Can ChatGPT be used to review articles  ?

Can ChatGPT be used to review articles ?

The ChatGPT system, developed by OpenAI, is an artificial intelligence system capable of producing humanlike text on various topics. Its advanced natural language capabilities have led some to wonder if ChatGPT could be used to review and provide feedback on written articles. In this article, we’ll explore the capabilities of ChatGPT and examine whether it has the necessary skills to critique articles effectively.

What is ChatGPT and How Does it Work? 

ChatGPT is a large language model trained by OpenAI using a technique called machine learning on vast datasets of online text. It is intended to appreciate the input of natural languages and produce an effective response on individual topics similar to people. ChatGPT scans its large database to find relevant information when given a prompt. It then uses its advanced natural language processing algorithms to analyze the prompt and generate a response. 


The system is designed to carry on conversations, answer follow-up questions, admit mistakes, challenge incorrect premises, and reject inappropriate requests. Key to ChatGPT's abilities is its training objective. Rather than maximizing accuracy, ChatGPT is trained to predict the next plausible text response. It allows it to generate grammatically correct, logically consistent text that reads naturally but may sometimes need to be more accurate or nonsensical. The system does not comprehend what it is saying.

Capabilities of ChatGPT 

ChatGPT exhibits certain capabilities that suggest it may be able to provide useful feedback on written articles:

  • Strong language skills: ChatGPT has a nuanced understanding of English grammar, vocabulary, and conventions. It can detect grammatical errors and awkward phrasing and suggest improvements.

  • Knowledge of structure: Trained in many articles, books and essays, ChatGPT understands elements like introductions, transitions, and conclusions that make up an effective article. It can identify problems with flow and organization.

  • Ability to summarize: When prompted, ChatGPT can summarize lengthy text into concise overviews, indicating an aptitude for distinguishing key points. This skill could allow it to provide plot summaries when reviewing fiction.

  • Knowledge breadth: Exposure to massive datasets gives ChatGPT broad knowledge on many topics and current events that could inform article reviews. However, its knowledge needs more depth.

  • Logical reasoning: Within the limits of its training, ChatGPT can reason through concepts, make connections between ideas, and provide explanations, all useful in critiquing arguments.

Limitations for Reviewing Articles

While ChatGPT has certain textual analysis skills, experts say its limitations would likely prevent it from replacing skilled human reviewers:

  • Lack of semantic understanding: While fluent in English, ChatGPT needs to comprehend the meaning behind words. So it cannot interpret deeper meanings or provide insight.

  • Brittle knowledge: Because it comes from pattern recognition in online text, ChatGPT easily stumbles on the atypical phrasing of questions and needs deeper expertise. Reviews may be very general.

  • No common sense: Simple facts that humans intuitively understand must be explicitly stated to ChatGPT. With common sense, it can easily identify absurd conclusions.

  • No opinions: ChatGPT avoids expressing opinions or making subjective evaluations. But critiquing writing often requires subjective judgments of quality, importance and relevance.

  • Fabrication tendency: ChatGPT may attempt to fabricate plausible-sounding but totally inaccurate responses when unsure of an answer. Detecting fabrication would be essential for a reviewer.

  • Narrow skill application: Although skilled in certain textual analysis abilities, ChatGPT lacks the comprehensive critical thinking skills expected of human reviewers who draw on specialized expertise.

While advances in AI may eventually overcome these limitations, currently, ChatGPT could be a better tool. Expert human reviewers remain better equipped to provide thoughtful, nuanced feedback beyond grammar and syntax to assess an article's true quality and merit.

  • Grammarly The free versions provide core grammar and spelling checks

  • ProWritingAid ProWritingAid is available through free web and mobile apps. The free versions contain core editing capabilities, while premium plans have more features
  • Ginger Software  Ginger Software is an AI assistant that provides grammar, spelling, punctuation, and stylistic checks. It goes beyond simple error flagging by providing rephrased suggestions and more detailed explanations



ChatGPT exhibits impressive language processing abilities and knowledge that could aid it in reviewing basic elements of article writing like grammar, structure and summarization. However, its lack of comprehension and tendency toward fabrication means any feedback would require careful verification. Its evaluations lack the wisdom, logical reasoning and subjective opinions that characterize quality reviews from experts. For now, ChatGPT is no substitute for knowledgeable human critiques that look beyond the surface to provide meaningful insights on how to improve an article. But with rapid advances in AI, the possibilities for artificial reviewing assistants like ChatGPT will be interesting to watch in the coming years.

Frequently Asked Question

1:- Can ChatGPT detect grammatical errors and typos?

ChatGPT can detect many basic grammatical errors and typos in written text. It can recognize grammatical, punctuation and spelling issues thanks to its ability to process naturally speaking languages. However, it may not catch every error, so human review is still important.

2:- Can ChatGPT comment on the structure and organization of an article?

ChatGPT can provide feedback on the structure of an article by identifying problems with the intro, conclusion, transitions between paragraphs, and general flow. However, its in-depth feedback will be limited, as it needs more true content comprehension. Human editors are better suited for higher-level critique of organizations.

3:- Does ChatGPT understand the content of an article?

No, ChatGPT does not truly comprehend the meaning of the text. It is trained to generate humanlike responses based on patterns in language rather than semantic understanding. It cannot interpret deeper meanings or provide a substantive critique of ideas. A human reviewer is needed for a meaningful assessment of content.

4:- Can ChatGPT point out logic gaps or factual inaccuracies?

In a limited way, yes. ChatGPT can recognize flawed reasoning within the limits of its training data and point out blatant factual contradictions. However, it often needs more real-world knowledge and judgment to identify complex logical errors or catch inaccuracies. It should not be relied on to assess accuracy thoroughly.

5:- Can ChatGPT provide insightful, subjective critiques like a human editor?

No, ChatGPT cannot provide meaningful subjective critiques or opinions on content quality, importance, or relevance. It is designed to avoid subjective judgments, so it cannot replace a human editor's thoughtful critique of improving the impact and delivery of writing.