IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jadmsc/v15y2025i11p412-d1778653.html

A Cross-Disciplinary Academic Evaluation of Generative AI Models in HR, Accounting, and Economics: ChatGPT-5 vs. DeepSeek

Author

Listed:
  • Najib Bou Zakhem

    (Management & International Management Department, School of Business, Lebanese International University, Bekaa 146404, Lebanon)

  • Malak Bou Diab

    (Accounting Information Systems Department, School of Business, Lebanese International University, Beirut 146404, Lebanon)

  • Suha Tahan

    (Economics Department, School of Business, Lebanese International University, Bekaa 146404, Lebanon)

Abstract

As generative AI is being further integrated into academic and professional contexts, there is a demonstrable need to determine the performance of generative AI within specific, applied domains. This research compares the performances of ChatGPT-5 and DeepSeek on tasks in the domains of accounting, economics, and human resources. The models were provided two prompts per domain, and outputs were evaluated by academics across five criteria: accuracy, clarity, conciseness, systematic reasoning, and indicators of potential bias. The inter-rater reliability was reported using Cohen’s Kappa. From the findings, both models display differences in performance. ChatGPT-5 outperformed DeepSeek in accounting and human resources, while DeepSeek outperformed ChatGPT-5 on epistemic economics tasks. Since results have shown that ChatGPT-5 outperformed DeepSeek in two out of three domains, the research recommends a reliability-based framework to compare generative AI outputs within business disciplines and offers practical suggestions on when and how to use the models within academic and professional contexts.

Suggested Citation

  • Najib Bou Zakhem & Malak Bou Diab & Suha Tahan, 2025. "A Cross-Disciplinary Academic Evaluation of Generative AI Models in HR, Accounting, and Economics: ChatGPT-5 vs. DeepSeek," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-22, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jadmsc:v:15:y:2025:i:11:p:412-:d:1778653
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3387/15/11/412/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3387/15/11/412/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wayne Geerling & G. Dirk Mateer & Jadrian Wooten & Nikhil Damodaran, 2023. "ChatGPT has Aced the Test of Understanding in College Economics: Now What?," The American Economist, Sage Publications, vol. 68(2), pages 233-245, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Joy Buchanan & Stephen Hill & Olga Shapoval, 2024. "ChatGPT Hallucinates Non-existent Citations: Evidence from Economics," The American Economist, Sage Publications, vol. 69(1), pages 80-87, March.
    2. Hurley, Sean P., 2025. "A Checklist for Managing AI Use in Agribusiness and Applied Economics Courses," Applied Economics Teaching Resources (AETR), Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 7(5), November.
    3. Co, Catherine Y. & Tran, Que Nguyet, 2025. "A multidisciplinary perspective to teaching international trade," International Review of Economics Education, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    4. Fatih Uludağ & Eylem Kılıç & H.Eray Çelik, 2025. "Artificial intelligence, social influence, and AI anxiety: analyzing the intentions of science doctoral students to use ChatGPT with PLS-SEM," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 12(1), pages 1-17, December.
    5. Natalie Brose & Christian Spielmann & Christian Tode, 2025. "ChatGPT as Economics Tutor: Capabilities and Limitations," Bristol Economics Discussion Papers 25/786, School of Economics, University of Bristol, UK.
    6. Firuz Kamalov & David Santandreu Calonge & Patrik T. Hultberg & Linda Smail & Dima Jamali, 2025. "Comparative analysis of leading artificial intelligence chatbots in the context of entrepreneurship," Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Springer, vol. 14(1), pages 1-27, December.
    7. Nodir Adilov & Jeffrey W. Cline, 2026. "The Carrot or the Stick? An Economic Model of Optimal Course Difficulty, Student Effort and Cheating Using AI," Studies in Microeconomics, , vol. 14(1), pages 95-117, April.
    8. Patrik T Hultberg & David Santandreu Calonge & Firuz Kamalov & Linda Smail, 2024. "Comparing and assessing four AI chatbots’ competence in economics," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(5), pages 1-20, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:gam:jadmsc:v:15:y:2025:i:11:p:412-:d:1778653. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.