Cited by 6Academic Writing and PublishingArtificial Intelligence in EducationMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

Supporting Novice Researchers to Write Literature Review using Language Models

Choe, Kiroong, Park, Seokhyeon, Jung, Seokweon, Kim, Hyeok, Yang, Ji Won, Hong, Hwajung, Seo, Jinwook·2024·Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

Abstract

A literature review requires more than summarization. While language model-based services and systems increasingly assist in analyzing accurate content in papers, their role in supporting novice researchers to develop independent perspectives on literature remains underexplored. We propose the design and evaluation of a system that supports the writing of argumentative narratives from literature. Based on the barriers faced by novice researchers before, during, and after writing, identified through semi-structured interviews, we propose a prototype of a language-model-assisted academic writing system that scaffolds the literature review writing process. A series of workshop studies revealed that novice researchers found the support valuable as they could initiate writing, co-create satisfying contents, and develop agency and confidence through a long-term dynamic partnership with the AI.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3613905.3650787

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • In the Academic context, translating support provides preliminary drafts or helps the user to restructure their ideas in a different form, but encourages the user to write and integrate ideas on their own.

    “Translating support provides preliminary drafts or helps the user to restructure their ideas in a different form (e.g., point form to prose), but encourages the user to write and integrate ideas on their own [21,122,124].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Choe, K., Park, S., Jung, S., Kim, H., Yang, J. W., Hong, H., & Seo, J.
Affiliations
  • Seoul National University (KR)
  • Northwestern University (US)
  • Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KR)
Venue
Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
Publisher
ACM
Published
2024-05-02
Pages
1-9
OpenAlex
W4396832129
Cited by
6
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4
FWCI
24.71
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA) (publishedVersion)
  • KAIST Institutional Repository (KAIST) (submittedVersion)
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
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Keywords
literature review writing, novice researchers, language models, AI-assisted writing, writing scaffolding, academic writing support, researcher agency, human-AI collaboration

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