CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 2scientometrics and bibliometrics researchAcademic Writing and PublishingAcademic Publishing and Open Access

AI-Assisted Writing Is Growing Fastest Among Less Established Scientists in Non-English-Speaking Countries

Open access
Liu, Jialin, He, Yongyuan, Zheng, Zhihan, Bu, Yi, Ni, Chaoqun·2025·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2511.15872arXiv 2511.15872
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The recent emergence of AI-assisted writing raises an important question: how is this new technology being adopted across the scientific community, and how does adoption vary across linguistic and professional contexts? We analyze over two million full-text biomedical publications from PubMed Central from 2021 to 2024 using a distribution-based framework to estimate AI-generated content. We found that, in biomedical publications, AI-generated content increased substantially after ChatGPT, with larger increases in publications from countries with lower English proficiency. Increases were also greater among scientists with fewer publications and citations, those at earlier career stages, and those at lower-ranked institutions. Prior AI research experience was associated with greater increases in AI-assisted writing, which were also modestly associated with greater increases in publication productivity. These findings show that AI-assisted writing is growing fastest among biomedical scientists who may have historically faced barriers, a pattern with potentially positive implications for equity in science.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2511.15872

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.

Research works printed but not linked: 42

  1. Mohammadi, E. et al. Is generative AI reshaping academic practices worldwide? A survey of adoption, benefits, and concerns. Inf. Process. Manag. 63, 104350 (2026).
  2. Stokel-Walker, C. Chatbot invasion: generative AI has infiltrated scientific publishing. Sci. Am. 331, 16 (2024).
  3. Siler, K. The diffusion of large language models in published academic articles. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 123, e2605754123 (2026).
  4. He, Y. & Bu, Y. Academic journals' AI policies fail to curb the surge in AI-assisted academic writing. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 123, e2526734123 (2026).
  5. Oliveira, T. & Martins, M. F. Literature review of information technology adoption models at firm level. Electron. J. Inf. Syst. Eval. 14, 110-121 (2011).
  6. Ammon, U. The Dominance of English as a Language of Science: Effects on Other Languages and Language Communities. vol. 84 (Walter de Gruyter, 2011).
  7. Amano, T. et al. The manifold costs of being a non-native English speaker in science. PLoS Biol. 21, e3002184 (2023).
  8. Ramí rez-Castañeda, V. Disadvantages in preparing and publishing scientific papers caused by the dominance of the English language in science: the case of Colombian researchers in biological sciences. PLOS ONE 15, e0238372 (2020).
  9. Zhang, Y., Eto, H. & Cui, J. Linguistic challenges of writing papers in English for scholarly publication: perceptions of Chinese academics in science and engineering. PLOS ONE 20, e0324760 (2025).
  10. Lepp, H. & Smith, D. S. 'You Cannot Sound Like GPT': signs of language discrimination and resistance in computer science publishing. in Proceedings of the 2025 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency 3162-3181 (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2025).
  11. Amano, T., Gonzá lez-Varo, J. P. & Sutherland, W. J. Languages are still a major barrier to global science. PLoS Biol. 14, e2000933 (2016).
  12. Editorials, N. Tools such as ChatGPT threaten transparent science; here are our ground rules for their use. Nature 613, 612 (2023).
  13. Thorp, H. H. ChatGPT is fun, but not an author. Science 379, 313 (2023).
  14. Thelwall, M. & Kousha, K. Have LLM-associated terms increased in article full texts in all fields? Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2604.07565 (2026). · DOI
  15. McCreery, Z. & Naser, M. Z. LLM-assisted writing in engineering is associated with higher citations as evidenced from 1.17 million papers. J. Informetr. 20, 101842 (2026).
  16. Adam, D. The peer-review crisis: how to fix an overloaded system. Nature 644, 24-27 (2025).
  17. Richardson, R. A. K., Hong, S. S., Byrne, J. A., Stoeger, T. & Amaral, L. A. N. The entities enabling scientific fraud at scale are large, resilient, and growing rapidly. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 122, e2420092122 (2025).
  18. Sarewitz, D. The pressure to publish pushes down quality. Nature 533, 147 (2016).
  19. Wang, D. Prizes must recognize machine contributions to discovery. Nature 646, 261 (2025).
  20. Kasneci, E. et al. ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learn. Individ. Differ. 103, 102274 (2023).
  21. Lehr, S. A., Caliskan, A., Liyanage, S. & Banaji, M. R. ChatGPT as research scientist: Probing GPT's capabilities as a research librarian, research ethicist, data generator, and data predictor. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 121, e2404328121 (2024).
  22. Hu, H., Zhou, Q. & Hashim, H. Negotiating identity in the age of ChatGPT: non-native English researchers' experiences with AI-assisted academic writing. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. 12, 965 (2025).
  23. Maddi, A., Maisonobe, M. & Boukacem-Zeghmouri, C. Geographical and disciplinary coverage of open access journals: OpenAlex, Scopus, and WoS. PLOS ONE 20, e0320347 (2025).
  24. Forchino, M. V. & Torres-Salinas, D. The OpenAlex database in review: evaluating its applications, capabilities, and limitations. J. Informetr. 20, 101800 (2026).
  25. Liang, W. et al. The widespread adoption of large language model-assisted writing across society. Patterns 6, 101366 (2025).
  26. Wang, H., Zhang, M., Bu, Y., Zhao, S. X. & Liu, M. Smaller, younger, and more impactful: how AI-assisted writing transforms research teams. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2605.27404 (2026). · DOI
  27. Qian, Y. et al. The rise of large language models and the direction and impact of US federal research funding. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 123, e2601439123 (2026).
  28. Liang, W. et al. Monitoring AI-modified content at scale: a case study on the impact of ChatGPT on AI conference peer reviews. in International Conference on Machine Learning 29575-29620 (PMLR, 2024).
  29. Sollaci, L. B. & Pereira, M. G. The introduction, methods, results, and discussion (IMRAD) structure: a fifty-year survey. J. Med. Libr. Assoc. 92, 364 (2004).
  30. Ahmed, I. & Afzal, M. T. A systematic approach to map the research articles' sections to IMRAD. IEEE Access 8, 129359-129371 (2020).
  31. Priem, J., Piwowar, H. & Orr, R. OpenAlex: a fully-open index of scholarly works, authors, venues, institutions, and concepts. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2205.01833 (2022). · DOI
  32. Forchino, M. V. & Torres-Salinas, D. The OpenAlex database in review: evaluating its applications, capabilities, and limitations. J. Informetr. 20, 101800 (2026).
  33. Maddi, A., Maisonobe, M. & Boukacem-Zeghmouri, C. Geographical and disciplinary coverage of open access journals: OpenAlex, Scopus, and WoS. PLOS ONE 20, e0320347 (2025).
  34. Alonso-Alvarez, P. & Eck, N. J. van. Coverage and metadata availability of African publications in OpenAlex: a comparative analysis. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2409.01120 (2024). · DOI
  35. Stokel-Walker, C. Chatbot invasion: generative AI has infiltrated scientific publishing. Sci. Am. 331, 16 (2024).
  36. Akram, A. Quantitative analysis of AI-generated texts in academic research: a study of AI presence in arXiv submissions using AI detection tool. ArXiv Prepr. ArXiv240313812 https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.13812 (2024). · arXiv
  37. Liang, W., Yuksekgonul, M., Mao, Y., Wu, E. & Zou, J. GPT detectors are biased against non-native English writers. Patterns 4, 100779 (2023).
  38. Weber-Wulff, D. et al. Testing of detection tools for AI-generated text. Int. J. Educ. Integr. 19, 26 (2023).
  39. Liang, W. et al. The widespread adoption of large language model-assisted writing across society. Patterns 6, 101366 (2025).
  40. Wang, H., Zhang, M., Bu, Y., Zhao, S. X. & Liu, M. Smaller, younger, and more impactful: how AI-assisted writing transforms research teams. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2605.27404 (2026). · DOI
  41. Qian, Y. et al. The rise of large language models and the direction and impact of US federal research funding. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 123, e2601439123 (2026).
  42. Liang, W. et al. Monitoring AI-modified content at scale: a case study on the impact of ChatGPT on AI conference peer reviews. in International Conference on Machine Learning 29575-29620 (PMLR, 2024).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Liu, J., He, Y., Zheng, Z., Bu, Y., & Ni, C.
Affiliations
  • University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
  • Peking University (CN)
  • University of Hong Kong (HK)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2025
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2511.15872
arXiv
2511.15872
OpenAlex
W4416550180
Cited by
1
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
  • University of Wisconsin-Madison
  • Peking University
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Academic Writing and Publishing
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
Keywords
AI-assisted writing, AI-generated content, ChatGPT, biomedical literature, scientific writing, English proficiency, non-English speaking countries, early-career researchers, research productivity, equity in science, institutional prestige

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