12,445 papers · continuously updated · last export: 10 Aug 2026livingmeta.ai
← Browse all papers
AI evidence extraction

AI-Powered Research

Janus van As · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · 2025

AI-generated evidence extraction, verified across multiple analytical personas. Not a substitute for the peer-reviewed original.

9/10
Relevance
1/4
Quality (LMQS)
I
Evidence
0
Citations
0.00
FWCI

This is an AI analysis. Read the peer-reviewed original at the publisher: https://doi.org/10.4018/979-8-3373-1414-3.ch003

Methodology & findings

Study design

Narrative review with workflow mappings, prompt strategies, and real-world examples; no empirical experiments or quantitative measurements conducted

Main result

The chapter finds that "GenAI can enhance productivity and inclusion—particularly for non-native English speakers" while emphasizing that "it must be used as a scaffold, not a substitute, for rigorous research." The study identifies that LLMs have applications in "translation, literature synthesis, hypothesis development, and editing" but requires careful attention to "hallucinations and research integrity."

Reports effect sizes.

Research paradigm

Interpretivist/Hermeneutic

Author conclusions

The authors conclude that "Researchers are urged to maintain transparency, verify outputs, and treat prompting as an intellectual task" while emphasizing "the importance of human oversight, ethical reflection, and methodological care in navigating this evolving landscape" of GenAI use in academic research.

Open questions raised

  • The chapter identifies the need for ongoing navigation of ethical risks, hallucinations, and research integrity concerns as GenAI tools become more embedded in the research lifecycle. It highlights the gap between tool capability and responsible use requiring human oversight.
  • The paper identifies the need for researchers to balance the benefits of GenAI tools against "ethical risks" and the importance of maintaining "critical thinking" and "scholarly voice" when using these technologies.
  • The chapter implicitly identifies gaps in practical guidance for ethical and responsible use of GenAI across the research lifecycle, particularly concerning strategies to prevent hallucinations and maintain scholarly voice and critical thinking.
Data: not_statedCode: not_statedExtracted from: pdfAgreement 78%

Explore related topics

AI Manuscript WritingAcademic WritingConceptual

Related papers

← Browse all papers