Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Background: AI misuse in literature reviews has emerged as an issue for educators. The goal of this teaching innovation was to foster learners' critical thinking about AI use in literature reviews. Method: A four-step deliberative pedagogical process was applied: (a) announcing literature review battles between AI and humans, (b) presenting review results generated by both sides, (c) using a poll to ask learners to choose their preferred review results for policy decision-making, and (d) debriefing on the speed and accuracy of both reviews. Results: Sixty-one learners responded to the poll: 51% ( n = 31) chose human-generated reviews, 36% ( n = 22) chose AI-generated reviews, while 13% ( n = 8) expressed their surprise at AI's performance. Debriefing showed that AI spent only 0.5 hours completing the review, but with low search accuracy, whereas humans achieved high accuracy but took more than 6 months. Conclusion: Deliberative pedagogy encourages learners to recalibrate their AI knowledge and reconsider the importance of human decision-making in literature reviews.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kuo et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: