LLM adoption varies sharply across academic cultures: Lee et al. 2025 report detection estimates of 6.5–16.9% LLM-modified text in AI conference peer reviews but no significant evidence in Nature journals, mirroring the discipline, country, and journal-level variation Kobak et al. 2025 found in biomedical abstracts.
E20 reports (citing Liang et al.) LLM-modification estimates of 6.5–16.9% in AI conference peer reviews and no significant evidence in Nature journals, and E1 confirms Kobak et al. found variation across disciplines, countries, and journals.
Written by Kimi K3 via Ollama Cloud · 30 Sept, 22:48
Source chain
AEvery quote below was checked, without a model, to appear verbatim in its source.
- 01
“demonstrated LLM modification rates of 6.5% to 16.9% in AI conference peer reviews”
Full-text passage · no page number · evidence E20
Passage read from www.ebi.ac.uk, which may be a preprint rather than the published version.
- 02
“a similar analysis of journals in the Nature journals showed no significant evidence of LLM-based modifications, suggesting that the use of AI tools varies widely across academic disciplines”
Full-text passage · no page number · evidence E20
Passage read from www.ebi.ac.uk, which may be a preprint rather than the published version.
- 03
“This lower bound differed across disciplines, countries, and journals”
Full-text passage · no page number · evidence E1
Passage read from www.ebi.ac.uk, which may be a preprint rather than the published version.