Accepted with Minor Revisions: Value of AI-Assisted Scientific Writing

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2511.12529v1
• Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2025 09:49:01 GMT
• Title: Accepted with Minor Revisions: Value of AI-Assisted Scientific Writing
• Authors: Sanchaita Hazra, Doeun Lee, Bodhisattwa Prasad Majumder, Sachin Kumar,
• Abstract summary: We examine the potential of Large Language Models to support domain experts in scientific writing.<n>We design an incentivized controlled trial with a hypothetical conference setup where participants with relevant expertise are split into an author and reviewer pool.<n>Inspired by methods in behavioral science, our novel incentive structure encourages authors to edit the provided abstracts to an acceptable quality for a peer-reviewed submission.
• Score: 16.303672551924553
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models have seen expanding application across domains, yet their effectiveness as assistive tools for scientific writing -- an endeavor requiring precision, multimodal synthesis, and domain expertise -- remains insufficiently understood. We examine the potential of LLMs to support domain experts in scientific writing, with a focus on abstract composition. We design an incentivized randomized controlled trial with a hypothetical conference setup where participants with relevant expertise are split into an author and reviewer pool. Inspired by methods in behavioral science, our novel incentive structure encourages authors to edit the provided abstracts to an acceptable quality for a peer-reviewed submission. Our 2x2 between-subject design expands into two dimensions: the implicit source of the provided abstract and the disclosure of it. We find authors make most edits when editing human-written abstracts compared to AI-generated abstracts without source attribution, often guided by higher perceived readability in AI generation. Upon disclosure of source information, the volume of edits converges in both source treatments. Reviewer decisions remain unaffected by the source of the abstract, but bear a significant correlation with the number of edits made. Careful stylistic edits, especially in the case of AI-generated abstracts, in the presence of source information, improve the chance of acceptance. We find that AI-generated abstracts hold potential to reach comparable levels of acceptability to human-written ones with minimal revision, and that perceptions of AI authorship, rather than objective quality, drive much of the observed editing behavior. Our findings reverberate the significance of source disclosure in collaborative scientific writing.

Related papers

• Accelerating Scientific Research with Gemini: Case Studies and Common Techniques [105.15622072347811]
  Large language models (LLMs) have opened new avenues for accelerating scientific research.<n>We present a collection of case studies demonstrating how researchers have successfully collaborated with advanced AI models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-03T18:56:17Z)
• Author-in-the-Loop Response Generation and Evaluation: Integrating Author Expertise and Intent in Responses to Peer Review [53.99984738447279]
  Recent work frames this task as automatic text generation, underusing author expertise and intent.<n>We introduce REspGen, a generation framework that integrates explicit author input, multi-attribute control, and evaluation-guided refinement.<n>To support this formulation, we construct Re$3$Align, the first large-scale dataset of aligned review-response--revision triplets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-19T14:07:10Z)
• 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)
• LiRA: A Multi-Agent Framework for Reliable and Readable Literature Review Generation [66.09346158850308]
  We present LiRA (Literature Review Agents), a multi-agent collaborative workflow which emulates the human literature review process.<n>LiRA utilizes specialized agents for content outlining, subsection writing, editing, and reviewing, producing cohesive and comprehensive review articles.<n>We evaluate LiRA in real-world scenarios using document retrieval and assess its robustness to reviewer model variation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-01T12:14:28Z)
• 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)
• The Discovery Engine: A Framework for AI-Driven Synthesis and Navigation of Scientific Knowledge Landscapes [0.0]
  We introduce the Discovery Engine, a framework to transform literature into a unified, computationally tractable representation of a scientific domain.<n>The Discovery Engine offers a new paradigm for AI-augmented scientific inquiry and accelerated discovery.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-23T05:51:34Z)
• Advancing AI Research Assistants with Expert-Involved Learning [84.30323604785646]
  Large language models (LLMs) and large multimodal models (LMMs) promise to accelerate biomedical discovery, yet their reliability remains unclear.<n>We introduce ARIEL (AI Research Assistant for Expert-in-the-Loop Learning), an open-source evaluation and optimization framework.<n>We find that state-of-the-art models generate fluent but incomplete summaries, whereas LMMs struggle with detailed visual reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-03T14:21:48Z)
• Who Writes the Review, Human or AI? [0.36498648388765503]
  This study proposes a methodology to accurately distinguish AI-generated and human-written book reviews. Our approach utilizes transfer learning, enabling the model to identify generated text across different topics. The experimental results demonstrate that it is feasible to detect the original source of text, achieving an accuracy rate of 96.86%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-30T17:38:44Z)
• ResearchAgent: Iterative Research Idea Generation over Scientific Literature with Large Language Models [56.08917291606421]
  ResearchAgent is an AI-based system for ideation and operationalization of novel work.<n>ResearchAgent automatically defines novel problems, proposes methods and designs experiments, while iteratively refining them.<n>We experimentally validate our ResearchAgent on scientific publications across multiple disciplines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-11T13:36:29Z)
• Cracking Double-Blind Review: Authorship Attribution with Deep Learning [43.483063713471935]
  We propose a transformer-based, neural-network architecture to attribute an anonymous manuscript to an author. We leverage all research papers publicly available on arXiv amounting to over 2 million manuscripts. Our method achieves an unprecedented authorship attribution accuracy, where up to 73% of papers are attributed correctly.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-14T15:50:24Z)
• What's New? Summarizing Contributions in Scientific Literature [85.95906677964815]
  We introduce a new task of disentangled paper summarization, which seeks to generate separate summaries for the paper contributions and the context of the work. We extend the S2ORC corpus of academic articles by adding disentangled "contribution" and "context" reference labels. We propose a comprehensive automatic evaluation protocol which reports the relevance, novelty, and disentanglement of generated outputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-11-06T02:23:01Z)

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.