A Comparative Genre Analysis of Human-Written and Ai-Generated Research Abstracts

This comparative study explores the distinctive generic features between abstracts written by human authors and those generated by artificial intelligence tools through the genre analysis methods. Over-reliance on such external mechanisms and plagiarism are perennial issues that affect the global academia particularly in regards to the widespread dependence on artificial intelligence. The study compares ten research abstracts written by postgraduate master students specialising in English Language and Literature from a Malaysian public university to AI-generated abstracts produced using Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer 3, also known as ChatGPT. The study looks into the frequency and quality of key elements or moves such as statements of objectives, methods, results, and contextualisation to determine their recurrence patterns. Findings indicate that human-inscribed abstracts reveal a more stable and thorough presentation, highlighting contextualisation and inclusive results, while AI-generated abstracts possess clarity in statements of objectives with minimal coverage on results and contextual details. The findings in this research thus recommend for the development of an innovative method of detecting AI-generated content written by students using the genre analysis approach. It also emphasises the necessity for specialised teacher training and rigorous evaluation criteria to preserve academic integrity and overcome the limitations of using AI in academic writing.

Genre analysis; AI-generated writings; comparative analysis

1. Aburass, S., & Abu Rumman, M. (2024). Authenticity in authorship: the Writer’s Integrity framework for verifying human-generated text. Ethics and Information Technology, 26(3), 1-18. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2404.10781 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Alqudah, A. R. (2024). A Comparative Genre Analysis Study of Scientific Articles Abstracts and AI-Generated Abstracts. [Doctoral dissertation University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada]. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Amirjalili, F., Neysani, M., and Nikbakht, A. (2024) Exploring the boundaries of authorship: a comparative analysis of AI-generated text and human academic writing in English literature. Front. Educ., 9(1347421), 1-11. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2024.1347421 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Arshed, M. A., Gherghina, Ș. C., Dewi, C., Iqbal, A., & Mumtaz, S. (2024). Unveiling AI-generated financial text: A computational approach using natural language processing and generative artificial intelligence. Computation, 12(5), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.3390/computation12050101 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Barbosa, B. K. D. S. (2024). LLMs as tools for evaluating textual coherence: a comparative analysis. [Master dissertation, Universidade Federal de Campina Grande, Paraiba Brazil]. https://dspace.sti.ufcg.edu.br/jspui/handle/riufcg/40791 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Bhatia, V. K. (1993). Analyzing genre: Language use in professional settings. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Botchwey, E., & Owusu, E. (2024). A Genre Analysis of Minutes of Academic Meetings: A Case Study of a Technical University in Ghana. Linguistics Initiative, 4(1), 62-75. https://doi.org/10.53696/27753719.41126 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Eğin, F., A. Onan, and H. Yildiz Durak. 2025. “Let’s Talk About EdTech! A Topic Modelling Analysis of AI Tools and Pre-Service Teachers’ Perspectives.” European Journal of Education, 60(1), e12913. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12913 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Fedoriv, Y., Pirozhenko, І., & Shuhai, A. (2024). Linguistic Analysis of Human-and AI-Created Content in Academic Discourse. Journal of Vasyl Stefanyk Precarpathian National University. Philology.10, 47-67. doi: 10.15330/jpnuphil.10.47-67 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Frangieh, C., & Abdallah, M. (2024). A Linguistic Comparison between Human-and AI-Generated Texts in Lebanon. CALR Linguistics Journal,15, 1-11. https://web.aou.edu.lb/research/online-journals/PublishingImages/Pages/Calr-15/Article%2011.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Ghiurău, D., & Popescu, D. E. (2024). Distinguishing reality from AI: approaches for detecting synthetic content. Computers, 14(1), 1-33. https://doi.org/10.3390/computers14010001 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Godwin-Jones, R. (2025). Technology integration for less commonly taught languages: AI and pedagogical translanguaging. Language Learning & Technology, 29(2), 11–34. https://hdl.handle.net/10125/73609 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Gupta, B. P. (2024). Can Artificial Intelligence Only be a Helper Writer for Science? Science Insights, 44(1), 1221-1227. https://doi.org/10.15354/si.24.re872 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Hakam, H.T., Prill, R., Korte, L., Lovreković, B., Ostojić, M., Ramadanov, N., & Muehlensiepen, F. (2024). Human-written vs AI-generated texts in orthopedic academic literature: comparative qualitative analysis. JMIR Formative Res. 2024;8: e52164. https://doi.org/10.2196/52164. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. London, UK: Longman. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Maurya, R. K., & Maurya, S. R. (2024) Content Reliability in the Age of AI: A Comparative Study of Human vs. GPT-Generated Scholarly Articles. Library Progress International, 44(3), 1932-1943. https://philarchive.org/archive/MAUCRI-3 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Mazzi, F. (2024). Authorship in artificial intelligence‐generated works: Exploring originality in text prompts and artificial intelligence outputs through philosophical foundations of copyright and collage protection. The Journal of World Intellectual Property, 27(3), 410-427. DOI: 10.1111/jwip.12310 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Melliti, M. (2016). Generic structure of research letters’ introductions: Create a research letter introduction model (CARL introduction model). TAYR Quarterly, 3(1), 10-44. https://doi.org/10.31561/2014tq [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Mobilio, S. B. (2024). Utilizing Generative AI To Counter Deceptive Messaging. Calhoun: The NPS Institutional Archive DSpace Repository. https://hdl.handle.net/10945/73186 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Muñoz-Ortiz A, Gómez-Rodríguez C, Vilares D. Contrasting linguistic patterns in human and LLM-generated news text. Artif Intell Rev. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-024-10903-2. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Nanola, E. L., Arroyo, R. L., Hermosura, N. J. T., Ragil, M., Sabanal, J. N. U., & Mendoza, H. B. (2025). Recognizing the artificial: A comparative voice analysis of AI-Generated and L2 undergraduate student-authored academic essays. System, 130, 103611. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2025.103611 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Rakrak, M. (2025). The Genre Approach to Writing: A Socially Contextualized Pedagogy for Effective Instruction. English Language Teaching Journal, 5(1), 1-9. https://ejournal.alqolam.ac.id/index.php/eltj/article/view/1681 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Ramazani, A., Bijani, H., & Oroji, M. R. (2025). Comparative analysis of AI vs. human feedback effects on IELTS candidates' writing performance. Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Translation Studies, 10(1), 17–40. doi: 10.22034/efl.2025.493559.1334 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Sardinha, T. B. (2024). AI-generated vs human-authored texts: A multidimensional comparison. Applied Corpus Linguistics, 4(1), 100083. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acorp.2023.100083 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Tan, X. (2024). How Chinese Doctors Do Things with Discursive Strategies in Palliative Care Family Meetings: A Genre Theory Analysis. Health Communication, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2024.2431179 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Thane, A. A. (2024). A Critical Genre Analysis of Social Media News Reporting: The Case of Instagram. [Doctoral dissertation, Open Access Te Herenga Waka-Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand]. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Verhulsdonck, G., Weible, J., Stambler, D. M., Howard, T., & Tham, J. (2024). Incorporating human judgment in AI-assisted content development: The HEAT heuristic. Technical Communication, 71(3), 60-72. doi.org/10.55177/tc286621 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Zhao, C. (2025). Rethinking Authorship in the Age of AI: Reflections on the AI-Integrated Writing Framework (AWAI). Journal of Educational Technology and Innovation, 7(2), 25–38. https://doi.org/10.61414/h2a5bt21 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Zhang, G. (2023). Authorial stance in citations: Variation by writer expertise and research article part-genres. English for Specific Purposes, 70, 131-147. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.esp.2022.12.002 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Zheng, W. (2024). AI vs. Human: A Comparative Study of Cohesion and Coherence in Academic Texts between Human-Written and ChatGPT-Generated Texts [Master’s thesis, Universidad de Alicante, Spain]. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• The Impact of Ownership Structure on Dividend Payout Policy of Listed Plantation Companies in Sri Lanka
• Urban Sustainability in North-East India: A Study through the lens of NER-SDG index
• Performance Assessment of Predictive Forecasting Techniques for Enhancing Hospital Supply Chain Efficiency in Healthcare Logistics
• The Fractured Self in Julian Barnes' Postmodern Fiction: Identity Crisis and Deflation in Metroland and the Sense of an Ending
• Impact of Flood on the Employment, Labour Productivity and Migration of Agricultural Labour in North Bihar