Semantic Periphery Detection in Academic Keyword Space: An Embedding-Driven Framework for Automated Research Gap Identification
Paweł Karol Frankowski, Joanna Wiśniewska, Sebastian Matysik · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · 2026
AI-generated evidence extraction, verified across multiple analytical personas. Not a substitute for the peer-reviewed original.
Methodology & findings
Study design
Case study with computational workflow: The method combines "transformer-based keyword clustering with multi-criteria peripherality scoring to detect semantic peripheries.
Primary method
design science
Main result
In a case study on gamification in marketing (14,302 records), the framework "identified 25 research gaps and showed greater semantic coherence than VOSviewer's co-occurrence map." Additionally, "validation with five LLM annotators resulted in nearly 2x increase in GAP classification and a 30.4% rise in novelty score."
Research paradigm
positivist/computational
Author conclusions
"The method can semi-automate gap identification, reducing processing time." The framework demonstrates efficacy in automating research gap detection through combination of transformer-based clustering and multi-criteria peripherality scoring.
Risk of bias
Single domain case study (gamification in marketing) may not generalize; LLM annotator bias (only 5 annotators, consistency not reported); No comparison baseline beyond VOSviewer; Validation methodology relies on subjective annotation
Explore related topics
Related papers
- PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and ExplanationAndrea C. Tricco · 2018 · 40,391 citations
- Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviewsMourad Ouzzani · 2016 · 24,664 citations
- Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions2019 · 14,420 citations
- Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviewsMicah D.J. Peters · 2015 · 7,472 citations
- Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviewsMicah D.J. Peters · 2020 · 6,688 citations
- Which academic search systems are suitable for systematic reviews or meta‐analyses? Evaluating retrieval qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 other resourcesMichael Gusenbauer · 2019 · 2,116 citations