ArticlePerspectives on medical education2023
Will ChatGPT's Free Language Editing Service Level the Playing Field in Science Communication?: Insights from a Collaborative Project with Non-native English Scholars.
Article in Perspectives on medical education, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Does ChatGPT enhance equity for global health publications? Copyediting by ChatGPT compared to Grammarly and a human editor.PloS one · 2026Article
- The Presence and Nature of AI-Use Disclosure Statements in Medical Education Journals: A Bibliometric Study.Perspectives on medical education · 2026Article
- Being the supervisor: A duo-ethnographic exploration of social justice in postgraduate health professions education.Medical education · 2025Article
- The Blurred Thresholds of AI-Use Disclosure: Health Professions Education Journal Editors' Expectations of Necessity and Sufficiency.Perspectives on medical education · 2025Article
- The transformative impact of large language models on medical writing and publishing: current applications, challenges and future directions.The Korean journal of physiology & pharmacology : official journal of the Korean Physiological Society and the Korean Society of Pharmacology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
ChatGPT has been widely heralded as a way to level the playing field in scientific communication through its free language editing service. However, such claims lack systematic evidence. A writing scholar (LL) and six non-native English scholars researching health professions education collaborated on this Writer's Craft to fill this gap. Our overarching aim was to provide experiential evidence about ChatGPT's performance as a language editor and writing coach. We implemented three cycles of a systematic procedure, describing how we developed our prompts, selected text for editing, incrementally prompted to refine ChatGPT's responses, and analyzed the quality of its language edits and explanations. From this experience, we offer five insights, and we conclude that the optimism about ChatGPT's capacity to level the playing field for non-native English writers should be tempered. In the writer's craft section we offer simple tips to improve your writing in one of three areas: Energy, Clarity and Persuasiveness. Each entry focuses on a key writing feature or strategy, illustrates how it commonly goes wrong, teaches the grammatical underpinnings necessary to understand it and offers suggestions to wield it effectively. We encourage readers to share comments on or suggestions for this section on Twitter, using the hashtag: #how'syourwriting?
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.