The European Educational Researcher

Reflections on ChatGPT in the field of Social Sciences: A Bibliometric Study

I.V. García-Carreño 1 *
1 Pablo de Olavide University, Seville, Spain* Corresponding Author
Download PDF
The European Educational Researcher, Volume 8, Issue 1, February 2025, pp. 5-28
OPEN ACCESS VIEWS: 89 DOWNLOADS: 32 Publication date: 10 Feb 2025
ABSTRACT
The main objective of this article is to search into the exploration of the ChatGPT trend in the field of Social Sciences, focusing on its trend and its widespread global application in the digital era. It is noted that ChatGPT is an artificial intelligence system that utilizes the GPT (Generative Pre-trained Transformer) language model developed by OpenAI. Emphasis is placed on ChatGPT ‘s application in various disciplines, such as medicine, education, cell biology, and biotechnology. This suggests that it has a broad range of applications in the field of Social Sciences. The methodology used is based on the analysis of articles related to ChatGPT in English and in the Scopus database a bibliometric study. 220 articles were selected about Social Sciences. Additionally, co-occurrence maps of keywords were conducted for the analysis, using the VOSviewer software, for the evaluation of the structure, conceptual evolution, and trends of ChatGPT following related publications.  The research includes four study phases: (i) search criteria of the research field; (ii) search and selection of documents; (iii) software and data extraction; and (iv) analysis of results and trends. In conclusion, ChatGPT represents a paradigm shift in social sciences by bridging technology with human inquiry, fostering innovation, and redefining traditional research practices. However, ethical considerations such as bias mitigation and responsible integration remain critical for its sustainable use.
KEYWORDS
Artificial intelligence, ChatGPT 3.0, Bibliometrics review, Scopus, Chabots, Keywords analyses, Science mapping, VOSviewer
CITATION (APA)
García-Carreño, I. (2025). Reflections on ChatGPT in the field of Social Sciences: A Bibliometric Study. The European Educational Researcher, 8(1), 5-28. https://doi.org/10.31757/euer.812
REFERENCES
  1. Abeliuk, A., & Gutiérrez, C. (2021). Historia y evolución de la inteligencia artificial. Revista Bits de Ciencia, 1(21), 14-21.
  2. Ashfaq, M., Yun, J., Yu, S., & Loureiro, S. M. C. (2020). I, Chatbot: Modeling the determinants of users’ satisfaction and continuance intention of AI-powered service agents. Telematics and Informatics, 54, 101473.
  3. Adamopoulou, E., & Moussiades, L. (2020a). Chatbots: History, technology, and applications. Machine Learning with Applications, 2, 100006.
  4. Adamopoulou, E., & Moussiades, L. (2020b). An overview of Chatbot technology. In IFIP international conference on artificial intelligence applications and innovations (pp. 373-383). Springer, Cham.
  5. Albort-Morant, G., Leal-Rodríguez, A., Fernández-Rodríguez, V., & Ariza-Montes, A. (2018). Assessing the origins, evolution and prospects of the literature on dynamic capabilities: A bibliometric analysis, European Research on Management and Business Economics (ERMBE), 24(1), 42-52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iedeen.2017.06.004
  6. Bozkurt, A., Xiao, J., Lambert, S., Pazurek, A., Crompton, H., Koseoglu, S. ,& Jandrić, P. (2023). Speculative futures on ChatGPT and generative Artificial Intelligence (AI): A collective reflection from the educational landscape. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 18(1), 53–130
  7. Cobo, M., López-Herrera, A., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2011). Science mapping software tools: Review, analysis, and cooperative study among tools. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(7), 1382–1402. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21525
  8. De la Cruz del Río-Rama, M., Maldonado-Erazo, C., Álvarez-García, J., & Durán-Sánchez, A (2020). Cultural and natural resources in tourism Island: Bibliometric mapping. Sustainability 12(2), 724-744. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12020724
  9. Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., & Lim, W. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research,133,285–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JBUSRES.2021.04.070
  10. Dwivedi, Y., Kshetri, N., Hughes, L., Slade, E., Jeyaraj, A., Kar, A., Baabdullah, A., Koohang, A., Raghavan, V., Ahuja, M., Albanna, H., Albashrawi, M. A., Al-Busaidi, A. S., Balakrishnan, J., Barlette, Y., Basu, S., Bose, I., Brooks, L., Buhalis, D., & Wirtz, J.. . . Wright, R. (2023). “So, what if ChatGPT wrote it?” Multidisciplinary perspectives on opportunities, challenges and implications of generative conversational AI for research, practice and policy. International Journal of Information Management, 71, 102642. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102642
  11. Else, H. (2023). Abstracts written by ChatGPT fool scientists. Nature, 613(7944), 423. https://doi.org/10. 1038/D41586-023-00056-7
  12. Faiza Farhat, Shahab Saquib Sohail & Dag Øivind Madsen (2023) How trustworthy is ChatGPT? The case of bibliometric analyses, Cogent Engineering, 10 (1), 2222988, DOI: 10.1080/23311916.2023.2222988
  13. García, I. (2020). e-Leadership: A Bibliometric Analysis. International Journal of Advanced Corporate Learning (iJAC) 13(1), 19-34 https://doi.org/10.3991/ijac.v13i1.12341
  14. Hallinger, P., & Suriyankietkaew, S. (2018). Science Mapping of the Knowledge Base on Sustainable Leadership, 1990–2018. Sustainability, 10(12), 4846-4866. https://doi.org/10.3390/su1012484
  15. Hamed Khosravi, Mohammad Reza Shafie, Morteza Hajiabadi, Ahmed Shoyeb Raihan, Imtiaz Ahmed Chatbots and ChatGPT: A Bibliometric Analysis and Systematic Review of Publications in Web of Science and Scopus Databases.
  16. Harzing, A., & Alakangas, S. (2016). Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: A longitudinal and cross disciplinary comparison. Scientometrics, 106(2), 787–804. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1798-9
  17. Herrera-Franco, G., Montalván-Burbano, N., Carrión-Mero, P., Apolo-Masache, B., & Jaya-Montalvo, M. (2020). Research Trends in Geotourism: A Bibliometric Analysis Using the Scopus Database. Geosciences, 10(10), 379- 399. https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences10100379
  18. Holzinger, A., Keiblinger, K., Holub, P., Zatloukal, K., & Müller, H. (2023). AI for life: Trends in artificial intelligence for biotechnology. New Biotechnology, 74, 16-24.
  19. Huh, S. (2023). Are ChatGPT’s knowledge and interpretation ability comparable to those of medical students in Korea for taking a parasitology examination? a descriptive study. J Educ Eval Health Prof, 20(1).
  20. Kessler, M. (1963). Bibliographic coupling between scientific papers. American Documentation, 14(1), 10–25 https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.5090140103
  21. Lund, B., & Wang, T. (2023). "Chatting about ChatGPT: how may AI and GPT impact academia and libraries?", Library Hi Tech News, 40 (3), 26-29. https://doi.org/10.1108/LHTN-01-2023-0009
  22. Mahir Pradana, Hanifah Putri Elisa & Syarifuddin Syarifuddin (2023) Discussing ChatGPT in education: A literature review and bibliometric analysis, Cogent Education, 10 (2), 2243134, DOI: 10.1080/2331186X.2023.2243134
  23. Mao, G., Huang, N., Chen, L., & Wang, H. (2017). Research on biomass energy and environment from the past to the future: A bibliometric analysis. Environ. Sci. Technol, 51(13), 7599-7605. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.04.173
  24. McCulloch, W. S., & Pitts, W. (1943). A logical calculus of the ideas immanent in nervous activity. Bulletin of Mathematical Biophysics, 5,115– 133.
  25. Moed, H., & Glänzel, W. (2005). Citation analysis of scientific journals and journal impact measures. Current Science, 89(12), 1990-1996. Retrieved May 4, 2021, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/24111059
  26. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. (2009). PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLOS Medicine, 6(7), 97-115. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
  27. Moher, D., Shamseer, L., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., & Stewart, L. (2015). Preferred reporting items for systematic review and metanalysis protocols (PRISMA-P) statement. Systematic Reviews, 4(1), 58-78. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-1
  28. Mohamed, A., Abdul Razak, A., & Abdullah, Z. (2020). Most-Cited Research Publications on Educational Leadership and Management: A Bibliometric Analysis. International Online Journal of Educational Leadership, 4(2), 33-50. https://doi.org/1186/2046-4053-4-1
  29. Mukherjee, D., Lim, W., Kumar, S., & Donthu, N. (2022). Guidelines for advancing theory and practice through bibliometric research. Journal of Business Research, 148, 101–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.04.042
  30. O’Connor, S. (2022). Open artificial intelligence platforms in nursing education: Tools for academic progress or abuse? Nurse Education in Practice, 66, 103537–- 103537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2022.103537
  31. OECD. (2021). AI and the future of skills, volume 1: Capabilities and assessments. https://doi.org/10. 1787/5ee71f34-en
  32. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, Shamseer L, Tetzlaff JM, Akl EA, Brennan SE, Chou R, Glanville J, Grimshaw JM, Hróbjartsson A, Lalu MM, Li T, Loder EW, Mayo-Wilson E, McDonald S, McGuinness LA, Stewart LA, Thomas J, Tricco AC, Welch VA, Whiting P, Moher D. 2021 The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. Mar 29;372:n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71. PMID: 33782057; PMCID: PMC8005924.
  33. Pavlik, J. (2023). Collaborating with ChatGPT: Considering the implications of generative artificial intelligence for journalism and media education. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 78(1), 84–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/10776958221149577
  34. Rousseau, R., Egghe, L., & Guns, R. (2018). Becoming metric-wise: A bibliometric guide for researchers. Chandos Publishig. Cambridge, MA, United States
  35. Rudolph, J., Tan, S., & Tan, S. (2023). ChatGPT: Bullshit spewer or the end of traditional assessments in higher education? Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching, 6(1), 344–363. https://doi.org/10.37074/ jalt.2023.6.1.9
  36. Sanabria-Navarro, J., Silveira-Pérez, Y., Pérez-Bravo, D., & de-Jesús-Cortina Núñez, M. (2023). Incidencias de la inteligencia artificial en la educación contemporánea. Comunicar: Revista Científica de Comunicación y Educación, 31(77).
  37. Segura-Robles, A., Parra-González, M. E., & Gallardo-Vigil, M. (2020). Bibliometric and Collaborative Network Analysis on Active Methodologies in Education. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research, 9(2), 259-274. http://dx.doi.org/10.7821/naer.2020.7.575
  38. Shinde, P., & Shah, S. (2018, August). A review of machine learning and deep learning applications. In 2018 Fourth international conference on computing communication control and automation (ICCUBEA) (pp. 1-6). IEEE.
  39. Stokel-Walker, C. (2022). AI bot ChatGPT writes smart essays-should academics worry? Nature. https://doi. org/10.1038/d41586-022-04397-7
  40. Stokel-Walker, C., & Van Noorden, R. (2023). What ChatGPT and generative AI mean for science. Nature, 614(7947), 214-216.
  41. Thorp, H. (2023). ChatGPT is fun, but not an author. Science: Advanced Materials and Devices, 379(6630), 313–313. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adg7879
  42. Todeschini, R., & Baccini, A. (2016). Handbook of bibliometric indicators: Quantitative tools for studying and evaluating research. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9783527681969
  43. Turing, A. (1936). On computable numbers, with an application to the entscheidungs problem, Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society 42 (1936), 230–265.
  44. van Dis, E., Bollen, J., Zuidema, W., van Rooij, R., & Bockting, C. (2023). ChatGPT: Five priorities for research. Nature, 614(7947), 224–226. https://doi. org/10.1038/d41586-023-00288-7
  45. van Eck, and L. Waltman (2014). Visualizing bibliometric networks. In Measuring scholarly impact (pp. 285-320). Springer, Cham.
  46. van Eck, N., & Waltman, L. (2019). Manual for VOSviewer. University of Leiden, The Nederland.
  47. VOSviewer. (2020). https://www.vosviewer.co
  48. Župić, I., & Čater, T. (2015). Bibliometric methods in management and organization, Organizational Research Methods, 18(3), 429-472. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114562629
LICENSE
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.