Is ChatGPT Transforming Academics' Writing Style?
Open accessAbstract
Based on one million arXiv papers submitted from May 2018 to January 2024, we assess the textual density of ChatGPT's writing style in their abstracts through a statistical analysis of word frequency changes. Our model is calibrated and validated on a mixture of real abstracts and ChatGPT-modified abstracts (simulated data) after a careful noise analysis. The words used for estimation are not fixed but adaptive, including those with decreasing frequency. We find that large language models (LLMs), represented by ChatGPT, are having an increasing impact on arXiv abstracts, especially in the field of computer science, where the fraction of LLM-style abstracts is estimated to be approximately 35%, if we take the responses of GPT-3.5 to one simple prompt, "revise the following sentences", as a baseline. We conclude with an analysis of both positive and negative aspects of the penetration of LLMs into academics' writing style.
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
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?
There is a strong correlation between changes in frequency of certain words in academic papers published in 2023 and the use of LLMs.
“For example, empirical studies from April 2024 observed that the frequency of certain words used in academic papers published in 2023 had changed and confirmed a strong correlation between these changes and the use of LLMs (Liang et al., 2024b; Geng and Trotta, 2024).”
From Human-LLM Coevolution: Evidence from Academic Writing (2025) · cites this paper as Geng and Trotta, 2024
Section 3.1 reports changes in word frequency in arXiv abstracts in 2023, and Appendix D reports a strong correlation—especially in computer science—between those changes and simulated ChatGPT-induced changes. The paper does not directly correlate the changes with measured LLM use; Section 3.2 describes LLM use as a possible explanation. Thus, “confirmed” overstates what the study establishes. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe language and expressions of LLM users are likely to evolve due to their use of LLMs.
“Researchers are constantly proposing new detection techniques, but the language and expressions of LLM users are also likely to evolve due to their use of LLMs (Geng et al., 2024).”
From Human-LLM Coevolution: Evidence from Academic Writing (2025) · cites this paper as Geng et al., 2024
The frequency of 'is' and 'are' in arXiv abstracts continues its declining trend.
“The frequency of 'significant' and 'additionally' continues to grow, while that of 'is' and 'are' continues its declining trend, as noted by Geng and Trotta (2024).”
From Human-LLM Coevolution: Evidence from Academic Writing (2025) · cites this paper as Geng and Trotta, 2024
The frequency of certain other words favored by ChatGPT, such as 'significant', kept increasing.
“The frequency of certain other words favored by ChatGPT, such as 'significant', has instead kept increasing.”
From Human-LLM Coevolution: Evidence from Academic Writing (2025) · cites this paper as Geng and Trotta, 2024
The frequency of certain words used in academic papers published in 2023 had changed by April 2024.
“For example, empirical studies from April 2024 observed that the frequency of certain words used in academic papers published in 2023 had changed and confirmed a strong correlation between these changes and the use of LLMs (Liang et al., 2024b; Geng and Trotta, 2024).”
From Human-LLM Coevolution: Evidence from Academic Writing (2025) · cites this paper as Geng and Trotta, 2024
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
Cited by 6
Research works printed but not linked: 25
- Microsoft Research AI4Science and Microsoft Azure Quantum. The impact of large language models on scientific discovery: a preliminary study using gpt-4. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.07361, 2023. · arXiv
- Mohammad Awad AlAfnan and Siti Fatimah MohdZuki. Do artificial intelligence chatbots have a writing style? an investigation into the stylistic features of chatgpt-4. Journal of Artificial intelligence and technology, 3(3):85-94, 2023.
- Tatsuya Amano, Valeria Ramírez-Castañeda, Violeta Berdejo-Espinola, Israel Borokini, Shawan Chowdhury, Marina Golivets, Juan David González-Trujillo, Flavia Montaño-Centellas, Kumar Paudel, Rachel Louise White, et al. The manifold costs of being a non-native english speaker in science. PLoS Biology, 21(7): e3002184, 2023. arXiv.org submitters. arxiv dataset, 2024. URL https://www.kaggle.com/dsv/7352739.
- Anton Bakhtin, Sam Gross, Myle Ott, Yuntian Deng, Marc'Aurelio Ranzato, and Arthur Szlam. Real or fake? learning to discriminate machine from human generated text. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.03351, 2019. · arXiv
- J Elliott Casal and Matthew Kessler. Can linguists distinguish between chatgpt/ai and human writing?: A study of research ethics and academic publishing. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, 2(3):100068, 2023.
- Shu-Li Cheng, Shih-Jen Tsai, Ya-Mei Bai, Chih-Hung Ko, Chih-Wei Hsu, Fu-Chi Yang, Chia-Kuang Tsai, Yu-Kang Tu, Szu-Nian Yang, Ping-Tao Tseng, et al. Comparisons of quality, correctness, and similarity between chatgpt-generated and human-written abstracts for basic research: Cross-sectional study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 25:e51229, 2023.
- Suzanne Fergus, Michelle Botha, and Mehrnoosh Ostovar. Evaluating academic answers generated using chatgpt. Journal of Chemical Education, 100(4):1672-1675, 2023.
- Tira Nur Fitria. Grammarly as ai-powered english writing assistant: Students' alternative for writing english. Metathesis: Journal of English Language, Literature, and Teaching, 5(1):65-78, 2021.
- Catherine A Gao, Frederick M Howard, Nikolay S Markov, Emma C Dyer, Siddhi Ramesh, Yuan Luo, and Alexander T Pearson. Comparing scientific abstracts generated by chatgpt to real abstracts with detectors and blinded human reviewers. NPJ Digital Medicine, 6(1):75, 2023.
- Sebastian Gehrmann, Hendrik Strobelt, and Alexander M Rush. Gltr: Statistical detection and visualization of generated text. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.04043, 2019. · arXiv
- Biyang Guo, Xin Zhang, Ziyuan Wang, Minqi Jiang, Jinran Nie, Yuxuan Ding, Jianwei Yue, and Yupeng Wu. How close is chatgpt to human experts? comparison corpus, evaluation, and detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.07597, 2023. · arXiv
- Sung Il Hwang, Joon Seo Lim, Ro Woon Lee, Yusuke Matsui, Toshihiro Iguchi, Takao Hiraki, and Hyungwoo Ahn. Is chatgpt a "fire of prometheus" for non-native english-speaking researchers in academic writing? Korean Journal of Radiology, 24(10):952, 2023.
- Jimoon Kang, June Seop Yoon, and Byungjoo Lee. How ai-based training affected the performance of professional go players. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1-12, 2022.
- John Kirchenbauer, Jonas Geiping, Yuxin Wen, Jonathan Katz, Ian Miers, and Tom Goldstein. A watermark for large language models. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 17061-17084.
- PMLR, 2023.
- Kalpesh Krishna, Yixiao Song, Marzena Karpinska, John Wieting, and Mohit Iyyer. Paraphrasing evades detectors of ai-generated text, but retrieval is an effective defense. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024.
- Weixin Liang, Zachary Izzo, Yaohui Zhang, Haley Lepp, Hancheng Cao, Xuandong Zhao, Lingjiao Chen, Haotian Ye, Sheng Liu, Zhi Huang, et al. Monitoring ai-modified content at scale: A case study on the impact of chatgpt on ai conference peer reviews. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.07183, 2024a. · arXiv
- Weixin Liang, Yaohui Zhang, Zhengxuan Wu, Haley Lepp, Wenlong Ji, Xuandong Zhao, Hancheng Cao, Sheng Liu, Siyu He, Zhi Huang, et al. Mapping the increasing use of llms in scientific papers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.01268, 2024b. · arXiv
- Lorelei Lingard, Madawa Chandritilake, Merel de Heer, Jennifer Klasen, Fury Maulina, Francisco Olmos-Vega, and Christina St-Onge. Will chatgpt's free language editing service level the playing field in science communication?: Insights from a collaborative project with non-native english scholars. Perspectives on Medical Education, 12(1):565, 2023.
- Brady D Lund, Ting Wang, Nishith Reddy Mannuru, Bing Nie, Somipam Shimray, and Ziang Wang. Chatgpt and a new academic reality: Artificial intelligence-written research papers and the ethics of the large language models in scholarly publishing. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 74(5):570-581, 2023.
- Zheheng Luo, Qianqian Xie, and Sophia Ananiadou. Chatgpt as a factual inconsistency evaluator for abstractive text summarization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.15621, 2023. · arXiv
- Jean-Baptiste Michel, Yuan Kui Shen, Aviva Presser Aiden, Adrian Veres, Matthew K Gray, Google Books Team, Joseph P Pickett, Dale Hoiberg, Dan Clancy, Peter Norvig, et al. Quantitative analysis of culture using millions of digitized books. science, 331(6014):176-182, 2011.
- Eric Mitchell, Yoonho Lee, Alexander Khazatsky, Christopher D Manning, and Chelsea Finn. Detectgpt: Zero-shot machine-generated text detection using probability curvature. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 24950-24962. PMLR, 2023.
- Klaus Mundt and Michael Groves. A double-edged sword: the merits and the policy implications of google translate in higher education. European Journal of Higher Education, 6(4):387-401, 2016.
- Shakked Noy and Whitney Zhang. Experimental evidence on the productivity effects of generative artificial intelligence. Science, 381(6654):187-192, 2023.
- Authors
- Geng, M., & Trotta, R.
- Affiliations
- Scuola Internazionale Superiore di Studi Avanzati (IT)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2024
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2404.08627
- OpenAlex
- W4394839251
- Cited by
- 6
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Authorship Attribution and Profiling
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Academic Writing and Publishing
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
- Keywords
- ChatGPT, large language models, academic writing style, word frequency, LLM-generated text detection, computer science research, GPT-3.5
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
