AI Tools in Academia: Evaluating NotebookLM as a Tool for Conducting Literature Reviews.
Objective: The proliferation of access to generative AI tools has the potential to radically alter the process of writing manuscripts. This report evaluates NotebookLM as a tool for conducting a literature review in an ethical and responsible manner. Method: We uploaded 22 relevant papers from the A...
| Published in: | Psychiatry: Interpersonal & Biological Processes Vol. 89; no. 1; pp. 82 - 92 |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , , , |
| Format: | Article |
| Published: |
Taylor & Francis Ltd
Spring2026
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | View this record in EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ssf&AN=192253090&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: ssf uiTerm: 192253090 longDbName: Social Sciences Full Text (H.W. Wilson) uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 00332747 PST jtl: Psychiatry: Interpersonal & Biological Processes issn: 00332747 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Spring2026 vid: 89 iid: 1 pid: 377 pub: Taylor & Francis Ltd artinfo: ui: 192253090 10.1080/00332747.2025.2541531 ppf: 82 ppct: 10 formats: tig: atl: AI Tools in Academia: Evaluating NotebookLM as a Tool for Conducting Literature Reviews. aug: au: Shor, Rachel Greene, Elizabeth A. Sumberg, Luke Weingrad, Aaron B. su: Decision making Military personnel Research ethics Generative artificial intelligence Data security Research funding Manuscripts Workflow Information retrieval Machine learning User interfaces sug: subj: Decision making Military personnel Research ethics Computer systems design and related services (except video game design and development) Other Computer Related Services Generative artificial intelligence Data security Research funding Manuscripts Workflow Information retrieval Machine learning User interfaces ab: Objective: The proliferation of access to generative AI tools has the potential to radically alter the process of writing manuscripts. This report evaluates NotebookLM as a tool for conducting a literature review in an ethical and responsible manner. Method: We uploaded 22 relevant papers from the Army Study to Assess Risk and Resilience in Servicemembers (Army STARRS) to NotebookLM and asked questions pertaining to a hypothetical research paper. We investigated the capabilities, limitations, ethical considerations, and privacy implications of using NotebookLM and engaged in a dialogue with the tool through a series of user-written prompts and AI responses. Results: We found that the variability and utility of responsesweres determined in large part by the ability to write meaningful prompts and the extent to which new prompts provided additional information. Investigating how NotebookLM identified key findings enhanced our prompt generation and subsequently the iterative refinement of output to produce information relevant to our mock literature review. Conclusions: The utility of NotebookLM will likely vary by the quality of source material uploaded into the program and the researcher's familiarity with prompt generation. There are a number of benefits and drawbacks to using this tool as a search engine or conversation partner. Ethical considerations and privacy implications of using NotebookLM are discussed. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: N holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|