LLMs as Research Tools: A Large Scale Survey of Researchers' Usage and Perceptions
Open accessAbstract
The rise of large language models (LLMs) has led many researchers to consider their usage for scientific work. Some have found benefits using LLMs to augment or automate aspects of their research pipeline, while others have urged caution due to risks and ethical concerns. Yet little work has sought to quantify and characterize how researchers use LLMs and why. We present the first large-scale survey of 816 verified research article authors to understand how the research community leverages and perceives LLMs as research tools. We examine participants' self-reported LLM usage, finding that 81% of researchers have already incorporated LLMs into different aspects of their research workflow. We also find that traditionally disadvantaged groups in academia (non-White, junior, and non-native English speaking researchers) report higher LLM usage and perceived benefits, suggesting potential for improved research equity. However, women, non-binary, and senior researchers have greater ethical concerns, potentially hindering adoption.
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?
Many researchers are utilizing LLMs in their work.
“Survey results also show that many researchers are utilizing LLMs in their work (Liao et al., 2024).”
From Human-LLM Coevolution: Evidence from Academic Writing (2025) · cites this paper as Liao et al., 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.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
Cited by 7
Research works printed but not linked: 9
- 2023. Writing the rules in AI-assisted writing. Nature Machine Intelligence 5 (2023), 469 -469. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:258846433
- AAAI. 2024. Policy on use of AI systems in producing AAAI or AAAI-related publications. Retrieved September 6, 2024 from https://aaai.org/aaai- publications/aaai-publication-policies-guidelines/
- ACL. 2024. ACL 2023 Policy on AI Writing Assistance. Retrieved September 6, 2024 from https://2023.aclweb.org/blog/ACL-2023-policy/
- ACM. 2024. ACM Policy on Authorship. Retrieved September 6, 2024 from https://www.acm.org/publications/policies/frequently-asked-questions
- Lynne M. Connelly. 2013. Grounded theory. Medsurg nursing : official journal of the Academy of Medical-Surgical Nurses 22 2 (2013), 124, 127.
- David Rodríguez Goyes and May-Len Skilbrei. 2023. Rich scholar, poor scholar: inequalities in research capacity, "knowledge" abysses, and the value of unconventional approaches to research. Crime, Law and Social Change (2023). https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:259644345
- IEEE. 2024. IEEE Guidelines for Generative AI Usage. Retrieved September 6, 2024 from https://www.ieee-ras.org/publications/guidelines-for- generative-ai-usage
- Chaoqun Ni, Elise Smith, Haimiao Yuan, Vincent Larivière, and Cassidy R Sugimoto. 2021. The gendered nature of authorship. Science advances 7, 36 (2021), eabe4639.
- Caleb Ziems, William Held, Omar Shaikh, Jiaao Chen, Zhehao Zhang, and Diyi Yang. 2024. Can Large Language Models Transform Computational Social Science? Computational Linguistics 50, 1 (March 2024), 237-291. https://doi.org/10.1162/ · DOI · Paper page
- Authors
- Liao, Z., Antoniak, M., Cheong, I., Cheng, E. Y.-Y., Lee, A.-H., Lo, K., Chang, J. C., & Zhang, A. X.
- Affiliations
- University of Washington (US)
- University of Copenhagen (DK)
- Princeton University (US)
- Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence (US)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2024
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2411.05025
- OpenAlex
- W4404388977
- Cited by
- 7
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 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
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence Applications
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Keywords
- large language models, research workflow automation, researcher perceptions, research equity, non-native English speakers, young researchers, ethical considerations
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
