I would rather quit NLP than read another paper like this: The rise of antithesis in NLP papers

Has the style of scientific communication changed due to the growing use of large language models in the writing process? We address this question in the domain of Natural Language Processing by leveraging two data resources we create: a naturalistic corpus of over 37,000 papers from the ACL Anthology (2020-2024); and a synthetic dataset of 3,000 human-written passages and their LLM-generated improvements. We first implement a series of diachronic lexical analyses, showing that both word frequency and usage contexts have changed significantly over time, indicating semantic specialization in some cases and generalization in others. Broadening our perspective, we then model a range of more complex stylistic features and find that LLM-modified texts more frequently contain certain syntactic constructions, more complex and longer words and a lower lexical diversity. Finally, we connect these changes in writing practices to subjective reading experience through a pilot annotation study with 20 domain experts. They overall rate LLM-improved texts as more understandable and exciting, but also express negative qualitative attitudes towards LLMs, highlighting the strongly subjective effect of AI-assisted writing on reading experience.

Scientific citations carry rhetorical intent. Scholars may cite prior work positively (supporting), negatively (contrasting), or neutrally (mentioning). As large language models (LLMs) increasingly assist scientific writing, whether they reproduce citations with the same rhetorical intent as humans remains unclear. We introduce a masked-citation task to compare human and LLM-generated citation behavior. For each citation context, an LLM generates a replacement citation sentence, producing a counterfactual corpus directly comparable to human citation. We analyze what, whom, and how models cite, using an LLM-as-a-judge to classify citation intent and a 20-million-edge coauthorship network to measure social distance between cited authors. Across six popular LLMs and 1,746 top NLP conference papers (63k+ contexts, 132k+ citations), three patterns emerge: (1) Compared with human citation, LLMs cite significantly less critically; (2) LLMs over-cite popular and older papers, a tendency amplified for contrasting citations where human writing more often draws on recent, niche work; (3) Whereas humans often cite within their close social network, especially for supporting citations, LLMs tend to draw on more socially distant authors. Together, these differences are double-edged: LLM citation reaches beyond a scholar's close collaborators while being less critical and amplifying visibility bias, reshaping the rhetoric and reach of scientific citation.

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.