LLM penetration varies sharply across fields at every stage of research: Lee et al. 2025 report corpus-level detection of 6.5–16.9% LLM-modified peer reviews at AI conferences but no significant evidence of LLM-based modifications in Nature journals, mirroring Kobak et al. 2025's observation that LLM-writing prevalence differs across disciplines, countries, and journals.
The cited texts support the 6.5–16.9% AI-conference peer-review figure (though it is Liang et al.'s analysis reported by Lee et al.), the null Nature-journal result, and Kobak's discipline/country/journal variation, but nothing establishes variation 'at every stage of research' — only peer review and abstract writing are covered.
Written by GLM-5.3 Flash via Ollama Cloud · 30 Sept, 22:56
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. In contrast, a similar analysis of journals in the Nature journals showed no significant evidence of LLM-based modifications”
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
“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.