Next Article in Journal / Special Issue
Human–AI Complementarity in Peer Review: Empirical Analysis of PeerJ Data and Design of an Efficient Collaborative Review Framework
Previous Article in Journal
Measuring Group Performance Fairly: The h-Group, Homogeneity, and the α-Index
Previous Article in Special Issue
A Decade of Deepfake Research in the Generative AI Era, 2014–2024: A Bibliometric Analysis
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

A Multidisciplinary Bibliometric Analysis of Differences and Commonalities Between GenAI in Science

Faculty of Economic Sciences, Institute of Management and Quality Sciences, University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, 10-719 Olsztyn, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Publications 2025, 13(4), 67; https://doi.org/10.3390/publications13040067
Submission received: 15 September 2025 / Revised: 29 November 2025 / Accepted: 5 December 2025 / Published: 11 December 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue AI in Academic Metrics and Impact Analysis)

Abstract

Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) is rapidly permeating research practices, yet knowledge about its use and topical profile remains fragmented across tools and disciplines. In this study, we present a cross-disciplinary map of GenAI research based on the Web of Science Core Collection (as of 4 November 2025) for the ten tool lines with the largest number of publications. We employed a transparent query protocol in the Title (TI) and Topic (TS) fields, using Boolean and proximity operators together with brand-specific exclusion lists. Thematic similarity was estimated with the Jaccard index for the Top–50, Top–100, and Top–200 sets. In parallel, we computed volume and citation metrics using Python and reconstructed a country-level co-authorship network. The corpus comprises 14,418 deduplicated publications. A strong concentration is evident around ChatGPT, which accounts for approximately 80.6% of the total. The year 2025 shows a marked increase in output across all lines. The Jaccard matrices reveal two stable clusters: general-purpose tools (ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, Copilot) and open-source/developer-led lines (LLaMA, Mistral, Qwen, DeepSeek). Perplexity serves as a bridge between the clusters, while Grok remains the most distinct. The co-authorship network exhibits a dual-core structure anchored in the United States and China. The study contributes to bibliometric research on GenAI by presenting a perspective that combines publication dynamics, citation structures, thematic profiles, and similarity matrices based on the Jaccard algorithm for different tool lines. In practice, it proposes a comparative framework that can help researchers and institutions match GenAI tools to disciplinary contexts and develop transparent, repeatable assessments of their use in scientific activities.
Keywords: generative AI; large language models; bibliometrics; keyword co-occurrence; Jaccard similarity; co-authorship networks; scientific communication; Web of Science generative AI; large language models; bibliometrics; keyword co-occurrence; Jaccard similarity; co-authorship networks; scientific communication; Web of Science

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Sieciński, K.; Oliński, M. A Multidisciplinary Bibliometric Analysis of Differences and Commonalities Between GenAI in Science. Publications 2025, 13, 67. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications13040067

AMA Style

Sieciński K, Oliński M. A Multidisciplinary Bibliometric Analysis of Differences and Commonalities Between GenAI in Science. Publications. 2025; 13(4):67. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications13040067

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sieciński, Kacper, and Marian Oliński. 2025. "A Multidisciplinary Bibliometric Analysis of Differences and Commonalities Between GenAI in Science" Publications 13, no. 4: 67. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications13040067

APA Style

Sieciński, K., & Oliński, M. (2025). A Multidisciplinary Bibliometric Analysis of Differences and Commonalities Between GenAI in Science. Publications, 13(4), 67. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications13040067

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop