Generative Artificial Intelligence, AI for Scientific Writing: A Literature Review

From OpenAlex, which stores abstracts as an index of words and their positions: what is shown is rebuilt from that, and reads fluently whether or not it is what the author wrote.

Abstract

The growing usage of Generative AI tools in scientific writing requires a critical examination of their benefits and challenges. This literature review is aimed at comprehensively analyzing current empirical research articles focused on the application of Generative AI in scientific writing. The Google Scholar database was used to search for the literature. The following keywords were used: "Generative AI" and "academic writing", "LLM" (Large Language Models) and "academic writing", "Generative AI" and "Scientific writing", and "ChatGPT" and "Scientific Writing". The search was restricted to articles published between January 1, 2023, and April 30, 2024. 15 articles were selected as appropriate for the study and analyzed. It was found that, thus far, ChatGPT is the most exploited tool in the studies. AI tools such as Bard (Gemini), Bing, Claude2, and Elicit were also tested. The benefits of Generative AI usage in scientific writing were found to be omnipresent. It can aid in the generation of structured abstracts, titles, introductions, literature reviews, and conclusions of a scientific article. Generative AI also makes writing more efficient and time-saving. Its capabilities in improving language and proofreading are well-established. However, the generation of inaccurate content and references by current commercially available LLMs poses a serious problem. The lack of critical thinking and tendency to produce non-original content are significant drawbacks. Generative AI should be employed with human oversight, serving as an assistant rather than a replacement. Transparency in AI usage in scientific writing is essential, along with the necessity for proper legal regulation.