Keywords
personal voice
academic writing
Authorial Ambiguity
How to Cite
Abstract
Purpose: The growing integration of generative artificial intelligence (AI) into academic writing raises important questions about authorship, personal voice, and research integrity. This study examines how researchers perceive the impact of AI-assisted writing on authorial ambiguity, originality, and ethical responsibility in scholarly communication.
Method: A quantitative cross-sectional survey was conducted using an online questionnaire distributed to individuals engaged in academic and professional writing. The instrument captured data on AI usage practices, perceptions of personal voice and authorship, and ethical attitudes toward AI-assisted writing. It also included classification tasks in which participants distinguished between human-written and AI-generated texts. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics, while open-ended responses were examined through thematic analysis.
Findings: Results indicate widespread use of AI tools for language support, including paraphrasing, explaining complex concepts, and grammar correction. Most participants believed generative AI can replicate human writing styles, contributing to authorial ambiguity, especially when used extensively or without disclosure. Concerns were raised about originality, transparency, and the lack of institutional guidance. Additionally, participants struggled to reliably distinguish AI-generated text from human-authored writing.
Research Limitations: The study relied on self-reported data from a relatively small sample, which may limit generalisability. Future research should use larger samples and longitudinal designs to track evolving perceptions.
Originality: This study contributes to emerging research on AI in academic writing by empirically examining authorial ambiguity and its implications for scholarly integrity, highlighting the need for transparency and ethical guidance.
References
Alkaissi, H., & McFarlane, S. I. (2023). Artificial hallucinations in ChatGPT: Implications in scientific writing. Cureus, 15(2).
Balalle, H., & Pannilage, S. (2025). Reassessing academic integrity in the age of AI: A systematic literature review on AI and academic integrity. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 11(1).
Benke, E., & Szőke, A. (2024). Academic integrity in the time of artificial intelligence: Exploring student attitudes. Italian Journal of Sociology of Education, 16(2), 91–108.
British Educational Research Association. (2018). Ethical guidelines for educational research (4th ed.).
Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods (5th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Cheng, A., Calhoun, A., & Reedy, G. (2025). Artificial intelligence-assisted academic writing: Recommendations for ethical use. Advances in Simulation, 10, 22.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Sage.
DeVellis, R. F. (2017). Scale development: Theory and applications (4th ed.). Sage.
Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2014). Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method (4th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
Duah, J. E., & McGivern, P. (2024). How generative artificial intelligence has blurred notions of authorial identity and academic norms in higher education, necessitating clear university usage policies. The International Journal of Information and Learning Technology.
Dwivedi, Y. K., et al. (2023). So what if ChatGPT wrote it? Multidisciplinary perspectives on opportunities, challenges and implications of generative AI for research. International Journal of Information Management, 71, 102642.
Hosseini, M., Rasmussen, L. M., & Resnik, D. B. (2024). Using AI to write scholarly publications. Accountability in Research, 31(7), 715–723.
Kacena, M. A., Plotkin, L. I., & Fehrenbacher, J. C. (2024). The use of artificial intelligence in writing scientific review articles. Current Osteoporosis Reports, 22(1), 115–121.
Kasneci, E., Sessler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., & Kasneci, G. (2023). ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and Individual Differences, 103.
Khalifa, M., & Albadawy, M. (2024). Using artificial intelligence in academic writing and research: An essential productivity tool. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine.
Kim, S.-J. (2023). Trends in research on ChatGPT and adoption-related issues discussed in articles: A narrative review. Science Editing, 11(1), 3–11.
Loberes, A. N., & Doroteo, J. P. G. (2025). The impact of artificial intelligence on academic integrity: A scoping review. Technologique: A Global Journal on Technological Developments and Scientific Innovations, 6(1).
Morris, M. R., Sohl-Dickstein, J., Fiedel, N., Warkentin, T., Dafoe, A., Jernite, Y., Farquhar, S., & Legg, S. (2023). Levels of AGI: Operationalizing progress on the path to AGI.
Thirunavukarasu, A. J., Ting, D. S. J., Elangovan, K., Gutierrez, L., Tan, T. F., & Ting, D. S. W. (2023). Large language models in medicine. Nature Medicine, 29(8), 1930–1940.
van Dis, E. A. M., Bollen, J., Zuidema, W., van Rooij, R., & Bockting, C. L. (2023). ChatGPT: Five priorities for research. Nature, 614(7947), 224–226. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-00288-7
Xu, X., Chen, Y., & Miao, J. (2024). Opportunities, challenges, and future directions of large language models, including ChatGPT, in medical education: A systematic scoping review. Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions, 21, 6.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2026 Sousen Elbouri, Wahbi Albasyouni