Authorship of AIED systematic reviews is concentrated in Asia and Europe, with China, Spain, and the United States the most productive countries¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · reviewr2·q2
Currency · newest study 2024 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q2 i? Most included reviews were conducted in Asia (49%) and Europe (25%), with far fewer in North America (9%), Oceania (7%), Africa (6%), and South America (4%). → Yao Fu 2024
Evidence¶
Yao Fu 2024¶
Yao Fu, Zhenjie Weng, Jiaxi Wang. (2024). Examining AI Use in Educational Contexts: A Scoping Meta-Review and Bibliometric Analysis. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-024-00442-w
q2 · i? · review · r2
Analysis of the first author's country/region across the 126 included reviews, visualized in Fig. 4. The article reports the continental percentages as printed and notes authorship was distributed across 40 different countries/regions, with China, Spain, and the United States as the top three contributors.
"most studies were conducted in Asia (49%), followed by Europe (25%). Far less systematic reviews were conducted in North America (9%), Oceania (7%), Africa (6%), and South America (4%)"
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- AI-motivation research is geographically and educationally concentrated: over half of reviewed studies were conducted in China and most in higher education — related
- Research on generative AI in secondary STEM education is concentrated in the Global North, with 73% of affiliations and the United States accounting for 30% of publications — related
- The belief that the United States exclusively dominates the AI arena is challenged by the rapid ascent of China — related
- China has overtaken the US as the leading producer of AIEd higher education publications — related
- Samples used to investigate human features in AIED research are 94% WEIRD and 62% US, with no African samples — a broader claim this one bears on
- AIED conference authorship is strongly WEIRD-imbalanced, with 90% of first authors from WEIRD institutions and no African first authors — a broader claim this one bears on
- AIED ethics publication output is concentrated in Europe, led by the United Kingdom (47%) and Finland (20%) — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
aied-review-authorship-geographic-distribution |
title |
Authorship of AIED systematic reviews is concentrated in Asia and Europe, with China, Spain, and the United States the most productive countries |
description |
Authorship of AIED systematic reviews is concentrated in Asia and Europe, with China, Spain, and the United States the most productive countries |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2024 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-27 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — yao-fu-2024 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.