TY - UNPB
T1 - Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) in the research process – a survey of researchers’ practices and perceptions
AU - Andersen, Jens Peter
AU - Degn, Lise
AU - Fishberg, Rachel
AU - Graversen, Ebbe Krogh
AU - Horbach, Serge Pascal Johannes M
AU - Kalpazidou Schmidt, Evanthia
AU - Schneider, Jesper Wiborg
AU - Sørensen, Mads P.
PY - 2024/9/11
Y1 - 2024/9/11
N2 - This study explores the use of generative AI (GenAI) and research integrity assessments of use cases by researchers, including PhD students, at Danish universities. Conducted through a survey sent to all Danish researchers from January to February 2024, the study received 2,534 responses and evaluated 32 GenAI use cases across five research phases: idea generation, research design, data collection, data analysis, and writing/reporting. Respondents reported on their own and colleagues' GenAI usage. They also assessed whether the practices in the use cases were considered good research practice. Through an explorative factor analysis, we identified three clusters of perception: "GenAI as a work horse," "GenAI as a language assistant only", and "GenAI as a research accelerator". The findings further show varied opinions on GenAI's research integrity implications. Language editing and data analysis were generally viewed positively, whereas experiment design and peer review tasks faced more criticism. Controversial areas included image creation/modification and synthetic data, with comments highlighting the need for critical and reflexive use of GenAI. Usage differed by main research area, with technical and quantitative sciences reporting slightly higher usage and more positive assessments. Junior researchers used GenAI more than senior colleagues, while no significant gender differences were observed.
AB - This study explores the use of generative AI (GenAI) and research integrity assessments of use cases by researchers, including PhD students, at Danish universities. Conducted through a survey sent to all Danish researchers from January to February 2024, the study received 2,534 responses and evaluated 32 GenAI use cases across five research phases: idea generation, research design, data collection, data analysis, and writing/reporting. Respondents reported on their own and colleagues' GenAI usage. They also assessed whether the practices in the use cases were considered good research practice. Through an explorative factor analysis, we identified three clusters of perception: "GenAI as a work horse," "GenAI as a language assistant only", and "GenAI as a research accelerator". The findings further show varied opinions on GenAI's research integrity implications. Language editing and data analysis were generally viewed positively, whereas experiment design and peer review tasks faced more criticism. Controversial areas included image creation/modification and synthetic data, with comments highlighting the need for critical and reflexive use of GenAI. Usage differed by main research area, with technical and quantitative sciences reporting slightly higher usage and more positive assessments. Junior researchers used GenAI more than senior colleagues, while no significant gender differences were observed.
KW - Generative Artificial Intellingence
KW - GenAI
KW - Research integrity
KW - Research practice
KW - Research processes
KW - Use cases
U2 - 10.31235/osf.io/83whe
DO - 10.31235/osf.io/83whe
M3 - Preprint
BT - Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) in the research process – a survey of researchers’ practices and perceptions
ER -