Automate the ‘boring bits’: An assessment of AI-assisted systematic review (AIASR)

Systematic review is a powerful tool for disseminating the findings of research, particularly in applied linguistics where we hope to provide insights for practising language teachers. Yet, systematic review is also often prohibitively time-consuming, particularly for small, underfunded teams or solo researchers. In this study, we explore the use of generative artificial intelligence to ease the burden of screening and organising papers. Our findings suggest that AI excels in some tasks, particularly when those tasks involve explicitly stated information, and struggles in others, particularly when information is more implicit. A comparison of generative artificial intelligence for filtering papers with ASReview, a popular non-generative tool, reveals trade-offs, with Generative AI being replicable and more efficient, but with concerns about accuracy. We conclude that generative artificial intelligence can be a useful tool for systematic review but requires rigorous validation before use. We conclude by emphasising the importance of testing AI for systematic review tasks and exploring how this can practically be achieved.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Research Methods in Applied Linguistics
Published
2025-09-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmal.2025.100258
Citations
5
Primary Topic
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
3.27
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Automate the ‘boring bits’: An assessment of AI-assisted systematic review (AIASR)

Jim McKinley, Timothy Hampson, Kelly Cargos
5 citations
Research Methods in Applied Linguistics
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
3.27
article

Automate the ‘boring bits’: An assessment of AI-assisted systematic review (AIASR)

Jim McKinley, Timothy Hampson, Kelly Cargos
article en
5 citations

Abstract

Systematic review is a powerful tool for disseminating the findings of research, particularly in applied linguistics where we hope to provide insights for practising language teachers. Yet, systematic review is also often prohibitively time-consuming, particularly for small, underfunded teams or solo researchers. In this study, we explore the use of generative artificial intelligence to ease the burden of screening and organising papers. Our findings suggest that AI excels in some tasks, particularly when those tasks involve explicitly stated information, and struggles in others, particularly when information is more implicit. A comparison of generative artificial intelligence for filtering papers with ASReview, a popular non-generative tool, reveals trade-offs, with Generative AI being replicable and more efficient, but with concerns about accuracy. We conclude that generative artificial intelligence can be a useful tool for systematic review but requires rigorous validation before use. We conclude by emphasising the importance of testing AI for systematic review tasks and exploring how this can practically be achieved.

Research Methods in Applied LinguisticsVol. 4(3)
Rikkyo University (JP), University College London (GB)
Openalex Percentile: Top 7%
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
3.27
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.