Evaluating Large Language Models on Academic Literature Understanding and Review: An Empirical Study among Early-stage Scholars
Abstract
The rapid advancement of large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT makes LLM-based academic tools possible. However, little research has empirically evaluated how scholars perform different types of academic tasks with LLMs. Through an empirical study followed by a semi-structured interview, we assessed 48 early-stage scholars’ performance in conducting core academic activities (i.e., paper reading and literature reviews) under different levels of time pressure. Before conducting the tasks, participants received different training programs regarding the limitations and capabilities of the LLMs. After completing the tasks, participants completed an interview. Quantitative data regarding the influence of time pressure, task type, and training program on participants’ performance in academic tasks was analyzed. Semi-structured interviews provided additional information on the influential factors of task performance, participants’ perceptions of LLMs, and concerns about integrating LLMs into academic workflows. The findings can guide more appropriate usage and design of LLM-based tools in assisting academic work.
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?
Large language models provide support in academic tasks like literature review.
“Wang et al. [43] analyze the support large language models provide in academic tasks like literature review, accentuating the need for proper training in their use to maximize benefits while managing risks effectively.”
From Generative AI and Academic Integrity in Higher Education: A Systematic Review and Research Agenda (2025) · cites this paper as [43]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 44 · Cited by 21
- Authors
- Wang, J., Hu, H., Wang, Z., Yan, S., Sheng, Y., & He, D.
- Affiliations
- Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (HK)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2024-05-11
- Pages
- 1-18
- OpenAlex
- W4396832709
- Cited by
- 21
- References
- 44
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 1
- FWCI
- 8.00
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Guangzhou Municipal Science and Technology Project (No. 2023A03J0011)
- Guangzhou Science and Technology Program City-University Joint Funding Project (No. 2023A03J0001)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Keywords
- large language models, time pressure, ChatGPT, paper reading
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