Trends and Bibliometric Mapping of the Knowledge Structure of Generative Artificial Intelligence Research in Higher Education

Öz

Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) has reshaped teaching, learning and assessment in higher education faster than the literature describing it has been consolidated. Existing bibliometric reviews of this area are typically built on a single database, organised around ChatGPT alone, or extended to education at all levels and they rarely report the analytical parameters required for replication. This study addresses that gap by mapping the scientific production structure, intellectual and conceptual organisation and thematic evolution of GenAI research in higher education on a dual-database (Web of Science Core Collection and Scopus), PRISMA 2020-screened and fully parameter-transparent corpus of 2,992 articles and reviews published between 2022 and 2025, drawn from 728 sources and 9,948 authors. Descriptive, keyword co-occurrence, correspondence-analysis-based conceptual structure, strategic (thematic) map and thematic evolution analyses were triangulated across Bibliometrix/Biblioshiny and VOSviewer. Output grew from 5 documents in 2022 to 2,001 in 2025 a 400-fold expansion, with 66.9% of the entire corpus published in the final year alone at a mean of 18.46 citations per document. Impact is steeply concentrated: the ten most-cited documents (0.33% of the corpus) account for 8.75% of all citations. Production is led by China (n = 890), the United States (n = 617) and Australia (n = 401), yet international co-authorship stands at only 10.11%, indicating a field that is collaborative but overwhelmingly domestic. Türkiye (n = 96) ranks in the same output band as the United Arab Emirates, Peru and Hong Kong, but below regional peers such as Saudi Arabia, Indonesia and Jordan. Two independent clustering procedures each return a four-cluster architecture, but not the same four: the co-occurrence network built on indexed vocabulary separates the field by disciplinary setting instructional technology, health-professions education, technology acceptance and a general artificial intelligence core whereas correspondence analysis on author keywords separates it by conceptual concern into technological, educational-application, ethical-assessment and pedagogical dimensions. Generative AI is the single motor theme and the field shifts clearly from technological exploration towards pedagogical integration and academic integrity. Beyond describing the field, the study contributes a fully reproducible bibliometric protocol and a critical reading of the field’s ChatGPT-centrism, its collaboration deficit and its early signs of thematic saturation.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Generative artificial intelligence
• Higher education
• Bibliometric analysis
• Research trends
• Knowledge mapping

Etik Beyan

This study is grounded in a bibliometric examination of previously published scholarly works. It does not involve the collection of data from human participants, nor does it utilize personal data or pose any ethical concerns. Accordingly, obtaining ethical approval was deemed unnecessary for the conduct of this research.

Teşekkür

The author would like to thank the developers of the Web of Science Core Collection and Scopus databases for providing access to high-quality bibliographic data used in this study. No additional acknowledgments are declared.

Kaynakça

1. Akpan, I. J., Kobara, Y. M., Owolabi, J., Akpan, A. A., & Offodile, O. F. (2025). Conversational and generative artificial intelligence and human–chatbot interaction in education and research. International Transactions in Operational Research, 32(3), 1251–1281. https://doi.org/10.1111/itor.13522
2. Aria, M., & Cuccurullo, C. (2017). bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 11(4), 959–975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007
3. Baek, C., & Doleck, T. (2020). A bibliometric analysis of the papers published in the Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education from 2015–2019. International Journal of Learning Analytics and Artificial Intelligence for Education, 2(1), 67–84. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijai.v2i1.14481
4. Bittle, K., & El-Gayar, O. (2025). Generative AI and academic integrity in higher education: A systematic review and research agenda. Information, 16(4), 296. https://doi.org/10.3390/info16040296
5. Blondel, V. D., Guillaume, J.-L., Lambiotte, R., & Lefebvre, E. (2008). Fast unfolding of communities in large networks. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, 2008(10), P10008. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-5468/2008/10/P10008
6. Bozkurt, A. (2023). Unleashing the potential of generative AI, conversational agents and chatbots in educational praxis: A systematic review and bibliometric analysis of GenAI in education. Open Praxis, 15(4), 261–270. https://doi.org/10.55982/openpraxis.15.4.609
7. Büyükeke, A. (2025). Öğrencilerin programlama derslerinde üretken yapay zekâ araçlarını kabulü: Genişletilmiş teknoloji kabul modeli ile Türkiye’den bulgular [Students’ acceptance of generative artificial intelligence tools in programming courses: Findings from Türkiye with an extended technology acceptance model]. Journal of University Research, 8(4), 543–556. https://doi.org/10.32329/uad.1728785
8. Callon, M., Courtial, J. P., & Laville, F. (1991). Co-word analysis as a tool for describing the network of interactions between basic and technological research: The case of polymer chemistry. Scientometrics, 22(1), 155–205. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02019280

9. Chiu, T. K. F. (2024). Future research recommendations for transforming higher education with generative AI. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 6, 100197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100197
10. Cobo, M. J., López-Herrera, A. G., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2011). An approach for detecting, quantifying and visualizing the evolution of a research field: A practical application to the Fuzzy Sets Theory field. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 146–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.10.002
11. Cotton, D. R. E., Cotton, P. A., & Shipway, J. R. (2024). Chatting and cheating: Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 61(2), 228–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2023.2190148
12. Coulter-Smith, L. (2022). The AI economy and higher education. In A. Kaplan (Ed.), Digital transformation and disruption of higher education (Chapter 29). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108979146.037
13. Dai, K., Liu, Y., & Zhang, X. (2026). Generative AI in higher education: A bibliometric review of emerging trends, power dynamics and global research landscapes. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 10, 100544. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2026.100544
14. Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., & Lim, W. M. (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
15. Dúo-Terrón, P. (2024). Generative artificial intelligence: Educational reflections from an analysis of scientific production. Journal of Technology and Science Education, 14(3), 756–769. https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.2680
16. Flores-Velásquez, C. H., Olivares-Zegarra, S., Dávila-Ignacio, C., Arévalo-Tuesta, J. A., Morales-Romero, G., Trinidad-Loli, N., Caycho-Salas, B., Aybar-Bellido, I., Arones, M., & Aldana-Trejo, F. (2024). A bibliometric review of studies about the acceptance of artificial intelligence technologies in teaching and learning in higher education. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 23(3), 275–292. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.23.3.14
17. Francis, N. J., Jones, S., & Smith, D. P. (2025). Generative AI in higher education: Balancing innovation and integrity. British Journal of Biomedical Science, 81, 14048. https://doi.org/10.3389/bjbs.2024.14048
18. Guo, J., Kang, E. K. M. S., & Ghazali, N. (2026). Generative artificial intelligence in education from 2021 to 2025: A scientometric review. Journal of Curriculum and Teaching, 15(1), 102–118. https://doi.org/10.5430/jct.v15n1p102
19. Kasneci, E., Sessler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., Gasser, U., Groh, G., Günnemann, S., Hüllermeier, E., Krusche, S., Kutyniok, G., Michaeli, T., Nerdel, C., Pfeffer, J., Poquet, O., Sailer, M., Schmidt, A., Seidel, T., … Kasneci, G. (2023). ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and Individual Differences, 103, 102274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274
20. Kavitha, K., Joshith, V. P., Rajeev, N. P., & Asha, S. (2024). Artificial intelligence in higher education: A bibliometric approach. European Journal of Educational Research, 13(3), 1121–1137. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.13.3.1121
21. Lodge, J. M., Thompson, K., & Corrin, L. (2023). Mapping out a research agenda for generative artificial intelligence in tertiary education. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 39(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.8695
22. Metli, A. (2023). Articles on education and artificial intelligence: A bibliometric analysis. Journal of Social Sciences and Education, 6(Education Special Issue), 279–312. https://doi.org/10.53047/josse.1352197
23. Muskhir, M., Luthfi, A., Watrianthos, R., Usmeldi, U., Fortuna, A., & Samala, A. D. (2024). Emerging research on virtual reality applications in vocational education: A bibliometric analysis. Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice, 23, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.28945/5284
24. Ng, S.-L., & Ho, C.-C. (2025). Generative AI in education: Mapping the research landscape through bibliometric analysis. Information, 16(8), 657. https://doi.org/10.3390/info16080657
25. Nugroho, L. A. (2024). Exploring research trends of ChatGPT in education through bibliometric analysis. Scholaria: Jurnal Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan, 14(2), 98–106. https://doi.org/10.24246/j.js.2024.v14.i2.p98-106
26. Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
27. Plata, S., De Guzman, M. A., & Quesada, A. (2023). Emerging research and policy themes on academic integrity in the age of ChatGPT and generative AI. Asian Journal of University Education, 19(4), 743–758. https://doi.org/10.24191/ajue.v19i4.24697
28. Prayuda, M. S., Ginting, F. Y. A., & Tamba, L. (2026). Tracing two decades of artificial intelligence in education: A bibliometric analysis of trends, themes and future directions (2000–2025). European Journal of Educational Research, 15(1), 285–304. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.15.1.285
29. Samala, A. D., Rawas, S., Wang, T., Reed, J. M., Kim, J., Howard, N.-J., & Ertz, M. (2025). Unveiling the landscape of generative artificial intelligence in education: A comprehensive taxonomy of applications, challenges and future prospects. Education and Information Technologies, 30(3), 3239–3278. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12936-0
30. Tlili, A., Shehata, B., Adarkwah, M. A., Bozkurt, A., Hickey, D. T., Huang, R., & Agyemang, B. (2023). What if the devil is my guardian angel: ChatGPT as a case study of using chatbots in education. Smart Learning Environments, 10(1), 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-023-00237-x
31. Tonbuloğlu, B., & Avcı Akbel, B. (2023). Research trends in the field of emergency remote teaching: A bibliometric analysis of open access literature. Online Learning, 27(1), 485–517. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v27i1.3241
32. van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-2
33. Waltman, L., van Eck, N. J., & Noyons, E. C. M. (2010). A unified approach to mapping and clustering of bibliometric networks. Journal of Informetrics, 4(4), 629–635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.07.002
34. Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V. I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019). Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16, 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0
35. Zupic, I., & Čater, T. (2015). Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organizational Research Methods, 18(3), 429–472. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114562629