Home/By Use Case/AI for Academic and Research Writing
By Use Case

AI for Academic and Research Writing

Academic AI adoption looks very different on the student side versus the researcher side. The HEPI 2025 Student Generative AI Survey found 92% of UK students now use AI in some form, up from 66% just one year earlier in 2024 — and 88% have used generative AI for assessments. Among researchers, Elsevier's survey (n=2,284) found 31% had used generative AI for research activities; Oxford University Press (n=2,345) found 76%. Yet a forensic stylistics analysis of 19,000 actual published MDPI papers from 2023–early 2024 estimated only 1–3% showed signs of ChatGPT use. This page maps the adoption gap between stated use and detected use.

4 visualizations 8 sources Last updated June 2026 Free to embed
Loading chart...
CHART 1 - THE ONE-YEAR SHIFT

Student AI adoption: 2024 vs 2025

Loading chart...
Source: HEPI Student Generative AI Survey 2024 and 2025 (UK higher education). The "any AI use" figure rose from 66% to 92%; the "used gen AI for assessments" figure rose from 53% to 88%; "included AI-generated text directly in submitted work" measured at 18% in 2025 (HEPI did not separately report this in 2024). These are self-reported measures, so they likely understate actual use.
CHART 2 - WHAT STUDENTS USE IT FOR

Top student AI use cases in academic work

Loading chart...
Source: HEPI 2025 plus Gallup April 2026 ("AI is routine for college students"). Top student uses: explaining complex concepts (58%); homework help (64% daily/weekly); checking answers (60%); editing writing (54%); summarizing lectures/notes (54%); generating ideas (49%); research (45%); writing papers directly (36%).
CHART 3 - RESEARCHERS VS STUDENTS

Reported AI use by researcher survey

Loading chart...
Source: Elsevier 2024 researcher survey (n=2,284): 31% had used gen AI for research; 93% who used it found it helpful. Oxford University Press 2024 global survey (n=2,345): 76% had used AI tools. Nature 2023 survey (n=1,600): 47% of scientists found AI "very useful." Eppler et al. 2024 (n=456 urologists): 58% reported using ChatGPT for academic writing. Mishra et al. 2024 clinical researcher survey (n=226): 88% aware, 19% had used in publications. The wide range reflects differences in field, definition of "use," and survey wording.
CHART 4 - REPORTED VS DETECTED

Detected ChatGPT use in scientific papers (forensic stylistics)

Loading chart...
Source: Desaire, Isom, and Hua (2024), "Almost Nobody Is Using ChatGPT to Write Academic Science Papers (Yet)" — forensic stylistics analysis of 19,000 scientific introductions across ten MDPI journals in 2023 and early 2024. Detected ChatGPT use estimated at 1–3% of papers. The gap between this detected rate (1–3%) and self-reported researcher use (31–76%) likely reflects three factors: most researcher "use" is for tasks other than primary writing (translation, proofreading, brainstorming); the detection method specifically targets undisclosed text generation in introductions; and the dataset is from 2023–early 2024 (before the most recent acceleration). Mohammadi et al. 2026 separately found top researcher AI uses are translation (13.5%), proofreading (13%), drafting (12.5%), and literature review (12.5%).

About this data

The AI Behavior Index is the research arm of OneChat AI. This page is unusual in that it requires triangulating across two very different bodies of evidence: self-reported survey data (HEPI for students, Elsevier / Oxford UP / Nature for researchers) and forensic-detection studies of actual published work (Desaire et al. for the MDPI corpus). The two methodologies produce strikingly different numbers, and both are valid measures of different things — stated use vs detected text generation.

Three caveats worth flagging. First, "use" is defined differently across surveys: some count any AI interaction during research, others count direct text generation in papers. Second, social-desirability bias likely pushes researcher self-reports in opposite directions depending on framing — some understate to avoid stigma, others overstate to appear current. Third, the Desaire et al. detection rate (1–3%) is now over two years old; given the steep acceleration in student use over the same period, undisclosed academic use has likely risen substantially since. Data is refreshed when major surveys publish. If you have a study to suggest or notice an error, contact us at research@aibehaviorindex.org.

For Journalists & Researchers

Use this data in your work.

Every statistic, chart, and graphic in this index is free to use and cite, with full source attribution. Can’t easily find what you need? Use our search bar to search by keyword, topic, or category.

✉️
Talk to our research team
Need a specific cut of data, an interview, or a quote? Email us — we typically respond within one business day.
research@aibehaviorindex.org →

How the data works

Every statistic shown is sourced from a publicly available study, survey, or report. We aggregate, organize, and contextualize this data — but the underlying research is conducted by the cited sources. Click any source link to access the original methodology. If you run into any issues or have a study to suggest, contact us at research@aibehaviorindex.org.