Since the release of ChatGPT in November 2022 [61], GenAI has become increasingly popular in assisting people with written, auditory, and visual tasks [45, 58, 78]. In research, GenAI offers a new approach to manuscript writing, as it can handle tasks ranging from text improvement suggestions to speech-to-text translation and even crafting initial drafts [45, 52]. Its ability to understand context and generate human-like and grammatically accurate responses fosters innovative brainstorming and enhances the quality and readability of research publications [5]. However, along with GenAI's potential to augment research activities, concerns about transparency, academic integrity, and the urgency of maintaining the credibility of research work have emerged [21, 54, 73, 78]. Despite the growing interest in using GenAI for manuscript writing and research activities [45, 64], many researchers hesitate to acknowledge its use in their papers. This is illustrated by several instances where research publications with undisclosed GenAI use were identified by readers (e.g., [53, 71, 72, 79]). Studies have identified the phenomenon of AI aversion, where AI-generated content, even if factual, is often perceived as inaccurate and misleading [12, 56] and disclosing its use can negatively impact readers' satisfaction and perception of the authors' qualifications and effort [69]. Therefore, researchers' hesitancy is partly due to their fear that acknowledging GenAI use might damage

This workshop paper presents a critical examination of the integration of Generative AI (Gen AI) into the academic writing process, focusing on the use of AI as a collaborative tool. It contrasts the performance and interaction of two AI models, Gemini and ChatGPT, through a collaborative inquiry approach where researchers engage in facilitated sessions to design prompts that elicit specific AI responses for crafting research outlines. This case study highlights the importance of prompt design, output analysis, and recognizing the AI's limitations to ensure responsible and effective AI integration in scholarly work. Preliminary findings suggest that prompt variation significantly affects output quality and reveals distinct capabilities and constraints of each model. The paper contributes to the field of Human-Computer Interaction by exploring effective prompt strategies and providing a comparative analysis of Gen AI models, ultimately aiming to enhance AI-assisted academic writing and prompt a deeper dialogue within the HCI community.