Beyond Via: Analysis and Estimation of the Impact of Large Language Models in Academic Papers

Over the past several years, LLM-powered chatbots and agents have become widely used as a tool for academic writing. LLM-assisted writing can be valuable by removing language barriers but at the same time causes concerns about misconduct and fraud. To inform policy decisions, it is necessary to monitor the prevalence of LLM-altered texts in scholarly publications. Despite some recent progress in this direction, no existing method can produce reliable estimates. Here we suggest and validate a new unbiased approach to estimate LLM usage in a corpus of texts based on changing word frequencies. We apply our method to the full texts of open-access biomedical papers from Pubmed Central, and show that by the end of 2025, 89% of papers show excess of LLM-associated vocabulary. We also find that LLMs are twice as likely to be used when writing a paragraph in the Discussion section (68%) compared to a paragraph in the Methods section (32%), but even inside the Methods section, the overall prevalence of LLM usage is over 50%. We believe that our estimates are crucial to shape future guidelines and policies.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used as conversational search engines for academic literature, yet whether they judge papers on content or on authority signals has not been tested causally. We investigate authority bias: systematic preference for papers based on author prestige, venue, and citations rather than content. Holding title and abstract constant, we vary authority metadata across three counterfactual conditions (original, flipped, boosted) over eight LLMs (five open-weight and three frontier closed-weight) in an in-context, single-turn, top-1 recommendation setting. Our experiments show that authority bias is substantial and directional, varies markedly across models, and is only partially addressable through prompt-level debiasing. We further document a say-do gap: debiasing instructions suppress authority mentions far faster than authority-driven flips, so surface auditing systematically underestimates behavioral bias.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used to guide research methodology, yet their default methodological tendencies under minimal prompting remain unclear. Here, we prompt GPT-5.1, Gemini 3 Pro, and DeepSeek-V3.2 with an LLM-extracted research question from each of 1,000 recent arXiv computer-science papers and compare the resulting methodology suggestions against a paper-derived experimental inventory. Since we provide only the research question, the differences we measure reflect initial suggestions and not how optimal those suggestions are. We extract structured method features from both sources, map them into a shared taxonomy, and quantify divergence across multiple taxonomy dimensions including model provider, dataset task type, and evaluation metric type. The strongest imbalance appears in provider choice, with Jensen-Shannon divergence about 3-5x larger than any other taxonomy dimension. Other/Academic single-occurrence models are underrepresented by 23-24 percentage points, while reused academic/community models are slightly overrepresented (4-6pp). LLMs also suggest a much narrower range of methods overall: the effective number of model entities contracts from 1,232 to 59-96, and inter-LLM rank correlations (0.55-0.68) generally exceed LLM-to-paper correlations (0.33-0.56), so the distortions are largely shared across models. Popularity baselines, BM25 retrieval calibration, and paper-level similarity tests confirm that the outputs are query-specific responses, but filtered through a narrower set of options. Researchers who rely on LLM suggestions without cross-checking therefore risk narrowing their methodological search space toward a more concentrated default.