The DOI matches its Crossref record; 75 of the 75 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
ChatGPT in higher education - a synthesis of the literature and a future research agenda
Open accessAbstract
ChatGPT has emerged as a significant subject of research and exploration, casting a critical spotlight on teaching and learning practices in the higher education domain. This study examines the most influential articles, leading journals, and productive countries concerning citations and publications related to ChatGPT in higher education, while also shedding light on emerging thematic and geographic clusters within research on ChatGPT’s role and challenges in teaching and learning at higher education institutions. Forty-seven research papers from the Scopus database were shortlisted for bibliometric analysis. The findings indicate that the use of ChatGPT in higher education, particularly issues of academic integrity and research, has been studied extensively by scholars in the United States, who have produced the largest volume of publications, alongside the highest number of citations. This study uncovers four distinct thematic clusters (academic integrity, learning environment, student engagement, and scholarly research) and highlights the predominant areas of focus in research related to ChatGPT in higher education, including student examinations, academic integrity, student learning, and field-specific research, through a country-based bibliographic analysis. Plagiarism is a significant concern in the use of ChatGPT, which may reduce students’ ability to produce imaginative, inventive, and original material. This study offers valuable insights into the current state of ChatGPT in higher education literature, providing essential guidance for scholars, researchers, and policymakers.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Bhullar, Joshi, & Chugh (2024) warn that such dependence undermines critical thinking and reduces opportunities for deep learning.”
From Generative AI-Enhanced Oral Exams in Economics Education (2026) · cites this paper as Bhullar, Joshi, & Chugh (2024)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Scholars such as Bhullar, Joshi, & Chugh (2024), Cassidy (2023), Eke (2023), and Plata, De Guzman, & Quesada (2023) further argue that misuse often stems from unclear guidance rather than intentional dishonesty, underscoring the need for explicit institutional policies.”
From Generative AI-Enhanced Oral Exams in Economics Education (2026) · cites this paper as Bhullar, Joshi, & Chugh (2024)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews
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., et al. (2021) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.n71 · Cited by 108,283
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & the PRISMA Group* (2009) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135 · Cited by 37,554
Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping
van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3 · Cited by 21,484
ChatGPT for Good? On Opportunities and Challenges of Large Language Models for Education
Kasneci, E., Seßler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., Gasser, U., Groh, G., Günnemann, S., Hüllermeier, E., et al. (2023) · doi:10.35542/osf.io/5er8f · Cited by 7,552
ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education
Kasneci, E., Sessler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., Gasser, U., Groh, G., Günnemann, S., Hüllermeier, E., et al. (2023) · Learning and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274 · Cited by 7,326 · cited 4×
“The study entitled “Opportunities and Challenges of Large Language Models for Education,” was authored by German researchers (Kasneci et al., 2023 ) and has been widely cited in the academic community (13 remaining studies were conducted by researchers from South Korea and Taiwan and focused on the…”
InfluentialChatting and cheating: Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT
Cotton, D. R. E., Cotton, P. A., & Shipway, J. R. (2024) · Innovations in Education and Teaching International · doi:10.1080/14703297.2023.2190148 · Cited by 3,087
Chatting and Cheating. Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT
Cotton, D., Cotton, P., & Shipway, J. R. (2023) · doi:10.35542/osf.io/mrz8h · Cited by 3,079
Scientific procedures and rationales for systematic literature reviews (SPAR‐4‐SLR)
Paul, J., Lim, W. M., O’Cass, A., Hao, A. W., & Bresciani, S. (2021) · International Journal of Consumer Studies · doi:10.1111/ijcs.12695 · Cited by 2,364
The Journal Coverage of Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions: A Comparative Analysis
Singh, V. K., Singh, P., Karmakar, M., Leta, J., & Mayr, P. (2021) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-021-03948-5 · Cited by 2,342
Gilson, A., Safranek, C. W., Huang, T., Socrates, V., Chi, L., Taylor, R. A., & Chartash, D. (2023) · JMIR Medical Education · doi:10.2196/45312 · Cited by 2,078
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Bajaj, Y., Kashiramka, S., & Singh, S. (2020). Application of capital structure theories: A systematic review. Journal of Advances in Management Research, 18(2), 173–199. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAMR-01-2020-001. · DOI
- Gupta, R., Pandey, R., & Sebastian, V. J. (2021). International entrepreneurial orientation (IEO): A bibliometric overview of scholarly research. Journal of Business Research, 125, 74–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.12.00. · DOI
- Neumann, M., Rauschenberger, M., & Schon, E-M. (2023). 2023 IEEE/ACM 5th International Workshop on Software Engineering Education for the Next Generation (SEENG), Melbourne, Australia, 2023, pp. 29–32, https://doi.org/10.1109/SEENG59157.2023.00010. · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Does ChatGPT enhance student learning? A systematic review and meta-analysis of experimental studies
Deng, R., Jiang, M., Yu, X., Lu, Y., & Liu, S. (2025) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105224 · Cited by 531
The Use of Generative AI Tools in Higher Education: Ethical and Pedagogical Principles
Nguyen, K. V. (2025) · Journal of Academic Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10805-025-09607-1 · Cited by 163
Assessing student perceptions and use of instructor versus AI ‐generated feedback
Er, E., Akçapınar, G., Bayazıt, A., Noroozi, O., & Banihashem, S. K. (2025) · British Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.1111/bjet.13558 · Cited by 114
Mapping Tomorrow’s Teaching and Learning Spaces: A Systematic Review on GenAI in Higher Education
Tillmanns, T., Filho, A. S., Rudra, S., Weber, P., Dawitz, J., Wiersma, E., Dudenaite, D., & REYNOLDS, S. L. (2025) · Trends in Higher Education · doi:10.3390/higheredu4010002 · Cited by 88
Liu, X., Guo, B., He, W., & Hu, X. (2025) · Journal of Educational Computing Research · doi:10.1177/07356331251329185 · Cited by 88
Metadata
- Authors
- Bhullar, P. S., Joshi, M., & Chugh, R.
- Affiliations
- Maharaja Ranjit Singh Punjab Technical University (IN)
- Central Queensland University (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Chugh, Ritesh
- Venue
- Education and Information Technologies
- Published
- 2024-05-02
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 16
- Pages
- 21501-21522
- ISSN
- 1360-2357 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-7608
- OpenAlex
- W4396592436
- Cited by
- 139
- References
- 73
- Citations by year
- 2026: 67 · 2025: 59 · 2024: 13
- FWCI
- 52.42
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- Education and Information Technologies (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- Central Queensland University
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Social Sciences › Education › Academic integrity and plagiarism
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Keywords
- ChatGPT, generative AI in education, higher education teaching and learning, academic integrity, plagiarism, student engagement, learning environment, student examinations, research agenda
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
