Can generative AI effectively perform quality evaluation within social sciences? A case study in library and information science

Abstract Thus far, the usage of generative artificial intelligence (GAI) has mainly been explored for content-based evaluations. Research quality evaluations and studies focusing on fields in the social sciences are needed. Therefore, we performed a quality evaluation using state-of-the-art GAI models to assess their usability in this respect. GPT-4o and DeepSeek-V3 were employed to select papers with very high quality from a set of high quality papers. Comparisons with human expert decisions, citation counts, and download counts were the basis for our quality assessments. GAI models can to some extent assess the academic value of high-quality papers. We found a positive but limited correlation between GAI-based quality scores with citation and download counts. We observed selective preferences of GAI’s quality assessment in favor of papers that use overt technical terminology, methodological frameworks, or seemingly broad but objectively worded expressions. GAI comparatively undervalues the quality of papers with high theoretical abstraction or strong socio-contextual embedding. Our study provides new empirical foundations for defining GAI’s role in research quality evaluation in the social sciences. Crucial guidance for academic institutions, libraries, funding agencies, and research management organizations is extracted. We expect that GAI trained to assess academic quality would produce classic paper selections in higher agreement with human experts than currently available models.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Scientometrics
Published
2026-02-19
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-026-05570-9
Primary Topic
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Can generative AI effectively perform quality evaluation within social sciences? A case study in library and information science

Robin Haunschild, Jiyuan Ye, Yu Zhu, Huan Xie
Scientometrics
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
article

Can generative AI effectively perform quality evaluation within social sciences? A case study in library and information science

Robin Haunschild, Jiyuan Ye, Yu Zhu, Huan Xie
article en

Abstract

Abstract Thus far, the usage of generative artificial intelligence (GAI) has mainly been explored for content-based evaluations. Research quality evaluations and studies focusing on fields in the social sciences are needed. Therefore, we performed a quality evaluation using state-of-the-art GAI models to assess their usability in this respect. GPT-4o and DeepSeek-V3 were employed to select papers with very high quality from a set of high quality papers. Comparisons with human expert decisions, citation counts, and download counts were the basis for our quality assessments. GAI models can to some extent assess the academic value of high-quality papers. We found a positive but limited correlation between GAI-based quality scores with citation and download counts. We observed selective preferences of GAI’s quality assessment in favor of papers that use overt technical terminology, methodological frameworks, or seemingly broad but objectively worded expressions. GAI comparatively undervalues the quality of papers with high theoretical abstraction or strong socio-contextual embedding. Our study provides new empirical foundations for defining GAI’s role in research quality evaluation in the social sciences. Crucial guidance for academic institutions, libraries, funding agencies, and research management organizations is extracted. We expect that GAI trained to assess academic quality would produce classic paper selections in higher agreement with human experts than currently available models.

Scientometrics
Max Planck Institute for Solid State Research (DE), Nanjing University (CN)
Government of Jiangsu Province, Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, National Social Science Fund of China
Quality Education
Openalex Percentile: Top 52%
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
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.