Yes, GenAI can make academic writing easier without making us less scholarly

Academic writing has never been a purely solitary act; it involves tools, dialogue and feedback. Yet many academics still feel they should struggle through it alone. Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) has unsettled this expectation. On one hand, it can help us refine our thoughts, plan and write more efficiently. On the other, it raises uncomfortable questions about authorship and integrity. For many academics, the uncertainty is not whether GenAI can help, but whether using it risks crossing the line that demarcates what is genuinely our own work.

The discussion around GenAI is not much help. We are warned to avoid it entirely or encouraged to automate large parts of the writing process. Neither position reflects how scholarly work happens. What GenAI changes is not the presence of support, but the speed, accuracy and intimacy with which that support operates. That shift demands clearer judgement, not blanket rules.

The real problem is not the tool

The greatest risks associated with the use of GenAI in academic writing emerge when it is employed unreflectively. Problems arise when decision-making and content creation are outsourced rather than supported, when polished prose is accepted without interrogation or when arguments are shaped without the writer fully understanding how they hold together.

• Peer feedback is the secret weapon for better academic writing
• Science isn’t a solo sport – let’s write accordingly
• From shortcut to support: GenAI’s role in essay-writing

In these moments, scholarly responsibility is weakened not because a tool was used, but because judgement was sidelined. By contrast, when academics remain intellectually in charge, GenAI can strengthen the clarity and rigour of their writing. The distinction is subtle but important. GenAI works best when treated as a thinking partner rather than a ghostwriter, a space to test ideas rather than a source of answers.

Thinking still has to be yours

Used deliberately, GenAI can support several stages of academic writing without undermining scholarship. One of its most useful roles is helping academics surface and clarify thinking. When an argument feels fuzzy or underdeveloped, asking a tool to restate the core claim in different ways can reveal what you mean and whether it makes sense. Even if none of the wording is retained, the process can sharpen focus and intent.

GenAI can also help with structure. Many academics know what they want to say but struggle to organise complex material. Working from your own notes or draft and asking for structural suggestions can reduce cognitive load and blank-page anxiety while preserving ownership of content. In a similar way, GenAI can act as a critical reader, identifying assumptions, gaps or potential reviewer concerns. This mirrors the kind of early feedback often sought from colleagues but also allows for rapid iteration.

Another area where GenAI can be genuinely helpful is translation across contexts. Moving among journal articles, grant applications and public-facing summaries requires shifts in tone and emphasis without diluting meaning. Used carefully, GenAI can highlight where explanations are unclear or where language does not match audience expectations, while leaving the academic to make final decisions.

Your prompts shape more than the content of your output

The way academics interact with GenAI matters as much as whether they use it at all. Prompts that ask a tool to “write” tend to encourage substitution. Prompts that ask it to analyse, critique or question are far more likely to preserve authorship.

Asking what assumptions a reviewer might challenge, where evidence feels thin or how clearly a paragraph aligns with the research question keeps reasoning visible. These prompts invite engagement rather than replacement. A useful rule of thumb is to treat early outputs as diagnostic rather than usable text. The instinct to copy and paste is often better interpreted as a signal to pause and reassert judgement.

Small habits make a big difference

Simple habits can help academics work confidently with GenAI. Starting from material you have written yourself anchors the process in your own thinking. Being able to explain why a claim or structure is there helps maintain accountability. Recognising when not to use GenAI is equally important. Tasks that rely heavily on disciplinary nuance, ethical sensitivity or relational judgement often benefit from uninterrupted human thinking.

Transparency also deserves careful framing. Integrity is not about documenting every interaction with a tool. It is about accountability for the final product. If you can stand behind the work, explain how decisions were made and take authorship responsibility for its claims, integrity has been upheld.

Confidence comes from staying in charge

Academic integrity has never been about avoiding tools. It has always been about judgement, authorship and care. GenAI does not change these principles, but it does require academics to apply them more intentionally. When used as a thinking partner rather than a shortcut, GenAI can reduce friction in academic writing and grant preparation without diminishing scholarly ownership.

The goal is not to write faster at any cost. It is to think clearly, argue carefully and produce work that remains recognisably and confidently your own.

Nicole Brownlie is a lecturer in educational counselling at the University of Southern Queensland.

If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week, sign up for the Campus newsletter.