IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0342852.html

Man vs. machine: Multi-country experimental evidence on the quality and perceptions of AI-generated research blog content

Author

Listed:
  • Michael Keenan
  • Naureen Karachiwalla
  • Jawoo Koo
  • Christine Mwangi
  • Clemens Breisinger
  • MinAh Kim

Abstract

Academic research is not always available in a form that is accessible or engaging to a non-academic audience, hindering readers’ engagement with it. Non-academics, even if highly educated and policy experts in their fields, tend to need research to be presented in a more accessible way than peer-reviewed articles — one example being non-technical blogs. However, writing these requires some effort from researchers. Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools can make academic research easier to understand by summarizing and simplifying academic papers much more quickly than researchers can, making it easier for researchers to produce such summaries. However, disclosure of AI use may lower readers’ perceived quality of and trust in the blog, generating a trade-off for the researcher. In this paper, we evaluate an 11-country experiment cross-randomizing a blog’s actual and reported author as AI or human. We find that research stakeholders rate the quality of AI-generated blogs marginally lower than human-written ones (p

Suggested Citation

  • Michael Keenan & Naureen Karachiwalla & Jawoo Koo & Christine Mwangi & Clemens Breisinger & MinAh Kim, 2026. "Man vs. machine: Multi-country experimental evidence on the quality and perceptions of AI-generated research blog content," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 21(3), pages 1-19, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0342852
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0342852
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0342852
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0342852&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0342852?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0342852. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.