## 2 Bibliometric Analysis: Exploring the Application of ChatGPT  
To identify the research gaps outlined in the introduction, a theoretical study was carried out, employing such research methods such as bibliometric analysis and a literature review. An attempt was first undertaken to identify publications containing the keywords 'chat GPT' or 'chatGPT' in the title. For this purpose, three knowledge bases were used:Web of Science Core Collection, Scopus, and Publish or Perish. The results of this part of the analysis are presented in Table 1, by means of selected scientometric indices. The publications identified were subjected to selection, extraction, analysis, and synthesis [18]. This was followed by an initial selection, based on publication titles, abstracts, and key words [19]. Since the ChatGPT tool was introduced in November 2022, the scope of the study period was short and covered several months only (from November 2022 to February 2023). It should be noted here that for the keywords selected, no publications were identified under the criterion of 'title' in the Web of Science database. It is also worth mentioning that 1022 results were generated by the keyword 'chatbot', which does not constitute the object of this paper. Figure 1 shows the steps in the process of publication selection for the literature review. In this part of the theoretical study, the following selection and elimination criteria were adopted: document type (article, book chapter, proceeding paper, or conference paper), language (English) and the discipline of science (management or business). Drawing on these criteria, based on 168 publications, 22 articles were selected for the review, 19 of which describe the chatGPT-associated opportunities and risks across various scientific disciplines in very general terms. Only three scientific studies addressing the issues related to the category of management were identified. According to the author's judgement, this results from the fact that the tool was unveiled in November 2022, yet it is very highly probable that the number of publications, in all categories, will increase rapidly in 2023, which would provide an impetus for the implementation of a literature review on chatGPT in management. During the selection process, several citations of publications lacking a DOI number, journal data, and review information were identified in the Publish or Perish database [20; 21; 22; 23]. Given the document-type criterion, these publications were not qualified for the literature review. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Database\(\,\)I Index** & **Web of Science** & **Scopus** & **Publish or Perish** \\ \hline Number of publications & No results & 11 & 15 \\ \hline Publication year range & No results & 2022–2023 & 2022–2023 \\ \hline Citation overview & No results & 1 & 214 \\ \hline Source: own elaboration based on Web of Science, Scopus, and Publish or Perish resources, access: 3 February 2023. & & \\ \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Selected bibliometric indices for publications identified using keywords ‘chatGPT’ and ‘chat GPT’. Figure 1: The process of identifying documents qualified for a literature review. Source: own study based on Publish or Perish, Web of Science Core Collection, and Scopus. Access: 3 February 2023. In one paper [24], the author outlines the usage and limitations, showing that ChatGPT is capable of correcting its mistakes at times, but also displays overconfidence in its incorrect responses. It is quite relevant, from the perspective of the author who executed the experiment, that ChatGPT \"may request for additional information to provide an answer and may be asked to explain its response. Moreover, [...] minor change to a question may lead to contradicting responses\" (2022). The author additionally discusses \"_ChatGPT's responses to common social experiments_\" (2022), showing that \"_ChatGPT tends to answer as humans do_\" (2022).