This study delves into the utilization demands of Artificial Intelligence-Generated Content (AIGC) tools among Chinese researchers, guided by the KANO model to understand their varying demands. By administering a comprehensive online survey (N = 1025), we collected data reflecting the researchers’ preferences for different AIGC functions. Our findings reveal a multifaceted perspective on user satisfaction: literature research emerged as a reverse quality, indicating a decline in satisfaction when provided, suggesting concerns over the authenticity of sources. Must-be qualities—data analysis and interpretation, statistical guidance, citation checks, and review response assistance—form the backbone of essential AIGC tools. Attractive qualities such as text writing, language services, charting assistance, and citation generation significantly boost user satisfaction, highlighting the AIGC's strength in content creation and formatting. Indifferent qualities, including concept clarification and viewpoint research, show a preference for personal research efforts, while diagram optimization and reference sorting are viewed as trivial tasks, comfortably managed with existing software tools. The study underscores the critical and discretionary AIGC functions from the perspective of Chinese academics, providing insights into tool development and indicating a need for future research on AIGC's evolving role in global research practices.
BiJWLiuYFanZP, et al. (2019) Modelling customer satisfaction from online reviews using ensemble neural network and effect-based Kano model. International Journal of Production Research57(22): 7068–7088.
2.
BlandJMAltmanDG (1997) Cronbach’s alpha. British Medical Journal314(7080): 572–572.
3.
ChenCCChuangMC (2008) Integrating the Kano model into a robust design approach to enhance customer satisfaction with product design. International Journal of Production Economics114(2): 667–681.
4.
ChenGXChengQMPuetzS (2023) Special issue: Data-driven discovery in geosciences: Opportunities and challenges. Mathematical Geosciences55(3): 287–293.
5.
ChenLHKuoYF (2011) Understanding e-learning service quality of a commercial bank by using Kano’s model. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence22(1): 99–116.
6.
ChenMCHsuCLLeeLH (2020) Investigating pharmaceutical logistics service quality with refined Kano’s model. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services114(2): 667–681.
7.
CollinsGSDhimanPNavarroCLA, et al. (2021) Protocol for development of a reporting guideline (TRIPOD-AI) and risk of bias tool (PROBAST-AI) for diagnostic and prognostic prediction model studies based on artificial intelligence. BMJ Open11(7): e048008.
8.
Godwin-JonesR (2022) Partnering with AI: Intelligent writing assistance and instructed language learning. Language Learning & Technology26(2): 5–24.
9.
GorreNCarranzaEFuhrmanJ, et al. (2023) MIDRC CRP10 AI interface –an integrated tool for exploring, testing and visualization of AI models. Physics in Medicine and Biology68(7): 074002.
10.
HwangWYNurtantyanaRPurbaSWD, et al. (2023) AI And recognition technologies to facilitate English as foreign language writing for supporting personalization and contextualization in authentic contexts. Journal of Educational Computing Research61(5): 1008–1035.
11.
IdeKHawkePNakayamaT (2023) Can ChatGPT be considered an author of a medical article?Journal of Epidemiology33(7): 381–382.
JacksonDA (1993) Stopping rules in principal components-analysis - a comparison of heuristic and statistical approaches. Ecology74(8): 2204–2214.
14.
JiangQLZhangJWangPH, et al. (2024) Technology Acceptance and Innovation Diffusion: Are Users More Inclined Toward AIGC-Assisted Design?International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2024.2408513.
15.
KendallGda SilvaJAT (2023) Risks of abuse of large language models, like ChatGPT, in scientific publishing: Authorship, predatory publishing, and paper mills. Learned Publishing37(1): 55–62.
16.
KoomsapPDharmerathneBRYAyutthayaDHN (2023) Examination of common mistakes for successful leveraging the Kano model and proposal for enhancement. Journal of Engineering Design. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2023.2245533.
17.
KoushaKThelwallM (2023) Artificial intelligence to support publishing and peer review: A summary and review. Learned Publishing37(1): 4–12.
18.
LeeMCNewcombJF (2018) Applying the Kano methodology to meet customer requirements: NASA’s microgravity science program. Quality Management Journal4(3): 95–106..
19.
LiWY (2024) A study on factors influencing designers’ behavioral intention in using AI-generated content for assisted design: Perceived anxiety, perceived risk, and UTAUT. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2024.2310354.
20.
LiangWZhangYCaoH, et al. (2023) Can large language models provide useful feedback on research papers? A large-scale empirical analysis. arXiv.
21.
LinLZYehHRWangMC (2015) Integration of Kano’s model into FQFD for Taiwanese ban-doh banquet culture. Tourism Management46: 245–262.
22.
LuHLHeLYuH, et al. (2024) A study on teachers’ willingness to use generative AI technology and its influencing factors: Based on an integrated model. Sustainability16(16): 7216.
23.
LuYGuoCDouY, et al. (2023) Could ChatGPT imagine: Content control for artistic painting generation via large language models. Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems109(2): 39.
24.
LundBDWangTMannuruNR, et al. (2023) ChatGPT and a new academic reality: Artificial intelligence-written research papers and the ethics of the large language models in scholarly publishing. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology74(5): 570–581.
25.
LuorTLuHPChienKM, et al. (2015) Contribution to quality research: A literature review of Kano’s model from 1998 to 2012. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence26(3-4): 234–247.
26.
MaBZhouYRMaGM, et al. (2024) Job insecurity and innovative behavior: The mediating role of impression management and the moderating role of job embeddedness. Current Psychology43(37): 29810–29822.
27.
MajovskyMMikolovTNetukaD (2023) AI is changing the landscape of academic writing: What can be done? Authors’ reply to: AI increases the pressure to overhaul the scientific peer review process. Comment on “Artificial Intelligence Can Generate Fraudulent but Authentic-Looking Scientific Medical Articles: Pandora’s Box Has Been Opened”. Journal of Medical Internet Research25: e50844.
28.
MannSPEarpBDMollerN, et al. (2023) AUTOGEN: A Personalized Large Language Model for Academic Enhancement-Ethics and Proof of Principle. American Journal of Bioethics23(10): 28–41.
29.
McGowanAGuiYLDobbsM, et al. (2023) ChatGPT and Bard exhibit spontaneous citation fabrication during psychiatry literature search. Psychiatry Research326: 115334.
30.
MikulicJPrebezacD (2011) A critical review of techniques for classifying quality attributes in the Kano model. Managing Service Quality21(1): 46–66.
31.
SongH (2018) A critical review of Kano’s wording and its impact on attribute classification: A case study of smartphone in Korea. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence29(1-2): 1–28.
32.
XieZHLiWXieYX, et al. (2024) Demand and satisfaction analysis of short health videos among Chinese urban youth: A mixed-methods study based on the KANO model. Humanities & Social Sciences Communications11(1): 740.
33.
YiJSOhYKKimJM (2025) Unveiling the drivers of satisfaction in mobile trading: Contextual mining of retail investor experience through BERTopic and generative AI. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services82: 104066. https://doi.org/ARTN 10406610.1016/j.jretconser.2024.104066.
34.
YuJNDickingerASoKKF, et al. (2024) Artificial intelligence-generated virtual influencer: Examining the effects of emotional display on user engagement. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services76: 103560.
35.
YuanYLiuYLGongL, et al. (2021) Demand analysis of telenursing for community-dwelling empty-nest elderly based on the Kano model. Telemedicine and E-Health27(4): 414–421.
36.
ZhangGJLiangYKWeiFF (2023) Combining bibliometric and social network analysis to understand the scholarly publications on artificial intelligence. Journal of Scholarly Publishing54(4): 552–568.
37.
ZhangWJWangMDLiD (2024) Consumer resistance to mobile health consultation: the role of IT affordances and IT identity. Aslib Journal of Information Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/Ajim-01-2024-0036.
38.
ZhaoSYZhangQPengZL, et al. (2020) Integrating customer requirements into customized product configuration design based on Kano’s model. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing31(3): 597–613.
39.
ZouCYGongWLiP (2023) Using online machine translation in international scholarly writing and publishing: A longitudinal case of a Chinese engineering scholar. Learned Publishing36(4): 585–595.
