The DOI matches its Crossref record; 30 of the 33 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 2 are not checked yet; none of the 93 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
The Role of AI in Academic Writing: Impacts on Writing Skills, Critical Thinking, and Integrity in Higher Education
Open accessAbstract
Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools have transformed academic writing and literacy development in higher education. Students can now receive instant feedback on grammar, coherence, style, and argumentation using AI-powered writing assistants, like Grammarly, ChatGPT, and QuillBot. Moreover, these writing assistants can quickly produce completed essays and papers, leaving little else for the student to do aside from reading and perhaps editing the content. Many teachers are concerned that this erodes critical thinking skills and undermines ethical considerations since students are not performing the work themselves. This study addresses this concern by synthesizing and evaluating peer-reviewed literature on the effectiveness of AI in supporting writing pedagogy. Studies were selected based on their relevance and scholarly merit, following the Scale for the Assessment of Narrative Review Articles (SANRA) guidelines to ensure methodological rigor and quality. The findings reveal that although AI tools can be detrimental to the development of writing skills, they can foster self-directed learning and improvement when carefully integrated into coursework. They can facilitate enhanced writing fluency, offer personalized tutoring, and reduce the cognitive load of drafting and revising. This study also compares AI-assisted and traditional writing approaches and discusses best practices for integrating AI tools into curricula while preserving academic integrity and creativity in student writing.
Checked 2026-10-06 · 2 references not checked yet
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This narrative review synthesizes 20 studies on AI writing tools in higher education, finding benefits for grammar, efficiency, and accessibility but risks to critical thinking, originality, and academic integrity. It recommends a hybrid approach that uses AI for mechanical support while preserving traditional instruction for argumentation and long-term skill development.
Key findings
- From 261 initially retrieved articles, 20 studies met eligibility; the included studies used systematic reviews, quantitative analyses, qualitative investigations, and mixed-method research. AI tools such as ChatGPT, Grammarly, and QuillBot can improve grammar, coherence, writing efficiency, personalized feedback, and support for non-native English speakers, while reducing cognitive load during drafting and revising.
- Concerns include over-reliance on AI weakening decision-making, critical thinking, and analytical skills; ethical issues around plagiarism, originality, and academic integrity; and AI’s limited ability to understand context, nuance, sarcasm, irony, tone shifts, and creative or subjective writing.
- AI tools enhance short-term writing proficiency and efficiency, but traditional instruction is described as superior for deep cognitive engagement, critical thinking, and long-term skill retention; the review recommends a balanced or hybrid approach.
Methods
- Narrative review searching EBSCOhost, ERIC, and JSTOR, with Google Scholar as a supplementary resource; Boolean operators were used, and inclusion/exclusion criteria covered publication dates 2023–2025, peer-reviewed sources, English-language publications, higher education contexts, AI writing tools, and ethical/pedagogical considerations.
- Study selection followed SANRA guidelines; after screening 261 articles and removing duplicates, 20 studies were finalized for inclusion.
- The review qualitatively synthesized extracted data and themes, summarized in Tables 3 and 4; no new data were created or analyzed.
Limitations
- The paper states that its narrative methodology is inherently interpretive and less replicable than systematic or scoping reviews, so findings should be understood as exploratory reflections rather than definitive tests of theory. It also states that the number of studies meeting inclusion criteria was limited, reflecting the novelty of the field, and that the research questions were not all closely interrelated through a single theoretical lens, which may have reduced depth of engagement with particular frameworks.
- Evident from the text: the review is restricted to English-language, peer-reviewed, higher-education-focused studies published between 2023 and 2025, excluding K-12 students, industry professionals, non-English studies, and non-peer-reviewed sources; the final empirical base is only 20 studies, and no new data were collected.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
65 Not checked yet · 29 Own interpretation · 6 Own method · 2 Own result · 1 No basis given
In the paper
“Naturally, many students view AI writing tools as beneficial aids that help them improve the quality and efficiency of their writing [13].”
§ The Role of AI in Academic Writing: Impacts on Writing Skills, Critical Thinking, and Integrity in Higher Education > 4.4.1. The Students' Perspectives
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [13] Khalifa, M., and Albadawy, M. (2024). Using artificial intelligence in academic writing and research: An essential productivity tool. Comput. Methods Programs Biomed. Update, 5. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“For example, non-native English speakers can use these tools to enhance their proficiency in English writing [20,22].”
- Also stated in: § 4.1.1. Improving Grammar and Writing Efficiency · plain
“Moreover, these tools can help non-native English speakers improve their language proficiency by offering suggestions for sentence construction and proper word usage.”
§ The Role of AI in Academic Writing: Impacts on Writing Skills, Critical Thinking, and Integrity in Higher Education > 1.2. Potential Benefits of AI in Writing Instruction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [20] Chen, C., and Gong, Y. (2025). The Role of AI-Assisted Learning in Academic Writing: A Mixed-Methods Study on Chinese as a Second Language Students. Educ. Sci., 15. source
- Not checked yetcites [22] Chalkiadakis, A., Seremetaki, A., Kanellou, A., Kallishi, M., Morfopoulou, A., Moraitaki, M., and Mastrokoukou, S. (2024). Impact of Artificial Intelligence and Virtual Reality on Educational Inclusion: A Systematic Review of Technologies Supporting Students with Disabilities. Educ. Sci., 14. source
- Not checked yetcites [9] Wang, L., and Ren, B. (2024). Enhancing Academic Writing in a Linguistics Course with Generative AI: An Empirical Study in a Higher Education Institution in Hong Kong. Educ. Sci., 14. source
- Not checked yetcites [13] Khalifa, M., and Albadawy, M. (2024). Using artificial intelligence in academic writing and research: An essential productivity tool. Comput. Methods Programs Biomed. Update, 5. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § 4.1.1. Improving Grammar and Writing Efficiency · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The findings reveal that although AI tools can be detrimental to the development of writing skills, they can foster self-directed learning and improvement when carefully integrated into coursework.”
§ The Role of AI in Academic Writing: Impacts on Writing Skills, Critical Thinking, and Integrity in Higher Education > Abstract
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The findings reveal that although AI tools can be detrimental to the development of writing skills, they can foster self-directed learning and improvement when carefully integrated into coursework.”
§ The Role of AI in Academic Writing: Impacts on Writing Skills, Critical Thinking, and Integrity in Higher Education > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“From an instructional perspective, AI tools can help educators assess student writing by identifying common errors and producing personalized instruction [2].”
§ The Role of AI in Academic Writing: Impacts on Writing Skills, Critical Thinking, and Integrity in Higher Education > 1.2. Potential Benefits of AI in Writing Instruction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [2] Marzuki, 2023, The impact of AI writing tools on the content and organization of students’ writing: EFL teachers’ perspective, Cogent Educ. source
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Many students may unknowingly engage in academic dishonesty by submitting AI-generated or paraphrased content without realizing its ethical implications [6,9].”
§ The Role of AI in Academic Writing: Impacts on Writing Skills, Critical Thinking, and Integrity in Higher Education > 4.2.2. Ethical Concerns
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [6] Dwivedi, 2023, “So what if ChatGPT wrote it?” Multidisciplinary perspectives on opportunities, challenges and implications of generative conversational AI for research, practice and policy, Int. J. Inf. Manag.
- Not checked yetcites [9] Wang, L., and Ren, B. (2024). Enhancing Academic Writing in a Linguistics Course with Generative AI: An Empirical Study in a Higher Education Institution in Hong Kong. Educ. Sci., 14. source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“This is because AI tools cannot fully understand specific nuances of argumentation, tone, and discipline-specific writing conventions.”
- Also stated in: § 4.2.3. Context and Nuances · hedged
“AI writing tools often struggle with context and nuanced language, particularly when handling idiomatic expressions or culturally specific phrases [2,28].”
- Also stated in: § 4.2.3. Context and Nuances · plain
“Additionally, AI struggles with creative and subjective writing, such as poetry or literary analysis, which require a deeper comprehension of emotions and themes.”
§ The Role of AI in Academic Writing: Impacts on Writing Skills, Critical Thinking, and Integrity in Higher Education > 1.3. Challenges and Ethical Considerations
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [2] Marzuki, 2023, The impact of AI writing tools on the content and organization of students’ writing: EFL teachers’ perspective, Cogent Educ. source
- Not checked yetcites [28] Kim, 2025, Exploring students’ perspectives on Generative AI-assisted academic writing, Educ. Inf. Technol. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § 4.2.3. Context and Nuances · hedged
In the paper
“Additionally, AI tools that make content suggestions can help students overcome writer's block by providing prompts, sentence suggestions, and guidance on structuring an essay.”
§ The Role of AI in Academic Writing: Impacts on Writing Skills, Critical Thinking, and Integrity in Higher Education > 4.1.1. Improving Grammar and Writing Efficiency
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [2] Marzuki, 2023, The impact of AI writing tools on the content and organization of students’ writing: EFL teachers’ perspective, Cogent Educ. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Moreover, in large classroom settings, where individualized instructor feedback may be limited, AI can serve as a valuable supplementary resource, thereby enhancing overall student learning outcomes [24].”
§ The Role of AI in Academic Writing: Impacts on Writing Skills, Critical Thinking, and Integrity in Higher Education > 1.2. Potential Benefits of AI in Writing Instruction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [24] Ahn, H.Y. (2024). AI-Powered E-Learning for Lifelong Learners: Impact on Performance and Knowledge Application. Sustainability, 16. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“To ensure the methodological rigor of the review, the study selection process followed the SANRA (Scale for the Assessment of Narrative Review Articles) guidelines [27], ensuring that only high-quality studies were included.”
§ The Role of AI in Academic Writing: Impacts on Writing Skills, Critical Thinking, and Integrity in Higher Education > 2.3. Review Strategy
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [27] Baethge, 2019, SANRA—A scale for the quality assessment of narrative review articles, Res. Integr. Peer Rev. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 41
- Probably not a substantial claim. 39
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“AI-assisted writing tools can substantially improve grammar, coherence, and argumentation, making writing more accessible and efficient [2,28].”
- Also stated in: § 4.1.1. Improving Grammar and Writing Efficiency · plain
“AI tools offer several advantages in terms of improving grammar, coherence, and arguments.”
§ The Role of AI in Academic Writing: Impacts on Writing Skills, Critical Thinking, and Integrity in Higher Education > 4.3. Addressing the Challenges of Using AI-Assisted Writing Tools
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [2] Marzuki, 2023, The impact of AI writing tools on the content and organization of students’ writing: EFL teachers’ perspective, Cogent Educ. source
- Not checked yetcites [28] Kim, 2025, Exploring students’ perspectives on Generative AI-assisted academic writing, Educ. Inf. Technol. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § 4.1.1. Improving Grammar and Writing Efficiency · plain
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“They can facilitate enhanced writing fluency, offer personalized tutoring, and reduce the cognitive load of drafting and revising.”
- Also stated in: § 4.1.1. Improving Grammar and Writing Efficiency · plain
“One of the most significant benefits of AI writing tools is that they can enhance writing efficiency [13,15].”
- Also stated in: § 1.2. Potential Benefits of AI in Writing Instruction · plain
“In addition, by assisting students in drafting and revising complex academic texts, AI tools can reduce their cognitive load, enabling them to focus on higher-order thinking and critical analysis [24,25].”
§ The Role of AI in Academic Writing: Impacts on Writing Skills, Critical Thinking, and Integrity in Higher Education > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [13] Khalifa, M., and Albadawy, M. (2024). Using artificial intelligence in academic writing and research: An essential productivity tool. Comput. Methods Programs Biomed. Update, 5. source
- Not checked yetcites [15] Zhai, 2024, The effects of over-reliance on AI dialogue systems on students’ cognitive abilities: A systematic review, Smart Learn. Environ. source
- Not checked yetcites [24] Ahn, H.Y. (2024). AI-Powered E-Learning for Lifelong Learners: Impact on Performance and Knowledge Application. Sustainability, 16. source
- Not checked yetcites [25] Pellas, N. (2025). The Impact of AI-Generated Instructional Videos on Problem-Based Learning in Science Teacher Education. Educ. Sci., 15. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § 4.1.1. Improving Grammar and Writing Efficiency · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Out of the 261 articles initially retrieved, only 20 studies satisfied the eligibility criteria and were included in the final analysis.”
§ The Role of AI in Academic Writing: Impacts on Writing Skills, Critical Thinking, and Integrity in Higher Education > Screening Outcomes
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The 20 chosen studies employed various research methods, including systematic reviews, quantitative analyses, qualitative investigations, and mixed-method research.”
§ The Role of AI in Academic Writing: Impacts on Writing Skills, Critical Thinking, and Integrity in Higher Education > Screening Outcomes
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Students viewed AI as a multi-tasking assistant, virtual tutor, and digital peer in writing.AI improved writing efficiency and organization but raised concerns about accuracy, biases, and ethical use.”
§ The Role of AI in Academic Writing: Impacts on Writing Skills, Critical Thinking, and Integrity in Higher Education > S8 Fiorillo, 2024 [7] Cross-Country Content Analysis
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [28] Kim, 2025, Exploring students’ perspectives on Generative AI-assisted academic writing, Educ. Inf. Technol. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“While many educators acknowledge the clear advantages of AI in helping students improve their grammar and content organization, they have mixed opinions on the effectiveness of using these tools in academic settings [23].”
§ The Role of AI in Academic Writing: Impacts on Writing Skills, Critical Thinking, and Integrity in Higher Education > 4.4.2. Educators' Perspectives
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [23] Schei, O.M., Møgelvang, A., and Ludvigsen, K. (2024). Perceptions and Use of AI Chatbots among Students in Higher Education: A Scoping Review of Empirical Studies. Educ. Sci., 14. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Many have expressed concerns that these tools can undermine critical thinking, logical reasoning, and creativity [21,23].”
§ The Role of AI in Academic Writing: Impacts on Writing Skills, Critical Thinking, and Integrity in Higher Education > 4.4.1. The Students' Perspectives
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [21] Ruiz-Rojas, L.I., Salvador-Ullauri, L., and Acosta-Vargas, P. (2024). Collaborative Working and Critical Thinking: Adoption of Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools in Higher Education. Sustainability, 16. source
- Not checked yetcites [23] Schei, O.M., Møgelvang, A., and Ludvigsen, K. (2024). Perceptions and Use of AI Chatbots among Students in Higher Education: A Scoping Review of Empirical Studies. Educ. Sci., 14. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Moreover, AI enables students to engage with writing at their own pace, eliminating the need to wait for instructor feedback and thereby fostering self-directed learning [20].”
§ The Role of AI in Academic Writing: Impacts on Writing Skills, Critical Thinking, and Integrity in Higher Education > 1.2. Potential Benefits of AI in Writing Instruction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [20] Chen, C., and Gong, Y. (2025). The Role of AI-Assisted Learning in Academic Writing: A Mixed-Methods Study on Chinese as a Second Language Students. Educ. Sci., 15. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Furthermore, some AI-generated content may be based on pre-existing data and training sets that include inaccuracies or biased perspectives, leading to concerns that AI models could inadvertently produce responses that resemble previously published or even discredited materials.”
§ The Role of AI in Academic Writing: Impacts on Writing Skills, Critical Thinking, and Integrity in Higher Education > 4.2.2. Ethical Concerns
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [19] Gawlik-Kobylińska, M. (2024). Harnessing Artificial Intelligence for Enhanced Scientific Collaboration: Insights from Students and Educational Implications. Educ. Sci., 14. source
- Not checked yetcites [28] Kim, 2025, Exploring students’ perspectives on Generative AI-assisted academic writing, Educ. Inf. Technol. source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The instant nature of the feedback provided also reduces the need for external proofreading, thereby improving efficiency [9].”
§ The Role of AI in Academic Writing: Impacts on Writing Skills, Critical Thinking, and Integrity in Higher Education > 4.1.1. Improving Grammar and Writing Efficiency
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [9] Wang, L., and Ren, B. (2024). Enhancing Academic Writing in a Linguistics Course with Generative AI: An Empirical Study in a Higher Education Institution in Hong Kong. Educ. Sci., 14. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“AI writing tools can enhance clarity and efficiency in research but require ethical oversight to prevent biases and misinformation.”
§ The Role of AI in Academic Writing: Impacts on Writing Skills, Critical Thinking, and Integrity in Higher Education > S8 Fiorillo, 2024 [7] Cross-Country Content Analysis
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [7] Fiorillo, 2024, Confronting the demonization of AI writing: Reevaluating its role in upholding scientific integrity, Oral Oncol. Rep. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“A primary concern among educators is the potential for students' overreliance on AI-generated suggestions, which may lead to factual inaccuracies, diminished critical thinking, and a decline in independent problem-solving abilities [15].”
- Also stated in: § 4.2. The Limits and Challenges of AI-Assisted Writing Tools · plain
“This can ultimately diminish their creativity and critical thinking abilities [2].”
- Also stated in: § 4.2. The Limits and Challenges of AI-Assisted Writing Tools · hedged
“This lack of engagement can easily lead to a decline in students' critical thinking skills [2,15,28].”
§ The Role of AI in Academic Writing: Impacts on Writing Skills, Critical Thinking, and Integrity in Higher Education > 1.3. Challenges and Ethical Considerations
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [15] Zhai, 2024, The effects of over-reliance on AI dialogue systems on students’ cognitive abilities: A systematic review, Smart Learn. Environ. source
- Not checked yetcites [2] Marzuki, 2023, The impact of AI writing tools on the content and organization of students’ writing: EFL teachers’ perspective, Cogent Educ. source
- Not checked yetcites [28] Kim, 2025, Exploring students’ perspectives on Generative AI-assisted academic writing, Educ. Inf. Technol. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
- Also stated in: § 4.2. The Limits and Challenges of AI-Assisted Writing Tools · plain
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“For example, certain AI programs are capable of delivering formative feedback, highlighting areas requiring improvement, and recommending revisions aligned with established writing conventions and best practices [13,20].”
§ The Role of AI in Academic Writing: Impacts on Writing Skills, Critical Thinking, and Integrity in Higher Education > 1.2. Potential Benefits of AI in Writing Instruction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [13] Khalifa, M., and Albadawy, M. (2024). Using artificial intelligence in academic writing and research: An essential productivity tool. Comput. Methods Programs Biomed. Update, 5. source
- Not checked yetcites [20] Chen, C., and Gong, Y. (2025). The Role of AI-Assisted Learning in Academic Writing: A Mixed-Methods Study on Chinese as a Second Language Students. Educ. Sci., 15. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The selection of studies for this review was guided by clearly defined inclusion and exclusion criteria, as presented in Table 2.”
§ The Role of AI in Academic Writing: Impacts on Writing Skills, Critical Thinking, and Integrity in Higher Education > 2.2. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“This excessive reliance on AI may weaken students' ability to engage deeply with their subjects and hinder their capacity to produce original work [6,9].”
§ The Role of AI in Academic Writing: Impacts on Writing Skills, Critical Thinking, and Integrity in Higher Education > 4.2.2. Ethical Concerns
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [6] Dwivedi, 2023, “So what if ChatGPT wrote it?” Multidisciplinary perspectives on opportunities, challenges and implications of generative conversational AI for research, practice and policy, Int. J. Inf. Manag.
- Not checked yetcites [9] Wang, L., and Ren, B. (2024). Enhancing Academic Writing in a Linguistics Course with Generative AI: An Empirical Study in a Higher Education Institution in Hong Kong. Educ. Sci., 14. source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“This process helps eliminate redundancy, improve word choice, and enhance clarity, enabling writers to produce clear, concise, and well-organized content [2].”
§ The Role of AI in Academic Writing: Impacts on Writing Skills, Critical Thinking, and Integrity in Higher Education > 4.1.2. Strengthen Logical Reasoning, Critical Thinking, and Evidence-Based Writing
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [2] Marzuki, 2023, The impact of AI writing tools on the content and organization of students’ writing: EFL teachers’ perspective, Cogent Educ. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“They can even generate entire essays and help students formulate arguments, saving the students significant time and improving their language use, accuracy, and coherence, among other benefits [12].”
§ The Role of AI in Academic Writing: Impacts on Writing Skills, Critical Thinking, and Integrity in Higher Education > 4.1. The Benefits of Using AI-Assisted Writing Tools
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [12] Gasaymeh, A.M.M., Beirat, M.A., and Qbeita, A.A.A. (2024). University Students’ Insights of Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) Writing Tools. Educ. Sci., 14. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“AI blurs this definition, as its generated content, while not directly copied from existing sources, is still created by an external tool rather than a student's independent intellectual effort [15,30].”
§ The Role of AI in Academic Writing: Impacts on Writing Skills, Critical Thinking, and Integrity in Higher Education > 4.2.2. Ethical Concerns
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [15] Zhai, 2024, The effects of over-reliance on AI dialogue systems on students’ cognitive abilities: A systematic review, Smart Learn. Environ. source
- Not checked yetcites [30] McIntire, A., Calvert, I., and Ashcraft, J. (2024). Pressure to Plagiarize and the Choice to Cheat: Toward a Pragmatic Reframing of the Ethics of Academic Integrity. Educ. Sci., 14. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“AI enhances efficiency and idea generation in academic collaboration but raises concerns about technical difficulties, over-reliance, and ethical considerations.”
§ The Role of AI in Academic Writing: Impacts on Writing Skills, Critical Thinking, and Integrity in Higher Education > S8 Fiorillo, 2024 [7] Cross-Country Content Analysis
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [19] Gawlik-Kobylińska, M. (2024). Harnessing Artificial Intelligence for Enhanced Scientific Collaboration: Insights from Students and Educational Implications. Educ. Sci., 14. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“AI writing tools provide polished, well-structured responses but often lack genuine insight, critical analysis, and the writer's unique voice.”
§ The Role of AI in Academic Writing: Impacts on Writing Skills, Critical Thinking, and Integrity in Higher Education > 4.2.2. Ethical Concerns
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“During this stage, duplicate studies were identified and removed to prevent redundancy.”
§ The Role of AI in Academic Writing: Impacts on Writing Skills, Critical Thinking, and Integrity in Higher Education > 2.3. Review Strategy
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“AI can enhance personalized learning and educational accessibility but also poses risks to academic integrity, such as plagiarism and AI-generated content misuse.”
§ The Role of AI in Academic Writing: Impacts on Writing Skills, Critical Thinking, and Integrity in Higher Education > S8 Fiorillo, 2024 [7] Cross-Country Content Analysis
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [29] Artyukhov, A., Wołowiec, T., Artyukhova, N., Bogacki, S., and Vasylieva, T. (2024). SDG 4, Academic Integrity and Artificial Intelligence: Clash or Win-Win Cooperation?. Sustainability, 16. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“These tools can assist students in identifying credible sources, improving transitions between ideas, and ensuring overall consistency in arguments [2].”
§ The Role of AI in Academic Writing: Impacts on Writing Skills, Critical Thinking, and Integrity in Higher Education > 4.1.2. Strengthen Logical Reasoning, Critical Thinking, and Evidence-Based Writing
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [2] Marzuki, 2023, The impact of AI writing tools on the content and organization of students’ writing: EFL teachers’ perspective, Cogent Educ. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Similarly, students with learning disabilities can use AI for clearer explanations, real-time corrections, and writing suggestions, thereby improving their overall writing proficiency [23].”
§ The Role of AI in Academic Writing: Impacts on Writing Skills, Critical Thinking, and Integrity in Higher Education > 1.2. Potential Benefits of AI in Writing Instruction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [23] Schei, O.M., Møgelvang, A., and Ludvigsen, K. (2024). Perceptions and Use of AI Chatbots among Students in Higher Education: A Scoping Review of Empirical Studies. Educ. Sci., 14. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Moreover, AI-powered paraphrasing tools, like QuillBot, enable users to rephrase extensive passages with minimal effort, often producing surface-level changes that lack meaningful engagement with the original ideas.”
§ The Role of AI in Academic Writing: Impacts on Writing Skills, Critical Thinking, and Integrity in Higher Education > 4.2.2. Ethical Concerns
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [6] Dwivedi, 2023, “So what if ChatGPT wrote it?” Multidisciplinary perspectives on opportunities, challenges and implications of generative conversational AI for research, practice and policy, Int. J. Inf. Manag.
- Not checked yetcites [9] Wang, L., and Ren, B. (2024). Enhancing Academic Writing in a Linguistics Course with Generative AI: An Empirical Study in a Higher Education Institution in Hong Kong. Educ. Sci., 14. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, while AI tools are widely used in higher education, their impact on younger students, professional writers, and various academic disciplines remains largely underexplored.”
§ The Role of AI in Academic Writing: Impacts on Writing Skills, Critical Thinking, and Integrity in Higher Education > 5. Conclusions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Through this process, students can improve sentence structure, refine word choices, and enhance coherence [9].”
§ The Role of AI in Academic Writing: Impacts on Writing Skills, Critical Thinking, and Integrity in Higher Education > 4.6.1. AI as a Learning Aid
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [9] Wang, L., and Ren, B. (2024). Enhancing Academic Writing in a Linguistics Course with Generative AI: An Empirical Study in a Higher Education Institution in Hong Kong. Educ. Sci., 14. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“While AI primarily focuses on surface-level improvements, traditional instruction enables students to internalize writing principles and develop a deeper understanding of the reasoning behind grammatical and structural rules [9,32].”
§ The Role of AI in Academic Writing: Impacts on Writing Skills, Critical Thinking, and Integrity in Higher Education > 4.5.1. Impact on Learning Outcomes
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [9] Wang, L., and Ren, B. (2024). Enhancing Academic Writing in a Linguistics Course with Generative AI: An Empirical Study in a Higher Education Institution in Hong Kong. Educ. Sci., 14. source
- Not checked yetcites [32] Dhanapal, 2024, Impact of Artificial Intelligence Versus Traditional Instruction for Language Learning: A Survey, World J. Engl. Lang. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“AI-based writing tools are transforming writing instruction by providing real-time feedback, improving grammatical accuracy, and enhancing textual coherence.”
§ The Role of AI in Academic Writing: Impacts on Writing Skills, Critical Thinking, and Integrity in Higher Education > 5. Conclusions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Because AI is a relatively recent development, research on AI-assisted writing is still in its early stages.”
§ The Role of AI in Academic Writing: Impacts on Writing Skills, Critical Thinking, and Integrity in Higher Education > 5. Conclusions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In contrast, AI operates in isolation, offering corrections but lacking the ability to facilitate dialogue or peer interactions.”
§ The Role of AI in Academic Writing: Impacts on Writing Skills, Critical Thinking, and Integrity in Higher Education > 4.5.2. The Role of Instructional Effectiveness
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Combining AI feedback with human feedback helps students recognize the importance of using both in a comprehensive learning process.”
§ The Role of AI in Academic Writing: Impacts on Writing Skills, Critical Thinking, and Integrity in Higher Education > 4.6.2. AI Collaboration
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Given that AI tools can provide instant feedback, students can work at their own pace, and those requiring additional support can benefit from AI assistance without the necessity of one-on-one tutoring [33].”
§ The Role of AI in Academic Writing: Impacts on Writing Skills, Critical Thinking, and Integrity in Higher Education > 4.6.3. Individualized Learning
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [33] Lin, 2023, Artificial intelligence in intelligent tutoring systems toward sustainable education: A systematic review, Smart Learn. Environ. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, since AI models lack the ability to fully grasp nuanced writing, evaluating originality beyond basic structural improvements becomes challenging.”
§ The Role of AI in Academic Writing: Impacts on Writing Skills, Critical Thinking, and Integrity in Higher Education > 5. Conclusions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: AI tools lack the ability to fully understand context, tone, deep meaning, and nuanced writing.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The ethical concerns surrounding AI-assisted writing primarily revolve around plagiarism, originality, and academic integrity.”
§ The Role of AI in Academic Writing: Impacts on Writing Skills, Critical Thinking, and Integrity in Higher Education > 5. Conclusions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These tools can provide immediate and continuous corrections and assistance, offering a distinct advantage over traditional instruction methods, which are often limited by instructors' availability and time constraints.”
§ The Role of AI in Academic Writing: Impacts on Writing Skills, Critical Thinking, and Integrity in Higher Education > 5. Conclusions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As a result, they have made writing more efficient and accessible, particularly for non-native English speakers.”
§ The Role of AI in Academic Writing: Impacts on Writing Skills, Critical Thinking, and Integrity in Higher Education > 5. Conclusions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the findings should be understood as exploratory reflections rather than definitive tests of theory.”
§ The Role of AI in Academic Writing: Impacts on Writing Skills, Critical Thinking, and Integrity in Higher Education > 4.7. Limitations of the Current Review
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Rests on an assumption: Narrative reviews are inherently interpretive and less replicable than systematic or scoping reviews.
In the paper
“While these tools provide instant and consistent feedback, they lack the depth and contextual understanding inherent in human assessment [32].”
§ The Role of AI in Academic Writing: Impacts on Writing Skills, Critical Thinking, and Integrity in Higher Education > 4.5.2. The Role of Instructional Effectiveness
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [32] Dhanapal, 2024, Impact of Artificial Intelligence Versus Traditional Instruction for Language Learning: A Survey, World J. Engl. Lang. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Yet, the questions were not all closely interrelated through a single theoretical lens, which may have reduced the depth of engagement with particular frameworks.”
§ The Role of AI in Academic Writing: Impacts on Writing Skills, Critical Thinking, and Integrity in Higher Education > 4.7. Limitations of the Current Review
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“This approach encourages students to actively participate in their learning rather than passively accepting AI-generated corrections [21].”
§ The Role of AI in Academic Writing: Impacts on Writing Skills, Critical Thinking, and Integrity in Higher Education > 4.6.1. AI as a Learning Aid
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [21] Ruiz-Rojas, L.I., Salvador-Ullauri, L., and Acosta-Vargas, P. (2024). Collaborative Working and Critical Thinking: Adoption of Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools in Higher Education. Sustainability, 16. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Moreover, educators can incorporate exercises where students analyze AI-generated content to identify strengths and weaknesses, enhancing their critical thinking and analytical skills to further improve their writing [28].”
§ The Role of AI in Academic Writing: Impacts on Writing Skills, Critical Thinking, and Integrity in Higher Education > 4.6.2. AI Collaboration
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [28] Kim, 2025, Exploring students’ perspectives on Generative AI-assisted academic writing, Educ. Inf. Technol. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For example, exercises that require students to explain and justify the revisions suggested by AI tools are an effective way for instructors to ensure students actively engage in the learning process.”
§ The Role of AI in Academic Writing: Impacts on Writing Skills, Critical Thinking, and Integrity in Higher Education > 5. Conclusions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Despite these benefits, traditional instruction methods remain superior in fostering deep cognitive engagement, critical thinking, and long-term skill retention.”
§ The Role of AI in Academic Writing: Impacts on Writing Skills, Critical Thinking, and Integrity in Higher Education > 5. Conclusions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Transparency in AI usage ensures ethical guidelines are followed [15].”
§ The Role of AI in Academic Writing: Impacts on Writing Skills, Critical Thinking, and Integrity in Higher Education > 4.6.5. Ethical Considerations
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [15] Zhai, 2024, The effects of over-reliance on AI dialogue systems on students’ cognitive abilities: A systematic review, Smart Learn. Environ. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Implementing these guidelines can help curb over-reliance on AI and prevent ethical violations that arise from uncritically accepting AI-generated content.”
§ The Role of AI in Academic Writing: Impacts on Writing Skills, Critical Thinking, and Integrity in Higher Education > 5. Conclusions
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: When students misuse AI-generated content, they bypass the intellectual effort essential for deep learning.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“AI writing tools serve as valuable supplements to help students improve their writing mechanics, though they cannot replace the cognitive engagement and critical thinking skills necessary for long-term writing proficiency.”
§ The Role of AI in Academic Writing: Impacts on Writing Skills, Critical Thinking, and Integrity in Higher Education > 4.6. Best Practices for Integrating AI Tools into Writing Curricula to Foster Student Learning
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“This approach compels students to reflect on their writing process and remain actively involved in their learning [21].”
§ The Role of AI in Academic Writing: Impacts on Writing Skills, Critical Thinking, and Integrity in Higher Education > 4.6.4. Critical Thinking and Argumentation
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [21] Ruiz-Rojas, L.I., Salvador-Ullauri, L., and Acosta-Vargas, P. (2024). Collaborative Working and Critical Thinking: Adoption of Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools in Higher Education. Sustainability, 16. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This will help prevent students from becoming overly dependent on AI-generated content.”
§ The Role of AI in Academic Writing: Impacts on Writing Skills, Critical Thinking, and Integrity in Higher Education > 5. Conclusions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Educators can also use AI-generated reports on students' common writing errors to tailor their instruction and identify patterns they can address in targeted lessons.”
§ The Role of AI in Academic Writing: Impacts on Writing Skills, Critical Thinking, and Integrity in Higher Education > 4.6.3. Individualized Learning
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“AI provides students with a polished product, but it does not require them to engage fully in the writing and learning process.”
§ The Role of AI in Academic Writing: Impacts on Writing Skills, Critical Thinking, and Integrity in Higher Education > 4.5.1. Impact on Learning Outcomes
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“AI can also help with brainstorming to assist students in generating ideas and logically structuring their essays.”
§ The Role of AI in Academic Writing: Impacts on Writing Skills, Critical Thinking, and Integrity in Higher Education > 4.5.1. Impact on Learning Outcomes
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Although AI enhances short-term writing proficiency, it does not foster long-term retention of writing skills to the same extent as traditional instruction [32].”
§ The Role of AI in Academic Writing: Impacts on Writing Skills, Critical Thinking, and Integrity in Higher Education > 4.5.1. Impact on Learning Outcomes
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [32] Dhanapal, 2024, Impact of Artificial Intelligence Versus Traditional Instruction for Language Learning: A Survey, World J. Engl. Lang. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In short, while AI tools enhance surface-level writing mechanics, they cannot replace the analytical depth and originality developed through traditional instruction and personalized feedback from educators.”
§ The Role of AI in Academic Writing: Impacts on Writing Skills, Critical Thinking, and Integrity in Higher Education > 5. Conclusions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Students can produce polished texts quickly, which helps reduce their frustration and makes writing more accessible, particularly for non-native English speakers [20].”
§ The Role of AI in Academic Writing: Impacts on Writing Skills, Critical Thinking, and Integrity in Higher Education > 4.5.1. Impact on Learning Outcomes
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [20] Chen, C., and Gong, Y. (2025). The Role of AI-Assisted Learning in Academic Writing: A Mixed-Methods Study on Chinese as a Second Language Students. Educ. Sci., 15. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Teachers provide students with personalized feedback and guide them through argument development, critical thinking, and analytical writing.”
§ The Role of AI in Academic Writing: Impacts on Writing Skills, Critical Thinking, and Integrity in Higher Education > 4.5.1. Impact on Learning Outcomes
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Traditional instruction remains indispensable in writing instruction, and AI should serve as a supplement rather than a replacement.”
§ The Role of AI in Academic Writing: Impacts on Writing Skills, Critical Thinking, and Integrity in Higher Education > 5. Conclusions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Additionally, collaborative exercises like peer reviews can further help balance AI-assisted writing and traditional learning methods.”
§ The Role of AI in Academic Writing: Impacts on Writing Skills, Critical Thinking, and Integrity in Higher Education > 5. Conclusions
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Educators can also use AI-generated prompts to stimulate student creativity, ensuring that students continue to develop original ideas and construct well-founded arguments [12,32].”
§ The Role of AI in Academic Writing: Impacts on Writing Skills, Critical Thinking, and Integrity in Higher Education > 4.6.4. Critical Thinking and Argumentation
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [12] Gasaymeh, A.M.M., Beirat, M.A., and Qbeita, A.A.A. (2024). University Students’ Insights of Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) Writing Tools. Educ. Sci., 14. source
- Not checked yetcites [32] Dhanapal, 2024, Impact of Artificial Intelligence Versus Traditional Instruction for Language Learning: A Survey, World J. Engl. Lang. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This approach allows students to develop their creativity and gain a deeper understanding of writing mechanics while benefiting from AI-driven feedback.”
§ The Role of AI in Academic Writing: Impacts on Writing Skills, Critical Thinking, and Integrity in Higher Education > 4.6.1. AI as a Learning Aid
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Instructors can foster analytical thinking skills by engaging students in analyzing AI-generated revisions for appropriateness [21].”
§ The Role of AI in Academic Writing: Impacts on Writing Skills, Critical Thinking, and Integrity in Higher Education > 4.6.1. AI as a Learning Aid
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [21] Ruiz-Rojas, L.I., Salvador-Ullauri, L., and Acosta-Vargas, P. (2024). Collaborative Working and Critical Thinking: Adoption of Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools in Higher Education. Sustainability, 16. source
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Effective instructors can identify students' weaknesses, offer detailed explanations, and foster improvements through various writing assignments.”
§ The Role of AI in Academic Writing: Impacts on Writing Skills, Critical Thinking, and Integrity in Higher Education > 4.5.2. The Role of Instructional Effectiveness
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There is limited empirical data on the long-term effects of AI on student learning and cognitive development.”
§ The Role of AI in Academic Writing: Impacts on Writing Skills, Critical Thinking, and Integrity in Higher Education > 5. Conclusions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“A critical aspect of writing lies in the social benefits gained through discussions, debates, and collaboration-elements that AI cannot fully replicate [32].”
§ The Role of AI in Academic Writing: Impacts on Writing Skills, Critical Thinking, and Integrity in Higher Education > 4.5.2. The Role of Instructional Effectiveness
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [32] Dhanapal, 2024, Impact of Artificial Intelligence Versus Traditional Instruction for Language Learning: A Survey, World J. Engl. Lang. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For example, they can assign students the task of explaining their revisions after utilizing AI tools, thereby demonstrating their understanding of the changes.”
§ The Role of AI in Academic Writing: Impacts on Writing Skills, Critical Thinking, and Integrity in Higher Education > 4.6.4. Critical Thinking and Argumentation
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The breadth of the search strategy allowed for the inclusion of diverse perspectives on AI in academic writing.”
§ The Role of AI in Academic Writing: Impacts on Writing Skills, Critical Thinking, and Integrity in Higher Education > 4.7. Limitations of the Current Review
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“This personalized approach helps students refine their writing over time and foster a deeper understanding of the principles of strong writing [21].”
§ The Role of AI in Academic Writing: Impacts on Writing Skills, Critical Thinking, and Integrity in Higher Education > 4.5.2. The Role of Instructional Effectiveness
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [21] Ruiz-Rojas, L.I., Salvador-Ullauri, L., and Acosta-Vargas, P. (2024). Collaborative Working and Critical Thinking: Adoption of Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools in Higher Education. Sustainability, 16. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
The 20 included studies are sufficient to draw conclusions about the role of AI in academic writing in higher education.
“After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria and eliminating duplicates, 20 studies were finalized for inclusion in the review.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Writing requires developing cognitive abilities such as critical thinking, argument construction, and independent reasoning.
“Writing is more than producing grammatically correct, coherently structured sentences; it requires developing cognitive abilities, such as critical thinking, argument construction, and independent reasoning.”
The paper relies on this without support.
AI tools lack the ability to fully understand context, tone, deep meaning, and nuanced writing.
“which often lack an understanding of the content's context, tone, or deep meaning.”
“since AI models lack the ability to fully grasp nuanced writing”
The paper relies on this without support.
Narrative reviews are inherently interpretive and less replicable than systematic or scoping reviews.
“narrative reviews are inherently interpretive and less replicable than systematic or scoping reviews”
The paper relies on this without support.
When students misuse AI-generated content, they bypass the intellectual effort essential for deep learning.
“When students misuse AI-generated content, they bypass the intellectual effort essential for deep learning”
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 source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Crucially, these mechanisms produce learning gains only when instruction structures students to critically engage with AI feedback rather than passively accept it—making human–AI interaction quality, rather than tool access alone, the proximate driver of writing improvement (Aljuaid, 2024; Arif et al., 2025; Deep and Chen, 2025).”
From From tool to scaffold: structured human–AI collaboration and its effects on academic writing and digital critical thinking among Saudi EFL learners (2026) · cites this paper as Deep and Chen, 2025
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Second, AI functions as an ideational scaffold during planning stages: by generating alternative outlines, proposing argumentative structures, and modeling genre conventions, AI expands learners’ rhetorical options—particularly valuable for those lacking sufficient exposure to academic writing schemas (Deep and Chen, 2025; Kim et al., 2024; Reza et al., 2025; Wang, 2024).”
From From tool to scaffold: structured human–AI collaboration and its effects on academic writing and digital critical thinking among Saudi EFL learners (2026) · cites this paper as Deep and Chen, 2025
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Yet a persistent inconsistency exists between the theoretical centrality of digital critical thinking and its empirical treatment: most studies operationalize it through general scales not designed for AI-mediated contexts, leaving claims about AI fostering critical thinking largely aspirational rather than empirically grounded (Deep and Chen, 2025; Zakaria et al., 2025).”
From From tool to scaffold: structured human–AI collaboration and its effects on academic writing and digital critical thinking among Saudi EFL learners (2026) · cites this paper as Deep and Chen, 2025
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“The strengthening correlation between writing proficiency and digital critical thinking—from pretest (r = 0.81) to posttest (r = 0.94), with gain scores also strongly associated (r = 0.93)—provides preliminary evidence that these are co-developing competencies rather than independent outcomes (Zakaria et al., 2025; Deep and Chen, 2025).”
From From tool to scaffold: structured human–AI collaboration and its effects on academic writing and digital critical thinking among Saudi EFL learners (2026) · cites this paper as Deep and Chen, 2025
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Recent scholarship has increasingly highlighted that the educational value of generative AI in writing contexts is shaped less by tool availability than by the quality of human–AI interaction fostered through deliberate instructional design (Aljuaid, 2024; Deep and Chen, 2025).”
From From tool to scaffold: structured human–AI collaboration and its effects on academic writing and digital critical thinking among Saudi EFL learners (2026) · cites this paper as Deep and Chen, 2025
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“From a process-writing and self-regulation perspective, the educational value of AI depends on whether it makes the writing process more visible and subject to deliberate revision, rather than outsourcing final text production (Aljuaid, 2024; Al-Sofi, 2024; Deep and Chen, 2025).”
From From tool to scaffold: structured human–AI collaboration and its effects on academic writing and digital critical thinking among Saudi EFL learners (2026) · cites this paper as Deep and Chen, 2025
The check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“Second, while “critical thinking” and “digital literacy” are frequently invoked as desired outcomes of AI integration, the literature is inconsistent in how these constructs are operationalized: few studies measure digital critical thinking as a multi-dimensional, assessable construct directly relevant to generative AI risks—specifically, hallucination detection, credibility evaluation, verificati”
From From tool to scaffold: structured human–AI collaboration and its effects on academic writing and digital critical thinking among Saudi EFL learners (2026) · cites this paper as Deep and Chen, 2025
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Citations
Cites
Dwivedi, Y. K., Kshetri, N., Hughes, L., Slade, E. L., Jeyaraj, A., Kar, A. K., Baabdullah, A. M., Koohang, A., Raghavan, V., Ahuja, M., et al. (2023) · International Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102642 · Cited by 4,584
SANRA—a scale for the quality assessment of narrative review articles
Baethge, C., Goldbeck-Wood, S., & Mertens, S. (2019) · Research Integrity and Peer Review · doi:10.1186/s41073-019-0064-8 · Cited by 3,469
Zhai, C., Wibowo, S., & Li, L. D. (2024) · Smart Learning Environments · doi:10.1186/s40561-024-00316-7 · Cited by 1,567
New Era of Artificial Intelligence in Education: Towards a Sustainable Multifaceted Revolution
Kamalov, F., Santandreu Calonge, D., & Gurrib, I. (2023) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su151612451 · Cited by 1,089 · cited 3×
“Educators can also use AI to support personalized learning [5].”
InfluentialLin, C.-C., Huang, A. Y. Q., & Lu, O. H. T. (2023) · Smart Learning Environments · doi:10.1186/s40561-023-00260-y · Cited by 669
Using artificial intelligence in academic writing and research: An essential productivity tool
Khalifa, M., & Albadawy, M. (2024) · Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine Update · doi:10.1016/j.cmpbup.2024.100145 · Cited by 580
Marzuki, Widiati, U., Rusdin, D., Darwin, & Indrawati, I. (2023) · Cogent Education · doi:10.1080/2331186x.2023.2236469 · Cited by 524 · cited 10×
“This can ultimately diminish their creativity and critical thinking abilities [2].”
InfluentialExploring students' perspectives on generative AI-assisted academic writing
Kim, J., Yu, S., Detrick, R., & Li, N. (2025) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-024-12878-7 · Cited by 438
Nazari, N., Shabbir, M. S., & Setiawan, R. (2021) · Heliyon · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07014 · Cited by 405
Generative AI: A systematic review using topic modelling techniques
Gupta, P., Ding, B., Guan, C., & Ding, D. (2024) · Data and Information Management · doi:10.1016/j.dim.2024.100066 · Cited by 299
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Alyasin, A., & Shah, M. A. (2026) · Ampersand · doi:10.1016/j.amper.2026.100256 · Cited by 26
Writing in the AI era: Rethinking writing, research and teaching
Hyland, K. (2026) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2026.101302 · Cited by 20
Marino, M. S., & Cabezuelo, A. S. (2025) · Algorithms · doi:10.3390/a18100634 · Cited by 14
Understanding AI-Related Needs of Adolescent Refugee EFL Learners in Türkiye: A Qualitative Study
Derakhshan, A., & Solhi, M. (2025) · Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR) · doi:10.1080/10824669.2025.2602796 · Cited by 10
Bohler, F., Tran, T., Burmeister, J. R., Hadid, K., Joshi, S., Gao, S., & Chaiyasate, K. (2025) · Journal of Craniofacial Surgery · doi:10.1097/scs.0000000000012366 · Cited by 4
Ng, S. H. (2026) · Journal of Education and Learning Research · doi:10.62208/jelr.3.2.p.64-71 · Cited by 4
Mazuruse, G., Nyagadza, B., Chifurira, R., Muvuti, A., & Matsiwira, L. (2026) · Strategic Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.sbr.2026.100102 · Cited by 5
Salem, A. A. M. S. (2026) · Journal of Educational Computing Research · doi:10.1177/07356331261431156 · Cited by 5
PENGARUH PENGGUNAAN GEMINI SEBAGAI ALAT BANTU PENULISAN TERHADAP KUALITAS KARYA ILMIAH MAHASISWA
Imro'atun, N., & Chairudin, M. (2026) · LEARNING Jurnal Inovasi Penelitian Pendidikan dan Pembelajaran · doi:10.51878/learning.v6i2.9634 · Cited by 4
Lazzeretti, C. (2026) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci16040614 · Cited by 4
Capuñay, J. E. C., Sánchez, M. B. U., Gonzales-Velásquez, E. A. G., Borges-Huanca, A., Rojas, A. M., & Ussa-Lopez, Y. E. (2026) · Prohominum · doi:10.47606/acven/ph0487 · Cited by 5
Muid, M. A., Sucipto, A., & Kholili, M. A. (2026) · Locana Journal of Linguistics Literature and Language Education · doi:10.67245/locana.v1i1.21 · Cited by 4
How Generative AI Is Reshaping Student Writing: A Data-Driven Perspective for Writing Instructors
Eslami, M., Collins, P., & Queen, B. (2025) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci16010001 · Cited by 3
Alshehri, O. A. O., Lamouchi, A., Abdellatif, M. S., Al-Dosari, M. N. A., Mekheimer, M., & Nemt-allah, M. A. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1830103 · Cited by 2
“…as a shortcut to finished text, AI can undermine independent composing, weaken engagement with primary sources, blur authorial boundaries, and introduce integrity risks particularly consequential in academic writing contexts (Al-Nofaie and Alwerthan, 2024; Al-Sofi, 2024; Deep and Chen, 2025).”
InfluentialMore polished, not necessarily more learned: LLMs and perceived text quality in higher education
Tärning, B., Tjøstheim, T. A., & Wallin, A. (2025) · Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.3389/frai.2025.1653992 · Cited by 2
Kumar, V. (2026) · Knowledge · doi:10.3390/knowledge6010007 · Cited by 2
Generative AI and Students’ Voice in Academic Writing
Vaghela, H., Dharade, S. M., Bhalke, N., & Ghuge, A. D. (2026) · Journal of Humanities and Education Development · doi:10.22161/jhed.8.2.10 · Cited by 2
AI ‐Aware Process Writing Pedagogy: Rethinking the Process‐Based Approach
Elturki, E. (2026) · TESOL Journal · doi:10.1002/tesj.70127 · Cited by 2
Qureshi, S. (2026) · VFAST Transactions on Education and Social Sciences · doi:10.21015/vtess.v14i1.2396 · Cited by 2
Rethinking AI in Writing Pedagogy: From Fluency to Rhetorical Competence
Hyland, K. (2026) · Discourses on Culture · doi:10.2478/doc-2026-0007 · Cited by 2
Nguyen, P. B. T., & Tran, N. B. C. (2026) · Arab World English Journal · doi:10.24093/awej/vol17no1.27 · Cited by 1
Alenazi, M. E., Alshaye, M. M., Almeshal, Z. A., Alqahtani, Y. M., & Irfan, M. (2026) · Qlantic Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities · doi:10.55737/qjssh.vii-i.26481 · Cited by 1
Ningsih, F. W., & Dangin, D. (2026) · Journal of English Language and Education · doi:10.31004/jele.v11i1.2172 · Cited by 1
AI-Assisted Research Writing: Graduate Students' Experiences, Outcomes and Academic Integrity
Jesus, L. F. D. (2026) · International Journal of Learning Teaching and Educational Research · doi:10.26803/ijlter.25.5.8 · Cited by 1
Safeguarding students' academic integrity in the age of generative AI: challenges and solutions
Alyafei, R. A. S. M., Al-kfairy, M., Alfandi, O., & Alrabaee, S. (2026) · Kybernetes · doi:10.1108/k-04-2025-0878 · Cited by 1
Mazathana, E., & Tatira, B. (2026) · International Journal of Learning Teaching and Educational Research · doi:10.26803/ijlter.25.6.50 · Cited by 1
Pattier, D. (2026) · Praxis Educativa · doi:10.5212/praxeduc.v.21.26223.031 · Cited by 1
Madden, O. N., Smith, R., Edwards, K., & Jackson, J. (2026) · Artificial Intelligence in Language Education · doi:10.29140/aile.2026.104937 · Cited by 1
Albantani, A. M., Rozak, A., Sahrir, M. S., & Khoiriyyah, B. (2026) · ASALIBUNA · doi:10.30762/asalibuna.v9i02.6810 · Cited by 1
Hidayat, N., Ibrahim, S. A., Pramukti, A. R. D., Arifani, Y., & Wijayatiningsih, T. D. (2026) · Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies · doi:10.1155/hbe2/1167530 · Cited by 1
Artificial intelligence as a pedagogical companion for STEM research learning in higher education
Valentine Joseph Owan, P. D. (2026) · Discover Education · doi:10.1007/s44217-026-01906-y · Cited by 1
Alzahrani, M. (2026) · International Journal of Language and Literary Studies · doi:10.36892/ijlls.v8i5.2737 · Cited by 1
Wang, X., & Niu, J. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1955267 · Cited by 1
Student or AI? Automated Detection of AI-generated Student Essays
Boutadjine, A., Harrag, F., & Shaalan, K. F. (2026) · Procedia Computer Science · doi:10.1016/j.procs.2026.01.112 · Cited by 1
Amin, M. (2026) · Al-Munawwarah Journal of Islamic Education · doi:10.38073/almunawwarah.v2i2.5654 · Cited by 4
AI Writing Assistants in Higher Education: A Comprehensive Review of Impact, Literacy, and Policy
Elharrouss, O., Mahmood, Y., Naouss, M., & Badidi, E. (2026) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci16091571
A Systematic Review of AI Tools Supporting Academic Research Writing in Saudi Arabia
Al-Zahrani, L. H. A. (2025) · Arab Journal for Scientific Publishing · doi:10.36571/ajsp8520
Milawati, Aliah, N., Puspitasari, M., Suparti, & Rasyidah, U. (2025) · Indonesian EFL Journal · doi:10.25134/9w6rfh25
Febrianti, L. Y. (2025) · EDUCASIA Jurnal Pendidikan Pengajaran dan Pembelajaran · doi:10.21462/educasia.v10i3.414
Chen, Z., Pan, J., Tang, Y., Li, X., Xu, J., & Liang, Y. (2026) · International Journal of English Linguistics · doi:10.5539/ijel.v16n1p46
Masjudin, M., Yuntawati, Y., Sabrun, S., Nissa, I. C., & Muzaki, A. (2026) · Nuras Jurnal Pengabdian Kepada Masyarakat · doi:10.36312/nuras.v6i1.857
Anselmo, C. T., Concepcion, J., Elcano, Q. M., Manuel, S. K., Belen, G., Carillo, G., Bagon, K. A., & Bagon, M. (2026) · Psychology and Education A Multidisciplinary Journal · doi:10.70838/pemj.520905
Zainudin, M., & Nurjanah, E. (2025) · Mimbar Ilmu · doi:10.23887/mi.v30i3.101298
Challenging the work-ready paradigm: engineers, writing and academic writing tutors
Strauss, P., & Hunter, J. (2026) · Teaching in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/13562517.2026.2645199
Hynds, A. R. B. (2025) · I+D Internacional Revista Científica y Académica · doi:10.63636/3078-1639.v4.n2.51
Oliveira, J. (2026) · International Journal on Integrating Technology in Education · doi:10.5121/ijite.2026.15106
Yundayani, A., Mukminin, A., & Alghadari, F. (2026) · Высшее образование в России · doi:10.31992/0869-3617-2026-35-3-149-168
(2026) · International Journal of Education Learning and Pedagogical Sciences (INJELPS) · doi:10.63498/injelps45
Rosales, L. L. R., Capuñay, J. E. C., Márquez, G. B., Bardales, Z. E. P., Cedillo, A. R., Lizana, M. A. T., Rivas, J. F. C., Maldonado, H. I., & Lobatón, C. O. H. (2026) · doi:10.48209/978-65-5417-685-9
Ethical Implications on Co-Authorship in AI-Assisted Creative Writing
Cantó, R. G. (2026) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-6420-9.ch009
The Controversy Surrounding Artificial Intelligence Regulation in Higher Education in Indonesia
Muhara, A., Hasmawaty, Ilyas, S. N., & Mahmud, B. (2026) · Asian Journal of Applied Education (AJAE) · doi:10.55927/ajae.v5i2.16392
Alshammari, B. S., Alfraidi, K. N., Aljudaiey, M. O., & Abdelhalim, W. (2026) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-9312779/v1
Indriati, T., Veniati, V., Trionanda, S., Yahya, I. N. D., & Manto, M. (2026) · Paedagoria Jurnal Kajian Penelitian dan Pengembangan Kependidikan · doi:10.31764/paedagoria.v17i2.37865
Liu, J., & Hubbard, K. (2026) · NABE Journal of Research and Practice · doi:10.1080/26390043.2026.2674633
Alalwi, F. S., Alqahtani, N. R., Jamshed, M., & Ahmmed, M. F. (2026) · World Journal of English Language · doi:10.5430/wjel.v16n5p197
From L1 Thinking to L2 Text: Exploring AI-Mediated Translanguaging in University EFL Writing Tasks
Ifadloh, N., Alao, B. O., & Pujiastuti, E. (2026) · MATCHA: Journal of Modern Approaches to Communication, Humanities, and Academia · doi:10.70152/matcha.v2i1.348
The AI Dilemma in EFL Classrooms at Higher Education
Mansyur, M., Masmuda, N. I. S., & Nasra, A. (2026) · DEIKTIS Jurnal Pendidikan Bahasa dan Sastra · doi:10.53769/deiktis.v6i2.3643
Alabsi, T. A., & Abdi, A. I. (2026) · Arab World English Journal · doi:10.24093/awej/vol17no2.12
Wahyuni, S. F., Putro, N. H. P. S., Efendi, A., Asnawi, A., & Asilestari, P. (2026) · JADEs Journal of Academia in English Education · doi:10.32505/jades.v7i1.14491
Integrating generative AI in English education opportunities and challenges for EFL learners
Samsudin, & Allen, C. J. (2026) · Journal of Research in English Language Teaching and Linguistics · doi:10.65431/jrell.v2i1.32
AI-Assisted Feedback in EFL Academic Writing
Ardian, F., Brinda, S., Zakiya, L. F., & Hidayatullah, M. R. (2026) · Journey Journal of English Language and Pedagogy · doi:10.33503/journey.v9i1.3443
Yuniarti, Y., & Pebriani, S. R. (2026) · Journal of English Educational Study (JEES) · doi:10.31932/jees.v9i1.5448
Ayub, S., Shahid, F., Khan, N., Zubair, S. R., Amreen, A., & Ullah, W. (2026) · International Journal of English Language and Linguistics Research · doi:10.37745/ijellr.13/vol14n13145
The G-U-I-D-E Framework: A Context-Based Approach to Responsible AI Use in L2 Writing
Demir, S., & Koral, M. A. (2026) · Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Eğitim Dergisi · doi:10.52597/buje.1833747
Mayasari, R., Hadiyanto, H., & Safitri, N. T. (2026) · ACADEMIA Jurnal Inovasi Riset Akademik · doi:10.51878/academia.v6i3.11635
"I use it to polish my English": how researchers in Kazakhstan use AI in scholarly writing
Yersultanova, G., Myrzabek, A., & Montgomery, D. P. (2026) · Suleyman Demirel University bulletin: pedagogy and teaching methods. · doi:10.47344/4cxne315
Beyond Automated Feedback: An AI-Assisted Pedagogical Framework for Academic Writing in EFL Contexts
Noviarini, T., Paderan, M. P. C., Fransiska, F. W., Hamdani, Z., & Musiman, M. (2026) · Jurnal Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris undiksha · doi:10.23887/jpbi.v14i1.111002
Sukmojati, E., Ariawan, S., Viana, S. A., Deta, A. Y., Lete, O. R. D., Ruron, M. Y., Tafana, P. D., Koto, R., Muliati, M., Chika, S., et al. (2026) · F1000Research · doi:10.12688/f1000research.183327.1
Stefanile, A. (2026) · The journal of college science teaching · doi:10.1080/0047231x.2026.2689667
Making Students “Safe” Writers with the SAFE Model in the Age of AI
Nuthihar, R., Anshori, D. S., Cahyani, I., & Sastromiharjo, A. (2026) · Discourses on Culture · doi:10.2478/doc-2026-0008
Qualitative study on the Artificial Intelligence in the Modern Writing IndustryPreprint
Stupar, S., & Tediosi, A. P. (2026) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-10314690/v1
Feedback Literacy within Teacher Feedback vs. AI Feedback
Gökel, N., & Tüm, G. (2026) · Sınırsız Eğitim ve Araştırma Dergisi · doi:10.29250/sead.1867106
Scrivere sulla carta, a schermo e con l'IA. Trasformazioni delle pratiche, ecologie del pensiero
Rivoltella, P. C. (2026) · QUADERNI DI DIDATTICA DELLA SCRITTURA · doi:10.3280/qds2026oa22836
Integrating technology into academic writing instruction: Lecturers’ practices and perspectives
Mudau, P. P., Cekiso, M., & Mandende, I. P. (2026) · Literator · doi:10.4102/lit.v47i1.2274
Yahrif, M., Sirajuddin, S., & Khaedar, M. (2026) · Al Qodiri Jurnal Pendidikan Sosial dan Keagamaan · doi:10.53515/alqodiri.v24i2.87
Baldesco, J., & Garvida, L. M. G. (2026) · Psychology and Education A Multidisciplinary Journal · doi:10.70838/pemj.600701
Alga, A. P., Reyes, N. P. D., Alfaro, F. D., Andico, M. A. D., Patao, F. H., Ruste, A. A., & Villacura, K. E. (2026) · International Journal of Research and Innovation in Applied Science · doi:10.51584/ijrias.2026.11070098
Lee, H., & Kwon, H. (2026) · Trends in Higher Education · doi:10.3390/higheredu5030078
Fadly, D., Husain, H., & Setyawan, D. (2026) · Venn Journal of Sustainable Innovation on Education Mathematics and Natural Sciences · doi:10.53696/venn.v5i4.636
The impact of artificial intelligence on cognitive skill development in future professionals
Izmagambetova, R., Agranovich, E., Боранбаева, А. Р., Aiman, T., Gulnar, A., & Ospanbekova, M. (2026) · International Journal of ADVANCED AND APPLIED SCIENCES · doi:10.21833/ijaas.2026.07.011
Arshad, M., Rukhsar, K., Mehmood, A., Haider, F., Khan, T. S., Noor, S., & Majad, K. (2026) · Journal of Global Social Transformation · doi:10.71317/jgst.2.8(s).2026.474
Channing, J. (2026) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-2600-3840-6.ch006
Non-automatable cognitive skills in higher education in the age of generative AI
Jog, S. (2026) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2026.1827610
Academic Integrity and the Challenge of AI-Assisted Authorship
Salendab, F. A. (2026) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-2600-1232-1.ch005
Khattak, Z. I., Mathew, B. P., Ghorbanpoor, M., Qureshi, M. B., & Zakwani, M. A. (2026) · International Journal of Learning Teaching and Educational Research · doi:10.26803/ijlter.25.8.9
Setiawan, M. D. P., Kurniawan, M. S. P., & Veronita, I. (2026) · Jurnal Ilmu Pendidikan dan Sains Islam Interdisipliner · doi:10.59944/jipsi.v5i2.1627
Oktorina, N., Suryadi, B., & Suprananto, S. (2026) · Jurnal Locus Penelitian dan Pengabdian · doi:10.58344/locus.v5i8.6020
A Correlational Study on AI Tool Usage and Critical Thinking Skills of College Students
Ferrer, B. E. P., Abad, M. I., Artates, A. G. F., Forbes, H. E., Nayga, M. T., & Bangga, D. (2026) · International Conference on Distance Education and Learning (ICDEL) · doi:10.1109/icdel70250.2026.11663799
Yang, Y., Cheng, Z., Meng, H., & Shen, J. (2026) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2026.1920168
Asrifan, A., Sunra, L., Vargheese, K. J., Dzhelilov, A. A., & Ingilan, S. S. (2026) · Datokarama English Education Journal · doi:10.24239/8p1wbs54
Stroud, R., Du, J., Lai, C., Kuttig, K., Hua, Y., & Kanemura, F. M. (2026) · Journal of Applied Artificial Intelligence in Education · doi:10.66053/jaaie.v2i1.873
Exploring Teacher Educators’ Self-Assessment of AI-Assisted Writing:
Suciwati, I., Kholidi, M. A., Ramadhani, S., Anggeraini, N., Rofikah, U., & Pardani, S. (2026) · INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND EDUCATION · doi:10.22437/ijolte.v10i2.57808
Mulyono, H., Suryoputro, G., Azizah, U. S. A., & Falah, Z. A. (2026) · SN Social Sciences · doi:10.1007/s43545-026-01716-x
Basan, S. A. A., BATULANON, A. A., Enanoria, S. M., Gioca, A. K., Lemente, L. C., Niñal, M. F. E., Orillo, D. G. L., & Razonable, J. P. C. (2026) · International Journal of Research on Multidisciplinary Studies · doi:10.67903/ijroms0239
Surji, A. L. (2026) · International Journal of Social Sciences and Educational Studies · doi:10.23918/ijsses.v13i3p2
Baah, J., & Debrah, C. A. A. O. (2026) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-10549978/v1
Alzahrani, T. A., & Alqurashi, H. S. (2026) · Journal of Educational and Human Sciences · doi:10.33193/jeahs.53.2026.812
Ren, X., Wang, R., Liang, Y., & Song, Y. (2026) · Journal of Intelligence · doi:10.3390/jintelligence14100231
UX Evaluation of Real-Time Autocomplete Feature in AI Writing Assistant for Academic Writing
Marifah, S. E. N., Ismaturrofiah, I., Pratama, B., & Sunardi, S. (2026) · International Conference on ICT for Smart Society (ICISS) · doi:10.1109/iciss71466.2026.11715471
Suprun, V., СУПРУН, Л., Мазур, Н., LIULKA, V., & Клим, М. (2026) · EDUWEB · doi:10.46502/issn.1856-7576/2026.20.03.6
Metadata
- Authors
- Deep, P. D., & Chen, Y.
- Affiliations
- Sam Houston State University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Deep, Promethi Das
- Chen, Yixin
- Venue
- Societies
- Publisher
- MDPI AG
- Published
- 2025-09-04
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 247
- ISSN
- 2075-4698 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4413989832
- Semantic Scholar
- ec99cc47821d7a50ef89eaaa451f916c247eb6ba
- Cited by
- 65
- References
- 32
- Citations by year
- 2026: 59 · 2025: 6
- FWCI
- 67.59
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Societies (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Social Sciences › Education › Academic integrity and plagiarism
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Keywords
- artificial intelligence in education, academic writing, AI writing tools, writing skills, critical thinking, academic integrity, AI-generated text, writing instruction, self-directed learning, writing fluency, personalized tutoring, cognitive load, higher education, ChatGPT, Grammarly, QuillBot
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-06, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-06 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
