AI tools gain acceptance for editing, but face resistance in content creation

A new Nature survey reveals deep divisions among researchers about appropriate AI use in scientific writing, highlighting a growing tension between technological adoption and academic integrity. The findings come at a pivotal moment as artificial intelligence increasingly permeates academic processes, forcing the scientific community to grapple with ethical boundaries around authorship, accountability, and the fundamental nature of scholarly communication.

The big picture: Nature surveyed over 5,000 researchers globally to gauge attitudes toward AI in scientific writing, revealing widespread acceptance of AI for editing but significant resistance to deeper involvement in content creation.

• The comprehensive survey included 5,229 researchers across various career stages and research fields.
• While most researchers approve of AI for certain tasks, actual adoption remains relatively low, with only 28% reporting AI use for editing papers.

Where researchers agree: Scientists overwhelmingly approve of AI for technical writing assistance and translation work.

• Over 90% of respondents consider it acceptable to use AI for editing research papers and translating scientific content.
• Approximately 65% find it ethically acceptable to generate some text using AI tools.

Where divisions emerge: Researchers significantly disagree about AI’s role in generating original content and conducting peer review.

• About one-third of respondents oppose using AI to generate any text for scientific papers.
• Over 60% reject the idea of using AI to generate initial peer review reports.
• While researchers generally accept AI for drafting abstracts, there’s more resistance to AI-generated content in other paper sections.

The adoption gap: Despite growing acceptance of AI tools, actual implementation in scientific workflows remains limited.

• Only 28% of surveyed researchers reported using AI to edit research papers.
• Just 8% used AI for writing first drafts, creating article summaries, translating papers, or supporting peer review work.

Competing perspectives: The survey revealed a spectrum of researcher attitudes toward AI in scientific writing.

• Views ranged from complete acceptance to total rejection of AI in the publication process.
• Key concerns included issues of plagiarism, trust, and accountability in AI-generated scientific content.
• Some researchers highlighted AI’s potential benefits for non-native English speakers in the predominantly English-language scientific publication ecosystem.

Why this matters: How the scientific community resolves these tensions will shape the future of academic publishing, potentially redefining concepts of authorship and scientific communication in the AI era.

• The divergent attitudes suggest scientific journals and institutions will need to develop clearer guidelines about acceptable AI use.
• The low adoption rates despite growing acceptance indicate AI in scientific writing is still in early stages, with significant room for expansion or limitation depending on how ethical concerns are addressed.