IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/dbk/datame/v3y2024ip252id1056294dm2024252.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Analysis of scientific information from a bibliometric approach between Chat GPT and Scopus: A comparative study

Author

Listed:
  • Ana Karen Romero
  • Deyanira Bernal
  • Reyna Christian Sánchez

Abstract

One of the main challenges faced by teachers, researchers, and students today is efficiently filtering reliable and useful information available on the internet, as well as in scientific academic databases. To address this phenomenon, the bibliometrics tool is used, which involves understanding the number of publications, analyzing them, and determining their trend based on the application of filters and relationships of scientific concepts in specialized topics. There are other technological tools that allow finding bibliographic information on the internet, such as artificial intelligence (AI) specifically through the ChatGPT chatbot (Generative Pre-trained transformer). The objective of this article is to identify the differences between the results of a bibliometric analysis from Scopus and ChatGPT; the research type is documentary; the search strategy for the bibliometric analysis was "Dynamic Capabilities." Findings show that there are differences between the data obtained from the two bibliometric analyses, including authors, subject areas, affiliations, and keywords; it should be noted that the use of ChatGPT is a basic and simple tool that complements the bibliometric analysis provided by an academic database like Scopus; it is suggested to compare the results analytically and manually at all times, which is of interest to academia and the development of theoretical frameworks in research work

Suggested Citation

Handle: RePEc:dbk:datame:v:3:y:2024:i::p:252:id:1056294dm2024252
DOI: 10.56294/dm2024252
as

Download full text from publisher

To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
3. Perform a
for a similarly titled item that would be available.

More about this item

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:dbk:datame:v:3:y:2024:i::p:252:id:1056294dm2024252. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Javier Gonzalez-Argote (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://dm.ageditor.ar/ .

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.