Co-Writing with AI: An Empirical Study of Diverse Academic Writing Workflows

Despite AI tools becoming increasingly embedded in academic practice, little is known about how university students integrate them into their writing processes. We examine how students engage with AI across different writing tasks, and how this engagement is shaped by individual factors including AI literacy, writing confidence, trust, authorship concerns, and motivation. Study~1 surveys 107 UK university students to map task-specific and co-occurring patterns of AI use across five writing stages (ideation, sourcing, planning, drafting, and reviewing) and their associations with individual factors. Study~2 complements this by exploring how these patterns can be assembled in practice, through interviews with 12 postgraduates reflecting on their established use of AI in assessed writing. Together, the studies suggest that AI integration is selective and heterogeneous, forming three recurring and value-oriented configurations: (1) early-stage (learning-oriented), where tools support exploration and understanding; (2) late-stage (quality-oriented), where tools support drafting and refinement; and (3) peripheral (productivity-oriented), where tools are used to reduce friction and sustain momentum across the process. We offer a workflow-level account of AI-supported academic writing, showing how students navigate competing priorities of learning, quality, productivity, and authorship, and how they evaluate and take responsibility for AI-generated outputs.

What happens when reviewers receive AI feedback in their reviews?

AI is reshaping academic research, yet its role in peer review remains polarising and contentious. Advocates see its potential to reduce reviewer burden and improve quality, while critics warn of risks to fairness, accountability, and trust. At ICLR 2025, an official AI feedback tool was deployed to provide reviewers with post-review suggestions. We studied this deployment through surveys and interviews, investigating how reviewers engaged with the tool and perceived its usability and impact. Our findings surface both opportunities and tensions when AI augments in peer review. This work contributes the first empirical evidence of such an AI tool in a live review process, documenting how reviewers respond to AI-generated feedback in a high-stakes review context. We further offer design implications for AI-assisted reviewing that aim to enhance quality while safeguarding human expertise, agency, and responsibility.