CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 50Technology Adoption and User BehaviourArtificial Intelligence in EducationAcademic Writing and Publishing

Adoption of AI writing tools among academic researchers: A Theory of Reasoned Action approach

Open access
Al-Bukhrani, Mohammed A., Alrefaee, Yasser Mohammed Hamid, Tawfik, Mohammed·2025·PLOS ONE
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0313837PMC PMC11717249
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This research explores the determinants affecting academic researchers’ acceptance of AI writing tools using the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA). The impact of attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived barriers on researchers’ intentions to adopt these technologies is examined through a cross-sectional survey of 150 researchers. Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) is employed to evaluate the measurement and structural models. Findings confirm the positive influence of favorable attitudes and subjective norms on intentions to use AI writing tools. Interestingly, perceived barriers did not significantly impact attitudes or intentions, suggesting that in the academic context, potential benefits may outweigh perceived obstacles to AI writing tool adoption. Contrarily, perceived barriers do not significantly affect attitudes and intentions directly. The TRA model demonstrates considerable explanatory and predictive capabilities, indicating its effectiveness in understanding AI writing tool adoption among researchers. The study’s diverse sample across various disciplines and career stages provides insights that may be generalizable to similar academic contexts, though further research with larger samples is needed to confirm broader applicability. Results offer practical guidance for tool developers, academic institutions, and publishers aiming to foster responsible and efficient AI writing tool use in academia. Findings suggest strategies such as demonstrating clear productivity gains, establishing AI Writing Tool programs, and developing comprehensive training initiatives could promote responsible adoption. Strategies focusing on cultivating positive attitudes, leveraging social influence, and addressing perceived barriers could be particularly effective in promoting adoption. This pioneering study investigates researchers’ acceptance of AI writing tools using a technology acceptance model, contributing to the understanding of technology adoption in professional contexts and highlighting the importance of field-specific factors in examining adoption intentions and behaviors.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0313837

Cites

85 of 85 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Many teachers continue to use AI tools despite limited prior exposure and structured training, as opportunities for guided practice are currently limited.

    “Many teachers continue to use AI tools despite limited prior exposure and structured training, as opportunities for guided practice are currently limited [5–7].”

    From Ethical engagement with artificial intelligence in faculty research education: evaluation of the New Knowledge Help (NKH) approach (2026) · cites this paper as [5]

    The Results (Descriptive statistics; page unavailable) report uneven prior familiarity and continued use of AI writing tools among surveyed academic researchers, including faculty. The paper does not establish that teachers use them despite limited structured training or that guided-practice opportunities are currently limited; its Practical implications section recommends workshops and mentoring rather than measuring their availability. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Faculty often lack structured training on the effective and ethical use of AI.

    “faculty often lack structured training on its effective and ethical use.”

    From Ethical engagement with artificial intelligence in faculty research education: evaluation of the New Knowledge Help (NKH) approach (2026) · cites this paper as [5]

    The Discussion’s Practical implications section recommends workshops and training sessions for faculty to address skill-related barriers, alongside clearer ethical guidelines (page unavailable). It does not establish that faculty often lack structured training, so the claim’s assertion about how common that lack is remains unsupported. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Current faculty development programmes often introduce tools in isolation to emphasise general familiarity, rather than positioning AI as a general tool to be used across various phases of research.

    “Current programmes often introduce tools in isolation to emphasise general familiarity, rather than positioning AI as a general tool to be used across various phases of research from idea generation to research dissemination [5, 7, 10].”

    From Ethical engagement with artificial intelligence in faculty research education: evaluation of the New Knowledge Help (NKH) approach (2026) · cites this paper as [5]

    The Discussion’s Practical implications section recommends workshops to familiarize faculty with AI writing tools, and the Results describe limited use of some advanced features. Neither section assesses current faculty development programmes or says they introduce tools in isolation rather than across research phases. Searches for programme design and research stages found no passage addressing that comparison; page numbers were unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.72)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Existing faculty development initiatives frequently emphasise tool awareness rather than supporting ethical, reflective, and process-oriented engagement with AI.

    “Existing faculty development initiatives frequently emphasise tool awareness rather than supporting ethical, reflective, and process-oriented engagement with AI.”

    From Ethical engagement with artificial intelligence in faculty research education: evaluation of the New Knowledge Help (NKH) approach (2026) · cites this paper as [5]

    The Discussion’s Practical implications section recommends both workshops to build familiarity and ethical guidelines for AI use. It does not assess existing faculty development initiatives or say they frequently prioritize tool awareness over ethical, reflective, and process-oriented engagement. Searches for that comparison and for existing training programs found no supporting passage; page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.74)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [12]Hee-Young CHO, Hoe-Chang Y, HWANG B-J. The Effect of ChatGPT Factors & Innovativeness on Switching Intention: Using Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA). J Distrib Sci. 2023; 21: 83– 96.
  2. [13]Roh T, Park B Il, Xiao SS. Adoption of AI-enabled Robo-advisors in Fintech: Simultaneous Employment of UTAUT and the Theory of Reasoned Action. J Electron Commer Res. 2023; 24: 29– 47.
  3. [74]Hair JF, Hult GTM, Ringle C, Sarstedt M, Danks N, Ray S. Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) using R: A workbook. Springer. 2021.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Al-Bukhrani, M. A., Alrefaee, Y. M. H., & Tawfik, M.
Affiliations
  • Albaydha University (YE)
  • Sana'a University (YE)
ORCID
Venue
PLOS ONE
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2025-01-09
Volume
20
Issue
1
Pages
e0313837
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0313837
PMC
PMC11717249
OpenAlex
W4406200451
Cited by
50
References
85
Citations by year
2026: 27 · 2025: 23
FWCI
49.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Academic Writing and Publishing
Keywords
AI writing tools, technology adoption, academic researchers, theory of reasoned action, attitudes, subjective norms, perceived barriers, adoption intention, responsible AI use, academic writing, technology acceptance
MeSH terms
Theory of Planned Behavior, Adult, Artificial Intelligence, Attitude, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Humans, Male, Surveys and Questionnaires, Research Personnel, Writing, Intention

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