Insights: Researcher attitudes
toward AI

Key Findings

Contents
Introduction

3

Highlights

4

Chapter 1: The current AI landscape5

Awareness of GenAI tools

6

Perceptions of GenAI

7

AI in practice8

Chapter 2: A future lens on AI

9Perceived impact and benefits

10

Perceived drawbacks

11

Expectations

12

Chapter 3: Shaping an AI-driven future

13

Factors impacting trust in and comfort using GenAI tools

14

Actions for a GenAI-powered future

14

Key Findings - Insights: Researcher Attitudes toward AI

2

Introduction“The development of AI is as fundamental as thecreation of the microprocessor, the personal computer,the Internet, and the mobile phone. It will change theway people work, learn, travel, get health care, andcommunicate with each other.”Bill Gates1

Artificial intelligence is a rapidly developing technology,
most recently with GenAI tools like ChatGPT growing at
an unprecedented rate. Today’s research professionals are
already using AI. In Elsevier’s Research Futures 2.0 report(2022), 8% of researchers were already using AI extensively
in their research, principally to help with analysis andprocessing large data sets.2

What is GenAI?
GenAI, short for generative artificial
intelligence, refers to a category of artificial
intelligence systems and models that havethe ability to generate data, content, or other
outputs that are similar to those created byhumans. These AI systems are designed to
produce new and original content rather thansimply process or analyze existing data.3

As the AI landscape continues to evolve, and the rangeof potential applications for researchers grows, it isimportant to monitor the views and behaviors of those
who could be using it. In the full report, Insights 2024:
Attitudes toward AI, we aimed to do this, by surveying
nearly 3,000 people, including researchers and clinicians.
This Key Findings report focuses on the views of just thoseworking in research.
The research examines the attitudes of researchers
toward artificial intelligence (AI), including generative
AI (GenAI), covering its attractiveness, perceived impact,
the benefits to them and wider society, the degree oftransparency to be comfortable using tools that capitalizeon the technology, and the challenges they see with AI.
It also looks at the current usage, and what respondents
think would help them trust AI tools.

Online survey
Insights 2024:
Attitudes toward AI
When:
What:
Who:

December 2023 to February 2024
15-minute online quantitative survey
2,999 respondents from across
123 countries
Key Findings based on
2,284 researchers(of whom 292 are clinicians)

Results: To improve representativeness ofour sample, we weighted responses
at the regional level against OECD
researcher populations.

The full report explores these themes across threechapters and covers the views of clinicians andresearchers. You can read an overview of the researchers’
views in this report.

Key Findings - Insights: Researcher Attitudes toward AI

3

Highlights
Almost all researchers are familiar with AI tools, andmany have used them for work, with expectations that
this will grow. Institutions have begun to prepare forAI, but almost half of researchers are unaware of themeasures they are taking.

Overall, researchers are positive about AI, with most
expecting an impact as a result of the technology.
Researchers think will help...

97%

97%

Change the way students are taught andstudy in universities and medical schools

Have heard of AI (including GenAI) – subsequentstatistics exclude the 3% not familiar with AI

94%

59%
Aware of AI have used it; 37% have used
it for work purposes

14%

Accelerate knowledge discovery

92%
Rapidly increase the volume of scholarly
and medical research86%

Are very familiar with AI (including GenAI),and have used it often

Increase work quality overall

52%

Researchers think AI will also...

Who have not used AI cite a lack of timeas the reason

Researchers are concerned about misinformationand other areas, highlighting points of attention
for developers and institutions.

74%
Have a transformative or significant
impact on their area of work.
Specific actions can help increase trust, and by taking
and communicating them, providers of AI tools canincrease users’ comfort.

94%

81%

Believe AI could be used for misinformation

Expect to be told whether the tools they
are using depend on generative AI

86%
Make critical errors or mishaps

68%

81%

Not using AI expect to use it within thenext two to five years

Erode critical thinking skills

80%
Cause disruption to society
Future uses of trusted AI tools amongst those who believe AI can benefit their work:
likelihood of using a reliable and secure AI assistant to…

Generate a synthesis of research articles
in a specific area
– 89% of researchers

Key Findings - Insights: Researcher Attitudes toward AI

Review prior studies, identify gaps in knowledge andgenerate a new research hypothesis for testing– 92% of researchers

4Chapter 1:

The current GenAI landscape“AI is here, and it works. We need to think how
to use it properly.”
Survey respondent, researcher, Kazakhstan➤

97% have heard of AI (including GenAI) – subsequentstatistics exclude the 3% not familiar with AI➤

59% of those aware of AI have used it; 37% haveused it for work purposes➤

14% are very familiar with AI (including GenAI), andhave used it a lot➤

ChatGPT is by far the most well-known
AI product (94%)➤

31% have used ChatGPT for work purposes➤

52% of those who have not used AI cite a lackof time as the reason➤

41% of researchers say AI is a welcome advancement

Key Findings - Insights: Researcher Attitudes toward AI

Almost all researchers are familiar with AI, including
GenAI, and many of them are already using it – asubstantial proportion for their work. Although relatively
few say they use it a lot, the proportion is high compared
to clinicians, for example. Of the reasons shared for nothaving used AI yet, lack of time is the most common, while
one-quarter of researchers say it’s concerns about thetechnology that are holding them back.

5

AI products familiarity and usage
AI Product

ChatGPT% Heard of it% Used it for work

94%
31%

Bard (Google)

44%
9%Bing Chat42%
7%

Gemini (Google)

26%
2%

MS Copilot(in Word, Excel, PPT)

Awareness of AI tools
While awareness of AI is high among researchers globally(97%), it is higher in China and the USA, where 99%of researchers have heard of it. Globally, only 14% ofresearchers are very familiar with AI, having used it a lot.
54% have used AI, with 37% having used it for work(see detailed findings in researcher databook).

Semantic Scholar

Familiarity
with AI

5%
17%
2%

ChatPDF.ai

17%3%

ChatGPT is by far the most well-known AI product among
researchers, with 94% having heard of it, and nearly
one-third (31%) have used ChatGPT for work.
Next in line when it comes to familiarity is Bing Chat(44%), then Bard (42%), Gemini (26%) and MS Copilot(24%). However, aside from ChatGPT, usage remains
low for all these tools. The majority (68%) of thosethat have not used AI expect to in the near future.

24%

OpenEvidence

12%2%

Fig 1.

Question: Which of these AI products, if any, have you heardof before today? n=2,284
Question: Which, if any, AI products or AI features haveyou used for work purposes? Shown to only those awareof tool base variable % shown is proportion of 2,284.

Present
usage of AI

Futureusage of AI

Very familiar(used it a lot)Notfamiliar

Have used
for work

Not used

14%

41%

3%

97%
Familiar

37%

Don’t expect toor not sure

32%

54%

Have used

83%
Somewhat / a little familiar

22%
Have used for non-work

68%
Expectto use68%
Expect to use

Fig 2. Question: To what extent are you familiar with AI (including GenAI)? n=2,355
Question: Have you used an AI (including GenAI) product or an AI feature on a product you use regularly? n=2,284
Question: Do you expect you will choose to use AI (including GenAI) in the near future? n=944

Key Findings - Insights: Researcher Attitudes toward AI

6

Perceptions of GenAI“All emerging technologies, including AI, have bothadvantages and disadvantages. It is essential to further
develop and regulate these technologies, aiming to
extract maximum benefits.”
Survey respondent, researcher, Canada

When it comes to the impact of AI, sentiment is generally
more positive than negative: 41% of researchers say AI isa welcome advancement, compared to just 1% who see
mostly drawbacks. However, researchers are more likely
to have mixed feelings (48% globally). Researchers aremost likely to be positive in APAC (47%), particularly in
China (52%), and least likely in Europe (34%) and North
America (31%).

Echoing this, researchers in APAC are most likely tothink AI will be transformative (33%, compared to
28% globally), and those in Europe significantly lesslikely to think this (20%). Overall, 74% of researchers
expect AI to bring a level of change that is significant
or transformative. This is highest in the Middle East andAfrica, at 84%.

Overall feelings towards AI (including GenAI)
Researchers(n=2,284)% Asia Pacific(n=745)

Positive – it’s a welcome
advancement41

47

Mixed - I can see bothpotential and drawbacks

48

43

53

AP
MEA

57

10

9

12

NA
SA

8

2

AP

4

Unsure – I need to see
how this develops

Negative – I see mostly
drawbacks

1

Significantly higher or lower than total

EU
NA
SA

0

% Europe(n=758)% North America(n=347)% South America(n=234)% Middle East
& Africa (n=165)

34

31

38

NA

42

53

AP
MEA

42

AP
MEA

13

7

AP
EU
SA

2

EU
NA

AP

2

NA
SA

AP

Significantly higher than Role/ Region/ Country (indicated by first two letters e.g. AP = APAC)
Asia Pacific = AP
Europe = EUMid. East & Africa = MEA

North America = NA
South America = SA

China = CH
UK = UK
USA = US

RE = Researchers
CL = CliniciansFig 2. Question: What are your overall feelings about the impact of AI on your area of work?

Key Findings - Insights: Researcher Attitudes toward AI

7

GenAI in practice
Despite being most aware of AI, researchers in North
America are also most likely not to have used thetechnology, at 42%. Of the 97% of researchers who haveheard of it, 59% globally have used it, 37% for a specificwork-related purpose. Work-related usage is highest
in APAC (39%) and lowest in the Middle East and Africa(30%).

in the Middle East and Africa, not having a subscription
or access is a more common reason not to use AI, at 31%
compared to 24% globally.
Of researchers who have not used AI, more than twothirds (68%) expect to use it within the next two to five
years. This is highest in the Middle East and Africa andChina (both 78%) and lowest in North America (54%).

Over half (52%) of researchers who haven’t used AI say
it’s due to lack of time; this is the most common reason
across all regions. Notable regional differences include:
33% of researchers in APAC haven’t found a tool yetthat meets their needs (compared to 28% globally),
researchers in North America have more concerns about
the tools (39% versus 25% globally) and for researchers

Many don’t know if their institution has restrictions
in place on the use of AI. Budget is the biggest restriction
to use in South America (32%) and the Middle East andAfrica (39%).
Overall, 44% of researchers are unaware of any
institutional plans for preparing for AI usage.

Reasons for not using AI products or AI features

I haven’t had time toinvestigate/experimentwith such tools

Researchers(n=944)% Asia Pacific(n=295)% Europe(n=328)

52

51

54

% North America(n=146)

MEA

EU
NA
SA
MEA

% South America(n=86)% Middle East
& Africa (n=72)

47

42

AP
SA
MEA

61

I haven’t found a tool yetthat meets my needs28

I have concerns aboutsuch tools (e.g. the risks
have not yet been adequately mitigated)

25

22

26

I don’t yet havea subscription/login
to such tools

24

25

22

21

19

16

14

16

9

12

33

I don’t know of any
such tools

14

12

There are restrictions
on my use of such tools(from my organisation,funder, publisher etc.)

14

18

26

EU
SA

Other
(please specify)

3

2

3

Don’t know/not sure

3

2

3

Significantly higher or lower than total

24

SA

39

12

AP
EU
SA
MEA

17

21

20

17

31

14

11

7
AP
EU
SA
MEA

1

3

6

3

SA

AP

4

Significantly higher than Role/ Region/ Country (indicated by first two letters e.g. AP = APAC)
Asia Pacific = AP
Europe = EUMid. East & Africa = MEA

North America = NA
South America = SA

China = CH
UK = UK
USA = US

RE = Researchers
CL = CliniciansFig 3. Question: Which of the following describes why you haven’t used an AI product or AI feature?

Key Findings - Insights: Researcher Attitudes toward AI

8Chapter 2:

A future lens on AI➤

97% think AI will change the way students are taught
and study in universities and medical schools➤

94% think AI will help accelerate knowledge discovery➤

92% think AI will help rapidly increase the volumeof scholarly and medical research➤

68% of those not using AI expect to use it in thenext two to five years➤

74% believe AI (including GenAI) will havea transformative or significant impact on theirarea of work

Key Findings - Insights: Researcher Attitudes toward AI

As the technology develops, researchers’ use of AI
increases. Of the 41% of researchers who are yet to use AI
tools, 68% expect to use them in the near future. However,this expectation varies greatly, from 54% in North America
to 78% in the Middle East and Africa. Some of the biggest
expected benefits are accelerating knowledge discovery,changing the way students are taught at university, andincreasing the volume of research. But respondents haveconcerns too, including the potential for misinformation.

9

Positive impact of AI in various areas over the next two to five years% Disagree% AgreeResearchers(n=2,202)

Change the way students
are taught and study
in universities andmedical schools

3

97

2

% Europe(n=729)98% North America(n=335)% South America(n=222)

5

95

4

96

3

97

9

91

9

91

5

95

6

94

3

97
EU, NA

Rapidly increase the volumeof scholarly and medical
research

892

5EU, NA

95

12

88

13

87

7

EU, NA

Provide cost savings toinstitutions and businesses

8

Increase your work
efficiency

9

3

97

7

93

92

4

96

13

87

13

87

6

EU, NA

91

3

93

86

6

Free your time for higher
value work

15

Increase your work
consistency

19

85

7

9

97

14

86

18

82

8

74

12

94

23

77

31

69

12

26

74

25

75

18

92
EU, NA

92

7

93
EU, NA

88

8

92

82

EU,NA

10

EU, NA

91

32

68

38

62

20

80

43

57

47

53

24

76

90
EU,NA, SA

11EU, NA

EU,NA, SA
Significantly higher or lower than total

8

EU, NA

93

88

EU, NA

EU,NA

EU,NA, SA

26

99

EU, NA

EU,NA, SA

81

1

94

EU,NA, SA

14

APO, EU, NA, SA

EU, NA

EU,NA, SA

Increase collaboration% Middle East
& Africa (n=161)

EU

Accelerate knowledge
discovery

Increase your work quality% Asia Pacific(n=735)

89
EU,NA, SA

21

79

EU, NA

EU,NASignificantly higher than Role/ Region/ Country (indicated by first two letters e.g. AP = APAC)
Asia Pacific = AP
Europe = EUMid. East & Africa = MEA
North America = NA

South America = SA
China = CH

UK = UK
USA = US

RE = Researchers
CL = CliniciansFig 4. Question: Thinking about the impact AI will have on society and your work, to what extent do you think over the next 2 to 5 years it will…?
A great extent, some extent, not at all.

Perceived impact and benefits
In the survey, we explored researchers’ views on thespecific impact they expect AI to make across a rangeof areas, and the results provide the detail behind theirgenerally positive outlook of AI. Views tend to be broadly
consistent across regions with the exception of North
America, which has statistically lower scores acrossmost areas, and the Middle East and Africa, which arestatistically higher in several areas.
Research: 94% of researchers think AI will help accelerateknowledge discovery and 92% expect AI will help rapidly
increase the volume of scholarly and medical research.
About three-quarters (74%) expect AI to increase
collaboration, which is valuable to research success.
Overall, 95% of researchers see at least some benefit for
research-related activities. They are less optimistic about
funding, though: 83% expect some benefit, while 17%
expect no benefit.

Key Findings - Insights: Researcher Attitudes toward AI

Publishing: 92% of researchers believe AI will bringat least some benefit in publication and monitoring
the impact of research, for example in authoring andreviewing. And 78% expect to be informed if the peerreview recommendations they receive about theirmanuscript utilized generative AI, even if alongsidehuman oversight.
Work: Most researchers expect AI to have a positive
impact on their work by improving their work efficiency(91%), the quality of their work (86%) and the consistencyof their work (81%). This is connected to time: 85% say AI
will help free up their time for higher value work.
Education: The vast majority (97%) of researchers expect
AI to change the way students are taught at university inthe next two to five years, suggesting it will continue toimpact future generations of researchers. Globally, 95%
of researchers see at least some benefit in the technology
for teaching and lecturing activities. The proportion who
expect a lot of benefit is highest in South America (57%)
and lowest in North America (32%), where 12% expect
no benefit.

10Perceived drawbacks“I’m distrustful of all AI tools at present. It would takea lot of transparency along with concrete examplesof the tool in action to convince me it is trustworthy.
My career and my scientific integrity are too valuable
to hand-over to anyone or anything else. I am also
not protected by tenure so any slip-ups and I willlose my career.”
Survey respondent, researcher, Canada

Although they shared their expectations of the benefitsof AI across a wide range of areas, researchers also
shared concerns in the survey (see detailed findings
in researcher databook).
Accuracy: Almost all (95%) researchers believe AI could
be used for misinformation at least to some extent,
and 86% are concerned it will cause critical errors or
mishaps, with agreement highest in North America (94%).
Hallucinations are of particular concern, with one-quarter(25%) of researchers globally, and 37% in North America,saying outputs being factually incorrect and/or nonsensical is a top-three disadvantage of AI. One in five(21%) also rank being too dependent on outdated data
and/or information as a top disadvantage.

Key Findings - Insights: Researcher Attitudes toward AI

Impact on people: Most researchers think AI has thepotential to erode human critical thinking skills (81%)
and cause disruption to society, such as throughunemployment for large numbers of people (80%),
reflecting concern that the technology will impact people.
At the same time, 39% of researchers see AI being unable
to replace human creativity, judgment and/or empathy as
a top-three disadvantage of the technology.
Regulation and accountability: Almost two-fifths (39%)
of researchers consider the lack of regulation andgovernance as a top-three disadvantage of AI, with thepercentage rising to 50% in South America. About onethird (32%) rank the lack of accountability over the useof generative AI outputs as a top-three disadvantage.

11

Expectations
Generally, researchers predict continued growth: of those
who have yet to use AI, 68% expect to start using it in the
coming two to five years. This expectation varies greatly
by region, in line with regional perceptions. In North
America, where fewest researchers see AI as a positive
development, 54% of those yet to use AI expect to start
using the technology, while expectation is higher inmore positive regions – the Middle East and Africa (78%)
and Asia Pacific (76%) (see detailed findings inresearcher databook).
Researchers shared several expectations when it comes tothe development and use of AI in research, many of which
revolve around transparency and accountability. Globally,
81% of researchers expect to be informed whether thetools they use depend on GenAI, and 78% want to be
informed if the peer-review recommendations they receive
about their manuscript used GenAI.
They also want control: 76% of researchers want to begiven a choice to turn off GenAI in the tools they use. Of
researchers who believe AI can be a benefit, 89% are likely
to use a reliable and secure AI assistant to generate asynthesis of research articles in an area.
Institutions dictate to a great extent how researchers
use AI for their work. In the survey, 28% of researchers
say they are prohibited from uploading confidential
information into public generative AI platforms, 11% areprohibited from using certain tools and 1% are prohibitedfrom using it at all.
Although almost half (44%) of researchers are unaware of
any institutional plans relating to AI, there are indicationsof development. Globally, 17% say their institutions are

Expectations of AI% Disagree% AgreeResearchers(n=2,210)

To be informed whether the tools I use dependon generative AI

6

81

Generative AI to always be paired with human expertise(i.e. qualified people validate outputs)

9

81

To be informed if the peer-review recommendations I
receive about my manuscript utilized generative AI, even
if alongside human oversight

8

78

To be given a choice to turn off generative AI
in the tools that I use

976

Generative AI will work well with non-text modalities(i.e. chemical or biological compounds, chemical reactions,graphs, plans)

1072

Generative AI dependent tools’ results be basedon high quality trusted sources only

6

68

Fig 5. Question: Thinking about the use of generative AI in your areaof work, how much do you agree or disagree with the following either
presently or in the near future? By near future, we mean in the next two
to five years.

setting up a community of practice around AI, 15% arebuilding a plan or protocol to evaluate the purchase oftools that include it, and 15% are providing ethics courses(for detailed findings see researcher databook).

Likely uses of a reliable and secure AI assistant89%
of researchers who believe AI can bring benefit whenusing scientific content are likely to use such an
assistant to generate a synthesis of research articles
in a specific area.

Key Findings - Insights: Researcher Attitudes toward AI

92%
of researchers who believe AI can bring benefit whencompleting research related activities are likely to use
such an assistant to review prior studies, identify gaps
in knowledge and generate a new research hypothesis
for testing.

12Chapter 3:

Shaping an AI-driven future➤

Many researchers believe AI will be used for
misinformation (95%), could cause critical errors
or mishaps (86%) and erode critical thinking (81%)➤

57% say training an AI model to be factually accurate,
moral and not harmful (safety) would strongly
increase their trust in that tool➤

39% consider the lack of regulation or governancea top-three disadvantage➤

Robust governance on data and information used
to train the model is ranked highest by researchers
for increasing their comfort in using an AI tool

Key Findings - Insights: Researcher Attitudes toward AI

Given the concerns researchers share about AI and GenAI
tools, notably including their potential to be used for
misinformation, a concern that was identified in Elsevier’s
Confidence in Research global survey4, it is important tounderstand the factors that would build their trust in thetechnology and comfort using it. Researchers are keen
to see better regulation around AI, as well as the dataand information used to train tools. In general, they arelooking for transparency, accountability, privacy andchoice.

13

Factors impacting trust in andcomfort using GenAI tools“Technology, as always, should be used and developed
responsibly and ethically.”

Actions for a GenAI-powered future
Based on the survey findings and secondary research,
recommended actions for providers and institutions.
Providers dependent upon AI technology can:Survey respondent, researcher, Thailand➤

Enhance accuracy and reliability

Reflecting concerns about misinformation, and potential
for critical errors, as well as the top-three disadvantages
researchers identified around factual inaccuracy (25%)
and discriminatory or biased outputs (25%), the biggest
factor that would increase their trust in an AI tool istraining the model to be factually accurate, moral, andnot harmful, with 57% of researchers agreeing this would
strongly increase their trust (for detailed findings see
researcher databook).

➤

Increase transparency➤

Strengthen safety and security

Other factors affecting trust and comfort using AI tools
can be grouped into a few main areas:

Institutions employing researchers and clinicians can:➤Establish policies and plans and communicate
them clearly➤

Build governance and expertise➤

Provide training and capacity➤

Ensure accessTransparency: 56% say citing references by default would
strongly increase their trust in an AI tool. When it comesto increasing comfort using a tool, 29% of researchers
ranked the way the solution works being explained
as a top-three comfort factor.
Reliability: For 56% of researchers, only using high-quality
peer-reviewed content to train the model would strongly
increase their trust, and 52% feel the same about training
the model for high coherency outputs. Globally, 37% ofresearchers ranked the information the model uses being
up-to-date as a top-three factor for comfort.
Governance: In line with their concerns regarding a lackof regulation and governance being the topedisadvantage of AI, more than half (52%) of researchers
say abidance by any laws governing development andimplementation would strongly increase their trust in an
AI tool. Top-three factors for comfort using AI include
robust governance on data and information used totrain the model (37%) and accountability through humanoversight (36%).
People and their privacy: For over one-quarter (27%) ofresearchers, consideration of the real-world impact on
people is a top-three comfort factor. Privacy is a major
concern too, with 55% of researchers saying keeping theinformation input confidential would strongly increase
their trust, and many ranking privacy as a top-three
comfort factor, both of inputs (35%) and outputs (25%).

Key Findings - Insights: Researcher Attitudes toward AI

14

References
1.

Bill Gates. The Age of AI has begun. Gates Notes. 21 March 2023.
https://www.gatesnotes.com/The-Age-of-AI-Has-Begun

2. Elsevier. Research Futures 2.0. April 2022. Page 64.
https://assets.ctfassets.net/zlnfaxb2lcqx/47ncumZe63BnUGl0PGkQbV/c3b2d1df821ff03c52d8fd4360dd5751/ResearchFutures-2_0-Full-Report.pdf
3.

OpenAI. ChatGPT. April 2024.
https://chat.openai.com/chat

4. 4. Elsevier. Confidence in Research. 2022. Page 9
https://confidenceinresearch.elsevier.com/

Notes
For a detailed methodology, including sample bases by region/country,
see the appendices of the main report.

https://tinyurl.com/attitudes-ai
Follow Elsevier Connect on
X (formerly Twitter), Facebook and LinkedIn

Report Authors
Adrian Mulligan (a.mulligan@elsevier.com)
Nicola Mansell
Lucy Goodchild (lead author)
TellLucy.com

Insights 2024: Attitudes toward AI
Elsevier June 2024