IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eme/nbripp/nbri-12-2023-0115.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Can we trust LLMs to help us? An examination of the potential use of GPT-4 in generating quality literature reviews

Author

Listed:
  • Min Zhao
  • Fuan Li
  • Francis Cai
  • Haiyang Chen
  • Zheng Li

Abstract

Purpose - This study aims to examine the ability of Generative Pre-trained Transformer 4 (GPT-4), one of the most powerful large language models, to generate a literature review for peer-reviewed journal publications. The objective is to determine whether business scholars can rely on GPT-4’s assistance with literature reviews and how the nature of human–artificial intelligence (AI) interaction may affect the quality of the reviews generated by GPT-4. Design/methodology/approach - A survey of 30 experienced researchers was conducted to assess the quality of the literature reviews generated by GPT-4 in comparison with a human-authored literature review published in a Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) journal. The data collected were then analyzed with analysis of variance to ascertain whether we may trust GPT-4’s assistance in writing literature reviews. Findings - The statistical analysis reveals that when a highly structured approach being used, GPT-4 can generate a high-quality review comparable to that found in an SSCI journal publication. However, when a less structured approach is used, the generated review lacks comprehensive understating and critical analysis, and is unable to identify literature gaps for future research, although it performed well in adequate synthesis and quality writing. The findings suggest that we may trust GPT-4 to generate literature reviews that align with the publication standards of a peer-reviewed journal when using a structured approach to human–AI interaction. Research limitations/implications - The findings suggest that we may trust GPT-4 to generate literature reviews that align with the publication standards of a peer-reviewed journal when using a structured approach to human–AI interaction. Nonetheless, cautions should be taken due to the limitations of this study discussed in the text. Originality/value - By breaking down the specific tasks of a literature review and using a quantitative rather than qualitative assessment method, this study provides robust and more objective findings about the ability of GPT-4 to assist us with a very important research task. The findings of this study should enhance our understanding of how GPT-4 may change our research endeavor and how we may take a full advantage of the advancement in AI technology in the future research.

Suggested Citation

  • Min Zhao & Fuan Li & Francis Cai & Haiyang Chen & Zheng Li, 2024. "Can we trust LLMs to help us? An examination of the potential use of GPT-4 in generating quality literature reviews," Nankai Business Review International, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 16(1), pages 128-142, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:eme:nbripp:nbri-12-2023-0115
    DOI: 10.1108/NBRI-12-2023-0115
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/NBRI-12-2023-0115/full/html?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/NBRI-12-2023-0115/full/pdf?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1108/NBRI-12-2023-0115?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    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:eme:nbripp:nbri-12-2023-0115. 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: Emerald Support (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.