ChatGPT Presence in Academic Writing: Detecting AI-Generated Text in Undergraduate and Graduate Students’ Research Proposal Literature Reviews
- Авторлар: Dugartsyrenova V.A.1
-
Мекемелер:
- National Research University Higher School of Economics
- Шығарылым: Том 22, № 1 (2025)
- Беттер: 144-174
- Бөлім: PERSONALITY AND DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES: OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES
- URL: https://journal-vniispk.ru/2313-1683/article/view/326281
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-1683-2025-22-1-144-174
- EDN: https://elibrary.ru/UHNYIW
- ID: 326281
Дәйексөз келтіру
Толық мәтін
Аннотация
With the rapid development of artificial intelligence (AI) tools, concerns emerge regarding students’ unethical uses of these tools to produce AI-generated research texts or their parts, and to present them as original writing. This issue is compounded by the lack of reliable tools for detecting machine-generated text. To address these concerns, the present study aimed to identify distinctive features of ChatGPT-generated research proposal literature reviews ( N = 45) and investigate the presence of these features in English-language literature reviews produced by undergraduate and graduate students from two Russian universities. During the first stage, an analysis of AI-generated texts and a small sample of graduate students’ ( N = 12) literature reviews was conducted. Findings revealed that many features typical of AI-generated texts were clearly present in student texts suggesting that these features may serve as indicators of machine-generated writing. One such feature was the unusually high recurrence of lexical items (predominantly with abstract meanings) in both AI-generated and student texts. Drawing on these insights, a frequency analysis was performed using AntConc to explore the occurrence of these items in AI-generated texts and compile a list of the most frequent items indicative of machine-generated writing (referred to in this study as “ChatGPT language”). At the second stage, findings on the initial indicators were validated, refined, and expanded based on an analysis of a larger sample of 47 English language literature reviews prepared by bachelor and master students. The study identified ten indicators of AI-generated writing pertaining to content, structure, and language use in literature reviews, which are detailed and illustrated in the paper. The study’s findings contribute valuable practical and research insights which may aid all those involved in teaching English language academic writing, reviewing students’ academic texts, and supervising research projects across diverse EAP contexts.
Авторлар туралы
Vera Dugartsyrenova
National Research University Higher School of Economics
Хат алмасуға жауапты Автор.
Email: vdugartsyrenova@hse.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-7476-7461
SPIN-код: 9368-4699
PhD in Pedagogics, is Associate Professor at the School of Foreign Languages
20 Myasnitskaya St, Moscow, 101100, Russian FederationӘдебиет тізімі
- Arzyutova, S.N. (2023). ChatGPT using in English language teaching. Humanitarian Studies. Pedagogy and Psychology, (16), 39–47. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24412/2712-827X-2023-16-39-47
- Voronin, A.N., & Palenova, V.V. (2024). The future of psychology: Is effective interaction with ChatGPT possible? RUDN Journal of Psychology and Pedagogics, 21(3), 831–857. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-1683-2024-21-3-831-857
- Lopanova E.V., & Savina, N.V. (2024). On the problem of using neural networks in students’ educational activities. Education Research Environment, 1(1), 23–40. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.23859/3034-1760.2024.33.52.002
- Cherkasova, M.N., & Taktarova, A.V. (2024). Artificially generated academic text (а linguopragmatic aspect). Philology. Theory & Practice, 17(7), 2551–2557. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.30853/phil20240363
- ChatGPT Generative Pre-trained Transformer, C., & Zhavoronkov, A. (2022). Rapamycin in the context of Pascal’s Wager: Generative pre-trained transformer perspective. Oncoscience, 9, 82–84. https://doi.org/10.18632/oncoscience.571
- Choi, E.P.H., Lee, J.J., Ho, M.-H., Kwok, J.Y.Y., & Lok, K.Y.W. (2023). Chatting or cheating? The impacts of ChatGPT and other artificial intelligence language models on nurse education. Nurse Education Today, 125, 105796. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2023.105796
- Dalgıç, A., Yaşar, E., & Demir, M. (2024). ChatGPT and learning outcomes in tourism education: The role of digital literacy and individualized learning. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 34, 100481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhlste.2024.100481
- Deng, J., & Lin, Y. (2023). The benefits and challenges of ChatGPT: An overview. Frontiers in Computing and Intelligent Systems, 2(2), 81–83. https://doi.org/10.54097/fcis.v2i2.4465
- Dergaa, I., Chamari, K., Zmijewski, P., & Ben Saad, H. (2023). From human writing to artificial intelligence generated text: examining the prospects and potential threats of ChatGPT in academic writing. Biology of Sport, 40(2), 615–622. https://doi.org/10.5114/biolsport.2023.125623
- Else, H. (2023). Abstracts written by ChatGPT fool scientists. Nature, 613(7944), 423–423. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-00056-7
- Gao, C.A., Howard, F.M., Markov, N.S., Dyer, E.S., Ramesh, S., Luo, Y., & Alexander T. Pearson, A.T. (2023). Comparing scientific abstracts generated by ChatGPT to real abstracts with detectors and blinded human reviewers. npj Digital Medicine, 6, 75. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-023-00819-6
- González, R., Poenaru, D., Woo, R., Trappey, A. F., Carter, S., Darcy, D., Encisco, E., Gulack, B., Miniati, D., Tombash, E., & Huang, E.Y. (2024). ChatGPT: What every pediatric surgeon should know about its potential uses and pitfalls. Journal of Pediatric Surgery, 59(5), 941–947. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2024.01.007
- Huang, J., & Tan, M. (2023). The role of ChatGPT in scientific communication: Writing better scientific review articles. American journal of cancer research, 13(4), 1148–1154.
- Liang, W., Yuksekgonul, M., Mao, Y., Wu, E., & Zou, J. (2023). GPT detectors are biased against non-native English writers. Patterns, 4(7), 100779. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patter.2023.100779
- Lingard, L. (2023). Writing with ChatGPT: An illustration of its capacity, limitations & implications for academic writers. Perspectives on Medical Education, 12(1), 261–270. https://doi.org/10.5334/pme.1072
- Pavlik, J.V. (2023). Collaborating with ChatGPT: Considering the implications of generative artificial intelligence for journalism and media education. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 78(1), 84–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/10776958221149577
- Rafiq, S., Nawaz, A., & Afzal, A. (2025). The future of AI in academic writing: A case study of undergraduate and postgraduate assessments. Dialogue Social Science Review, 3(1), 1280–1297.
- Rahimi, F., & Abadi, A.T.B. (2023). ChatGPT and publication ethics. Archives of Medical Research, 54(3), 272–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arcmed.2023.03.004
- Rudolph, J., Tan, S., & Tan, S. (2023). ChatGPT: Bullshit spewer or the end of traditional assessments in higher education? Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching, 6(1), 342–363. https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.9
- Sallam, M. (2023). ChatGPT utility in healthcare education, research, and practice: Systematic review on the promising perspectives and valid concerns. Healthcare, 11(6), 887. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11060887
- Stokel-Walker, C. (2023). ChatGPT listed as author on research papers: Many scientists disapprove. Nature, 613(7945), 620–621. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-00107-z
- Weber-Wulff, D., Anohina-Naumeca, A., Bjelobaba, S., Foltýnek, T., Guerrero-Dib, J., Popoola, O., Šigut, P., & Waddington, L. (2023). Testing of detection tools for AI-generated text. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 19(1), 26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-023-00146-z
Қосымша файлдар

