Who Gets Seen in the Age of AI? Adoption Patterns of Large Language Models in Scholarly Writing and Citation Outcomes

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2509.08306v1
• Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 06:05:34 GMT
• Title: Who Gets Seen in the Age of AI? Adoption Patterns of Large Language Models in Scholarly Writing and Citation Outcomes
• Authors: Farhan Kamrul Khan, Hazem Ibrahim, Nouar Aldahoul, Talal Rahwan, Yasir Zaki,
• Abstract summary: Authors in the Global East adopt AI tools more aggressively, yet Western authors gain more per unit of adoption due to pre-existing penalties for "humanlike" writing.<n>Prestigious journals continue to privilege more human-sounding texts, creating tensions between visibility and gatekeeping.
• Score: 1.5702201012657682
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: The rapid adoption of generative AI tools is reshaping how scholars produce and communicate knowledge, raising questions about who benefits and who is left behind. We analyze over 230,000 Scopus-indexed computer science articles between 2021 and 2025 to examine how AI-assisted writing alters scholarly visibility across regions. Using zero-shot detection of AI-likeness, we track stylistic changes in writing and link them to citation counts, journal placement, and global citation flows before and after ChatGPT. Our findings reveal uneven outcomes: authors in the Global East adopt AI tools more aggressively, yet Western authors gain more per unit of adoption due to pre-existing penalties for "humanlike" writing. Prestigious journals continue to privilege more human-sounding texts, creating tensions between visibility and gatekeeping. Network analyses show modest increases in Eastern visibility and tighter intra-regional clustering, but little structural integration overall. These results highlight how AI adoption reconfigures the labor of academic writing and reshapes opportunities for recognition.

Related papers

• AI-Assisted Writing Is Growing Fastest Among Non-English-Speaking and Less Established Scientists [2.9557942678513007]
  We analyze over two million full-text biomedical publications from PubMed Central from 2021 to 2024.<n>We observe a significant post-ChatGPT surge in AI-assisted writing, with adoption growing fastest in contexts where language barriers are most pronounced.<n>Increased AI usage was associated with a modest increase in productivity, narrowing the publication gap between scientists from English-speaking and non-English-speaking countries.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-19T21:00:18Z)
• Does GenAI Rewrite How We Write? An Empirical Study on Two-Million Preprints [15.070885964897734]
  Generative large language models (LLMs) introduce a further potential disruption by altering how manuscripts are written.<n>This paper addresses the gap through a large-scale analysis of more than 2.1 million preprints spanning 2016--2025 (115 months) across four major repositories.<n>Our findings reveal that LLMs have accelerated submission and revision cycles, modestly increased linguistic complexity, and disproportionately expanded AI-related topics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-18T01:37:40Z)
• CoCoNUTS: Concentrating on Content while Neglecting Uninformative Textual Styles for AI-Generated Peer Review Detection [60.52240468810558]
  We introduce CoCoNUTS, a content-oriented benchmark built upon a fine-grained dataset of AI-generated peer reviews.<n>We also develop CoCoDet, an AI review detector via a multi-task learning framework, to achieve more accurate and robust detection of AI involvement in review content.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-28T06:03:11Z)
• Computational Approaches to Understanding Large Language Model Impact on Writing and Information Ecosystems [10.503784446147122]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown significant potential to change how we write, communicate, and create.<n>This dissertation examines how individuals and institutions are adapting to and engaging with this emerging technology.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-20T20:15:09Z)
• What Makes a Good Natural Language Prompt? [72.3282960118995]
  We conduct a meta-analysis surveying more than 150 prompting-related papers from leading NLP and AI conferences from 2022 to 2025.<n>We propose a property- and human-centric framework for evaluating prompt quality, encompassing 21 properties categorized into six dimensions.<n>We then empirically explore multi-property prompt enhancements in reasoning tasks, observing that single-property enhancements often have the greatest impact.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-07T23:19:27Z)
• Almost AI, Almost Human: The Challenge of Detecting AI-Polished Writing [55.2480439325792]
  This study systematically evaluations twelve state-of-the-art AI-text detectors using our AI-Polished-Text Evaluation dataset.<n>Our findings reveal that detectors frequently flag even minimally polished text as AI-generated, struggle to differentiate between degrees of AI involvement, and exhibit biases against older and smaller models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-21T18:45:37Z)
• Monitoring AI-Modified Content at Scale: A Case Study on the Impact of ChatGPT on AI Conference Peer Reviews [51.453135368388686]
  We present an approach for estimating the fraction of text in a large corpus which is likely to be substantially modified or produced by a large language model (LLM) Our maximum likelihood model leverages expert-written and AI-generated reference texts to accurately and efficiently examine real-world LLM-use at the corpus level.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-11T21:51:39Z)
• Generative AI in Writing Research Papers: A New Type of Algorithmic Bias and Uncertainty in Scholarly Work [0.38850145898707145]
  Large language models (LLMs) and generative AI tools present challenges in identifying and addressing biases. generative AI tools are susceptible to goal misgeneralization, hallucinations, and adversarial attacks such as red teaming prompts. We find that incorporating generative AI in the process of writing research manuscripts introduces a new type of context-induced algorithmic bias.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-04T04:05:04Z)
• Perceptions and Detection of AI Use in Manuscript Preparation for Academic Journals [1.881901067333374]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have produced both excitement and worry about how AI will impact academic writing. Authors of academic publications may decide to voluntarily disclose any AI tools they use to revise their manuscripts. journals and conferences could begin mandating disclosure and/or turn to using detection services.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-19T06:04:46Z)
• Towards Possibilities & Impossibilities of AI-generated Text Detection: A Survey [97.33926242130732]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have revolutionized the domain of natural language processing (NLP) with remarkable capabilities of generating human-like text responses. Despite these advancements, several works in the existing literature have raised serious concerns about the potential misuse of LLMs. To address these concerns, a consensus among the research community is to develop algorithmic solutions to detect AI-generated text.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-23T18:11:32Z)
• AI, write an essay for me: A large-scale comparison of human-written versus ChatGPT-generated essays [66.36541161082856]
  ChatGPT and similar generative AI models have attracted hundreds of millions of users. This study compares human-written versus ChatGPT-generated argumentative student essays.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-24T12:58:28Z)
• ChatGPT or academic scientist? Distinguishing authorship with over 99% accuracy using off-the-shelf machine learning tools [0.0]
  ChatGPT has enabled access to AI-generated writing for the masses. Need to discriminate human writing from AI is now both critical and urgent. We developed a method for discriminating text generated by ChatGPT from (human) academic scientists.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-28T23:16:00Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.