Towards the relationship between AIGC in manuscript writing and author profiles: evidence from preprints in LLMs
Open accessAbstract
AIGC tools such as ChatGPT have profoundly changed scientific research, leading to widespread attention on its use on academic writing. Leveraging preprints from large language models, this study examined the use of AIGC in manuscript writing and its correlation with author profiles. We found that: (1) since the release of ChatGPT, the likelihood of abstracts being AI-generated has gradually increased; (2) scientists from English-speaking countries are less likely to use AIGC tools for writing assistance, while those from countries with linguistic differences from English are more likely to use these tools; (3) there is weak correlation between a paper's AI-generated probability and authors' academic performance; and (4) authors who have previously published papers with high AI-generated probabilities are more likely to continue using AIGC tools. We believe that this paper provides insightful results for relevant policies and norms and in enhancing the understanding of the relationship between humans and AI.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Some studies have reported differences in estimated LLM usage between English- and non-English-speaking countries, academic fields, and publishing venues.
“Some studies have reported differences in estimated LLM usage between English- and non-English–speaking countries (18–20), academic fields (17), and publishing venues.”
From Delving into LLM-assisted writing in biomedical publications through excess vocabulary (2025) · cites this paper as [19]
The effectiveness of MGT detectors is related to the model of LLMs and the type of text.
“The effectiveness of MGT detectors is also related to the model of LLMs and the type of text (Liu et al., 2024), and their accuracy may also be exaggerated (Doughman et al., 2024).”
From Human-LLM Coevolution: Evidence from Academic Writing (2025) · cites this paper as Liu et al., 2024
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Delving into LLM-assisted writing in biomedical publications through excess vocabulary
Kobak, D., González-Márquez, R., Horvát, E.-Á., & Lause, J. (2025) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.adt3813 · Cited by 213 · see citing works
Human-LLM Coevolution: Evidence from Academic Writing
Geng, M., & Trotta, R. (2025) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2025 · doi:10.18653/v1/2025.findings-acl.657 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Liu, J., He, Y., Zheng, Z., Bu, Y., & Ni, C. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.15872 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Liu, J., & Bu, Y.
- Affiliations
- Peking University (CN)
- ORCID
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2024
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2404.15799
- OpenAlex
- W4395483744
- Cited by
- 2
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2024: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- public-domain
- creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (public-domain)
- Funders
- National Natural Science Foundation of China (72174016, 72104007)
- Peking University
- Topics
- 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
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
- Keywords
- AI-generated content, ChatGPT, large language models, academic writing, manuscript preparation, author profiles, preprints, AI-generated abstracts, language barriers, English-speaking countries, human-AI relationship
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
