This study provides a detailed comparative evaluation of freely available AI-powered tools designed to support the preparation of scientific literature reviews, a core competency in researcher education and training. Adopting a mixed-methods approach, seven prominent AI tools were assessed against a predefined set of weighted criteria. The findings reveal significant variations in tool performance, highlighting the need for educators and practitioners to provide targeted guidance on tool selection. While Scispace demonstrated superior comprehensive functionality (overall score: 91.5%), other tools offered notable strengths in specific niches relevant to different learning and research stages. This study contributes valuable, evidence-based insights for information science educators, trainers, and librarians on integrating these emerging technologies into research methods curricula. The aim is to enhance the efficiency, quality, and critical skills of students and researchers in their scholarly work.
AltmäeS.Sola-LeyvaA.SalumetsA. (2023). Artificial intelligence in scientific writing: a friend or a foe?Reprod Biomed Online, 47(1), 3–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2023.04.009
2.
AtkinsonC. F. (2024). Cheap, quick, and rigorous: Artificial intelligence and the systematic literature review. Social Science Computer Review, 42(2), 376–393. https://doi.org/10.1177/08944393231196281
3.
AydinÖ (2023) Google Bard Generated Literature Review: Metaverse. Journalof AI. Epub ahead of print 30 December 2023. https://doi.org/10.61969/JAI.1311271
4.
BolañosF.SalatinoA.OsborneF.MottaE. (2024). Artificial intelligence for literature reviews: Opportunities and challenges. Artificial Intelligence Review, 57(10), 259. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-024-10902-3
5.
ColeV.BoutetM. (2023). Research Rabbit. Journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association, 44(2), 43–47. https://doi.org/10.29173/jchla29699
FabianoN.GuptaA.BhambraN.El-MughayyarM.LuuB.WongS.MaazM.FiedorowiczJ. G.SolmiM. (2024). How to optimize the systematic review process using AI tools. JCPP Advances, 4(2), Article e12234. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcv2.12234
8.
FilettiS.FenzaG.GalloA. (2024). Research design and writing of scholarly articles: New artificial intelligence tools available for researchers. Endocrine, 85(3), 1104–1116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12020-024-03977-z
9.
GiglioA. D.CostaM. (2023). The use of artificial intelligence to improve the scientific writing of non-native English speakers. Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira, 69(9), Article e20230560. https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-9282.20230560
10.
GwonY. N.KimJ. H.ChungH. S.JungE. J.ChunJ.LeeS.ShimS. R. (2024). The use of generative AI for scientific literature searches for systematic reviews: ChatGPT and microsoft Bing AI performance evaluation. JMIR Medical Informatics, 12, Article e51187. https://doi.org/10.2196/51187
11.
JhajjK. S.JindalP.KaurK. (2024). Use of artificial intelligence tools for research by medical students: A narrative review. Cureus, 16(3), Article e55367. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.55367
12.
KhalifaM.AlbadawyM. (2024). Using artificial intelligence in academic writing and research: An essential productivity tool. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine Update, 5(1), Article 100145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmpbup.2024.100145
13.
KhanN. A.OsmonalievK.SarwarM. Z. (2023). Pushing the boundaries of scientific research with the use of artificial intelligence tools: Navigating risks and unleashing possibilities. Nepal Journal of Epidemiology, 13(1), 1258–1263. https://doi.org/10.3126/nje.v13i1.53721
14.
KungJ. (2023). Elicit (product review). Journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association/Journal de l’Association des bibliothèques de la santé du Canada, 44(1), 15–18. https://doi.org/10.29173/jchla29657
15.
MogoaleP. D.PretoriusA. B.MogaseR. C.SegooaM. A. (2025). Evaluating the efficacy of AI tools in systematic literature reviews: A comprehensive analysis. Journal of Information Systems and Informatics, 7(1), 870–888. https://doi.org/10.51519/journalisi.v7i1.1035
16.
OrelE.CigleneckiI.ThiabaudA.TemerevA.CalmyA.KeiserO.MerzoukiA. (2023). An automated literature review tool (LiteRev) for streamlining and accelerating research using natural language processing and machine learning: Descriptive performance evaluation study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 25, Article e39736. https://doi.org/10.2196/39736
17.
PinzolitsR. (2023). AI in academia: An overview of selected tools and their areas of application. MAP Education and Humanities, 4(1), 37–50. https://doi.org/10.53880/2744-2373.2023.4.37
18.
SiderskaJ.AunimoL.SüßeT.StammJ. V.KędzioraD.AiniS. N. B. M. (2023). Towards intelligent automation (IA): Literature review on the evolution of robotic process automation (RPA), its challenges, and future trends. Engineering Management in Production and Services, 15(4), 90–103. https://doi.org/10.2478/emj-2023-0030
19.
SouifiL.KhabouN.RodriguezI.KacemA. (2024). Towards the use of AI-based tools for systematic literature review. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence (pp. 595–603). SCITEPRESS. https://doi.org/10.5220/0012467700003636
20.
TomczykP.BrüggemannP.MergnerN.van der LakenP. (2024). Are AI tools better than traditional tools in literature searching? Evidence from E-commerce research. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/09610006241295802
Van DijkS. H. B.Brusse-KeizerM. G. J.BucsánC. C.Van Der PalenJ.DoggenC. J. M.LenferinkA. (2023). Artificial intelligence in systematic reviews: Promising when appropriately used. BMJ Open, 13(7), Article e072254. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-072254
23.
VedelI.KaurN.HongQ. N.El SherifR.KhanassovV.Godard-SebillotteC.PluyeP.YangX. Q. (2019). Why and how to use mixed methods in primary health care research. Family Practice, 36(3), 365–368. https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/cmy127
24.
WagnerG.LukyanenkoR.ParéG. (2022). Artificial intelligence and the conduct of literature reviews. Journal of Information Technology, 37(2), 209–226. https://doi.org/10.1177/02683962211048201
25.
WangS.ScellsH.KoopmanB.ZucconG. (2023). Can ChatGPT write a good Boolean query for systematic review literature search? [Preprint]. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.03495
26.
WongG. K. W.LiS. Y. K. (2023). An exploratory study of helping undergraduate students solve literature review problems using Litstudy and NLP. Education Sciences, 13(10), 987. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13100987
27.
ZalaK.AcharyaB.MashruM.PalaniappanD.GerogiannisV. C.KanavosA.KaramitsosI. (2024). Transformative Automation: AI in Scientific Literature Reviews. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications(IJACSA), 15(1), 1246–1255. https://doi.org/10.14569/IJACSA.2024.01501122
