SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Comparing letters written by humans and ChatGPT : A preliminary study
3 references·2 citing·18 second hop
Comparing letters written by humans and ChatGPT : A preliminary study (2024)Comparing letters written by humans and C…Embrace responsible ChatGPT usage to overcome language barriers in academic writing (2023)Embrace responsible ChatGPT u…Chatbots, generative AI, and scholarly manuscripts (2023)Chatbots, generative AI, and …Artificial intelligence in scientific writing: a friend or a foe? (2023)Artificial intelligence in sc…Will the day come when opinion and letter pieces disappear from the medical journals? (2025)Will the day come when opinio…What's the difference between human‐written manuscripts versus ChatGPT‐generated manuscripts involving “human touch”? (2025)What's the difference between…Abstracts written by ChatGPT fool scientists (2023)Are users willing to embrace ChatGPT? Exploring the factors on the acceptance of chatbots from the perspective of AIDUA framework (2023)ChatGPT listed as author on research papers: many scientists disapprove (2023)Exploring Artificial Intelligence in Academic Essay: Higher Education Student's Perspective (2023)The use of artificial intelligence to improve the scientific writing of non-native english speakers (2023)Tools such as ChatGPT threaten transparent science; here are our ground rules for their use (2023)Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals (2015)ChatGPT for tourism: applications, benefits and risks (2023)Nonhuman “Authors” and Implications for the Integrity of Scientific Publication and Medical Knowledge (2023)Publishers’ and journals’ instructions to authors on use of generative artificial intelligence in academic and scientific publishing: bibliometric analysis (2024)Languages Are Still a Major Barrier to Global Science (2016)The manifold costs of being a non-native English speaker in science (2023)The role of ChatGPT in scientific communication: writing better scientific review articles. (2023)Mapping the reporting practices in recent randomised controlled trials published in Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy: A scoping review of methodological quality (2025)Negotiating identity in the age of ChatGPT: non-native English researchers’ experiences with AI-assisted academic writing (2025)Academic journals’ AI policies fail to curb the surge in AI-assisted academic writing (2026)Artificial intelligence in writing manuscripts: some considerations (2023)Man Versus Machine: A Comparative Study of Human and ChatGPT-Generated Abstracts in Plastic Surgery Research (2025)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2023Artificial intelligence in scientific writing: a friend or a foe?174 cited
  • 2023Chatbots, generative AI, and scholarly manuscripts130 cited
  • 2023Embrace responsible ChatGPT usage to overcome language barriers in academic writing40 cited

Cited by

  • 2025What's the difference between human‐written manuscripts versus ChatGPT‐generated manuscripts involving “human touch”?21 cited
  • 2025Will the day come when opinion and letter pieces disappear from the medical journals?7 cited

Only edges whose both ends are imported exist here. Widen the year window, or show the whole map. Back to the work