Purpose: The aim of this study is to conduct a comprehensive review of scientific articles concerning artificial intelligence (AI) applications in electronic commerce through bibliometric analysis. Theoretical Framework: The current study utilized both the SCOPUS and Web of Science (WoS) databases to enrich the analysis with a wider selection of papers in the field, incorporating an examination of the most cited documents. Design/Methodology/Approach: The dataset for analysis was selected according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) framework, integrating data from Scopus and WoS through R software, specifically using the biblioshiny library. It includes 8372 papers published from 1995 to 2023. This study's data analysis used two approaches: descriptive analysis to examine the data quantitatively and scientific mapping to explore the intellectual and social structures within the dataset. Findings: The results reveal significant trends in the application of artificial intelligence in e-commerce, highlighting the rapid growth of interest in this area over the last decade. China emerges as the country with the highest number of citations, with ZHANG Y identified as the most relevant author and HU M as the most cited author. Furthermore, the study identifies prevalent keywords used by the authors, including sentiment analysis and recommendation systems. Research, Practical & Social Implications: This study underscores the transformative potential of AI in enhancing e-commerce practices, offering insights for both academic researchers and industry professionals by providing valuable perspectives on current trends and contributions. Originality/Value: The value of the study lies in its comprehensive bibliometric approach, which integrates two major databases to explore AI's applications in e-commerce. This deviation from previous reviews, which often rely on a single database, provides a deeper understanding of the current landscape and future directions in this field.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Boukrouh et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: