The DOI matches its Crossref record; 29 of the 29 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Better by You, better than Me? ChatGPT-3 as writing assistance in students’ essays.
Open accessAbstract
Aim: To compare students' essay writing performance with or without employing ChatGPT-3 as a writing assistant tool.Materials and methods: Eighteen students participated in the study (nine in control and nine in the experimental group that used ChatGPT-3). We scored essay elements with grades (A-D) and corresponding numerical values (4-1). We compared essay scores to students' GPTs, writing time, authenticity, and content similarity. Results: Average grade was C for both groups; for control (2.39 ± 0.71) and for experimental (2.00 ± 0.73). None of the predictors affected essay scores: group (P = 0.184), writing duration (P = 0.669), module (P = 0.388), and GPA (P = 0.532). The text unauthenticity was slightly higher in the experimental group (11.87% ±13.45 to 9.96% ± 9.81%), but the similarity among essays was generally low in the overall sample (the Jaccard similarity index ranging from 0 to 0.054). In the experimental group, AI classifier recognized more potential AI-generated texts. Conclusions: This study found no evidence that using GPT as a writing tool improves essay quality since the control group outperformed the experimental group in most parameters.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
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
“Additionally, other concerns include the current inability of ChatGPT to handle images as well as its low performance in some topics (e.g., failure to pass a parasitology exam for Korean medical students), and the issue of possible plagiarism [33,56,57,58,70,75].”
From ChatGPT Utility in Healthcare Education, Research, and Practice: Systematic Review on the Promising Perspectives and Valid Concerns (2023) · cites this paper as [75]
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
“Additionally, other concerns include the current inability of ChatGPT to handle images as well as its low performance in some topics (e.g., failure to pass a parasitology exam for Korean medical students), and the issue of possible plagiarism [33,56,57,58,70,75].”
From ChatGPT Utility in Healthcare Education, Research, and Practice: Systematic Review on the Promising Perspectives and Valid Concerns (2023) · cites this paper as [75]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“Additionally, other concerns include the current inability of ChatGPT to handle images as well as its low performance in some topics (e.g., failure to pass a parasitology exam for Korean medical students), and the issue of possible plagiarism [33,56,57,58,70,75].”
From ChatGPT Utility in Healthcare Education, Research, and Practice: Systematic Review on the Promising Perspectives and Valid Concerns (2023) · cites this paper as [75]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“In the UK, an anonymous survey by the Higher Education Policy Institute 2 found that 88% of undergraduates reported using GenAI in assessments in 2024/25.”
From Style, sentiment, and quality of undergraduate writing in the AI era: A cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis of 4,820 authentic empirical reports (2025) · cites this paper as [2]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“Second, an anonymous survey 29 of over 1000 British undergraduate students revealed that 30% reported using GenAI tools to generate text for their coursework in November 2023, a figure that rose to 64% in December 2024 2 .”
From Style, sentiment, and quality of undergraduate writing in the AI era: A cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis of 4,820 authentic empirical reports (2025) · cites this paper as [2]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Kung, T. H., Cheatham, M., Medenilla, A., Sillos, C., De Leon, L., Elepaño, C., Madriaga, M., Aggabao, R., Diaz-Candido, G., Maningo, J., et al. (2023) · PLOS Digital Health · doi:10.1371/journal.pdig.0000198 · Cited by 4,115
Sallam, M. (2023) · Healthcare · doi:10.3390/healthcare11060887 · Cited by 3,126
Chatting and cheating: Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT
Cotton, D. R. E., Cotton, P. A., & Shipway, J. R. (2024) · Innovations in Education and Teaching International · doi:10.1080/14703297.2023.2190148 · Cited by 3,087
Chatting and Cheating. Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT
Cotton, D., Cotton, P., & Shipway, J. R. (2023) · doi:10.35542/osf.io/mrz8h · Cited by 3,079
What Is the Impact of ChatGPT on Education? A Rapid Review of the Literature
Lo, C. K. (2023) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci13040410 · Cited by 2,024
A SWOT analysis of ChatGPT: Implications for educational practice and research
Farrokhnia, M., Banihashem, S. K., Noroozi, O., & Wals, A. (2024) · Innovations in Education and Teaching International · doi:10.1080/14703297.2023.2195846 · Cited by 1,384
Gao, C. A., Howard, F. M., Markov, N. S., Dyer, E. C., Ramesh, S., Luo, Y., & Pearson, A. T. (2023) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-023-00819-6 · Cited by 1,099
Gao, C. A., Howard, F. M., Markov, N. S., Dyer, E. C., Ramesh, S., Luo, Y., & Pearson, A. T. (2022) · doi:10.1101/2022.12.23.521610 · Cited by 1,099
AI bot ChatGPT writes smart essays — should professors worry?
Stokel-Walker, C. (2022) · Nature · doi:10.1038/d41586-022-04397-7 · Cited by 543
OpenAI ChatGPT Generated Literature Review: Digital Twin in Healthcare
Aydın, Ö., & Karaarslan, E. (2022) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4308687 · Cited by 391
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Pourhoseingholi MA, Hatamnejad MR, Solhpour A (2023) Does chatGPT (or any other artificial intelligence language tools) deserve to be included in authorship list? chatGPT and authorship. Gastroenterol Hepatol Bed Bench 16(1):435-437
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Sallam, M. (2023) · Healthcare · doi:10.3390/healthcare11060887 · Cited by 3,126
What Is the Impact of ChatGPT on Education? A Rapid Review of the Literature
Lo, C. K. (2023) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci13040410 · Cited by 2,024
Grassini, S. (2023) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci13070692 · Cited by 1,048
Summary of ChatGPT-Related research and perspective towards the future of large language models
Liu, Y., Han, T., Ma, S., Zhang, J., Yang, Y., Tian, J., He, H., Li, A., He, M., Liu, Z., et al. (2023) · Meta-Radiology · doi:10.1016/j.metrad.2023.100017 · Cited by 855
Song, C., & Song, Y. (2023) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1260843 · Cited by 717
Metadata
- Authors
- Bašić, Ž., Banovac, A., Kružić, I., & Jerković, I.
- Affiliations
- University of Split (HR)
- Corresponding author
- Banovac, Ana
- Venue
- Humanities and Social Sciences Communications
- Publisher
- Center for Open Science
- Published
- 2023-02-09
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 1
- ISSN
- 2055-1045 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4388000629
- Cited by
- 189
- References
- 27
- Citations by year
- 2026: 37 · 2025: 55 · 2024: 67 · 2023: 30
- FWCI
- 44.36
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- Humanities and Social Sciences Communications (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
- EdArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- EdArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- 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
- ChatGPT-3.5, AI-assisted writing, student essay writing, academic writing, AI-generated text detection, textual authenticity, essay quality, writing performance, large language models
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
