Research And Academic Writing Using AI: Present Status and Future Perspectives
Akhil Sharma
Department of Library and Information Science, Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar University, Agra
Author
Prof. U.C. Sharma
Department of Library and Information Science, Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar University, Agra
Author
📌 DOI: https://doi.org/10.63920/tjths.150826002
🔑 Keywords: Artificial Intelligence (AI); Academic Writing (AW); Research Writing (RW); Large Language Models (LLM); ChatGPT; generative AI; research ethics; publication ethics;
📅 Publication Date: 04 July 2026
📜 License:
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
- Share — Copy and Redistribute the material
- Adapt — Remix, Transform, and build upon the material
- The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Abstract:
Artificial Intelligence has entered everyday research work in a very short span of time. Since the public release of conversational language models in late 2022, students, research scholars, teachers and editors have started using such tools to search literature, plan drafts, improve language and manage references. This paper examines the present status of artificial intelligence in research and academic writing and considers the directions this practice may take in the coming years. The study follows a descriptive and analytical review design. It draws on peer reviewed articles, journal editorials, publisher policy statements and survey reports issued between 2022 and 2026, together with an examination of the tools themselves. The paper traces the growth of artificial intelligence from early theoretical work and rule-based chat programs to the transformer architecture that supports present day writing assistants. It then explains how these systems are used at each stage of the research cycle, from topic selection and literature search to drafting, language editing, data analysis and reference formatting. The benefits recorded include saving of time, better readability, fairer treatment of authors who do not write in English as a first language, and easier access to a wide body of literature. The problems recorded include invented references, weak reasoning, hidden bias, data privacy risk, unequal access and unreliable detection software. A table of twenty-three widely used tools, their area of strength and their web addresses is provided for working researchers. The paper closes with recommendations on disclosure, training, institutional policy and human verification.
Download Full PDF Paper
📖 How to Cite
Akhil S. and U.C. Sharma (2026). Research And Academic Writing Using AI: Present Status and Future Perspectives. TEJAS J. Technol. Humanit. Sci., Vol. 05, Issue 03. https://doi.org/10.63920/tjths.150826002
📊 Article Metrics
References
[1] B. D. Lund and T. Wang, “Chatting about ChatGPT: How may AI and GPT impact academia and libraries?” Library Hi Tech News, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 26–29, 2023, doi: 10.1108/LHTN-01-2023-0009.
[2] E. A. M. van Dis, J. Bollen, W. Zuidema, R. van Rooij, and C. L. Bockting, “ChatGPT: Five priorities for research,” Nature, vol. 614, no. 7947, pp. 224–226, 2023, doi: 10.1038/d41586-023-00288-7.
[3] R. Van Noorden and J. M. Perkel, “AI and science: What 1,600 researchers think,” Nature, vol. 621, no. 7980, pp. 672–675, 2023, doi: 10.1038/d41586-023-02980-0.
[4] H. H. Thorp, “ChatGPT is fun, but not an author,” Science, vol. 379, no. 6630, p. 313, 2023, doi: 10.1126/science.adg7879.
[5] Committee on Publication Ethics, “Authorship and AI tools: COPE position statement,” Feb. 13, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://publicationethics.org/cope-position-statements/ai-author
[6] A. M. Turing, “Computing machinery and intelligence,” Mind, vol. 59, no. 236, pp. 433–460, 1950.
[7] J. Weizenbaum, “ELIZA—A computer program for the study of natural language communication between man and machine,” Communications of the ACM, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 36–45, 1966.
[8] A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, A. N. Gomez, Ł. Kaiser, and I. Polosukhin, “Attention is all you need,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 30, 2017, pp. 5998–6008.
[9] C. Stokel-Walker, “ChatGPT listed as author on research papers: Many scientists disapprove,” Nature, vol. 613, no. 7945, pp. 620–621, 2023, doi: 10.1038/d41586-023-00107-z.
[10] M. Salvagno, F. S. Taccone, and A. G. Gerli, “Can artificial intelligence help for scientific writing?” Critical Care, vol. 27, no. 1, p. 75, 2023, doi: 10.1186/s13054-023-04380-2.
[11] I. Dergaa, K. Chamari, P. Zmijewski, and H. Ben Saad, “From human writing to artificial intelligence generated text: Examining the prospects and potential threats of ChatGPT in academic writing,” Biology of Sport, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 615–622, 2023, doi: 10.5114/biolsport.2023.125623.
[12] Nature, “Tools such as ChatGPT threaten transparent science; here are our ground rules for their use,” Nature, vol. 613, no. 7945, p. 612, 2023, doi: 10.1038/d41586-023-00191-1.
[13] H. Alkaissi and S. I. McFarlane, “Artificial hallucinations in ChatGPT: Implications in scientific writing,” Cureus, vol. 15, no. 2, p. e35179, 2023, doi: 10.7759/cureus.35179.
[14] S. A. Athaluri, S. V. Manthena, V. S. R. K. M. Kesapragada, V. Yarlagadda, T. Dave, and R. T. S. Duddumpudi, “Exploring the boundaries of reality: Investigating the phenomenon of artificial intelligence hallucination in scientific writing through ChatGPT references,” Cureus, vol. 15, no. 4, p. e37432, 2023, doi: 10.7759/cureus.37432.
[15] C. A. Gao, F. M. Howard, N. S. Markov, E. C. Dyer, S. Ramesh, Y. Luo, and A. T. Pearson, “Comparing scientific abstracts generated by ChatGPT to real abstracts with detectors and blinded human reviewers,” npj Digital Medicine, vol. 6, no. 1, p. 75, 2023, doi: 10.1038/s41746-023-00819-6.
[16] A. Flanagin, K. Bibbins-Domingo, M. Berkwits, and S. L. Christiansen, “Nonhuman ‘authors’ and implications for the integrity of scientific publication and medical knowledge,” JAMA, vol. 329, no. 8, pp. 637–639, 2023, doi: 10.1001/jama.2023.1344.
[17] W. Liang, M. Yuksekgonul, Y. Mao, E. Wu, and J. Zou, “GPT detectors are biased against non-native English writers,” Patterns, vol. 4, no. 7, p. 100779, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.patter.2023.100779.
[18] H. Desaire, M. Isom, and D. Hua, “Almost nobody is using ChatGPT to write academic science papers (yet),” Big Data and Cognitive Computing, vol. 8, no. 10, p. 133, 2024, doi: 10.3390/bdcc8100133.
[19] International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, “Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/