bioRxiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/bioRxiv

bioRxiv · 10.64898/2026.10.19.760216

Biology Undergraduates Use of AI-Enabled Feedback to Revise Scientific Writing: Recipience and Barriers

Weston, M.·Long, T.
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Background: Instructors and education researchers are increasingly developing feedback with the assistance of generative AI, which we refer to as AI-enabled feedback, yet we do not know whether established understandings of feedback uptake and effectiveness apply similarly in AI-mediated contexts. This makes the recipience of AI-enabled feedback a central concern to understanding how to best support students in developing their scientific writing skills. This study examined how two teams of undergraduate biology students used AI-enabled feedback to revise their scientific writing, and the extent to which their revisions addressed that feedback. The teams revised their research proposal drafts after receiving AI-enabled feedback developed by their instructor with the aid of a custom AI tool. Results: Our findings show that AI-enabled feedback prompted actionable revision across both teams. Each team addressed approximately half of the feedback comments, indicating comparable levels of uptake despite their differing approaches to revision. We observed that both teams were inconsistent in providing the additional information and reasoning requested in the feedback, and they struggled to address comments requiring self-evaluation. Taken together, we see that students often addressed the more easily actionable parts of AI-enabled feedback while omitting more demanding revisions. Conclusions: These findings provide behavioral evidence of how students used AI-enabled feedback to revise their scientific writing. The observed patterns suggest that the content of AI-enabled feedback supported meaningful revision, while limitations in students agency, strategies, and volition likely shaped their implementation of comments. Although the degree of uptake observed in this study is encouraging, it is unlikely that a single application of generative AI within the feedback process will resolve all the challenges associated with feedback uptake.

Explore related subjects

scientific communication and educationPreprint

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Weston, M., Long, T.. 2026-10-23. Biology Undergraduates Use of AI-Enabled Feedback to Revise Scientific Writing: Recipience and Barriers. https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.10.19.760216

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related preprints

bioRxiv2026

Preprint solicitation as a natural experiment in scholarly publishing

Preprinting is a growing and increasingly recognized mechanism for scientific communication and productivity and a way to facilitate global access to science. The interplay of preprinting practices with formal peer-reviewed publication is an open question that is now tractable to targeted analysis. Here, we take advantage of nearly a decade of preprint solicitation at Proceedings B to address this question, which offers a quasi-experimental setting for comparing outcomes for solicited preprints and traditionally submitted manuscripts. We used submission records from 15,368 manuscripts from 2018-2024 to assess whether preprint solicitation affects acceptance rates, journal scope, author geographic diversity, and post-publication uptake. Solicited manuscripts were accepted at nearly twice the rate of traditional submissions and received more downloads and citations after publication. Submission topics were broadly similar between the two routes, though solicited manuscripts showed marginally greater subject diversity. Geographic disparities favoring the Global North persisted, but acceptance rates for solicited manuscripts converged across regions, narrowing the gap seen in traditional submissions. These findings extend earlier work on this initiative and indicate that editor-driven solicitation can identify high-quality preprints, broaden geographic representation, and increase research visibility, offering a replicable model for journals seeking to diversify authorship while maintaining editorial standards.

scientific communication and education↗
bioRxiv2026

The Impact of Small-group Education on Student Wellbeing in Undergraduate Biology: a Student Perspective on Self-Determination Theory

Alarming reports about mental health have raised awareness of student wellbeing in STEM Education. Self-Determination Theory (SDT) implies that wellbeing can be improved by fulfilling the needs for autonomy, competence and relatedness. Educational design elements such as small-group teaching, peer feedback and offering a low-stakes practice environment can help fulfill these SDT needs. These elements were applied in a new academic skills course in our undergraduate Biology program. Here, we investigated how this affected the students sense of autonomy, competence and relatedness, and whether this was related to wellbeing. First, a survey among 48 students confirmed that student wellbeing is positively correlated to SDT fulfillment. Next, group interviews with students revealed that wellbeing is mostly dependent on relatedness, which is facilitated through small-group teaching in the first semester. Furthermore, students reported that (1) relatedness evolves through bonding with peers over the shared experience of struggle, (2) competence requires (peer) feedback and opportunities for growth, especially in laboratory coursework and (3) a structured, low-stakes environment supports competence, but without optimal challenge, also undermines a sense of autonomy. This illustrates how students perceive the effects of small-group educational activities on their wellbeing through the lens of Self-Determination Theory.

scientific communication and education↗
bioRxiv2026

It runs in the family: New extinct species from charismatic clades are more likely to be published in high-impact journals than those from non-charismatic clades

The cultural landscape of paleontology is dominated by dinosaurs and a few other charismatic clades that are more likely to be depicted in media and to be recognized by the public. There is a prevailing belief among researchers that these biases extend to scholarly publishing - that certain clades enjoy a 'taxonomic advantage' that renders them more likely to be published in high-impact journals like Nature and Science. Given the importance of publishing in high-impact journals for career advancement, quantitative testing of this hypothesis can inform on potential biases in this area. I examined articles describing new species that were published between 2000 and mid-2026 in one of thirteen journals (n = 4,248 articles, 8,331 new species), ranging from high-profile, multidisciplinary titles like Nature to lower-profile, specialist titles like the Journal of Paleontology. Comparisons of the taxonomic composition of new species between journals revealed a positive correlation between a journal's prestige (approximated by its impact factor) and the relative proportion of new species that belong to charismatic clades. Avemetatarsalians and mammaliamorphs represent more than 50% of new species in Nature and Science but less than 15% of new species in the control group of paleontological journals. These results provide support for the perception that there is a bias between extinct taxa as it relates to publication in high-impact journals. Given the potential for researchers to accrue cumulative advantage through publishing in prestigious journals, bias in favor of charismatic clades creates the potential for opportunities and knowledge generation to become increasingly skewed and consolidated towards these clades, at the expense of less charismatic clades and the people studying them. This threatens the discipline's ability to continue to construct a holistic understanding of the full history of life that can be disseminated to the public. Further attention should be directed towards examining potential biases in paleontological publications as the primary currency in academia.

scientific communication and education↗