Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Assistant
AI Research Assistant
Well-researched responses based on relevant abstracts and paper content.
Custom Instructions Pro
Preferences or requirements that you'd like Emergent Mind to consider when generating responses.
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash 152 tok/s
Gemini 2.5 Pro 25 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 Medium 20 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 High 30 tok/s Pro
GPT-4o 92 tok/s Pro
Kimi K2 134 tok/s Pro
GPT OSS 120B 437 tok/s Pro
Claude Sonnet 4.5 37 tok/s Pro
2000 character limit reached

Generative AI in Academic Writing: A Comparison of DeepSeek, Qwen, ChatGPT, Gemini, Llama, Mistral, and Gemma (2503.04765v2)

Published 11 Feb 2025 in cs.CY and cs.HC

Abstract: DeepSeek v3, developed in China, was released in December 2024, followed by Alibaba's Qwen 2.5 Max in January 2025 and Qwen3 235B in April 2025. These free and open-source models offer significant potential for academic writing and content creation. This study evaluates their academic writing performance by comparing them with ChatGPT, Gemini, Llama, Mistral, and Gemma. There is a critical gap in the literature concerning how extensively these tools can be utilized and their potential to generate original content in terms of quality, readability, and effectiveness. Using 40 papers on Digital Twin and Healthcare, texts were generated through AI tools based on posed questions and paraphrased abstracts. The generated content was analyzed using plagiarism detection, AI detection, word count comparisons, semantic similarity, and readability assessments. Results indicate that paraphrased abstracts showed higher plagiarism rates, while question-based responses also exceeded acceptable levels. AI detection tools consistently identified all outputs as AI-generated. Word count analysis revealed that all chatbots produced a sufficient volume of content. Semantic similarity tests showed a strong overlap between generated and original texts. However, readability assessments indicated that the texts were insufficient in terms of clarity and accessibility. This study comparatively highlights the potential and limitations of popular and latest LLMs for academic writing. While these models generate substantial and semantically accurate content, concerns regarding plagiarism, AI detection, and readability must be addressed for their effective use in scholarly work.

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

Dice Question Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Open Questions

We haven't generated a list of open questions mentioned in this paper yet.

Lightbulb Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Continue Learning

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.

List To Do Tasks Checklist Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.