Popular GenAI Chatbots Vary in Capabilities to Answer Academic Reference Questions

A Review of: Whitfield, S., & Yang, S. Q. (2025). Evaluating AI language models for reference services: A comparative study of ChatGPT, Gemini, and Copilot. Internet Reference Services Quarterly, 29(2), 153-167. https://doi.org/10.1080/10875301.2025.2478861 Objective – To assess and compare the quality of responses to reference questions by popular generative artificial intelligent (GenAI) chatbots. Design – Content analysis. Setting – Web browser platforms of four GenAI chatbots. Subjects – Responses from ChatGPT 3.5, Chat GPT 4.0, Gemini, and Copilot to a set of 28 chat reference questions submitted by Rider University Library patrons between July 1, 2023, and May 14, 2024. Methods – Transcripts of 112 responses from the four chatbots were evaluated using a content analysis scheme adapted from a previous ChatGPT study (Yang & Mason, 2024). Both researchers independently rated every response using a 10-point scale on four categories, accuracy, relevance, friendliness, and instructiveness, and analyzed the results using inferential statistics. Main Results – Responses from Gemini received the highest total score (592 out of a possible 1,120 points), followed by ChatGPT 4.0 (542), ChatGPT 3.5 (502), and Copilot (433). However, every chatbot fluctuated greatly in their performance in accuracy and relevance. A single-factor ANOVA test also found statistically significant differences between the quality of the GenAI chatbots’ responses in relevance and friendliness, with Gemini and Copilot performing the best in these categories respectively. There were no statistically significant differences between the chatbots’ performances in accuracy or instructiveness, although Gemini held the highest mean score for instructiveness. Conclusion – The researchers concluded that popular GenAI chatbots should be used to supplement, not replace, the work of reference and instruction librarians, and noted the potentials for training GenAI to address basic or local, library-specific FAQs for after-hour reference support. The authors also advised librarians to stay current with the rapid development of chatbots and other GenAI tools and to continue differentiating librarianship competencies from services offered by these programs.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Evidence Based Library and Information Practice
Published
2026-03-16
DOI
https://doi.org/10.18438/eblip30949
Primary Topic
AI in Service Interactions
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Popular GenAI Chatbots Vary in Capabilities to Answer Academic Reference Questions

Lisa Y. Shen
Evidence Based Library and Information Practice
AI in Service Interactions
article

Popular GenAI Chatbots Vary in Capabilities to Answer Academic Reference Questions

Lisa Y. Shen
article en

Abstract

A Review of: Whitfield, S., & Yang, S. Q. (2025). Evaluating AI language models for reference services: A comparative study of ChatGPT, Gemini, and Copilot. Internet Reference Services Quarterly, 29(2), 153-167. https://doi.org/10.1080/10875301.2025.2478861 Objective – To assess and compare the quality of responses to reference questions by popular generative artificial intelligent (GenAI) chatbots. Design – Content analysis. Setting – Web browser platforms of four GenAI chatbots. Subjects – Responses from ChatGPT 3.5, Chat GPT 4.0, Gemini, and Copilot to a set of 28 chat reference questions submitted by Rider University Library patrons between July 1, 2023, and May 14, 2024. Methods – Transcripts of 112 responses from the four chatbots were evaluated using a content analysis scheme adapted from a previous ChatGPT study (Yang & Mason, 2024). Both researchers independently rated every response using a 10-point scale on four categories, accuracy, relevance, friendliness, and instructiveness, and analyzed the results using inferential statistics. Main Results – Responses from Gemini received the highest total score (592 out of a possible 1,120 points), followed by ChatGPT 4.0 (542), ChatGPT 3.5 (502), and Copilot (433). However, every chatbot fluctuated greatly in their performance in accuracy and relevance. A single-factor ANOVA test also found statistically significant differences between the quality of the GenAI chatbots’ responses in relevance and friendliness, with Gemini and Copilot performing the best in these categories respectively. There were no statistically significant differences between the chatbots’ performances in accuracy or instructiveness, although Gemini held the highest mean score for instructiveness. Conclusion – The researchers concluded that popular GenAI chatbots should be used to supplement, not replace, the work of reference and instruction librarians, and noted the potentials for training GenAI to address basic or local, library-specific FAQs for after-hour reference support. The authors also advised librarians to stay current with the rapid development of chatbots and other GenAI tools and to continue differentiating librarianship competencies from services offered by these programs.

Evidence Based Library and Information PracticeVol. 21(1)
Sam Houston State University (US)
Quality Education
Openalex Percentile: Top 24%
AI in Service Interactions
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.