图书馆杂志

图书馆杂志 ›› 2026, Vol. 45 ›› Issue (5): 27-36.

• 理论探索 • 上一篇    下一篇

基于生成式人工智能的学术搜索平台评价研究

崔宇红,赵锦涛,张欢   

  • 出版日期:2026-05-15 发布日期:2026-05-27
  • 作者简介:崔宇红 北京理工大学图书馆,北京理工大学教育学院,研究馆员,博士生导师。研究方向:数据科学、情报学。作者贡献:提供研究思路与论文修改。E-mail: cuiyh@bit.edu.cn 北京100081
    赵锦涛 北京理工大学教育学院。研究方向:数据科学、教育技术学。作者贡献:论文撰写与数据处理。北京 100081
    张欢 北京理工大学教育学院。研究方向:心理健康教育。作者贡献:论文数据采集与校对。北京 100081

Evaluation Study of Academic Search Platforms Based on Generative Artificial Intelligence

Cui Yuhong, Zhao Jintao, Zhang Huan   

  • Online:2026-05-15 Published:2026-05-27
  • About author:Cui Yuhong, Zhao Jintao, Zhang Huan

摘要: 本研究探讨生成式人工智能技术与学术搜索的整合趋势,全面评估新兴的学术搜索平台在实践应用中的性能,为信息检索领域的变革提供新途径。选择Scopus AI、 WoS Research Assistant、 SciSpace、 Elicit 4种GenAI学术搜索平台,构建内容生成和检索生成维度的评价指标体系。揭示其在文献覆盖、生成准确性和用户体验等方面的差异,进一步检验GenAI在引文召回率和精准率之间的平衡。研究发现,4种GenAI学术搜索平台响应流畅且信息丰富,但生成内容在引文覆盖率及引文支持精准度上仍有提升空间。相较而言,Scopus AI在文献覆盖方面表现相对较好,WoS Research Assistant在精准率上表现突出,SciSpace在跨学科适应性上表现较为平衡,Elicit各项指标均衡但综合表现较弱。尽管这些平台的流畅度较高,但“信息幻觉”问题仍存在,未来需要进一步提升内容的准确性与可靠性。

关键词: 学术搜索平台, 生成式人工智能, 大语言模型, 生成式检索, 增强检索

Abstract: The study explores the integration trend of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) technology and academic search, and comprehensively evaluates the performance of emerging academic search platforms in practical applications, aiming to provide a new pathway for transformation in the field of information retrieval. Four GenAI-powered academic search platforms, Scopus AI, WoS Research Assistant, SciSpace, and Elicit, are selected to construct the evaluation index system on the dimensions of content generation and retrieval generation. The study reveals their differences in terms of literature coverage, generation accuracy and user experience, and further tests the balance between citation recall and precision rate of GenAI. It is found that the four GenAI academic search platforms are smooth and informative in response, but the coverage and precision of the generated content supported by citations need to be further improved. In comparison, Scopus AI performs relatively better in literature coverage, while WoS Research Assistant stands out in terms of precision rate. SciSpace achieves a more balanced performance in cross-disciplinary adaptability, whereas Elicit shows an overall balanced but slightly weaker performance. Although the fluency of these platforms is high, the problem of “information hallucination” still exists, and the accuracy and reliability of the generated content need to be further improved in the future.