Comparing Generative AI Literature Reviews Versus Human-Led Systematic Literature Reviews: A Case Study on Big Data Research

Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) and Large Language Models (LLMs) are transforming research methodologies, including Systematic Literature Reviews (SLRs). While traditional, human-led SLRs are labor-intensive, AI-driven approaches promise efficiency and scalability. However, the reliability and accuracy of AI-generated literature reviews remain uncertain. This study investigates the performance of GPT-4-powered Consensus in conducting an SLR on Big Data research, comparing its results with a manually conducted SLR. To evaluate Consensus, we analyzed its ability to detect relevant studies, extract key insights, and synthesize findings. Our human-led SLR identified 32 primary studies (PSs) and 207 related works, whereas Consensus detected 22 PSs, with 16 overlapping with the manual selection and 5 false positives. The AI-selected studies had an average citation count of 202 per study, significantly higher than the 64.4 citations per study in the manual SLR, indicating a possible bias toward highly cited papers. However, none of the 32 PSs selected manually were included in the AI-generated results, highlighting recall and selection accuracy limitations. Key findings reveal that Consensus accelerates literature retrieval but suffers from hallucinations, reference inaccuracies, and limited critical analysis. Specifically, it failed to capture nuanced research challenges and missed important application domains. Precision, recall, and F1 scores of the AI-selected studies were 76.2%, 38.1%, and 50.6%, respectively, demonstrating that while AI retrieves relevant papers with high precision, it lacks comprehensiveness. To mitigate these limitations, we propose a hybrid AI-human SLR framework, where AI enhances search efficiency while human reviewers ensure rigor and validity. While AI can support literature reviews, human oversight remains essential for ensuring accuracy and depth. Future research should assess AI-assisted SLRs across multiple disciplines to validate generalizability and explore domain-specific LLMs for improved performance.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
IEEE Access
Published
2025-01-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2025.3554504
Citations
7
Primary Topic
Big Data and Business Intelligence
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
13.70
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Comparing Generative AI Literature Reviews Versus Human-Led Systematic Literature Reviews: A Case Study on Big Data Research

Davide Tosi
7 citations
IEEE Access
Big Data and Business Intelligence
13.70
article

Comparing Generative AI Literature Reviews Versus Human-Led Systematic Literature Reviews: A Case Study on Big Data Research

Davide Tosi
article en
7 citations

Abstract

Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) and Large Language Models (LLMs) are transforming research methodologies, including Systematic Literature Reviews (SLRs). While traditional, human-led SLRs are labor-intensive, AI-driven approaches promise efficiency and scalability. However, the reliability and accuracy of AI-generated literature reviews remain uncertain. This study investigates the performance of GPT-4-powered Consensus in conducting an SLR on Big Data research, comparing its results with a manually conducted SLR. To evaluate Consensus, we analyzed its ability to detect relevant studies, extract key insights, and synthesize findings. Our human-led SLR identified 32 primary studies (PSs) and 207 related works, whereas Consensus detected 22 PSs, with 16 overlapping with the manual selection and 5 false positives. The AI-selected studies had an average citation count of 202 per study, significantly higher than the 64.4 citations per study in the manual SLR, indicating a possible bias toward highly cited papers. However, none of the 32 PSs selected manually were included in the AI-generated results, highlighting recall and selection accuracy limitations. Key findings reveal that Consensus accelerates literature retrieval but suffers from hallucinations, reference inaccuracies, and limited critical analysis. Specifically, it failed to capture nuanced research challenges and missed important application domains. Precision, recall, and F1 scores of the AI-selected studies were 76.2%, 38.1%, and 50.6%, respectively, demonstrating that while AI retrieves relevant papers with high precision, it lacks comprehensiveness. To mitigate these limitations, we propose a hybrid AI-human SLR framework, where AI enhances search efficiency while human reviewers ensure rigor and validity. While AI can support literature reviews, human oversight remains essential for ensuring accuracy and depth. Future research should assess AI-assisted SLRs across multiple disciplines to validate generalizability and explore domain-specific LLMs for improved performance.

IEEE AccessVol. 13
University of Insubria (IT)
Openalex Percentile: Top 2%
Big Data and Business Intelligence
13.70
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.