Article Not peer-reviewed version

Evolutionary Trends in Decision

Sciences Education Research From
Simulation and Games to Data Analytics
and Generative Artificial Intelligence

Ikpe Justice Akpan * and Asuams A. Akpan

Posted Date: 16 July 2024

doi: 10.20944/preprints202407.1294.v1

Keywords: decision sciences; complex dynamic systems; simulation; GenAI; engineering process
innovations; learning analytics; technological transformation; generative artificial intelligence; ChatGPT

[Link] is a free multidiscipline platform providing preprint service that

is dedicated to making early versions of research outputs permanently
available and citable. Preprints posted at [Link] appear in Web of
Science, Crossref, Google Scholar, Scilit, Europe PMC.

Copyright: This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons
Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
[Link] ([Link]) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 16 July 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202407.1294.v1

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions, and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and
contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting
from any ideas, methods, instructions, or products referred to in the content.

Review

Evolutionary Trends in Decision Sciences Education

Research from Simulation and Games to Data
Analytics and Generative Artificial Intelligence
Ikpe Justice Akpan 1,* and Asuama Akpan 2

1 Professor, Department of Information Systems and Business Analytics, Kent State University, OH, USA
2 Research and Development Department, Ibom International Center for Research and Scholarship,
Windsor, ON, Canada
* Correspondence: iakpan@[Link]; Tel.: +1‐330‐308‐7572; Fax: +1‐330 339‐3321

Abstract: Decision sciences (DSC) involve studying complex dynamic systems and processes to aid informed
choices subject to constraints in uncertain conditions. It integrates multidisciplinary methods, techniques, and
strategies to evaluate decision engineering processes, identifying alternatives and providing insights towards
enhancing prudent decision‐making. This study analyzes the evolutionary trends and innovation in DSC
education and research to uncover the transformations over the years. We employ the science mapping
method, text analytics, and metadata from bibliographic databases to evaluate thematic and social structures.
The results highlight data science methods, including data mining and business/learning analytics as essential
components. The evolutionary trends in DSC education and research mirror the development in practice,
including technological transformation, computer science advances, and engineering processes. Sustainable
education through virtual/online learning also constitutes a significant component of scientific production. The
evolutionary trends in DSC education and research highlight innovative pedagogical approaches and
strategies, including computer simulation and games (‘play and learn’). The current era witnessed generative
artificial intelligence (GenAI) adoption (e.g., ChatGPT) in teaching, learning, and scholarly activities amidst
challenges (academic integrity, plagiarism, intellectual property violations, and other ethical and legal issues).
Future research will implement and integrate AI automatic detection systems to address some GenAI adoption
challenges.

Keywords: decision sciences; complex dynamic systems; simulation; GenAI; engineering process
innovations; learning analytics; technological transformation; generative artificial intelligence;
ChatGPT

1. Introduction
Decision sciences (DSC) focus on studying complex dynamic systems and processes to aid
informed choices subject to constraints in uncertain conditions. The DSC field integrates problem‐
solving methods, techniques, and strategies from several disciplines, including engineering, business
and economics, psychology, and mathematics/statistics, to evaluate operations, production, and
processes, assess alternatives, and provide understanding and insights into complex systems to
enhance prudent decision‐making [1–3]. The DSC field straddles many traditional departmental
boundaries, cutting across business, engineering, psychology, and mathematical sciences [1,4,5].
Other pioneering and allied disciplines that contribute significantly to the advancement of the DSC
field include operational/operations research (OR), management sciences (MS), and computational
and statistical sciences [1,5,6]. The OR/MS also offers potent decision support systems and methods,
such as computer simulation, decision theory, and combinatorial and optimization techniques. These
constitute effective and practical additions to the DSC methods and further expand the application
areas [5,6].

© 2024 by the author(s). Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY license.

[Link] ([Link]) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 16 July 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202407.1294.v1

As DSC education and practice continued to evolve, simulation and games became some of the
most long‐standing and transformational pedagogical strategies and effective learning techniques
[7], starting with the Monopoly board games in the early 20th century [8]. The advent and continuous
advancement of computer technology from the mid‐20th century led to the development of computer
simulation applications for role‐playing, which were introduced into DSC academic programs as a
teaching strategy and for industry training and practice [7,8]. This development later culminated in
creating and adopting visual interactive simulation and the first sets of commercial simulation
software, e.g., “SEE‐WHY, FORESIGHT, WITNESS” [9]. The subsequent transformation led to visual
interactive modeling and simulation as a decision support system [10]. Over the years, computer
simulation has progressed significantly, evolving into advanced 3D visualizations [10,11]. The
Decision Sciences Institute (DSI) was also formed in 1969 to enhance the continuous expansion and
concretization of the DSC field as many Universities soon began offering DSC curricula [5,6]. Also,
as part of DSI’s contributions to promoting the discipline through education, research, and practice,
the organization floated two specialized journals to disseminate knowledge in the field, the first
source which published the first issue in 1970 focusing on the DSC research and practice [8]. In 2003,
DSI launched another journal dedicated to publishing and advancing DSC education towards
advancing the discipline [12]. This development demonstrated the commitment of DSI to providing
avenues for researchers and teachers to share innovative teaching approaches and pedagogical
strategies to train learners in creative techniques to meet industry requirements in the field, including
supply chain management, operations management, and the management sciences [5,6,12].
As DSC education continues evolving with technological advances and accelerated
development in computing capabilities and the Internet of Things (IoT), DSC has adopted
sophisticated analytic methods emphasizing data‐driven decision‐making, including business
intelligence, big data, business analytics, and artificial intelligence (AI) supported learning [13–15].
This study analyzes the evolutionary trends and innovation in DSC education and research to
uncover the transformations over the period 2000‐2024. Specifically, this study seeks to achieve the
following five objectives:
a. RO1: evaluates the growth trends in DSC education research and citation impacts from 2000 to
present.
b. RO2: examine the thematic structure, themes dynamics, and text analytics of DSC education
research and identify the transformation over the period.
c. RO3: identify potential future research directions.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Bibliometrics Analysis
This study employs quantitative or evaluative bibliometric analysis/science mapping techniques
and visual analytics to evaluate the evolution and trends of DSC education research covering 2000‐
2024. The quantitative bibliometric analysis helps uncover the research trends, themes’ dynamics,
performance, and citation impact analyses [16]. Evaluating the thematic structure and trends
highlights the theme’s evolution of the research over the period. Visual analytics helps map the topics
and themes and produce visualization [16,17].
The study utilizes two complementary bibliographic applications in the above analyses: an R‐
based Bibliometrix [16,18] and the VOSviewer [19]. Both applications are open‐source and freely
available. While the Bibliometrix application package is embedded in the R‐Studio environment [18],
the VOSviewer is a stand‐alone solution and easily usable to produce bibliometric network analysis
and visualization capabilities [19]. The two bibliometric evaluation applications can handle “big
data” and produce quantitative results.

2.2. Database Survey and Data collection

The stages involved in conducting the database survey and data collection process in this study
include
[Link] ([Link]) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 16 July 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202407.1294.v1

 identifying the search keywords,

 developing search criteria,
 identifying the bibliographic database(s), and
 conducting the survey.
After retrieving the metadata, the subsequent steps included filtering and screening the
bibliographic data based on set criteria (Table 1). However, these processes are the norm when
undertaking research involving data collection from scientific publications [20,21]. The publications
on DSC education and AI supported learning in this study are available in several proprietary
bibliographic databases, including SCOPUS and Web of Science (WoS), the two most popular in
quality and coverage [22]. Initially, this study surveyed both data storage platforms. The SCOPUS
tends to index more documents on DSC topics than the WoS, a situation that holds sway and is
already established in previous and related bibliographic database surveys [22–24].

Table 1. Database survey and data collection processes: search and retrieval, filtering, screening, and
selection criteria of publications.

Activities/Focus Criteria
Data Source(s) SCOPUS Bibliographic Database search.
Search Criteria TOPIC: (((“decision science” OR “decision engineering” OR “management
science” OR “managerial science” OR “operation* research”) AND (“education”
OR “learning”))) OR SOURCETITLE: (((“decision science”) AND (“education” OR
“learning”))); Years covered: 2001‐2024; Language = English or formerly
translated into English; Total =5,570
Documents Filtering, Screening, and Selection
Filtering Removed 250 documents: [5513‐250 = 5,263]; Book (240); Report (4); Undefined (6).
Screening Screened out 8 irrelevant documents and reviews 5,263‐3,907‐=1,413 (documents
not addressing decision sciences in education genre).
Final A total of 1413 publications from SCOPUS between 2001 and May 27, 2024 (when
Documents the final literature survey was conducted). Documents retrieved in text formats
Selection (.txt and .csv files) for the analysis.

The SCOPUS bibliographic database interface allows users to search and retrieve the data in
different formats (e.g., Excel, Text, and more). This study collected the data as a text file and exported
it to the BIBLIOMETRIX and VOSVIEWER applications (explained in Section 2.1 above) for
processing and analysis. Table 1 shows the search terms used for the database survey and the
document selection criteria. The documents retrieved from SCOPUS were subjected to screening and
selection processes, during which over 3,907 publications that did not address the topic on DSC
education and AI supported learning were discarded. Table 1 presents the search terms/keywords
for data collection and the filtering and screening criteria.

3. Results and Discussion

This section presents the results of the quantitative bibliometrics analysis and visual
representation of the outputs and discusses the implications.

3.1. Sample Description and Data Summary

This section presents preliminary results and data summary. The dataset used for the analyses
came from the final screened and selected publications on DSC education in the past twenty‐five
years (2000 and 2024). After the final screening to remove the scientific publications (SCP) that did
not address the topic of interest, the 1413 documents were extracted as metadata in text format and
exported onto ‘Bibliometrix,’ an R‐based software application and VOSviewer for analysis and
visualization. The 1413 documents appeared in 500 sources (journals: 55%; conference proceedings:
42%; book chapters: 3%). Table 2 shows the full data summary.
[Link] ([Link]) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 16 July 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202407.1294.v1

Table 2. Summary metadata on decision sciences education and artificial intelligence supported
learning research.

Description Results Description Results

Years of Publications 2000‐2024 Other Documents Info:
Sources 500 Document Average Age (Years)* 9.44
Documents Information: * Publications in 2023: As of July 31.
Total Publications: Journal article: 777 (55%); Conference papers: 590 (42%); Book chapters: 46 (3%).
Annual Publications growth rate % 2.74 Authors and Collaboration:
Average citations per document 12.12 Authors 3,324
Total references 40,397 Authors of single‐authored document 283
Documents Contents: Single‐authored documents 303
Keywords Plus (ID) 5,669 Co‐Authors per document 2.64
Author’s Keywords (DE) 3,739 International co‐authorships percentage 11.25%

3.2. Performance Bibliometrics Analysis

This Section presents the performance bibliometric evaluation relating to the SCP trend and the
citation impact analysis, which addresses the first research objective (RO1).

3.2.1. Scientific Publication Trend

The publication trend for the past 25 years (2000‐2024) shows an average of 57 SCPs yearly. The
highest single‐year research output occurred in 2011, with 178 publications (more than three times
the annual average). The ten year‐period covering (2000‐2009) shows low research productivity (257
or 18%) compared to the next ten year‐period (2010‐2019), which recorded more than twice the value
(778 or 55%), and 2020‐2024 May, (378 or 25%), despite 2024 being less than half‐year. Further
investigation reveals that a spike in the publication of conference proceedings in 2011 contributed to
the sharp increase in the SCP for the year. The proceedings papers constituted 70% of the year’s SCP
and 21% of the 590 total proceedings papers for the entire period. Table 2 presents the complete
summary of the sample data. Subsequent years (2012‐2024) witnessed an above‐average SCP, except
for 2013, which had 51 published documents. Figure 1 presents the complete trend for the
publications on DSC education research from simulation and games, and AI.

Figure 1. Scientific publications on decision sciences education and artificial intelligence supported
learning (2001‐2024*) *Publication count for 2024 as of May.

3.2.2. Citations Trend and Impact Analysis

[Link] ([Link]) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 16 July 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202407.1294.v1

The second aspect of the first research objective (RO1) analyzes the SCP’s citation impacts on
DSC education research, including simulation, games, and AI in teaching and learning. The results
show that 953 of the publications earned a total of 17,125 citations, with an average of 12.12 per
document. Also, 460, or 33%, of publications did not earn any citations, while 67% earned at least one
(Table 3).

Table 3. The citation impacts of publications per year (2000‐2024).

Year SCP TC Mean TC/SCP Mean TC/CY CY NC NC%

2000 23 261 11.35 0.47 24 3 13.0
2001 19 599 31.53 1.37 23 3 15.8
2002 10 1190 119 5.41 22 2 20.0
2003 16 348 21.75 1.04 21 9 56.3
2004 17 339 19.94 1 20 4 23.5
2005 20 792 39.6 2.08 19 7 35.0
2006 21 832 39.62 2.2 18 4 19.0
2007 37 570 15.41 0.91 17 16 43.2
2008 39 286 7.33 0.46 16 17 43.6
2009 55 697 12.67 0.84 15 20 36.4
2010 74 1640 22.16 1.58 14 36 48.6
2011 178 1075 6.04 0.46 13 91 51.1
2012 64 1270 19.84 1.65 12 6 9.4
2013 71 920 12.96 1.18 11 12 16.9
2014 51 876 17.18 1.72 10 7 13.7
2015 65 715 11 1.22 9 9 13.8
2016 67 1077 16.07 2.01 8 12 17.9
2017 77 676 8.78 1.25 7 13 16.9
2018 57 926 16.25 2.71 6 9 15.8
2019 74 479 6.47 1.29 5 13 17.6
2020 89 605 6.8 1.7 4 15 16.9
2021 76 492 6.47 2.16 3 23 30.3
2022 81 340 4.2 2.1 2 38 46.9
2023 88 101 1.15 1.15 1 56 63.6
2024 44 19 0.43 ‐ 0 37 79.5
1413 17125 ‐ ‐ ‐ 460
TC (total citation); CY (citable years); Mean TC/SCP (mean TC per scientific publication); Mean TC/CY (mean
TC discounted by citable years); NC (SCPs with no citations).

The citation structure of the publications showed that 665 documents (47.1%) earned between 1
and 10 citations, 223 (16%) earned 11 to 50, and 40 (3%) earned 51 to 100 citations. The two other strata
included twenty‐two articles that earned 101 to 500 citations and two documents earning 1001+
citations.
The results imply that only a few publications (65 or 5%) earned the most citations (9719 or 57%).
As expected, recent publications with fewer citable years earned few citations and vice versa. The
SCPs published in 2023 and 2024 earned fewer citations because of the fewer citable years. For
example, 63.6% and 79.5% of the SCPs produced in 2023 and 2024 did not earn any citations. Table 3
shows the citation trend from 2000 to 2024, highlighting the yearly count and average per document
and annual earned citations discounted by the citable years (CY). Further, the highest single year
earned citation occurred in 2010 (1640 or 9.6%), followed by 1270 or 7.4% in 2012 and 1120 or 6.5% in
2002.
The citation count reported above is as recorded on the SCOPUS bibliographic database. The
data on Google Scholar ([Link]) can be higher. The citation count on SCOPUS is from
sources indexed by it, while Google Scholar records from several other sources. For example, a study
[Link] ([Link]) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 16 July 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202407.1294.v1

entitled “Data envelopment analysis and its application to the measurement of efficiency in higher
education” earned 398 citations on SCOPUS as of June 2024 [25]. In contrast, the citation count on
Google Scholar (996) was much higher during the same period.

3.2.3. Sources Citation Impact Analysis and SCP Productivity

Another aspect of the citation structure examines the sources’ SCPs and impact. The results in
Tab1e 2 identify 500 sources that published the 1413 documents (journals: 777 or 55%; proceedings:
590 or 42%; book chapters: 46 or 3%) assessed in the study. The results of the Bibliometrix application
highlight the eminent sources that published the most documents and earned the most citations.
Table 4 shows the 16 most eminent sources (fifteen journals and one conference proceeding),
most of which are multidisciplinary, including one dedicated DSC education journal (Decision
Sciences Journal of Innovative Education ‐ DSJIE). The DSJIE contributed 298 or 21.1% of the SCPs
and earned significant citations compared to all other journals (3354 or 19.5% citations). One of these
articles examines the title “Teaching Artificial Intelligence through Gamified Social Entrepreneurship
in an Introductory MIS Course,” which has received 42 citations on SCOPUS [26]. Other eminent
sources that produced high SCPs and earned significant citations are “Journal of the Operational
Research Society,” “Journal of Decision Support Systems,” and “Journal of Decision Systems.” Table
4 shows the complete results.

Table 4. Eminent sources by SCP and citation impact.

Element SCP TC PY_Start

Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education 298 3354 2011
Journal of the Operational Research Society 30 561 2000
Decision Support Systems 18 862 2007
Journal of Decision Systems 17 104 2007
IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering 16 56 2017
IEEE Access 14 132 2014
Interfaces 13 80 2003
European Journal of Operational Research 12 1603 2001
Journal of Cleaner Production 8 549 2003
Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice 7 67 2001
International Journal of Educational Management 6 140 2004
Management Science 5 1399 2001
Technological Forecasting and Social Change 5 198 2007
Operations Research 5 116 2001
Applied Sciences (Switzerland) 5 49 2017
Socio‐Economic Planning Sciences 5 43 2010
TC (total citations); PY_Start (publication year start), that is, when the journal started publishing articles or
proceedings.

The sources listed in Table 4 highlight the interests of top‐ranking journals in DSC and OR/MS.
These journals also produce SCPs that address the methods, techniques, and strategies that enhance
the analysis of complex systems and producing outputs to aid decision‐making. Although conference
proceedings formed 42% of the total SCP in this study, only one paper is listed among the most
impactful publishing sources.

3.3. Thematic Structure of DSC Education Research

This Section evaluates the thematic structure and themes dynamics of DSC education research
to uncover the evolution, trends, and transformation in the research themes over the period. The
results of science mapping of the DSC education research and the thematic structure of SCPs address
the second research objective (RO2).
[Link] ([Link]) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 16 July 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202407.1294.v1

One of the most popular uses of bibliometric mapping is identifying the research areas, topics,
and themes [18–20,27,28]. The evaluation uses author keywords as the unit of analysis. Previous
science mapping studies show that authors’ keywords point to a research focus and can help to map
the research streams for any scientific study [28,29]. The analysis involves identifying the most
prominent, emerging, and least popular research themes and evaluating themes’ dynamics to
uncover any potential transition or transformation in research over the period covered in this study.
The dataset in this study contains 3,739 unique authors’ keywords extracted from the 1413
published documents (Table 2), with a total unstemmed cumulative word frequency (f) of 5,734. Some
of the terms appeared more than once in the dataset. The sample is stratified into categories based on
keyword popularity for in‐depth analysis as follows:
• The prominent author keywords; word frequency (f >= 10): 42
• Emerging research themes; word frequency (10 > f >= 5): 78
• The least used keywords; word frequency (f < 5): 3619
As explained earlier, there are 3,739 unique authors’ keywords, which is the sum of the
prominent, emerging, and least frequently used themes (42, 78, 3,619). Figure 2 shows that there are
3,129 unstemmed keywords appearing once. This means that 3,129 unique terms had word frequency
of one, while keywords appearing twice occurred 338 times. In total, the 3,739 unique words had total
frequency (f) of 5,734 in the sample. Classifying author keywords into the three (3) categories
(prominent, emerging, and least frequent ones) intends to provide an in‐depth and exhaustive
analysis of the thematic structure of the SCP on DSC education research, including simulation and
games, and AI.

7000

6000
Word Frequency (f)

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >10
Occurrences 3129 338 101 51 22 23 18 8 7 6 36
Cummulative Freq 3129 3805 4108 4312 4422 4560 4686 4750 4813 4873 5734
Word Occurrences

Occurrences Cummulative Freq

Figure 2. Text analytics results of unstemmed word occurrences and cumulative frequency.

3.3.1. The Prominent Themes and Trends

As listed above, the most prominent keywords are classified as the ones with the frequency (f)
of occurrences greater than or equal to 10 (f >= 10). The results produced by using the Bibliometrix
application in the R‐studio environment identifiedforty‐two (42 or 1%) unique keywords
(unstemmed) occurring ten times or more (Table 2), having a total word frequency of 921 times
(16.6%) of the total 5,734 occurrences. The 42 most prominent unique terminologies went through a
manual stemming process, producing 27 keywords and themes. The keyword stemming combines
terms with the same meaning even though spelled differently. For example, the theme “decision
[Link] ([Link]) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 16 July 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202407.1294.v1

support system” was combined with “decision support systems” or “decision‐support systems” as
these terms point to the same theme “decision support system” (f1 = 84) as the most frequently
researched theme. The next popular theme is “pedagogical approaches” (f2 = 64), the next most used
term. Figure 3 presents the results of all the prominent terms (stemmed).

Figure 3. The trend analysis of prominent themes on DSC education research (2000‐2024).

Also, the dynamics of the themes are presented from 2000 to 2024, highlighting the most
frequently top‐researched themes, and mapping the trends. For example, the third popular theme is
“Analytics” (f3 = 57), while “experiential learning” came as the 6th (f6 = 42), while “simulation and
games” also made the list as the 7th (f7 = 36). The trend shows that “knowledge management” (f10=
33) was one of the popular themes in the early 2000s but now receiving less attention in recent years
(Figure 3). On the other hand, themes such as “machine learning” (f16 = 22) and “artificial
intelligence” (f17= 20) emerged more recently and remain relevant.
Another essential aspect of DSC education research and trends is that the frequent themes also
include the core DSC and OR/MS subject areas, including “operations management” (f9 = 34),
“supply chain management” (f11 = 32), and business management education” (f13= 26). Figure 3
shows the complete thematic trends.

3.3.2. Evolutionary Trends in Decision Sciences Education Research

The evolution of themes presented in this Section reinforces the trends of prominent terms on
DSC education discussed in the previous Section. The analysis focuses on the dominant research
topics split into three‐period strata. The first two strata cover ten years each (2000‐2009, 2010‐2019),
while the third segment covers the remaining 5 out of the 25 years (2020‐2024).
Using the Bibliometrix application in the R‐studio environment [18] and the text analytics
capability enables a comprehensive evaluation of eminent themes in the three‐period segments. The
purpose is to uncover the evolution of research themes during the 25 years (2000‐2024). The results
highlight the origin and evolution of these dominant research topics in DSC education in each period.
Table 5 presents 15 frequent themes in each period segment generated.
 The First Segment (2000‐2009)
In the first segment (2000‐2009), the three most popular themes studied include “knowledge
management” (KM), “data envelopment analysis” (DEA), and “decision support systems” (DSS).
Some of the studies addressed ‘KM education and curriculum development’ [30], “Critical skills and
knowledge requirements of IS professionals” [31], and ‘Knowledge‐based improvement, simulation,
and artificial intelligence’ [32]. The DEA theme examined its application to measure the efficiency in
[Link] ([Link]) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 16 July 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202407.1294.v1

higher education [24]. The DSS study analyzed the use of a “decision support tool to identify AACSB
peer schools” [33]. However, evidence shows that these themes existed in the broader OR/MS
research landscape before the year 2000, e.g., the following studies occurred in the 1990s before the
period covered in this study, including ‘knowledge management perspectives’ [34], “survey of
knowledge‐based systems research in decision sciences” [4]; ‘dynamic DEA’ [35]; ‘improving
decision making using marketing DSS’ [36], a survey of DSS and roles [31,37]. These studies appeared
in high‐ranking OR/MS and DSC sources.

Table 5. Evolution of dominant research themes on decision sciences education research including
simulation games and artificial intelligence.

2000‐2009 2010‐2019 2020‐2024

No. Themes: n=785 [21%] f LS Themes: n=1907 [51%] f LS Themes:n=1047 [28%] f LS
1 Knowledge management 9 32 Pedagogical/teaching approaches 45 157 Decision support systems 50 188
2 Data envelopment analysis 8 33 Online education/e‐learning 32 93 Experiential learning 23 89
3 Decision support systems 8 31 Decision support systems 26 124 Artificial intelligence 20 77
4 Technology/policy/ management 8 30 Operations management 24 97 Machine learning 17 91
5 Engineering/systems 8 29 Knowledge management 23 55 Data mining 17 79
6 Project management 7 27 Supply chain management 20 68 Data analytics 18 57
7 Innovation 6 20 Experiential learning 19 73 Pedagogical approaches 15 61
8 Decision analysis 6 12 Project management 17 56 Online education/e‐learning 22 93
9 Entrepreneurship/ orientation 6 21 Teaching using games and simulation 17 45 Supply chain management 11 34
10 Change management 5 17 Academic areas 16 75 Business analytics 10 32
11 Data mining 5 16 Simulation 12 38 Big data 9 61
12 Efficiency 5 22 Data mining 9 25 Leadership 9 39
13 Organizational learning 5 15 Decision‐making 9 34 Games/simulation 9 35
14 Decision‐making 5 16 Innovation 8 43 Operations managt 9 32
15 Economic growth 5 17 Data envelopment analysis 8 33 Decision analysis 7 31
f: keyword frequency; LS: Link Strength of the themes in the network.

 The Second Segment (2010‐2019)

Some prominent themes from the previous period continued to increase while other terms
faded. For example, studies on KM, DEA, and DSS continued to attract the interest of DSC educators
and researchers during the second segment, with studies such as “university knowledge
management tool for the evaluation of the efficiency and quality of learning” [38], “knowledge
management for learning software project management” [39], and “benchmarking using data DEA”
[40].
Several new themes also emerged and advanced into prominence during the (2010‐2019) period.
The newly evolved themes include ‘pedagogical and innovative teaching approaches’ such as
“consulting practicum as a strategy to enhance students’ readiness for a professional career” [41],
‘simulation and serious games as a pedagogical tool for managerial decision‐making,’ and ‘teaching
using games and simulation’ through role‐playing [42–44], and ‘online education/e‐learning in DSC’
[45]. However, “simulation and games,” as a DSC method or technique, had been a tool for learning
and decision‐making in industry practice well before this period (e.g., a study on computer
simulation conducted by Kaczka in 1970 [46]). The service production and manufacturing sectors also
experienced games and simulation applications for learning and practice over the years [7,8,47] and
continue to the current era [23,48].
Another interesting occurrence in the thematic evolution in the period (2010‐2019) is the
emergence into prominence of data science/analytics techniques and methods as essential parts of
DSC and DSS industry practice is “data mining” [49] alongside related terms, including “big data”
[50,51], “business analytics” [51–54], and “learning analytics” [52]. However, the literature provides
evidence that these data science concepts emerged well before this period (e.g., [55,56]), but evolved
into a sustained research topic in 2010 and beyond. Even in this study, the data mining theme first
appeared in the previous decade segment (2000‐2009) but became more prominent in the second
segment (2010‐2019) [49‐54; Table 5]. In the second period, data science and related themes in DSC
education research became prominent. Some of the topics include ‘preparing or training data
[Link] ([Link]) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 16 July 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202407.1294.v1

10

scientists and designing a big data analytics course’ [50], identifying the “knowledge, skills, and
abilities for entry‐level business analytics positions” in the industry [53], and “turning data into better
decision‐making” [54].
 The Third Segment (2020‐2024)
The third segment coincides with the waves of digitization and digitalization, such as an
accelerated use of technological equipment, devices, and digital platforms for daily operations,
including remote services and educational activities [57,58]. Some of the reasons that influence rapid
digitization include the fourth industrial revolution (i4.0), which ushered in well‐developed
interconnected technologies through the Internet of Things (IoT) [23,59,60], and the fallouts from the
SARS‐CoV‐2 outbreak, which mandated the use of digital technologies and platforms [58,61,62].
With the above hindsight, the research landscape in DSC education and industry applications
has also evolved to match the practice in the broader society. Studies on “data mining” [49,55,56] and
related themes, including “business/data analytics” [50–53,63], continued to evolve into prominence
and remained a sustained research topic. In this period (2020‐2024), data analytics has become a
significant bidirectional pedagogical approach. On the one hand, capstones as learning strategies
have been developed to enable learners to gain practical and suitable business/data analytics skills
for the industry. On the other hand, data science methods such as learning analytics and deep
learning are also becoming pedagogical strategies in DSC education and ‘management learning’
[51,52,64,65].
In addition to DSS and ‘experiential learning’ being the top two themes in this segment, AI and
machine learning have been prominent topics in DSC education and practice research in recent years
(Table 5). However, its use to generate insight and aid managerial decisions started in the 1990s (e.g.,
Pomerol [66] investigated AI and human decision‐making as an OR technique in 1997). Similarly,
Robinson et al. [32] investigated using ‘simulation and artificial intelligence to identify and improve
human decision‐making’ in 2004, a period that falls within the first segment of this analysis (2000‐
2009). Generally, some researchers consider AI just as another educational technology that enhances
teaching and learning [67]. However, generative AI (GenAI), such as a “chat generative pre‐trained
transformer” (ChatGPT), plays a more significant role in DSC education and practice by helping
teachers to generate curriculum and learning materials quickly [68,69]. Students also use ChatGPT to
study, create essays, and complete assignments and homework [70,71]. Academic researchers have
also used the GenAI platforms to research and produce scholarly papers [71]. However, these new
dimensions created by GPT tend to generate significant controversies due to ethical, legal, and social
implications, such that some scientists and researchers have suggested a ban on GenAI [69–71]. At
the same time, policymakers race to control and check any misuse [72,73].

3.3.3. Visualization of Prominent and Emerging Themes in DSC Education Research

This Section employs the science mapping technique and text analytics to visualize the thematic
structure of DSC education research in a network map. We used data on the prominent and emerging
themes generated through text analytics from the Bibliometrix application embedded in the R‐Studio,
as defined in the previous Section [16,17]. The prominent and emerging themes (42, 78, respectively)
comprise 120 unstemmed unique keywords or 3.2% of the 3,739, described as the terms with a
frequency or occurrence of 5 and above (f>=5), which includes the prominent and emerging themes
(as defined in Section 3.3.1).
The network map visualizes the DSC education research themes using the co‐occurrence of
author keywords and the interconnectedness [15–18]. Using the VOSviewer application (explained
in Section 2), the algorithm stratifies the themes into color‐coded clusters, with the same color nodes
indicating the same Cluster. The network map comprises nodes (circles), edges (lines), and node
labels. At the same time, the edges (lines) connect one node to another throughout the network. The
nodes’ sizes and labels depend on the number of occurrences of specific keywords that point to
research topics or subjects. The bigger the node, the more frequently the word occurs [15,16,18,19].
The network map sets the keyword frequency at 5 (f>=5), which generates 120 unstemmed keywords
as a pointer to the research themes [16–19]. The VOSviewer software used to create the visualization
[Link] ([Link]) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 16 July 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202407.1294.v1

11

allows the analyst to remove nugatory terms or words that do not convey contextual meanings [18].
The bibliometric algorithm in VOSviewer stratifies the keywords into color‐coded clusters. Also, the
themes in the same Cluster are mapped to the colored trend line to correspond with the cluster colors
marked by the year of publication. The VOSviewer application does not automatically stem the
keywords but considers terms with different spellings as unique despite being similar in meanings
(e.g., “decision support system” and “decision support systems” are considered unique terms).
Figure 4 presents the network visualization of the prominent and emerging themes in DSC education
research and practice.

Figure 4. Network visualization of themes in DSC education research and practice.

The result (Figure 4) shows the themes classified into five color‐coded clusters produced using
the VOSViewer application as follows:
a. purple: covers themes published between 2000 and 2012, some of the themes in this Cluster
(“education,” “data envelopment analysis,” “organizational learning,” “knowledge
management,” “teaching using games,” and more).
b. ocean‐blue: The themes in this Cluster were published between 2012 and 2014. (Some of the
items are: “business intelligence,” “innovation,” “e‐learning,” “operations management,”
“OR/MS education,” and more).
c. green: published between 2014 and 2016 (“decision support systems,” “data mining,” “ethics,”
“pedagogy,” and more).
d. lemon‐green: occurred between 2016 and 2018 (“pedagogical approaches,” experiential
learning,” and more).
e. yellow: This Cluster contains themes published between 2018 and 2024 (“artificial intelligence,”
“business analytics,” “big data,” “machine learning,” “games and simulations,” and more).
The themes dynamics (a‐e) identify the trends and evolution in DSC education research, games
and simulation, and artificial intelligence and correlate with the analysis of the periodic evolution
presented in Sections 3.3.1 and 3.3.2.
The above results show that DSC pedagogical approaches in education and research closely
mirror industry practice development. While the early years of research focused on core DSC and
OR/MS methods techniques (e.g., purple Cluster), the recent ones also highlighted the technological
trends such as data science and AI.
[Link] ([Link]) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 16 July 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202407.1294.v1

12

3.3.4. The Least Frequent Themes

This section analyzes the research themes that occur the least times. The results in this section
help address the third research objective (RO3). These are themes with frequency (f) occurring four
times or less (f < 5). The least occurring themes form the majority (3619 or 97%) of the 3739 author
keywords. This category also denotes the least researched topics, usually new or abandoned
researched fields. The network map is also represented by nodes (circles) and edges (lines). However,
there are quite a few or no interconnecting links (edges) between the nodes due to little research work
associated with those themes.
Figure 5 shows the results produced on a network map using the VOSViewer platform, showing
a less connected network of topics covering the period. The period shows the themes classified into
five color‐coded clusters. For example, the purple Cluster shows the themes published on or before
2010. These themes can be termed abandoned due to the absence of further research on those topics
in the DSC education genre. Some of the themes in this Cluster are (“edukiwi,” “globalization,”
“collaboration,” and more). Interestingly, the period corresponds with the period that these topics
emerged in the early 2000s but waned with time. However, it is not unusual that the topic can still
receive attention in different fields, such as “globalization.”

Figure 5. The least frequent themes (f < 5).

In recent periods (2018‐2020: the lemon‐green coded Cluster), and (2021‐2024: the bright‐yellow‐
colored nodes). Some of the least researched topics include “competitive intelligence,” “educational
data mining,” “learning analytics,” “industry 4.0,” and more) as shown in Figure 5. Again, these are
currently trending topics. The results indicate the transformative nature of DSC education, which
closely mimics trends in industry practice and research.
[Link] ([Link]) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 16 July 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202407.1294.v1

13

3.4. Simulation and Games, Data Analytics, and GenAI in DSC Education
The adoption of simulation and games, data analytics, and GenAI were introduced in DSC
education at different times. However, the three pedagogical strategies have recently become
complementary as integrated learning techniques and in industry practice. Adopting these
approaches enhances learners’ academic experience and industry training. Games such as Monopoly
Board have a long history of application in DSC for teaching decision‐making since the mid‐20th
century [7,8,42,43]. Similarly, simulation games offer an experiential and applied learning
opportunity by transforming abstract concepts into tangible ones by replicating real‐world
environments and scenarios in the classroom. The practical scenarios allow students to apply
theoretical knowledge in practical situations, thus offering more profound insight into complex real‐
world scenarios and improving decision‐making [46,47]. Simulation and games also provide an
immersive learning experience and a virtual environment for active involvement, making the
learning process more engaging and enjoyable [11,23,74,75]. The virtual environment created by
simulation helps students develop critical thinking skills and decision‐making in a risk‐free but
realistic setting [11,74,75].
Furthermore, the millennium witnessed significant advances in computer technology that came
with increased personal computer storage capacity and processing speed. The introduction of
Internet‐based cloud computing and user‐generated content brought about the data analytics era
[13,50,51]. This evolution ushered in the introduction of data science methods, including learning
analytics, brought more opportunities for learners, and enabled real‐time data generation and
processing to generate insights for informed decision‐making. By adopting these technologies,
educators can provide students with the skills and knowledge to solve complex DSC problems
[53,54].
The DSC discipline and OR/MS are prominent areas adopting artificial intelligence [6,32]. More
recently, the introduction of GenAI in education has been considered a disruptive technology that
can revolutionize traditional education as we know it. The introduction of GenAI in DSC education
offers significant benefits. For example, enhancing decision‐making, which is the goal of DSC,
involves modeling and simulating complex systems that can help generate insight for decision‐
making. GenAI can be helpful in problem‐solving as students can create a scenario and feed a
description onto GenAI (e.g., ChatGPT) to develop the model of complex systems [67–69,71,73]. Also,
ChapGPT can be trained to generate extensive synthetic data for analysis. However, the limitations
associated with such synthetic data do not always mimic real‐world scenarios [76,77].
An integration of simulation and games, data analytics, and GenAI offers the opportunity to
create interactive, immersive, and engaging learning experiences and improve students’ learning
outcomes.

3.5. Countries’ Productivity and Impact

The country productivity and impact analysis using R‐Bibliometrix produces the results of
scientific literature productivity and citation impact on DSC education SCP during the period
covered in this study (2000‐2024). The top four productive countries include the USA, China,
Indonesia, and the UK. The USA stands out as the dominant country in SCP and citation impact,
where most literature (over 31%) originates. Table 5 lists the top 16 countries contributing at least 1%
of the total literature publications.

Table 5. Eminent Countries in decision sciences education research productivity and impact.

Countries SCP SCP% TC Average Citations TC%

USA 1086 31.3 7014 19.9 41.0
China 658 19.0 833 4.1 4.9
Indonesia 179 5.2 57 3.6 0.3
UK 122 3.5 1176 29.4 6.9
India 85 2.4 288 16.0 1.7
[Link] ([Link]) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 16 July 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202407.1294.v1

14

Australia 81 2.3 715 32.5 4.2

Canada 72 2.1 549 21.1 3.2
Germany 70 2.0 183 13.1 1.1
Spain 67 1.9 204 12.0 1.2
Brazil 66 1.9 29 2.9 0.2
Portugal 57 1.6 224 20.4 1.3
South Africa 56 1.6 36 1.9 0.2
Malaysia 54 1.6 22 3.7 0.1
France 34 1.0 97 9.7 0.6
Italy 34 1.0 174 19.3 1.0
Greece 33 1.0 28 4.7 0.2

Table 5 also highlights the impacts of the publications from the 16 countries that contributed at
least one percent of the publications. The citation impact follows a similar trend to the literature
publication, with the USA being the most cited country with a majority (41%) and an average of 20
citations per document. The other countries were the UK (7%) and China (4.9%). However, the UK
recorded a higher average citation per published document (29.4), compared to 4.1 for China. Table
5 presents the complete results. Table 5 presents the complete results.

4. Conclusion
This study analyzed DSC education research advances and evolutionary trends in the past two
and a half decades (2000‐2024). The authors designed several research objectives to examine the topic
exhaustively. We analyzed the growth and citation impacts, evaluated the thematic structure, themes
dynamics, and text analytics, and identified the transformation over the period.
In the text analytics using the R‐Bibliometrix application employed word frequency (f) or co‐
occurrence of themes and categorized the research keywords into three groups, namely, the most
prominent topics (f >= 10), emerging research themes (10 > f >= 5), and the least researched topics (f <
5). About 97% of the keywords fell in the least frequent co‐occurrence of words, indicating the
research themes that attracted the lowest research interest as pointers to areas for future studies
(Figure 5). The emerging research themes made up 2.1%. Among these research fields include “online
education,” “business analytics,” and “online learning resources). Figure 4 shows a full list. The most
prominent category made up 1.1% (Figure 2) and includes “decision support systems,” “pedagogical
approaches,” “e‐learning,” and “artificial intelligence.” Others include teaching methods and
practices involving decision sciences subjects (operations management and supply chain
management). The themes dynamics show the consistency of publications involving these research
fields across the years covered in this study (2000 to 2024).
The study highlights the symbiotic relationship among DSC education, ‘simulation and games,’
data analytics, and AI and identifies potential future research directions. Computer simulation plays
an essential role in DSC and OR/MS as a decision support system, while simulation games can be a
potent pedagogical technique in several disciplines. This study has demonstrated the effectiveness of
simulation, serious games, experiential learning techniques, and AI as strategies in aiding teaching
and learning, industry training for solving complex problems and developing decision‐making skills,
and practical applications in making informed decisions [11,47,75]. Also, simulation and games help
to bridge the gap between DSC theory and practice [76].
The latest trend witnesses the integration of GenAI. Also, the fusion of simulation and games,
big data analytics, and GenAI in DSC education indicate the potential to positively transform
teaching, learning, and research and improve decision‐making [10]. However, to ensure the
successful application of GenAI as a disruptive technology in DSC education, research, and practice,
educators must develop appropriate policy guidelines on ethical issues, data privacy, and security to
check against any potential abuse. Future research will implement and integrate AI automatic
detection systems to address some GenAI adoption challenges.
[Link] ([Link]) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 16 July 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202407.1294.v1

15

Despite the strong and valid evidence that GenAI offers DSC education, serious concerns about
its potential negative impacts on academic integrity violation, unethical use, and data privacy and
security, amongst others [67,68,71]. There are urgent calls for educational institutions to develop
policy guidelines on using GenAI for academic teaching, learning, research, and creative activities.
However, policy enactment might only be a necessary but not sufficient solution to checkmate the
potential abuse. We propose implementing and integrating AI automatic detection systems to
address some GenAI adoption challenges.

Author Contributions: For research articles with several authors, a short paragraph specifying their individual
contributions must be provided. The following statements should be used “Conceptualization, Akpan, I.J.
software, Akpan, I.J.; validation, Akpan, I.J. and Akpan, A.A.; formal analysis, Akpan, I.J.; investigation, Akpan,
I.J.; resources, Akpan, I.J. and Akpan, A. A; data curation, Akpan, I.J.; writing—original draft preparation,
Akpan, I.J. and Akpan, A. A.; writing—review and editing, Akpan, I.J. and Akpan, A.A; visualization, Akpan,
I.J.; supervision, Akpan, I.J.; project administration, Akpan, I.J.; funding acquisition, Akpan, I.J. All authors have
read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.”

Funding: No funding applicable.

Institutional Review Board Statement: Not Applicable.

Informed Consent Statement: Not Applicable.

Data Availability Statement: Authors are not permitted to share proprietary data.

Acknowledgments: Our thoughts go out to Abasiofon Blossom Akpan and Favour Akpan. Your academic
exploits are well noted and celebrated.

Conflicts of Interest: None

References
1. Keeney, R. L.; See, K. E.; Von Winterfeldt, D. (2006). Evaluating academic programs: With applications to
US graduate decision science programs. Operations research, 2006, 54(5), 813‐828.
[Link]
2. Truong, B. C.; Van Thuan, N.; Hau, N. H.; McAleer, M. Applications of the Newton‐Raphson method in
decision sciences and education. Advances in Decision Sciences, 2019, (4), 1‐28.
3. Buyurgan, N.; Meixell, M. J. Educational innovation and reform in the decision sciences: An introduction
to the special issue on multidisciplinary and collaborative practices. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative
Education, 2015, 13(2), 115‐119. [Link]
4. Santhanam R; Elam J. A survey of knowledge‐based systems research in decision sciences (1980–1995).
Journal of the Operational Research Society. 1998, May 1;49:445‐457.
[Link]
5. Roy B. Decision science or decision‐aid science? European Journal of Operational Research. 1993 Apr
16;66(2):184‐203. [Link]
6. Akpan, I. J. Thirty years of International Transactions in Operational Research: past, present, and future
direction. International Transactions in Operational Research. 2023 Nov; 30(6), 2709‐28.
[Link]
7. Dorn, D. S. Simulation games: One more tool on the pedagogical shelf. Teaching Sociology, 1989, 17, 1‐18.
[Link]
8. Sexton Jr D. E. Before the inductive leap: eight steps to system simulation. Decision Sciences. 1970 Jan 1;1.
[Link]
9. Lew C, Saville A. Game‐based learning: Teaching principles of economics and investment finance through
Monopoly. The International Journal of Management Education. 2021 Nov 1;19(3):100567.
[Link]
10. Hollocks, B. Forty years of discrete‐event simulation—A personal reflection. Journal of the Operational
Research Society, 2006, 57(12), 1383–1399. doi:10.1057/pal‐[Link].2602128
11. Akpan IJ, Brooks RJ. Experimental evaluation of user performance on two‐dimensional and three‐
dimensional perspective displays in discrete‐event simulation. Decision Support Systems. 2014, Aug 1; 64,
14‐30. [Link]
12. Flynn, B. B. Editor’s Comments. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 2003, 1(1), i‐iii.
[Link]
[Link] ([Link]) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 16 July 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202407.1294.v1

16

13. Song Y, Arnott D, Gao S. Graduate students as surrogates for managers in business intelligence and
analytics research: A preliminary study. Journal of Decision Systems. 2022 Jul 3;31(3):280‐304.
[Link]
14. Marinho M, Prakash V, Garg L, Savaglio C, Bawa S. Effective cloud resource utilisation in cloud ERP
decision‐making process for industry 4.0 in the United States. Electronics. 2021 Apr 16; 10(8), 959.
[Link]
15. Naeem R, Kohtamäki M, Parida V. Artificial intelligence enabled product–service innovation: past
achievements and future directions. Review of Managerial Science. 2024 Apr 18:1‐44.
[Link]
16. Cobo, M. J., A. G. López‐Herrera, E. Herrera‐Viedma, and F. Herrera. Science mapping software tools:
Review, analysis, and cooperative study among tools. Journal of the American Society for Information Science
and Technology 2011, 62(7): 1382‐1402. [Link]
17. Akpan, I. J.; Akpan, A. A. Multiple criteria analysis of the popularity and growth of research and practice
of visual analytics, and a forecast of the future trajectory. International Transactions in Operational Research,
2021; 28(5), 2275‐2298. [Link]
18. Aria, M.; C. Cuccurullo. Bibliometrix: An R‐tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of
Informetrics, 2017, 11(4): 959‐975. [Link]
19. Van Eck N.; Waltman L. Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping.
Scientometrics. 2010 Aug 1;84(2):523‐38. [Link]
20. Donthu, N.; Kumar, S.; Mukherjee, D.; Pandey, N.; Lim, W.M. How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An
overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research. 2021, 133, 285–296.
[Link]
21. Kobara Y.M.; Akpan I.J. Bibliometric Performance and Future Relevance of Virtual Manufacturing
Technology in the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Systems. 2023 Oct 21;11(10):524.
[Link]
22. Jacso, P. As we may search—comparison of major features of the Web of Science, Scopus, and Google
Scholar citation‐based and citation‐enhanced databases. Current Science, 2005, 89, 1537–1547.
23. Akpan, I.J.; Offodile, O.F. The Role of Virtual Reality Simulation in Manufacturing in Industry 4.0. Systems.
2024, Jan 12;12(1):26. [Link]
24. Archambault É, Campbell D, Gingras Y, Larivière V. Comparing bibliometric statistics obtained from the
Web of Science and Scopus. Journal of the American society for information science and technology. 2009
Jul;60(7):1320‐6. [Link]
25. Johnes, J. Data envelopment analysis and its application to the measurement of efficiency in higher
education. Economics of Education Review. 2006, Jun 1;25(3):273‐88.
[Link]
26. Chen Y, Albert LJ, Jensen S. Innovation farm: Teaching Artificial Intelligence through gamified social
entrepreneurship in an introductory MIS course. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education. 2022
Jan;20(1):43‐56.
27. Vošner HB; Kokol P; Bobek S; Železnik D; Završnik J. A bibliometric retrospective of the Journal Computers
in Human Behavior (1991–2015). Computers in Human Behavior. 2016 Dec 1;65: 46‐58.
[Link]
28. Yan, E., and Y. Ding. 2012. “Scholarly network similarities: How bibliographic coupling networks, citation
networks, cocitation networks, topical networks, co‐authorship networks, and co‐word networks relate to
each other.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(7), 1313‐1326.
[Link]
29. Liu W., G. Hu, L. Tang, and Y. Wang. 2015. “China’s Global Growth in Social Science Research: Uncovering
Evidence from Bibliometric Analyses of SSCI Publications (1978–2013).” Journal of Informetrics 9 (3): 555–69.
[Link]
30. Lau CL, Al‐Hawamdeh S. Knowledge management education and curriculum development. Journal of
Information & Knowledge Management. 2002 Sep;1(02):99‐118. [Link]
31. Lee DM, Trauth EM, Farwell D. Critical skills and knowledge requirements of IS professionals: A joint
academic/industry investigation. MIS quarterly. 1995 Sep 1:313‐40. [Link]
32. Robinson, S., Alifantis, T., Edwards, J. et al. Knowledge‐based improvement: simulation and artificial
intelligence for identifying and improving human decision‐making in an operations system. Journal
Operational Research Society 2005, 56, 912–921. [Link]
33. Kiang MY, Fisher DM, Chen JC, Fisher SA, Chi RT. The application of SOM as a decision support tool to
identify AACSB peer schools. Decision Support Systems. 2009 Apr 1;47(1):51‐9.
[Link]
34. Wiig KM. Knowledge management: an introduction and perspective. Journal of knowledge Management.
1997 Mar 1;1(1):6‐14. [Link]
[Link] ([Link]) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 16 July 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202407.1294.v1

17

35. Sengupta JK. Dynamic data envelopment analysis. International Journal of Systems Science. 1996 Mar
1;27(3):277‐84. [Link]
36. Van Bruggen GH, Smidts A, Wierenga B. Improving decision making by means of a marketing decision
support system. Management Science. 1998 May;44(5):645‐58. [Link]
37. Eom SB, Lee SM, Kim EB, Somarajan C. A survey of decision support system applications (1988–1994).
Journal of the Operational Research Society. 1998 Feb 1;49:109‐20. [Link]
38. Atanasova I. A university knowledge management tool for the evaluation of the efficiency and quality of
learning resources in distance e‐learning. International Journal of Knowledge Management. 2019 Oct 1;15(4):38‐
55. DOI: 10.4018/IJKM.2019100103
39. Tizkar Sadabadi A, Abdul Manaf A. IKML approach to integrating knowledge management and learning
for software project management. Knowledge Management Research & Practice. 2018 Jul 3;16(3):343‐55. DOI:
10.1080/14778238.2018.1474165
40. Raith, A., Rouse, P., Seiford, L.M. Benchmarking Using Data Envelopment Analysis: Application to Stores
of a Post and Banking Business. In: Huber, S., Geiger, M., de Almeida, A. (eds) Multiple Criteria Decision
Making and Aiding. International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, 2019, 274. Springer,
Cham. [Link]
41. Akpan, I. J. The efficacy of consulting practicum in enhancing students’ readiness for professional career
in management information systems: An empirical analysis. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education,
2016, 14(4), 412‐440. [Link]
42. Shanklin SB, Ehlen CR. Extending the Use and Effectiveness of the Monopoly Board Game as an In‐Class
Economic Simulation in the Introductory Financial Accounting Course. American Journal of Business
Education. 2017;10(2):75‐80.
43. Paino M, Chin J. Monopoly and critical theory: Gaming in a class on the sociology of deviance. Simulation
& Gaming. 2011 Oct;42(5):571‐88. [Link]
44. Gumus M, Love EC. Supply chain sourcing game: A negotiation exercise. Decision Sciences Journal of
Innovative Education. 2013 Jan;11(1):3‐12.
45. Eom, S. B., Ashill, N. The determinants of students’ perceived learning outcomes and satisfaction in
university online education: An update. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 2016, 14(2), 185‐
215.
46. Kaczka EE. Computer Simulation. Decision Sciences. 1970 Jan;1(1‐2):174‐92. [Link]
5915.1970.tb00774.x
47. Duin H, Oliveira M, Saffarpour A. A simulation model for virtual manufacturing environments for serious
games. In2007 IEEE International Technology Management Conference (ICE) 2007 Jun 4 (pp. 1‐8). IEEE.
Sophia Antipolis, France.
48. Chen CM. A searchable spreadsheet for educational games in the decision sciences. Decision Sciences Journal
of Innovative Education. 2021 Jul;19(3):197‐203.
49. Hamed, M., Mahmoud, T., Gómez, J.M., Kfouri, G. Using Data Mining and Business Intelligence to Develop
Decision Support Systems in Arabic Higher Education Institutions. In: Marx Gómez, J., Aboujaoude, M.,
Feghali, K., Mahmoud, T. (eds) Modernizing Academic Teaching and Research in Business and Economics.
Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics, 2017. Springer, Cham. [Link]
54419‐9_4
50. Asamoah DA, Sharda R, Hassan Zadeh A, Kalgotra P. Preparing a data scientist: A pedagogic experience
in designing a big data analytics course. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education. 2017 Apr;15(2):161‐
190. [Link]
51. Alblawi AS, Alhamed AA. Big data and learning analytics in higher education: Demystifying variety,
acquisition, storage, NLP and analytics. In2017 IEEE conference on big data and analytics (ICBDA) 2017
Nov 16 (pp. 124‐129). IEEE. DOI: 10.1109/ICBDAA.2017.8284118
52. Acevedo YV, Marín CE, Garcia PA, Crespo RG. A proposal to a decision support system with learning
analytics. In2018 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON) 2018 Apr 17 (pp. 161‐168).
IEEE. DOI: 10.1109/EDUCON.2018.8363223
53. Cegielski, C. G., Jones‐Farmer, L. A. Knowledge, skills, and abilities for entry‐level business analytics
positions: A multi‐method study. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 2016, 14(1), 91‐118.
54. Anderson, J. S., Williams, S. K. Turning data into better decision making: Asking questions, collecting and
analyzing data in a personal analytics project. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 2019, 17(2),
126‐145.
55. Moshkovich HM, Mechitov AI, Olson DL. Rule induction in data mining: effect of ordinal scales. Expert
Systems with Applications. 2002 May 1;22(4):303‐11. [Link]
56. Singleton, A. Data mining course choice sets and behaviours for target marketing of higher education.
Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, 2009. 17, 157–170.
[Link]
[Link] ([Link]) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 16 July 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202407.1294.v1

18

57. Qudrat‐Ullah H, Karakul M. Decision making in interactive learning environments towards an integrated
model. Journal of Decision Systems. 2007 Jan 1;16(1):79‐99. [Link]
58. Amankwah‐Amoah J, Khan Z, Wood G, Knight G. COVID‐19 and digitalization: The great acceleration.
Journal of Business Research. 2021 Nov 1;136:602‐11. [Link]
59. Silva R, Bernardo CD, Watanabe CY, Silva RM, Neto JM. Contributions of the internet of things in education
as support tool in the educational management decision‐making process. International Journal of Innovation
and Learning. 2020;27(2):175‐96. [Link]
60. Krakovskaya I, Korokoshko J. Assessment of the readiness of industrial enterprises for automation and
digitalization of business processes. Electronics. 2021 Nov 8; 10(21): 2722.
[Link]
61. Akpan, I. J, Warner, T., Cardona, T. L., Schlosser, N., Hennis, B. Employees’ perception of the impacts of
global health crisis on work performance and sentiments about future career: the case of early childhood
education. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal. 2024 Jan 23:1‐8.
[Link]
62. Obiedat R, Harfoushi O, Qaddoura R, Al‐Qaisi L, Al‐Zoubi AM. An evolutionary‐based sentiment analysis
approach for enhancing government decisions during COVID‐19 pandemic: The case of Jordan. Applied
Sciences. 2021 Sep 29;11(19):9080. [Link]
63. Anand, T., Mitchell, D. Objectives and curriculum for a graduate business analytics capstone: Reflections
from practice. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 2022, 20(4), 235‐245.
[Link]
64. Leng J, Chen Q, Mao N, Jiang P. Combining granular computing technique with deep learning for service
planning under social manufacturing contexts. Knowledge‐Based Systems. 2018 Mar 1; 143:295‐306.
[Link]
65. Bayley, T., Wheatley, D., & Hurst, A. (2021). Assessing a novel problem‐based learning approach with game
elements in a business analytics course. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 19(3), 185‐196.
[Link]
66. Pomerol, J. C. 1997. Artificial intelligence and human decision making. European Journal of Operational
Research, 99,1, 3‐25. [Link]
67. Glaser, N. Exploring the Potential of ChatGPT as an Educational Technology: An Emerging Technology
Report. Technology, Knowledge and Learning.2023, 28, 1945–1952. [Link]
09684‐4
68. Rahman MM, Watanobe Y. ChatGPT for education and research: Opportunities, threats, and strategies.
Applied Sciences. 2023 May 8;13(9):5783. [Link]
69. Adeshola I, Adepoju AP. The opportunities and challenges of ChatGPT in education. Interactive Learning
Environments. 2023 Sep 2:1‐4. [Link]
70. Kling N, Otto F, Schumann CA, Tittmann C, Bahn T. Holistic approach to AI‐assisted student development
cycles in higher education using the example of the West Saxon University Zwickau. In2023 7th IEEE
Congress on Information Science and Technology (CiSt) 2023 Dec 16 (pp. 462‐466). IEEE.
DOI:10.1109/CiSt56084.2023.10409991
71. Dwivedi, Y. K., Kshetri, N., Hughes, L., Slade, E. L., Jeyaraj, A., Kar, A. K., ... Wright, R. 2023. “So what if
ChatGPT wrote it?” Multidisciplinary perspectives on opportunities, challenges, and implications of
generative conversational AI for research, practice, and policy. International Journal of Information
Management, 71, 102642. [Link]
72. Yu H. Reflection on whether Chat GPT should be banned by academia from the perspective of education
and teaching. Frontiers in Psychology. 2023 Jun 1;14:1181712. [Link]
73. Hacker P, Engel A, Mauer M. Regulating ChatGPT and other large generative AI models. In Proceedings
of the 2023 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency 2023 Jun 12 (pp. 1112‐1123).
[Link]
74. Makransky, G., Bonde, M.T., Wulff, J.S., Wandall, J., Hood, M., Creed, P.A., Bache, I., Silahtaroglu, A.,
Norremolle, A. Simulation based virtual learning environment in medical genetics counseling: an example
of bridging the gap between theory and practice in medical education. BMC medical education, 2016, 16,
98. [Link]
75. Reiners T, Voss S. Teaching meta‐heuristics within virtual learning environments. International
Transactions in Operational Research. 2004 Mar;11(2):225‐38. [Link]
3995.2004.00454.x
76. Bietsch, D., Stahlbock, R., & Voß, S. Synthetic Data as a Proxy for Real‐World Electronic Health Records in
the Patient Length of Stay Prediction. Sustainability, 2023, 15(18), 13690.
77. Benaim, A. R., Almog, R., Gorelik, Y., Hochberg, I., Nassar, L., Mashiach, T., ... & Beyar, R. Analyzing
medical research results based on synthetic data and their relation to real data results: systematic
comparison from five observational studies. JMIR medical informatics, 2020, 8(2), e16492.
[Link] ([Link]) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 16 July 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202407.1294.v1

19

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those
of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s)
disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or
products referred to in the content.