Julian Nyarko took a look. From his summation of his findings (using Pangram, whose reliability he describes):

In 2025, AI use was rare: 9 out of 273 articles (3.3%) have any AI signal, with 5 articles (1.8%) containing an estimated share of AI-generated words exceeding 5%. The estimated share of AI written words across all articles is 0.20% in 2025. By 2026, AI signals became much more prevalent. Pangram identifies 25 out of 165 articles (15.2%) as containing AI-written content. At the article level, this is an increase of approximately 4.6 times over the 2025 rate….9 articles (5.5%) in 2026 appear to contain more than 5% of AI-generated words, with an overall share of 1.10% words among all articles published this year.

Next, to get a sense of the intensity of current AI use in writing, we can break down the 2026 articles by the estimated proportion of words affected by AI.

9 of 25 articles contain more than 5% AI generated words, with one article appearing to be predominantly AI-written (the exact share is 64.6%).

The AI signal is predominantly contained in the main text and the abstract / summary of the articles. Footnotes contain relatively little AI signal. To me, this was somewhat surprising. I would have expected that adding footnotes and parentheticals–often viewed as tedious–might be one of the primary tasks ripe for AI use. Four articles contain signal only in the abstract / summary, nine only in the main text, and the other twelve in multiple parts.

My reaction: the author of the article that is nearly two-thirds AI-generated should have their tenure revoked (if tenured) or be fired (if untenured). Faculty who are using AI to write their abstracts are lazy, but don’t deserve to be fired.

(As an aside, I did laugh to see an “empirical” scholar using the nonsense category of “top 14,” which no longer exists even in USNews.com!)