REVIEW 2 cited by
Assisting Research Proposal Writing with Large Language Models: Evaluation and Refinement
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Assisting Research Proposal Writing with Large Language Models: Evaluation and Refinement
read the original abstract
Large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT are increasingly used in academic writing, yet issues such as incorrect or fabricated references raise ethical concerns. Moreover, current content quality evaluations often rely on subjective human judgment, which is labor-intensive and lacks objectivity, potentially compromising the consistency and reliability. In this study, to provide a quantitative evaluation and enhance research proposal writing capabilities of LLMs, we propose two key evaluation metrics--content quality and reference validity--and an iterative prompting method based on the scores derived from these two metrics. Our extensive experiments show that the proposed metrics provide an objective, quantitative framework for assessing ChatGPT's writing performance. Additionally, iterative prompting significantly enhances content quality while reducing reference inaccuracies and fabrications, addressing critical ethical challenges in academic contexts.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
AI's Capability in Assisting Scientific Research in Physics, Astrophysics, and Cosmology I: Literature Review
In a controlled test, three mid-2025 LLMs shared under 6% of literature references with physics experts, and 64% of their real references had at least one metadata error.
-
AI's Capability in Assisting Scientific Research in Physics, Astrophysics, and Cosmology II: Project Planning and Proposal Evaluation
AI-generated one-page research proposals are scored about the same as human-written ones by human reviewers, but AI reviewers favor AI-written proposals by roughly one point and detect authorship perfectly.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.