Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41604411›Full record

ArticlePloS one2026

Assessing the sustainable development of a national research ecosystem: A generative AI-based evaluation of empirical educational research in China (2004-2023).

Sen Wang, Yiming Wang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Sen WangJournal Center, East China Normal University, Shanghai, China.
Yiming WangDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3291-083X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A nation's progress toward Sustainable Development Goal 4 (Quality Education) depends in part on the long-term health of its educational research system, yet systematic, longitudinal assessments of such research ecosystems remain scarce. This study applies a generative artificial intelligence-based framework to evaluate the sustainable development of China's empirical educational research ecosystem from 2004 to 2023. We compiled a dataset of 2,145 empirical studies published in leading Chinese education journals and used GPT-4o to score each paper on 31 quality indicators covering research problem, theoretical framing, design, data collection, analysis, and reporting, using a 1-10 analytic rating scale. Based on the resulting score distributions, we constructed a fuzzy relation matrix and applied a fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method to derive annual and overall sustainability indices, while the Criteria Importance Through Intercriteria Correlation (CRITIC) method was used to determine objective indicator weights. The overall sustainability index of China's empirical educational research ecosystem over the 20-year period is 75.77 on a 100-point scale, with membership degrees concentrated at quality levels 7 (0.328) and 8 (0.435), indicating a generally robust and maturing system. Longitudinal trends reveal three stages of evolution-fluctuating development, rapid growth, and continuous improvement-corresponding to a shift toward more stable high-quality output. At the micro level, the ecosystem shows strong responsiveness to real-world educational problems, with high average scores for the relevance (8.45) and social significance (8.23) of research questions, as well as generally solid research design and data analysis practices. However, relatively lower scores for transparency of data analysis (7.08) and accessibility of raw data (6.46) highlight persistent challenges for reproducibility, open science, and methodological innovation. We conclude that China's empirical educational research ecosystem has reached a relatively high and stable level of performance but faces critical tasks in strengthening data openness, methodological renewal, and AI-augmented governance. The proposed generative AI-based evaluation framework may offer a scalable tool for continuous monitoring and governance of national research ecosystems, while its results should be interpreted as an auxiliary input rather than a substitute for expert peer assessment.

Indexed as

Sustainable DevelopmentAcademiaChinaEcosystemGenerative Artificial IntelligenceHumans

Identifiers

PMID41604411
PMCPMC12851444

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.