Appliances of Generative AI-Powered Language Tools in Academic Writing: A Scoping Review

封面

如何引用文章

全文:

详细

Introduction: Academic writing is getting through a transformative shift with the advent of the generative AI-powered tools in 2022. It spurred research in the emerging field that focus on appliances of AI-powered tools in academic writing. As the AI technologies are changing fast, a regular synthesis of new knowledge needs revisiting.

Purpose: Though there are scoping and systematic reviews of some sub-fields, the present review aims to set the scope of the research field of research on GenAI appliances in academic writing.

Method: The review adhered to the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews, and the PPC framework. The eligibility criteria include problem, concept, context, language, subject area, types of sources, database (Scopus), and period (2023-2024).

Results: The three clusters set for the reviewed 44 publications included (1) AI in enhancing academic writing; (2) AI challenges in academic writing; (3) authorship and integrity. The potential of AI language tools embraces many functions (text generation, proofreading, editing, text annotation, paraphrasing and translation) and provides for assistance in research and academic writing, offers strategies for hybrid AI-powered writing of various assignments and genres and improvements in writing quality. Language GenAI-powered tools are also studied as a feedback tool. The challenges and concerns related to the appliances of such tools range from authorship and integrity to overreliance on such tools, misleading or false generated content, inaccurate referencing, inability to generate author’s voice. The review findings are in compliance with the emerging trends outlined in the previous publications, though more publications focus on the mechanisms of integrating the tools in AI-hybrid writing in various contexts. The discourse on challenges is migrating to the revisiting the concepts of authorship and originality of Gen AI-generated content.

Conclusion: The directions of research have shown some re-focusing, with new inputs and new focuses in the field. The transformation of academic writing is accelerating, with new strategies wrought in the academia to face the challenges and rethinking of the basic concepts to meet the shift. Further regular syntheses of knowledge are essential, including more reviews of all already existent and emerging sub-fields.

作者简介

Lilia Raitskaya

MGIMO University

Email: raitskaya.l.k@inno.mgimo.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-2086-6090
Moscow, Russia

Elena Tikhonova

RUDN University

Email: etihonova@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-8252-6150
Moscow, Russia

参考

  1. Ahn, S. (2024). The transformative impact of large language models on medical writing and publishing: Current applications, challenges and future directions. The Korean Journal of Physiology & Ppharmacology: Official Journal of the Korean Physiological Society and the Korean Society of Pharmacology, 28(5), 393-401. DOI:https://doi.org/10.4196/kjpp.2024.28.5.393
  2. Alberth, A. (2023). The use of ChatGPT in writing: A blessing or a curse in disguise? Teflin Journal, 34(2), 337-352. DOI:https://doi.org/10.15639/teflinjournal.v34i2/337-352
  3. Alea Albada, N., & Woods, V.E. (2024). Giving credit where credit is due: An artificial intelligence contribution statement for research methods writing assignments. Teaching of Psychology. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/00986283241259750
  4. Alexander, C. (2023). Best practices for using ChatGPT at the university of Nicosia [Training delivered to University of Nicosia faculty]. Nicosia.
  5. Alkamel, M.A.A., & Alwagieh, N.A.S. (2024). Utilizing an adaptable artificial intelligence writing tool (ChatGPT) to enhance academic writing skills among Yemeni university EFL students. Social Sciences and Humanities Open, 10, Article 101095. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2024.101095
  6. Amirjalili, F., Neysani, M., & Nikbakht, A. (2024). Exploring the boundaries of authorship: A comparative analysis of AI-generated text and human academic writing in English literature. Frontiers in Education, 9, Article 1347421. DOI:https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1347421
  7. Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework.International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19-32. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616
  8. Atkinson, & Bolter, J. D. (2001). Writing space: Computers, hypertext, and the remediation of print. Routledge.
  9. Biber, D. (2006). Stance in spoken and written university registers. Journal for English for Academic Purposes, 5, 97-116.http://doiorg/.DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2006.05.001
  10. Bolaños, F., Salatino, A., Osborne, F., & Motta, E. (2024). Artificial intelligence for literature reviews: Opportunities and challenges. Artificial Intelligence Review, 57(9), Article 259. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-024-10902-3
  11. Bozkurt, A. (2023). Generative AI, synthetic contents, open educational resources (OER), and open educational practices (OEP): A new front in the openness landscape. Open Praxis, 15(3), 1-7. DOI:https://doi.org/10.55982/openpraxis.15.3.579
  12. Bozkurt, A. (2024). GenAI et al.: Cocreation, authorship, ownership, academic ethics and integrity in a time of generative AI. Open Praxis, 16(1), 1-10. DOI:https://doi.org/10.55982/openpraxis.16.1.654
  13. Coffin, C., Curry, M.J., Goodman, S., Hewings, A., Lillis, M., & Swann, J. (2003). Teaching academic writing; A toolkit for higher education. Routledge.
  14. Eaton, S.E. (2023). Postplagiarism: transdisciplinary ethics and integrity in the age of artificial intelligence and neurotechnology.International Journal for Educational Integrity, 19(1), Article 23. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-023-00144-1
  15. Fabiano, N., Gupta, A., Bhambra, N., Luu, B., Wong, S., Maaz, M., Fiedorowicz, J. G., Smith, A. L., & Solmi, M. (2024). How to optimize the systematic review process using AI tools. JCPP Advances, Article e12234.http://doi.org/10/1002/jvc2.12234.
  16. Gralha, J.G., & Pimentel, A.S. (2024). Gotcha GPT: Ensuring the integrity in academic writing. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, 64(21), 8091-8097. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jcim.4c01203
  17. Gunawan, J., Aungsuroch, Y., & Montayre, J. (2024). ChatGPT integration within nursing education and its implications for nursing students: A systematic review and text network analysis. Nurse Education Today, 141, Article 106323. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2024.106323
  18. Imran, M., & Almusharraf, N. (2023). Analyzing the role of ChatGPT as a writing assistant at higher education level: A systematic review of the literature. Contemporary Educational Technology, 15(4), Article ep464. DOI:https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/13605
  19. Jarrah, A.M., Wardat, Y., & Fidalgo, P. (2023). Using ChatGPT in academic writing is (not) a form of plagiarism: What does the literature say? Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies, 13(4), Article e202346. DOI:https://doi.org/10.30935/ojcmt/13572
  20. Johnston, H., Wells, R.F., Shanks, E.M., Boey, T., & Parsons, B.N. (2024). Student perspectives on the use of generative artificial intelligence technologies in higher education.International Journal for Educational Integrity, 20(1), Article 2. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-024-00149-4
  21. Kandeel, M.E., & Eldakak, A. (2024). Legal dangers of using ChatGPT as a co-author according to academic research regulations. Journal of Governance and Regulation, 13(1 Special issue), 289-298. DOI:https://doi.org/10.22495/jgrv13i1siart3
  22. Khalifa, M., & Albadawy, M. (2024). Using artificial intelligence in academic writing and research: An essential productivity tool.Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine Update, Article 100145. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmpbup.2024.100145
  23. Khlaif, Z.N., Mousa, A., Hattab, M.K., Itmazi, J., Hassan, A.A., Sanmugam, M., & Ayyoub, A. (2023). The Potential and Concerns of Using AI in Scientific Research: ChatGPT Performance Evaluation. Medical Education, 9(1), Article e47049. DOI:https://doi.org/10.2196/47049
  24. Kim, J., Yu, S., Detrick, R., & Li, N. (2024). Exploring students' perspectives on Generative AI-assisted academic writing. Education and Information Technologies. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12878-7
  25. Kim, S.J. (2024a). Research ethics and issues regarding the use of ChatGPT-like artificial intelligence platforms by authors and reviewers: a narrative review. Science Editing, 11(2), 96-106. DOI:https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.343
  26. Kim, S.G. (2023). Using ChatGPT for language editing in scientific articles. Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 45, 13. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1186/s40902-023-00381-x
  27. Kim, S.J. (2024b). Trends in research on ChatGPT and adoption-related issues discussed in articles: A narrative review. Science Editing, 11, 3-11. DOI:https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.321
  28. Kohnke, L. (2024). Exploring EAP students' perceptions of GenAI and traditional grammar-checking tools for language learning.Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 7, Article 100279. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100279
  29. Krajka, J., & Olszak, I. (2024a) AI, will you help? How learners use Artificial Intelligence when writing. XLinguae, 17(1), 34-48. DOI:https://doi.org/10.18355/XL.2024.17.01.03
  30. Krajka, J., & Olszak, I. (2024b). Artificial intelligence tools in academic writing instruction: Exploring the potential of on-demand AI assistance in the writing process. Roczniki Humanistyczne, 72(6), 123-140. DOI:https://doi.org/10.18290/rh247206.8
  31. Kurt, G., & Kurt, Y. (2024). Enhancing L2 writing skills: ChatGPT as an automated feedback tool. Journal of Information.
  32. Technology Education: Research, 23, Article 24. DOI:https://doi.org/10.28945/5370
  33. Li, J., Zong, H., Wu, E., Wu, R., Peng, Z., Zhao, J., Yang, L., Xie, H., & Shen, B. (2024). Exploring the potential of artificial intelligence to enhance the writing of English academic papers by non-native English-speaking medical students - the educational application of ChatGPT. BMC Medical Education, 24(1), Article 736. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05738-y
  34. Liao, W., Liu, Z., Dai, H., Xu, S., Wu, Z., Zhang, Y., Huang, X., Zhu, D., Cai, H., Li, Q., Liu, T., & Li, X. (2023). Differentiating ChatGPT-generated and human-written medical texts: Quantitative study. JMIR Medical Education, 9, Article e48904. DOI:https://doi.org/10.2196/48904
  35. Liu, J.Q.J., Hui, K.T.K., Al Zoubi, F., Zhou, Z.Z.X., Samartzis, D., Yu, C.C.H., Chang, J.R., & Wong, A.Y.L. (2024). The great detectives: Humans versus AI detectors in catching large language model-generated medical writing.International Journal for Educational Integrity, 20(1), Article 8. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-024-00155-6
  36. Mahapatra, S. (2024). Impact of ChatGPT on ESL students' academic writing skills: a mixed methods intervention study. Smart Learning Environments, 11(1), Article 9. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-024-00295-9
  37. Mahyoob, M., Algaraady, J., & Alblwi, A. (2023). A proposed framework for human-like language processing of ChatGPT in academic writing.International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 18(14), 282-293. DOI:https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v18i14.41725
  38. Malik, A.R., Pratiwi, Y., Andajani, K., Numertayasa, I.W., Suharti, S., Darwis, A., Marzuki (2023). Exploring artificial intelligence in academic essay: Higher education student's perspective.International Journal of Educational Research Open, 5, Article 100296. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedro.2023.100296
  39. Maphoto, K.B., Sevnarayan, K., Mohale, N.E., Suliman, Z., Ntsopi, T.J., & Mokoena, D.Advancing (2024). Students' academic excellence in distance education: Exploring the potential of generative AI integration to improve academic writing skills. Open Praxis, 16(2), 142-159. DOI:https://doi.org/10.55982/openpraxis.16.2.649
  40. Miao, J., Charat, T., Supawadee, S., Garcia Valencia, O.A., Qureshi, F., & Cheungpasitporn (2024). Ethical dilemmas in using AI for academic writing and an example framework for peer review in nephrology academia: A narrative review. Clinics and Practice, 14(10), 89-105. DOI:https://doi.org/10.3390/clinpract14010008
  41. Misra, D.P., & Chandwar, K. (2023). ChatGPT, artificial intelligence and scientific writing: What authors, peer reviewers and editors should know? Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh, 1-4. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/14782715231181023
  42. Mohammad, T., Alzubi, A.A.F., Nazim, M., & Khan, S.I. (2024). Paraphrasing prowess: Unveiling the insights of EFL students and teachers on QuillBot mastery.International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 14(5), 642-650. DOI:https://doi.org/10.18178/ijiet.2024.14.5.2088
  43. Mondal, H., & Mondal, S. (2023). ChatGPT in academic writing: Maximizing its benefits and minimizing the risks. Indian Journal of Ophthalmology, 71(12), 3600-366. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1002/jcv2.12234
  44. Morreale, M.K., Balon, R., Beresin, E.V., Seritan, A., Castillo, E.G., Thomas, L.A., Louie, A.K., Aggarwal, R., Guerrero, A.P.S., Coverdale, J., & Brenner, A.M. (2024). Artificial intelligence and medical education, academic writing, and journal policies: A focus on Large Language Models. Academic Psychiatry. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s40596-024-02071-w
  45. Nguyen, A., Hong, Y., Dang, B., & Huang, X. (2024). Human-AI collaboration patterns in AI-assisted academic writing. Studies in Higher Education, 49(5), 847-864. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2024.2323593
  46. Ou, A.W., Stöhr, C., & Malmström, H. (2024). Academic communication with AI-powered language tools in higher education: From a post-humanist perspective. System, 121, Article 103225. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2024.103225
  47. Okaibedi, D. (2023). ChatGPT and the rise of generative AI: Threat to academic integrity? Journal of Responsible Technology, 13, Article 100060. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrt.2023.100060
  48. Parker, J.L., Richard, V.M., Acabá, A., Escoffier, S., Flaherty, S., Jablonka, S., & Becker, K.P. (2024). Negotiating meaning with machines: AI's role in doctoral writing pedagogy.International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-024-00425-x
  49. Perkins, M. (2023). Academic Integrity considerations of AI large language models in the post-pandemic era: ChatGPT and beyond. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 20(2). DOI:https://doi.org/10.53761/1.20.02.07
  50. Rababah, L.M., Rababah, M.A., & Al-Khawaldeh, N.N. (2024). Graduate students' ChatGPT experience and perspectives during thesis writing.International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy, 14(3), 22-35. DOI:https://doi.org/10.3991/ijep.v14i3.48395
  51. Rafida, T., Suwandi, S., Ananda, R. (2024). EFL students' perception in Indonesia and Taiwan on using artificial intelligence to enhance writing skills. Jurnal Ilmiah Peuradeun, 12(3), 987-1016. DOI:https://doi.org/10.26811/peuradeun.v12i3.1520
  52. Raitskaya, L., & Lambovska, M. (2024). Prospects for ChatGPT application in higher education: A scoping review of international research.Integration of Education, 28(1), 10-21. DOI:https://doi.org/10.15507/1991-9468.114.028.202401.010-021
  53. Rao, K.N., Arora, R.D., Dange, P., & Nagarkar, N.M. (2023). NLP AI models for optimizing medical research: Demystifying the concerns. Indian Journal of Surgical Oncology, 14, 854-858. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s13193-023-01791-z
  54. Shorey, S., Mattar, C., Pereira, T.L.-B., & Choolani, M. (2024). A scoping review of ChatGPT's role in healthcare education and research. Nurse Education Today, 135, 106121. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2024.106121
  55. Tarchi, C., Zappoli, A., Casado Ledesma, L., & Brante, E.W. (2024). The use of ChatGPT in source-based writing tasks. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-024-00413-1
  56. Temsah, O., Khan, S.A., Chaiah, Y., Senjab, A., Alhasan, K., Jamal, A., Aljamaan, F., Malki, K.H., Halwani, R., Al-Tawfiq, J.A.
  57. Temsah, M.-H., & Al-Eyadhy, A. (2023). Overview of early ChatGPT's presence in medical literature: Insights from a hybrid literature review by ChatGPT and human experts. Cureus, 15, Article e37281. DOI:https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.37281
  58. Teng, M.F. (2023). Scientific writing, reviewing, and editing for open-access TESOL journals: The role of ChatGPT.International Journal of TESOL Studies, 5(1), 87-91. DOI:https://doi.org/10.58304/ijts.20230107
  59. Tewari, S., Zabounidis, R., Kothari, A., Bailey, R., & Alm, C.O. (2021). Perceptions of human and machine-generated articles. Digital Threats: Research and Practice, 2(2), Article 12. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3428158
  60. Thorp, H.H. (2023). ChatGPT is fun, but not an author. Science, 379(6630), Article 313. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adg7879
  61. Tikhonova, E., & Raitskaya, L. (2023). ChatGPT: Where is a silver lining? Exploring the realm of GPT and Large Language Models. Journal of Language and Education, 9(3), 5-11. DOI:https://doi.org/10.17323/jle.2023.18119
  62. Tricco, A.C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O'Brien, K.K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., Moher, D., Peters, M.D.J., Horseley, T., Weeks, L.
  63. Hempel, S., & Akl, E.A. (2018). PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 169(7), 467-73. DOI:https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850
  64. Tusting, K., McCulloch, S., Bhatt, I., Hamilton, M., & Barton, D. (2019). Academics writing. The dynamics of knowledge creation. Routledge.
  65. Utami, S.P.T., Andayani, Winarni, R., Sumarwati (2023). Utilization of artificial intelligence technology in an academic writing class: How do Indonesian students perceive? Contemporary Educational Technology, 15(4), Article ep450. DOI:https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/13419
  66. Williams, A. (2024).Comparison of generative AI performance on undergraduate and postgraduate written assessments in the biomedical sciences.International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 21(1), Article 52. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-024-00485-y
  67. Yao, Y., Sun, Y., Zhu, S., & Zhu, X. (2024). A Qualitative inquiry into metacognitive strategies of postgraduate students in employing ChatGPT for English academic writing. European Journal of Education, Article e12824. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12824

补充文件

附件文件
动作
1. JATS XML
下载


Creative Commons License
此作品已接受知识共享署名 4.0国际许可协议的许可