STI2030, 32071045)
- Shenzhen Fundamental Research Program (JCYJ20210324134603010)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Academic Writing and Publishing
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Keywords
- generative AI, academic writing, large language models, AI-assisted writing, scientific writing quality
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