SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
ChatGPT or Gemini: Who Makes the Better Scientific Writing Assistant?
16 references·1 citing·36 second hop
ChatGPT or Gemini: Who Makes the Better Scientific Writing Assistant? (2024)ChatGPT or Gemini: Who Makes the Better S…The use of artificial intelligence to improve the scientific writing of non-native english speakers (2023)The use of artificial intelli…The role of ChatGPT in scientific communication: writing better scientific review articles. (2023)The role of ChatGPT in scient…Leveraging AI tools to develop the writer rather than the writing (2023)Leveraging AI tools to develo…Is ChatGPT a valid author? (2023)Is ChatGPT a valid author?How trustworthy is ChatGPT? The case of bibliometric analyses (2023)How trustworthy is ChatGPT? T…Evaluating the authenticity of ChatGPT responses: a study on text-matching capabilities (2023)Evaluating the authenticity o…Comparing scientific abstracts generated by ChatGPT to real abstracts with detectors and blinded human reviewers (2023)Comparing scientific abstract…ChatGPT listed as author on research papers: many scientists disapprove (2023)ChatGPT listed as author on r…ChatGPT is fun, but not an author (2023)ChatGPT is fun, but not an au…ChatGPT and other artificial intelligence applications speed up scientific writing (2023)ChatGPT and other artificial …Can an artificial intelligence chatbot be the author of a scholarly article? (2023)Can an artificial intelligenc…Artificial intelligence in scientific writing: a friend or a foe? (2023)Artificial intelligence in sc…Speeding up to keep up: exploring the use of AI in the research process (2021)Speeding up to keep up: explo…Writing the title and abstract for a research paper: Being concise, precise, and meticulous is the key (2019)Writing the title and abstrac…The relationship between manuscript title structure and success: editorial decisions and citation performance for an ecological journal (2015)The relationship between manu…From Research to Manuscript: A Guide to Scientific Writing (2006)From Research to Manuscript: …ChatGPT in Academic Writing: A Scientometric Analysis of Literature Published Between 2022 and 2023 (2025)ChatGPT in Academic Writing: …The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies (2007)The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for Reporting Observational Studies (2007)The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies (2008)The Principles of Biomedical Scientific Writing: Title (2019)A brief guide to the science and art of writing manuscripts in biomedicine (2020)The Principles of Biomedical Scientific Writing: Abstract and Keywords (2020)Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook (1988)Using thematic analysis in psychology (2006)The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines (2019)Expert views about missing AI narratives: is there an AI story crisis? (2022)Friend or foe? Exploring the implications of large language models on the science system (2023)The Role of Artificial Intelligence in the Study of the Psychology of Religion (2024)Risks of abuse of large language models, like ChatGPT , in scientific publishing: Authorship, predatory publishing, and paper mills (2023)Tools such as ChatGPT threaten transparent science; here are our ground rules for their use (2023)Academic publisher guidelines on AI usage: A ChatGPT supported thematic analysis (2024)Can ChatGPT be an author? Generative AI creative writing assistance and perceptions of authorship, creatorship, responsibility, and disclosure (2024)Abstracts written by ChatGPT fool scientists (2023)Fluent but Not Factual: A Comparative Analysis of ChatGPT and Other AI Chatbots’ Proficiency and Originality in Scientific Writing for Humanities (2023)Is ChatGPT a “Fire of Prometheus” for Non-Native English-Speaking Researchers in Academic Writing? (2023)The dominance of English in the international scientific periodical literature and the future of language use in science (2007)AI-Based Modeling: Techniques, Applications and Research Issues Towards Automation, Intelligent and Smart Systems (2022)Papers and patents are becoming less disruptive over time (2023)A review of top cardiology and cardiovascular medicine journal guidelines regarding the use of generative artificial intelligence tools in scientific writing (2024)Artificial intelligence (AI) and ChatGPT involvement in scientific and medical writing, a new concern for researchers. A scoping review (2024)Artificial Intelligence in Peer Review: Enhancing Efficiency While Preserving Integrity (2025)ChatGPT and the rise of generative AI: Threat to academic integrity? (2023)From human writing to artificial intelligence generated text: examining the prospects and potential threats of ChatGPT in academic writing (2023)The ethics of ChatGPT – Exploring the ethical issues of an emerging technology (2023)ChatGPT: A comprehensive review on background, applications, key challenges, bias, ethics, limitations and future scope (2023)Opinion Paper: “So what if ChatGPT wrote it?” Multidisciplinary perspectives on opportunities, challenges and implications of generative conversational AI for research, practice and policy (2023)Artificial Intelligence Can Generate Fraudulent but Authentic-Looking Scientific Medical Articles: Pandora’s Box Has Been Opened (2023)Investigating the Impact of User Trust on the Adoption and Use of ChatGPT: Survey Analysis (2023)Evaluating the efficacy of AI content detection tools in differentiating between human and AI-generated text (2023)Testing of detection tools for AI-generated text (2023)Ethical Dilemmas in Using AI for Academic Writing and an Example Framework for Peer Review in Nephrology Academia: A Narrative Review (2023)The emergence of large language models as tools in literature reviews: a large language model-assisted systematic review (2025)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2023ChatGPT is fun, but not an author1,433 cited
  • 2023Comparing scientific abstracts generated by ChatGPT to real abstracts with detectors and blinded human reviewers1,097 cited
  • 2023ChatGPT listed as author on research papers: many scientists disapprove868 cited
  • 2023The role of ChatGPT in scientific communication: writing better scientific review articles.289 cited
  • 2023ChatGPT and other artificial intelligence applications speed up scientific writing240 cited
  • 2021Speeding up to keep up: exploring the use of AI in the research process217 cited
  • 2023Artificial intelligence in scientific writing: a friend or a foe?174 cited
  • 2023The use of artificial intelligence to improve the scientific writing of non-native english speakers158 cited
  • 2019Writing the title and abstract for a research paper: Being concise, precise, and meticulous is the key146 cited
  • 2023Can an artificial intelligence chatbot be the author of a scholarly article?108 cited
  • 2023Evaluating the authenticity of ChatGPT responses: a study on text-matching capabilities93 cited
  • 2015The relationship between manuscript title structure and success: editorial decisions and citation performance for an ecological journal88 cited
  • 2023Is ChatGPT a valid author?72 cited
  • 2006From Research to Manuscript: A Guide to Scientific Writing

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

67 cited
  • 2023Leveraging AI tools to develop the writer rather than the writing65 cited
  • 2023How trustworthy is ChatGPT? The case of bibliometric analyses57 cited
  • Cited by

    • 2025ChatGPT in Academic Writing: A Scientometric Analysis of Literature Published Between 2022 and 202333 cited