Artificial Intelligence Tools and English Writing Development in Higher Education: A Scopus-Based Bibliometric Analysis Using Biblioshiny and VOSviewer
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54938/ijemdss.2026.05.3.750Keywords:
Artificial intelligence, ChatGPT, Generative AI, English writing, EFL, Higher education, Bibliometric analysis, Biblioshiny, VOSviewer, Scopus, PakistanAbstract
The use of generative AI has transformed the planning, drafting, revising, and assessment of English writing in higher education. Although research on the area has expended rapidly, there is remains a lack of a coherent understanding of the fields intellectual structure, publications patterns, key researchers, collaboration networks, and the thematic development. This study examines the evolution of research on AI tools and English writing in higher education and draws inferences for BS English programmes in Pakistani universities. A Scopus-based dataset was filtered based on year, subject-area, document-type, language, publication-stage, and source-type. From the 2,458 records initially identified, 1,034 English-language journal articles published in the Social Sciences at the final publication stage were included for the period 2020-2026. Performance analysis and science mapping were performed using Biblioshiny/bibliometrix and VOSviewer, respectively. The analysis examined annual scientific production and citations; productive sources and authors; locally cited documents; Bradford’s and Lotka’s laws; h-index indicators; country collaboration; keyword co-occurrence; thematic mapping; trend topics; Reference Publication Year Spectroscopy (RPYS); and a logistic model of the publication life cycle. Scientific production increased from 1 article in 2020 to 431 in 2025 and 354 in 2026; however, the 2026 figure should be interpreted with caution because the year may be unfinished. The conceptual structure was dominated by ChatGPT (257 occurrences), artificial intelligence (223 occurrences), generative AI (114 occurrences), and EFL writing (59 occurrences). Arab World English Journal was the most productive source, while Guo K and Wang Y were the most prolific authors. Bradford’s Law analysis displayed that 18 journals accounted for 34.3% of the literature, while Lotka’s Law showed a highly attentive authorship pattern. Thematic and temporal studies revealed a shift from general research on AI tools and chatbots toward generative AI, large language models, and EFL writing. Overall, the field is rising swiftly but remains uneven across methodological and geographical dimensions. The outcomes highlight the importance of curriculum-integrated AI literacy, process-oriented writing assessment, transparent AI-use disclosure, faculty development, and locally grounded empirical research in Pakistani universities.
Downloads
References
Aria, M., & Cuccurullo, C. (2017). Bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 11(4), 959–975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007
Bibi, Z., & Atta, A. (2024). The role of ChatGPT as AI English writing assistant: A study of students' perceptions, experiences, and satisfaction. Annals of Human and Social Sciences, 5(1), 433–443. https://doi.org/10.35484/ahss.2024(5-I)39
Bradford, S. C. (1976). Sources of information on specific subjects.
Cobo, M. J., López-Herrera, A. G., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2011). Science mapping software tools: Review, analysis, and cooperative study among tools. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(7), 1382–1402. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21525
Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., & Lim, W. M. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 133, 285–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070
Higher Education Commission of Pakistan. (2025). Draft framework on the ethical use of generative AI tools in higher education institutions. HEC Pakistan.
Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102(46), 16569–16572. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0507655102
Imran, M., & Almusharraf, N. (2023). Analyzing the role of ChatGPT as a writing assistant at higher education level: A systematic review of the literature. Contemporary Educational Technology, 15(4), Article ep464. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/13605
Kasneci, E., Sessler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., Gasser, U., Groh, G., Günnemann, S., Hüllermeier, E., Krusche, S., Kutyniok, G., Michaeli, T., Nerdel, C., Pfeffer, J., Poquet, O., Sailer, M., Schmidt, A., Seidel, T., Stadler, M., Weller, J., Kuhn, J., & Kasneci, G. (2023). ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and Individual Differences, 103, 102274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274
Lim, W. M., Kumar, S., Donthu, N., Mukherjee, D., & Goh, K. W. (2024). How to combine and clean bibliometric data and use bibliometric tools synergistically: Guidelines using metaverse research. Journal of Business Research, 182, 114760. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2024.114760
Lo, C. K., Yu, P. L. H., Xu, S., Ng, D. T. K., & Jong, M. S. Y. (2024). Exploring the application of ChatGPT in ESL/EFL education and related research issues: A systematic review of empirical studies. Smart Learning Environments, 11, Article 50. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-024-00342-5
Lotka, A. J. (1926). The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, 16(12), 317–323.
Mahapatra, S. (2024). Impact of ChatGPT on ESL students' academic writing skills: A mixed methods intervention study. Smart Learning Environments, 11, Article 9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-024-00295-9
Miao, F., & Holmes, W. (2023). Guidance for generative AI in education and research. UNESCO. https://doi.org/10.54675/EWZM9535
Mukherjee, D., Lim, W. M., Kumar, S., & Donthu, N. (2022). Guidelines for advancing theory and practice through bibliometric research. Journal of Business Research, 148, 101–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.04.042
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., . . . Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
Song, C., & Song, Y. (2023). Enhancing academic writing skills and motivation: Assessing the efficacy of ChatGPT in AI-assisted language learning for EFL students. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1260843. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1260843
Su, Y., Lin, Y., & Lai, C. (2023). Collaborating with ChatGPT in argumentative writing classrooms. Assessing Writing, 57, 100752. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2023.100752
van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3
Waltman, L., van Eck, N. J., & Noyons, E. C. M. (2010). A unified approach to mapping and clustering of bibliometric networks. Journal of Informetrics, 4(4), 629–635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.07.002
Zupic, I., & Čater, T. (2015). Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organizational Research Methods, 18(3), 429–472. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114562629
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Tasneem Akhter, Safia Begum, Iqra Mehmood, Aqsa Ramzan

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Under the Creative Common Attribution (CC-BY 4.0) license, authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication.





