AI evaluation may bias perceptions: The importance of context in interpreting academic writing

This paper examines how estimates of AI use in scientific writing can be biased when evaluation methods ignore contextual differences across countries and fields. Using large-scale data on journal publications from Dimensions, we construct AI-likeness benchmarks based on differences between human-written and LLM-rephrased abstracts. We show that a pooled benchmark may confound pre-existing stylistic variation with AI-generated text, producing substantial distortions across country-field groups even in pre-LLM publications. In contrast, country-field-specific benchmarks attenuate such distortions and provide a more credible baseline for comparison. Applying these methods to publications in...

<iframe src="https://silytics.si/embed/item/f0b616ee-e01b-4204-a7fb-c3a14664f43d" width="420" height="190" style="border:0" loading="lazy" title="Silytics entry"></iframe>

Silytics shows public metadata from arXiv and links to the original. Information may be incomplete or out of date. Last refreshed 17 October 2026. Licenses and terms of the original apply to the work itself. Not financial, legal or professional advice.