In 2017, the Journal of Knowledge Management (JKM) celebrates its 20th anniversary. This study aims to show an updated analysis of their publications to provide a general overview of the journal, focusing on a bibliometric analysis of its publications between 1997 and 2016.
The methodology involves two procedures: a performance analysis and a science mapping analysis of JKM. The performance analysis uses a series of bibliometric indicators such as h-index, productivity and citations. This analysis considers different dimensions, including papers, authors, universities and countries. VOSviewer software is used to carry out the mapping of science of JKM, which, based on the concurrence of key words and co-citation points of view, seeks to graphically analyze the structure of the references of this journal.
There is a positive evolution in the number of publications (although with certain oscillations), which shows a growing interest in publishing in JKM. The USA and the UK lead the publications in this journal, although at a regional level, Europe is the most productive. The low participation of emerging economies in JKM is also observed.
The paper will identify the leading trends in the journal in terms of papers, authors, institutions, countries, journals and keywords. This study is useful for obtaining a quick snapshot of what is happening in the journal.
From the historical record of JKM publications, this study presents an exclusive bibliometric analysis of its publications until 2016 and identifies its main trends.
Gaviria-Marin, M., Merigo, J. and Popa, S. (2018), "Twenty years of the
Emerald Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2018, Emerald Publishing Limited
Several researchers already affirmed in the 1960s that knowledge would have a key role in both economic development and enterprise productivity (Drucker, 1968; Polanyi, 1966). Currently, thousands of studies have been developed around this concept. Knowledge management (KM) is one of the most discussed topics and has become a topic of general interest in several disciplines related to management, such as the management of information resources (Nissen et al., 2000), human resources (Rastogi, 2000; Wang and Ariguzo, 2004), entrepreneurship and family business (Centobelli et al., 2017; Scuotto et al., 2017), innovation (Bai and Yu, 2017), international business (Kasper et al., 2013), among others. In addition, KM has captured the attention of professionals who implement its fundamental concepts (Serenko et al., 2011) and of researchers and academics who see the potential of this field to unify various disciplines (Holsapple and Wu, 2008).
As a result of the growing attention and importance generated by KM at both the academic and business levels during the past several decades, the Journal of Knowledge Management (JKM) was introduced in 1997. The JKM is a journal interested in the publication of academic research and practical information dealing with best practices regarding all aspects related to KM in organizations. Likewise, one of its main objectives is to identify innovative KM strategies and theoretical and practical framework concepts that could be implemented in real-world situations. JKM publications include quantitative and qualitative research that through extensive studies and/or academic case studies in companies, government agencies and other organizations, show how to develop strategies, tools, techniques and technologies to successfully apply KM in organizations (Soto-Acosta and Cegarra-Navarro, 2016). In addition, the journal is devoted to analyzing KM as a firm capability capable of enhancing organizational learning and innovation (Del Giudice and Della Peruta, 2016; Martinez-Conesa et al., 2017).
The first issue of the JKM was published in 1997 under the direction of the founding editor Dr Rory Chase. Professor Dr Elias G. Carayannis also served as the editor in chief, and Professor Dr Manlio del Guidice was recently appointed as the current editor in chief. Since its early beginnings and under the direction of the different editors, the JKM has had remarkable growth and development, publishing more than 100 issues, 19 of which have been special issues. In addition, the JKM has been indexed in all the major bibliographic databases, including Scopus, since 1997, and more recently and importantly, since 2011, it has been indexed by the Web of Science’s Journal Citation Report (JCR). The JKM’s JCR impact factor (IF, hereafter) has been growing, and in 2016, it reached its highest IF, as it was first indexed in the Web of Science, being ranked 82nd of 193 journals in the subject category of management. This growth has allowed the JKM to position itself as the main journal in the field of KM (Serenko and Bontis, 2017).
In 2016, JKM celebrates its 20th anniversary. In these instances, it is common to develop commemorative activities that include the organization of an editorial (Barley, 2016), a review (Van Fleet, 2006) or a special issue (Meyer and Winer, 2014). Schwert (1993) emphasizes the importance of making a bibliometric description of the journal because it provides general historical results that allow the development of a critical evaluation of its impact and evolution. Therefore, the main objective of this study is to offer a bibliometric analysis of the JKM, which will enable us to observe in detail the evolution of its scientific publications. This will allow us to answer the following questions:
What are the total number of publications in JKM?
What are the core JKM articles?
Who are the main researchers, universities and countries in JKM?
What are the core journals used in JKM?
What is the affiliations of researchers?
What are the topics main in articles of JKM?
What are the structural networks among the actors who publish in JKM?
To achieve this goal and answer the previous questions, this work is based on two bibliometric procedures that include a performance analysis and a scientific mapping analysis. The first one is based on the analysis of productivity and influence indicators, such as the number of documents published and citations. Although the h-index is also used, which is a composite indicator that seeks to balance the productivity and influence of scientific actors (Hirsch, 2005). The second of them – the science mapping analysis – is carried out through the VOSviewer software (van Eck and Waltman, 2010), which includes bibliographic coupling (Kessler, 1963), co-citation analysis (Small, 1973), citation, co-authorship and co-occurrence of keywords. This type of analysis is novel and important as it has not been used previously in the JKM, and it will give a comprehensive overview of the journal’s main research trends.
The specific analysis of journals through bibliometric methodologies is currently gaining attention among scientific journals. In fact, recently, several bibliometric studies analyzing the specific repositories of several journals have been published. For example, Technovation (García-Merino et al., 2006) and Knowledge-Based Systems (Cobo et al., 2015) published a bibliometric analysis for their 25th anniversary. Similarly, Knowledge Management Research and Practice did so for its 10th anniversary (Walter and Ribière, 2013). Other journals, such as International Journal of Intelligent Systems (Merigó et al., 2017) and Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing (Valenzuela et al., 2017), included bibliometric studies for their 13th anniversary, while still others, such as Computers and Industrial Engineering (Cancino et al., 2017) and European Journal of Operational Research (Laengle et al., 2017), did so for their 40th anniversary. Thus, many research journals are celebrating their anniversaries by publishing bibliometric analyses to present an overview of their research trends and more influential publications.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, this work presents the methodology. Section 3 presents the results of the bibliometric analysis. Section 4 shows the graphical analysis. Finally, in Section 5, the article analyses the conclusions and limitations of the study.
Several years ago, data collection and bibliometric analysis processes were performed manually (Garfield, 1955). However, currently, these processes have been facilitated thanks to the development of information and communication technologies (Merigó et al., 2015a). These technologies have also contributed to the development of some methodologies for the analysis of scientific databases, such as scientometrics (Pritchard, 1969), bibliometrics (Yoon and Lee, 2012), and/or the quantitative study of library materials (Bonilla et al., 2015; Broadus, 1987; Small, 1973).
Bibliometrics help to explore, organize and analyze large amounts of data (Daim et al., 2006). According to Albort-Morant et al. (2017), the bibliometric analyses will make it possible to know the past, understand the advances of the investigations, although, at the same time, allows the development of future lines of research through its indicators (Cadavid-Higuita et al., 2012). The above particularities have promoted the use of bibliometrics in different disciplines. In fact, there are several areas of business and management that have particularly been studied from this perspective, such as management (Podsakoff et al., 2008), social entrepreneurship (Rey-Martí et al., 2016), international entrepreneurship (Baier-Fuentes et al., 2018), business incubator (Albort-Morant and Ribeiro-Soriano, 2016) or knowledge management (Gaviria-Marin et al., 2018), among several others. In addition, this methodology has been applied to other research areas, such as education (Diem and Wolter, 2013) and medicine (Franks et al., 2006). Moreover, to provide an overview of their publications, several journals have recently decided to apply this methodology. Among others, we can mention the Journal of Business Research (Merigó et al., 2015b), the European Journal of Marketing (Martínez-López et al., 2018), the International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management (Ellinger and Chapman, 2016), the International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems (Wang et al., 2018) or Information Sciences (Merigó et al., 2018).
Several methodologies are used in bibliometric analysis to visualize the qualitative and quantitative changes in a specific research field. For example, Durieux and Gevenois (2010), mention that bibliometrics involves:
quantity indicators, which measure productivity;
quality indicators, which measure the impact; and
structural indicators, which measure the connections between the various scientific actors.
Likewise, Cobo et al. (2011), notes that bibliometrics usually includes two procedures: performance analysis and science mapping analysis. The first of these procedures aims to evaluate different groups of scientific actors, such as countries, universities and authors, by measuring the productivity and impact of their scientific activity. The science mapping analysis focuses on showing the structural and dynamic patterns of scientific research (Börner et al., 2003). According to Barabási et al (2002), the structural indicators allow to observe the formation and evolution of the relations between the diverse actors of a determined scientific body. In summary, bibliometrics has the ability to establish a complete profile of a specific field of study or journal.
In this study, we show an overview of JKM trends, through a bibliometric analysis that includes performance analysis and science mapping. In the performance analysis, included indicators that measure both scientific productivity and the influence of a field of knowledge are included (Garfield, 1955). Note that this is consistent with that described by Durieux and Gevenois (2010). Specifically, we used the number of publications, the number of citations and some thresholds of citations, among other related indicators (Merigó, 2015a, 2015b). In addition, we use the h-index that combines into a single indicator of the number of publications and the number of citations. This indicator has become popular among researchers given its ease of calculation and interpretation (Thelwall, 2008). In this sense, Vanclay (2007) points out that the h-index is a robust indicator that is insensitive to a set of poorly cited papers, and therefore represents quite well the performance of a scientific field. In this manner, for an analysis unit that has an h-index equal to N, it means that it has N documents cited at least N times (Hirsch, 2005). For example, if an author has an h-index of 20, then the author has 20 documents that received at least 20 citations. In summary, keep in mind that the indicators described are popular among researchers.
This work also presents a science mapping analysis of the JKM bibliographic material. This type of analysis is conducted by using various types of software. Among them we can mention, for example, CitNetExplorer (van Eck and Waltman, 2014), SciMAT (Cobo et al., 2012), Bibexcel (Persson et al., 2009), CiteSpace (Chen, 2006) or VOSviewer (van Eck and Waltman, 2010). In this study, VOSviewer software was used. This software combines visualization techniques and clustering, which enables the completion of different analyses: bibliographic coupling (Kessler, 1963), co-citation (Small, 1973) and co-occurrence of key words. Bibliographic coupling occurs when two documents cite the same third article; co-citation measures the most cited documents by taking into account when two documents receive a citation of the same third work, whereas co-occurrence of keywords or a co-occurrence network refers to the group of keywords that co-occur in at least two different articles over a period of time with the aim of analyzing the most used keywords in the documents (Li et al., 2017). In addition, in some studies, co-citation and co-occurrence analysis are used in a longitudinal framework to analyze and follow the evolution of a field of research over consecutive periods of time (Garfield, 1994). Finally, it is important to point that there are other types of analyses, such as the analysis of co-words, which maps the force of association between the elements of information in the textual data, which can be thematic, semantic, conceptual or cognitive (Callon et al., 1983).
Bibliographic data may be obtained from various databases, including SciELO, Google Scholar, Scopus or Web of Science (WoS), since they have the capacity to compile large-scale data and produce statistics based on bibliometric indicators (Archambault et al., 2009). Recently, Scopus has become a good alternative to WoS (Vieira and Gomes, 2009), as it has been designed for bibliographic searches and analysis of citations (Meho and Yang, 2007), enabling it to perform the same search tasks as WoS. In fact, Scopus contains over 69 million records, including approximately 22,000 journals, of which almost 3,500 are freely accessible, as well as over 560 book series, 280 business journals, over 150,000 books and nearly 8 million conference papers pertaining to 100,000 worldwide events (Scopus, 2017). In addition, some researchers have noted that the strength of this database is related to its extensive coverage regarding social sciences research (Mongeon and Paul-Hus, 2016). Although these reasons seem to be sufficient to work with only Scopus references, the process of searching JKM records was performed using both WoS and Scopus databases. However, we realized that WoS only contains JKM records since the year 2011, while Scopus, in contrast, contained bibliographic records since the journal’s creation in 1997. Therefore, the data used in this study were mainly obtained from the Scopus database.
Once we defined the database, it was considered Journal of Knowledge Management as the only keyword, to obtain the bibliographic records of JKM. Additionally, a publication period between 1997 and 2016 and only articles, reviews, notes and letters were included to focus on scientific contributions (Merigó et al., 2016). As a result of this process, the search query yielded a sample of 1068 documents.
3.1 Performance analysis
3.1.1 Publication and citation structure of Journal of Knowledge Management.
The JKM celebrates 20 years of publishing documents related to all aspects of KM in organizations. The journal was launched in 1997 and presented four issues in its first volume. In subsequent years, the number of issues per volume was variable. However, since 2004, the JKM has been publishing six issues per volume annually. Throughout its existence, the JKM has followed the methodology of peer-reviewed evaluation for its research output. These editorial policies have allowed it to position itself as the leading journal in the field of knowledge management, also increasing the number of publications (see Figure 1).
In addition, Table I shows the JKM’s progress in relation to the annual and cumulative productivity of the papers and published issues. Additionally, this table makes a comparison of productivity between the two decades of its existence. It is observed that during the first decade (1997-2006), 415 documents were published, while in the second decade (2007-2016), the output was 653 documents. This difference represents an increase of 238 publications (22.4 per cent). It can be observed that the years 2008 and 2009 represent the peak of JKM publications, with more than 70 articles, whereas the year 2016 represents an important moment for the journal, as it exceeded 1,000 publications. In total, 20 volumes and 106 numbers containing 1,068 documents (964 articles, 104 reviews) have been published in the JKM thus far. Note that Table I indicates the amount of issues with the respective number of papers by each of them.
The JKM has a high number of citations, reaching a total of 23,669 citations (see Table II). In this sense, the year 2005 is one of the most important for several reasons. First, the JKM obtained the maximum number of cites per year in 2005, with 3,359 citations. This figure corresponds to 14.2 per cent of the journal’s total number of citations. Second, as a consequence, the citations per paper (TC/TP) of the journal in that year accounted for 56,9. Third, the highest h-index in the history of the JKM (h-index = 32) was reached in 2005. Remember that the h-index seeks to represent in a single indicator both the productivity and influence of a scientific actor in a given scientific field (Alonso et al., 2009). In the JKM case, the interpretation of the h-index, corresponding to the year 2005, means that 32 papers published that year received at least 32 citations. Moreover, 2005 is the first year that the JKM published two special issues. With regard to the citation threshold for the total published papers, 120 documents (11.23 per cent) received at least 50 citations. Additionally, 460 documents (43 per cent) achieved between 10 and 49 citations, while 425 documents (39.8 per cent) obtained between 1 and 9 citations. Finally, 63 documents (5.9 per cent) did not receive citations. it is noteworthy that 23 of these documents (2.2 per cent) correspond to recently published documents in 2016.
Table III explains in detail the number of authors per document and year published in the JKM. Note that there is a positive trend towards collaboration between researchers who publish in the JKM (see ACR indicator). In the final row, the average number of authors per paper is indicated. Note that 31.6 per cent of the published documents are of individual authorship. It is also observed that the normal trend for this journal is that documents are written by two or three co-authors (33.9 per cent and 23.9 per cent, respectively).
Usually, the number of citations is used to provide an overview of the most influential research. The number of citations represents the popularity and influence of each article in the scientific community (Merigó et al., 2017). However, it should be mentioned that this analysis may have some biases since the motivations for citing a document are diverse (Krampen et al., 2007). Table IV shows the 50 most cited JKM publications. Note that in case of a tie in the number of citations, the most recent document appears first.
The most cited work of the JKM is the one written by Ardichvili, Page and Wentling (2003), which was cited more than 600 times. Another important issue is that the three items best positioned in this ranking focus on barriers to sharing knowledge in different organizational contexts. For example, Ardichvili et al. (2003) develop an empirical study focused on personal motivations to participate in a virtual organizational environment. McDermott and O’Dell (2001) empirically study organizational culture as one of the barriers to the exchange of knowledge. Finally, Riege (2005) develops a literature review on the barriers to sharing knowledge, classifying them as individual, organizational and technological. Taking into account the potential of knowledge management to unify diverse areas of knowledge (Holsapple and Wu, 2008), the remaining articles of this list are developed in the intersection with diverse thematic such as the networks, the TICs, the innovation, among others.
Another aspect to highlight in this ranking is that there are six authors who have at least two documents. These six researchers are as follows: Ardichvili, Wentling, Darroch, Wong, Aspinwall and Bhatt. Of these authors, Ardichvili and Wentling are noted for having two documents together within the 20 most cited articles of the JKM. Likewise, Darroch and Bhatt stand out as independent authors possessing two articles among the 50 most cited publications.
It is also important to mention the 50 documents most cited by documents published in the JKM (see Table V). The list contains 44 articles and six books. Of the first three positions on this list, two correspond to books written by Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) and Davenport and Prusak (1998). The publications of these authors are considered seminal works in the field of KM. In this list, Nonaka has authored or co-authored five documents. This list also reveals the large number of works related to KM’s theoretical, conceptual and practical aspects.
Another interesting analysis is to identify who cites the JKM. Table VI reports the fifty journals with the largest number of articles citing JKM publications. Notice that the only requirement is having a paper with at least one citation referring to the JKM, although the journal can be cited several times. This list is also organized by quinquennium.
In this list it is observed that the first researchers to publish in JKM (Q1), include references from the Journal of Intellectual Capital, Learning Organization, Decision Support Systems, Journal of Workplace Learning and Journal of Information Science. In the following periods, there is an increase of new journals citing JKM, mainly from fields such as Knowledge Management, Business Management and Computer Systems. Another relevant aspect is that the JKM reaches the highest position with an increasing trend of self-cites over time. This is quite logical since journals often quote themselves. The journal that gives the second most citations to the JKM is “Knowledge Management Research and Practice”. Finally, there is a positive trend of new journals citing the JKM.
Moving forward in this perspective, Table VII presents the number of articles that mention JKM according to the year, author, university and country. Note that, although they are presented in a single table, the data must be analyzed independently according to each analysis unit (year, author, university and country).
From the beginning of JKM (1997) until 2016, 7050 articles have cited JKM. Keep in mind that when a scientific actor cites some article published in JKM, he is citing JKM. In the table, note that more than 50 per cent of the articles that have been cited to JKM have done so in the past four years. This shows the growing influence achieved by JKM. During the period under review, the lead author in citing JKM is Bontis with 41 of his documents. Likewise, a great diversity of universities around the world has quoted JKM. Of these universities, the University of Technology Malaysia stands out for citing 73 JKM documents. Finally, as expected, the USA and the UK are the two countries with the highest number of documents citing JKM publications.
3.1.2 Main authors, institutions and countries.
In this section an analysis of data related to the main authors, institutions and countries that publish in the JKM is presented.
Table VIII presents the number of publications of the most productive authors in the JKM and also shows its general productivity in academic journals. To observe the performance of these authors, the h-index of each author is included, along with the total number of publications, the number of citations, among other bibliometric indicators. This table also gives information on the tendency of authors to publish individually (SA). Note in case of a tie in productivity (TP), the number of citations per author is taken into account.
Table VIII indicates that the most productive authors in the JKM (TP) are Serenko, with 12 papers, followed by Bontis, with 11 papers. However, it should be noted that Bontis is a productive author in other journals as well and is a highly cited author. The other interesting fact is that Serenko and Bontis are researchers who usually publish together. In fact, they have published jointly on 8 occasions so far. A general overview of their work shows a preference for research in areas such as KM, intellectual capital and scientometrics methodologies, among others. Additionally, regarding cited authors (TC), Andreas Riege is the most cited author in the list, with 586 citations, followed by Kuan Yew Wong, with 453 and Serenko and Bontis, with more than 350 citations each.
Another interesting issue is the analysis of the more influential and productive universities and institutions publishing in the JKM. With this objective in mind, Table IX indicates the most productive universities within the journal. This table also presents other indicators such as the year they began publishing in the JKM (YFP), total citations (TC), the h-index and citation thresholds. Additionally, it shows the ranking of the university in the Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) and in the Quacquarelli and Symonds (QS) university ranking.
The results revealed that the most productive universities in the JKM are Cranfield University, with 14 papers and the Technologic Institute of Monterrey, with 13 papers. Note that both universities commenced publishing in the journal from the first year the journal was launched. It is also noteworthy that the Technologic Institute of Monterrey is one of the two Latin American university in this ranking. At the regional level, European universities are the most productive in the JKM, followed by those of Oceania, America and Asia. Moreover, among the universities with more citations (TC) are Griffith University, with 846 citations, the Cranfield University, with 406 citations and the University of Lakehead, with 402 citations. Although it depends on many variables, it is likely that these results are obviously obtained by the human capital hired by the universities and the networks they generate. For example, the documents of Andreas Riege, in Griffith U. or Alexander Serenko, in Lakehead U., have helped to position their universities as the most influential institutions in JKM. When considering the h-index, Lakehead University and Nanyang University of Technology are the best positioned universities. It should also be noted that the Campania University Luigi Vanvitelly is in 33rd place and is the institution that most recently started to publish in the JKM (2012). Finally, it is observed that only 24 per cent of universities are ranked in the top 300 of the Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU). In this same ranking stand, Stanford University and the University of Manchester are within the Top 50.
To continue characterizing the JKM, Table X shows the most productive and influential countries that normally, through their institutions and researchers, publish in the journal. The indicators that are presented by country are the total number of papers (TP), total number of citations (TC) and the h-index (H) and the productivity of each country during the four quinquenniums of the journal’s existence. Finally, Table X displays the quantity of papers and citations per million inhabitants. Note that the listing is organized by each country’s productivity, though in the case of a tie in productivity, the number of citations is presented.
According to the results presented in Table X, there is great diversity of countries that publish in the JKM. It should be noted that the scientific productivity of countries can vary depending on economic and/or political factors, among others (Gkypali et al., 2016; Ynalvez and Shrum, 2010). The USA, for example, is the country with the most investment in R&D. Therefore, it is not surprising that it leads the ranking of the most productive countries in JKM, with 229 papers. It is followed by the UK with 163 papers. It should also be noted that these countries occupy the most influential positions with an h-index of 39 and 34, respectively. In addition, these two countries have the largest number of papers in the top 50 most cited articles in the journal. Another interesting fact is that both the USA and the UK have had a high participation rate since the early years of the JKM. However, it is observed that both countries have significantly decreased their productivity in the final period. For example, the USA decreased 47 per cent of its productivity in the past five years (Q4). This is explained by the outstanding productivity of countries such as France, Italy, Malaysia and China, among others. Although it could also be explained by the internationalization of JKM. Finally, note that one of the most productive countries by inhabitant in the JKM is Liechtenstein, although this result is less significant given the population size of this country. Other countries highlighted in this regard are Iceland, Finland and New Zealand.
3.2 Science mapping analysis of Journal of Knowledge Management
The previous section presented some performance indicators of the JKM. To continue characterizing the JKM, this section carries out a science mapping analysis with the bibliographic material. This methodology tries to provide a spatial representation of how the different scientific actors of a dynamically changing field of knowledge relate to each other (Small, 1997). In addition it can be used as a complementary approach to bibliometric performance indicators (Cobo et al., 2012). Therefore, to obtain a more complete and complementary image of the results previously shown, the graphic mapping of the main scientific actors that publish in JKM are presented in this section.
To achieve this goal, this work uses VOSviewer software (van Eck and Waltman, 2010), which visualizes the bibliographic material through bibliographic coupling (Kessler, 1963, 1965), co-occurrence of keywords (Callon et al., 1983), and the analysis of citations and co-citations (Small, 1973). Note that the bibliographic coupling analyzes the papers they cite (Cobo et al., 2011). This occurs when two papers published in a journal cite the same third paper. In the figure, these two papers appear connected but not the third unless they also have a significant degree of bibliographic linkage through other papers. Therefore, for the purposes of this research, the bibliographic coupling will represent the highest productivity in JKM and shows how this research is connected with others (Merigó et al., 2016). On the other hand, the shared citations or co-citations study the cited papers and occur when two papers receive a citation by a third paper that has been published. The figure shows the two papers that have been cited by the article published in the journal but not the latter article. In the case of this study, the co-citation shows the most cited studies in JKM and their connections. The analysis of citations represents the sum of the citations that one scientific actor grants to another and vice versa. Finally, the generated maps are interpreted by observing the frequency, size and centrality of the analyzed factors.
We start this science mapping by referring to co-citation in the JKM. Remember that the purpose of co-citation is to detect when two documents from two different journals receive a citation of the same document from a third journal. The results in Figure 2 are presented with a threshold of 30 citations and the 100 most representative co-citation connections.
According to Figure 2, four clusters are visualized that distinguish the relationships of the journals most cited by JKM documents. Each of these clusters have a significant number of nodes. Note that JKM is the most cited magazine and has the largest network. These results are frequent in the analysis of journal co-citations since authors usually cite articles from the same source. Organization Science and Strategic Management Journal are equally well cited. Also note that most of the journals correspond to the management area and, to a lesser extent, to other areas of business, strategy and social sciences, such as information systems, human resources and sociology. This not only shows the interest of the different areas of business management in the KM field but also highlights the breadth of topics related to businesses that are published and cited in JKM.
To complement the analysis of Figure 2, Table XI presents the fifty most cited journals or books by documents published in the JKM. This table also presents the global position of the journals along with the temporal evolution of these during the two decades of JKM’s existence.
Another important issue is the analysis of the co-citation of authors most cited in the JKM. Figure 3 presents the data with a threshold of 50 citations and 100 co-citation connections among authors.
The results included in Figure 3 are similar to those presented in Table V, although this figure focuses on the most cited authors. Additionally, this figure sheds light on the connections network of authors. According to this, Nonaka has the most extensive network. This author is also the most cited in the JKM, followed by Takeuchi, von Krog and Davenport, among others. In the 20 years of JKM, these authors have become the core of the journal’s publications. Although it should also be mentioned that several of its documents are considered fundamental in the KM field. Finally, several researchers who have begun to generate research networks are observed in the periphery of the figure.
Another interesting topic to analyze and contrast with the results of the bibliometric performance analysis is the bibliographic coupling of the countries that publish in the journal. This will allow for the identification of the most productive countries that tend to use the same literature. Figure 4 shows the results considering a minimum threshold of five papers and the 50 most representative bibliographic link connections.
The results are consistent with what is shown in Table X. The figure shows how each one of the countries connects with others. It is also possible to clearly observe that the USA and the UK form two important nuclei of the journal. Their centrality and closeness indicate that they work on similar topics, which have influenced the development of documents from various countries, such as Australia, Spain, Italy, among others.
Similar to the previous analysis, Figure 5 shows the citations made between countries that have published in the JKM. The network shown in this figure represents the countries that are citing each other. In this sense, citations represent the sum between the citations that country A cites to country B and vice versa. In general, it is observed that the USA, the UK and Australia have an intense network of citations among them.
Figure 6 shows co-authorship relations between countries. Note that this figure shows the co-authorship relationships between the countries that publish in JKM. The results show that there is extensive collaboration between the UK and Australia. This finding could be explained by the historical links between Australia and the UK. Although the USA also has an extensive network of co-authorship with several other countries in the world. While it is true that an intense connection between the countries of the same region would be normal, Figure 6 shows in general, a lack of intensity of these relationships between countries, such as European or Latin American.
The following figures analyze the co-occurrence of keywords presented in JKM publications. It is important to remember that keywords are assigned by the authors and that the co-occurrence of keywords shows the frequency with which keywords appear next to others in published documents. Considering a wide perspective, Figure 7 presents the most used keywords and their distinct relationships in the documents published in the JKM. The size of the circles, which represent a keyword, are larger according to the relevance of this word in JKM. The results of Figure 7 are presented with a threshold of five occurrences and the top one hundred most frequent co-occurrences.
It is observed that the JKM uses a great variety of keywords. However, it is clearly observed that the words “Knowledge Management” are at the center of the figure and have the highest co-occurrence index in the JKM. Certainly, this result can be explained by the scientific domain of the journal. In addition, in the perimeter of the Figure there are other keywords that represent the amplitude of the emerging topics that have been published in JKM. It is expected, therefore, that JKM will promote research on these issues to continue explaining the different phenomena that affect the KM field.
Alternatively, Figures 8 and 9 present a longitudinal analysis of the concurrency of keywords in each of the decades of existence of the JKM. In performing this analysis, it is possible to identify the trends in different topics that have been published during the existence of the JKM. Likewise, this procedure prevents the overlapping of keywords.
Figure 8 presents the co-occurrence of keywords during the first decade of the JKM (1997-2006).
From this figure, it is observed that the words “Innovation”, “Intellectual Capital” and “Tacit Knowledge” are some of the words most used during the first decade of life of the JKM. As mentioned above, Figure 9 shows the most used keywords and their relationships during the second decade (2007-2016) of the JKM.
The figure shows that keywords such as “Knowledge Sharing”, “Knowledge Transfer”, “Innovation” and “Knowledge Creation”, have an intense relationship among them. These keywords are positioned as important topics during the second decade of the existence of the JKM. Table XII presents, in greater detail, the 50 most used keywords during the 20 years of the existence of the JKM. Notice that the results derived from Table XII are similar to those shown in Figures 7, 8 and 9.
The JKM focuses on the KM field, and in its 20 years of existence, it has managed to position itself as the main journal in this field of research (Serenko and Bontis, 2017). The objective of this work is to present a bibliometric analysis of all the scientific documents published by the journal during this period of time (1997-2016). The development of this study responds to a current gap in the journal, which does not have studies that analyze its own literature.
From a general perspective, this study provides an information base of the main theoretical and empirical references published during the 20 years of JKM. But in addition, it provides a methodology that researchers can replicate to obtain updated information from their respective fields of research. This article, therefore, is relevant for researchers of various disciplines, but particularly for those who follow the JKM journal, as well as those who are dedicated to the field of knowledge management.
By using the Scopus database, 1,068 JKM documents were collected and analyzed. The results were obtained from two procedures: first, a performance analysis involving both productivity and influence indicators, second, a science mapping analysis of the different actors that are linked to the JKM. Regarding the performance analysis, this paper presents indicators of productivity and the influence of the main countries, institutions and authors publishing in the JKM. The main indicators used were the number of articles, which represents productivity and the number of citations that represent influence. In addition, the h-index is used, which is a composite index, which seeks a balance between the number of citations and the number of publications.
According to the results, this work shows that the USA and the UK are strongly positioned and leads the publications in the JKM with the highest productivity and influence. Even so, both countries have decreased their publications in JKM in recent years. This is explained by the internationalization of JKM and by the increase in publications from new countries such as France, Italy, Malaysia or China, among others. At the continental level, Europe is widely dominant in the JKM, with 50 per cent of the most productive and influential universities and authors. In this sense, it is important to highlight the weak productivity of developing countries, such as Latin Americans. Therefore, to enrich the body of literature, JKM should devote efforts to promote the research of knowledge management in emerging economic contexts.
In relation to the analysis of the universities, it is observed that Cranfield University is the most productive institution and stands out for publishing in the first issues of the JKM. However, during the past 10 years and according to the number of citations and the h-index, Griffith University has become an influential institution in JKM. As for the authors, we can mention that Serenko and Bontis are the most productive and influential authors publishing in the journal. It is also worth noting that the JKM’s most cited article, entitled “Motivation and barriers to participation in virtual knowledge-sharing communities of practice”, was authored by Ardichvili, Page and Wentling. Finally, although this work highlights the authors of the most cited documents and the most productive authors who of JKM, many other authors from different parts of the world have published in the journal. Therefore, this work is also an acknowledgment to all the researchers who have collaborated in these 20 years of JKM.
To conduct the task of the science mapping analysis, this work uses VOSviewer software. This technique is more advanced than data counting techniques since it allows more sophisticated interpretation. This paper shows the publication structure of authors, universities and countries by using co-citation, bibliographic coupling, citation, co-authorship and co-occurrence of keywords. The results are consistent with performance analysis. In general, this analysis confirms that documents from the USA and the UK are followed and cited by authors from countries, such as Australia, Spain, Italy, among other. This has made them the most influential countries in the JKM literature. It is also worth noting that JKM presents a high level of self-citation, although this practice is normal in most journals. Even so, some explanations for this phenomenon are, for example, the influence exerted by some leads researchers who have published in the journal (Riege, Serenko, Bontis, among others) and the leadership exercised by JKM in the KM field. Another issue, not less important, is to highlight the influence in JKM of some authors such as Nonaka, Takeuchi, von Krogh, Davenport, among others. Many of the works of these authors (Davenport and Prusak, 1998; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Polanyi, 1966) are considered fundamental for the KM field. Finally, the mapping of science ends with a mapping of the most frequent keywords in JKM and the co-occurrence between them. Although a temporary analysis by decade of the most used keywords in JKM is also presented. This analysis shows that the authors of the JKM publish on various topics related mainly to the general concept of “Knowledge Management”. However, from a longitudinal science mapping perspective, this study shows that the authors have recently become interested in new topics, such as Knowledge Sharing, Knowledge Transfer, Innovation, Knowledge creation, among several others.
Finally, as in other studies, this paper has some limitations. First, the data are obtained from the Scopus database, whose limitations are transferred to this study. One of these limitations is, for example, the complete counting system in which papers attributed to multiple authors or affiliations tend to be more important in the analysis compared to those papers that appear with a single author. The science mapping made with the VOSviewer is used to neutralize this limitation since it uses a fractional counting system. The similarity and consistency between the results obtained from the analysis of performance and the science mapping allow us to conclude that there is no significant deviation between the two methods of counting. Still, it would be interesting to use other software, such as Histcite, Pajek or SCiMat, which can deliver information complementary to the data delivered by this paper (Zhou et al., 2018). Third, the breadth of topics and disciplines in JKM has been evidenced. In this sense, some topics may receive more attention than others regardless of their relevance. Fourth, the different analysis about the authors are made based on their signature. However, over the years, some authors can sign their documents in different ways and may produce important biases in this type of analysis. In practice, we suggest that researchers register on digital platforms, such as ORCID (Open Researcher and Contributor ID). This type of platform provides a unique digital identifier that would solve the aforementioned complications. Fifth, the change of institution of the authors or the double affiliation at the time of publication, could also generate difficulty when analyzing the data. In this study, we have been cautious with these limitations. Finally, while the results give a picture of the current situation, the information presented in this study could change over time. In fact, we have presented evidence that confirms the variation of the topics of interest in the journal’s 20 years. Remember that some of the younger documents could include new topics or significantly increase your number of appointments over the years. Therefore, for future research, we recommend a periodic update of this study to improve the understanding of new trends in the JKM.
Annual productivity of the JKM
|Decade 1||1997||Vol 1||9||8||8||8||33||33||4||4|
|Decade 2||2007||Vol 11||12||9||11||13||13||11||69||484||6||52|
The issue column (N), shows the number of papers by issue
Sources: Web page of JKM; Abbreviations: TP: total papers; AP: accumulated publications; TI: total issues; AI: accumulated issues
Annual citation structure of the JKM
Abbreviations: TP and TC: total papers and citations; ≥200, ≥100, ≥50, ≥20, ≥10, ≥5 and ≥1: number of papers with equal or more than 200, 100, 50, 20, 10, 5, 1 and 0 citations (without accumulating documents from previous thresholds); H = h-index; TC/TP: number the citations per paper; IF: impact factor of the Journal Citation Reports
Total authors per paper
|Year||TP||No. of researchers|
Abbreviations available in Table I, except for CR: research with co-authorship (sum of papers with two or more researchers, do not include singles authors); TAY: total authors by years in JKM; ACR: Average number of authors per year in manuscript with coauthored
The most-cited documents in the JKM
|R||Title||Name of authors||YFT||AGE||TC||TC/AGE|
|1||Motivation and barriers to participation in virtual knowledge-sharing communities of practice||Ardichvili A., Page V., Wentling T||2003||13||666||51.23|
|2||Overcoming cultural barriers to sharing knowledge||McDermott R., O’Dell C||2001||15||485||32.33|
|3||Three-dozen knowledge-sharing barriers managers must consider||Riege A||2005||11||437||39.72|
|4||Knowledge management in organizations: Examining the interaction between technologies, techniques, and people||Bhatt, G.D||2001||15||421||28.06|
|5||Complex acts of knowing: Paradox and descriptive self-awareness||Snowden, D||2002||14||405||28.92|
|6||Knowledge management and innovation: Networks and networking||Swan, J., Newell, S., Scarbrough, H., Hislop, D||1999||17||375||22.05|
|7||Managing effective knowledge transfer: An integrative framework and some practice implications||Goh S.C||2002||14||339||24.21|
|8||Knowledge sharing in context: The influence of organizational commitment, communication climate and CMC use on knowledge sharing||Van Den Hooff, B., Ridder, J.A||2004||12||318||26.50|
|9||Knowledge management, innovation and firm performance||Darroch J||2005||11||292||26.54|
|10||Managing organizational knowledge as a strategic asset||Bollinger, A.S., Smith, R.D||2001||15||286||19.06|
|11||Knowledge Management: An Introduction and Perspective||Wiig, K.M||1997||19||255||13.42|
|12||The role of tacit and explicit knowledge in the workplace||Smith, E.A||2001||15||246||16.40|
|13||How does knowledge management influence innovation and competitiveness?||Carneiro, A||2000||16||227||14.18|
|14||Organizational culture and knowledge sharing: Critical success factors||Al-Alawi A.I., Al-Marzooqi N.Y., Mohammed Y.F||2007||9||220||24.47|
|15||Knowledge management initiatives: Learning from failure||Storey, J., Barnett, E||2000||16||217||13.56|
|16||A critical review of knowledge management as a management tool||Mártensson, M||2000||16||213||13.31|
|17||Cultural influences on knowledge sharing through online communities of practice||Ardichvili A., Maurer M., Li W., Wentling T., Stuedemann R||2006||10||205||20.50|
|18||Knowledge-enabled customer relationship management: Integrating customer relationship management and knowledge management concepts||Gebert, H., Geib, M., Kolbe, L., Brenner, W||2003||13||202||15.53|
|19||An empirical study of the important factors for knowledge-management adoption in the SME sector||Wong K.Y., Aspinwall E||2005||11||200||18.18|
|20||Strategies for implementing knowledge management: Role of human resources management||Soliman, F., Spooner, K||2000||16||194||12.12|
|21||Reviewing the knowledge management literature: Towards a taxonomy||Kakabadse N.K., Kakabadse A., Kouzmin A||2003||13||192||14.76|
|22||The role of knowledge management in innovation||du Plessis M||2007||9||188||20.88|
|23||Knowledge management in a public organization: A study on the relationship between organizational elements and the performance of knowledge transfer||Omar Sharifuddin Syed-Ikhsan S., Rowland F||2004||12||186||15.50|
|24||Sense-making theory and practice: an overview of user interests in knowledge seeking and use||Dervin B||1998||18||184||10.22|
|25||Web 2.0 implications on knowledge management||Levy M||2009||7||184||26.28|
|26||Collaborative climate and effectiveness of knowledge work – an empirical study||Sveiby, K.-E., Simons, R||2002||14||178||12.71|
|27||A resource-based view of organizational knowledge management systems||Meso, P., Smith, R||2000||16||176||11.00|
|28||Harmonisation of knowledge management – comparing 160 KM frameworks around the globe||Heisig P||2009||7||175||25.00|
|29||Managing human resources toward achieving knowledge management||Yahya, S., Goh, W.-K||2002||14||171||12.21|
|30||Organisational factors and knowledge management within large marketing departments: An empirical study||Bennett, R., Gabriel, H||1999||17||170||10.00|
|31||SME and large organisation perceptions of knowledge management: Comparisons and contrasts||Mcadam, R., Reid, R||2001||15||170||11.33|
|32||Developing a measure of knowledge management behaviors and practices||Darroch, J||2003||13||168||12.92|
|33||Characterizing knowledge management in the small business environment||Wong K.Y., Aspinwall E||2004||12||167||13.91|
|34||Integrating knowledge management technologies in organizational business processes: Getting real time enterprises to deliver real business performance||Malhotra, Y||2005||11||167||15.18|
|35||Knowledge management and organizational performance: An exploratory analysis||Zack M., McKeen J., Singh S||2009||7||167||23.85|
|36||Communities of practice in the distributed international environment||Hildreth P., Kimble C., Wright P||2000||16||165||10.31|
|37||The knowledge management spectrum – understanding the KM landscape||Binney D||2001||15||165||11.00|
|38||Knowledge management at SMEs: Five peculiarities||Desouza K.C., Awazu Y||2006||10||161||10.06|
|39||Towards knowledge networking||Seufert, A., Von Krogh, G., Bach, A||1999||17||149||8.76|
|40||A Socio-Technical View of Knowledge Sharing at Buckman Laboratories||Pan, S.L., Scarbrough, H||1998||18||147||8.16|
|41||Organizing knowledge in the knowledge development cycle||Bhatt, G.D||1999||17||143||8.41|
|42||The transfer of knowledge and the retention of expertise: The continuing need for global assignments||Bender, S, Fish, A||2000||16||141||8.81|
|43||Questions in knowledge management: Defining and conceptualising a phenomenon||Uit Beijerse R.P||1999||17||140||8.23|
|44||Knowledge management in small and medium-sized companies: Knowledge management for entrepreneurs||Beijerse, R.P.U||2000||16||136||8.50|
|45||Managing knowledge: The link between culture and organizational learning||Pérez-López, S., Montes-Peón, J.M., Vázquez-Ordás, C.J||2004||12||135||11.25|
|46||Determinants of knowledge sharing using Web 2.0 technologies||Paroutis S., Saleh A.A||2009||7||134||19.14|
|47||The Knowledge Agenda||Skyrme D., Amidon D||1997||19||128||6.73|
|48||Knowledge, Creativity and Innovation||Gurteen D||1998||18||128||7.11|
|49||Integrating complexity theory, knowledge management and organizational learning||McElroy, M.W||2000||16||123||7.68|
|50||Why KM projects fail: a multi-case analysis||Chua A., Lam W||2005||11||124||11.27|
Abbreviations: R: rank; YFP: year first publication; AGE = (Current year: 2016) -YFP); TC: total citations; TC/AGE: citations per year
Most cited documents in JKM publications
|1||Nonaka, I., Takeuchi, H., (1995); The knowledge creating company; Oxford University Press||B||300||256|
|2||Davenport, T., Prusak, L., (1998); Working knowledge: how organizations manage what they know; Harvard Business School Press||B||151||149|
|3||Nonaka, I., A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation (1994); Organization Science, 5 (1), pp. 14-37||A||137||137|
|4||Alavi, M., Leidner, D.E., Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: conceptual foundations and research issues (2001); MIS Quarterly, 25 (1), pp. 107-136||A||101||101|
|5||Cohen, W., Levinthal, D., Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation (1990); Administrative Science Quarterly, 35 (1), pp. 128-152||A||96||96|
|6||Grant, R.M., Toward a knowledge based theory of the firm (1996); Strategic Management J, 17, pp. 109-122||A||76||76|
|7||Nahapiet, J., Ghoshal, S., Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage (1998); Academy of Management Review, 23 (2), pp. 242-266||A||67||61|
|8||Barney, J., Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage (1991); J Management, 17 (1), pp. 99-120||A||66||4|
|9||Kogut, B., Zander, U., Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology (1992); Organization Science, 3 (3), pp. 383-397||A||65||64|
|10||Gold, A., Malhotra, A., Segars, A., Knowledge management: an organizational capabilities perspective (2001); J Management Information Systems, 18 (1), pp. 185-214||A||59||59|
|11||Szulanski, G., Exploring internal stickiness: impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm (1996); Strategic Management J, 17, pp. 27-43||A||56||56|
|12||Polanyi, M., (1966); The tacit dimension; Routledge & Kegan Paul||B||49||44|
|13||Nonaka, I., The knowledge creating company (1991); Harvard Business Review, 69 (6), pp. 96-104||A||44||42|
|14||Hansen, M.T., Nohria, N., Tierney, T., What’s your strategy for managing knowledge? (1999); Harvard Business Review, 77 (2), pp. 106-116||A||40||40|
|15||Lave, J., Wenger, E., (1991); Situated Learning: legitimate peripheral participation; Cambridge University Press||B||40||39|
|16||Teece, D., Pisano, G., Shuen, A., Dynamic capabilities and strategic management (1997); Strategic Management J, 18 (7), pp. 509-533||A||40||38|
|17||Hansen, M.T., The search-transfer problem: the role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits (1999); Administrative Science Quarterly, 44 (1), pp. 82-111||A||35||35|
|18||Zack, M., Developing a knowledge strategy (1999); California Management Review, 41 (3), pp. 125-145||A||35||35|
|19||Argote, L., Ingram, P., knowledge transfer: a basis for competitive advantage in firms (2000); Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82 (1), pp. 150-169||A||33||33|
|20||Podsakoff, P.M., Mackenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y., Podsakoff, N.P., Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies (2003); J Applied Psychology, 88 (5), pp. 879-903||A||32||32|
|21||Nonaka, I., Konno, N., The concept of ‘ba’: building a foundation for knowledge creation (1998); California Management Review, 40 (3), pp. 40-54||A||31||29|
|23||Wenger, E., (1998); Communities of practice: learning, meaning and identity; Cambridge University Press||B||31||30|
|24||Grant, R.M., Prospering in dynamically-competitive environments: organizational capability as knowledge integration (1996); Organization Science, 7 (4), pp. 375-387||A||30||28|
|25||March, J., Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning (1991); Organization Science, 2 (1), pp. 71-87||A||30||30|
|26||Granovetter, M., The strength of weak ties (1973); American J Sociology, 78 (6), pp. 1360-1380||A||29||29|
|27||Nonaka, I., Toyama, R., Konno, N., SECI, ba and leadership: a unified model of dynamic knowledge creation (2000); Long Range Planning, 33 (1), pp. 5-34||A||28||27|
|28||Bock, G.W., Zmud, R.W., Kim, Y.G., Lee, J.-N., Behavioral intention formation in knowledge sharing: examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-psychological forces, and organizational climate (2005); MIS Quarterly, 29 (1), pp. 87-111||A||27||27|
|29||Lee, H., Choi, B., Knowledge management enablers, processes, and organizational performance: an integrative view and empirical examination (2003); J Management Information Systems, 20 (1), pp. 179-228||A||27||27|
|30||Nelson, R., Winter, S., (1982); An evolutionary theory of economic change; Belknap Press||B||27||26|
|31||Wernerfelt, B., A resource-based view of the firm (1984); Strategic Management J, 5 (2), pp. 171-180||A||27||27|
|32||Spender, J.C., Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the firm (1996); Strategic Management J, 17, pp. 45-62||A||26||26|
|33||Von Krogh, G., Care in knowledge creation (1998); California Management Review, 40 (3), pp. 133-153||A||26||25|
|34||Argote, L., McEvily, B., Reagans, R., Managing knowledge in organizations: an integrative framework and review of emerging themes (2003); Management Science, 49 (4), pp. 571-582||A||25||25|
|35||McDermott, R., O’Dell, c., Overcoming cultural barriers to sharing knowledge (2001); J Knowledge Management, 5 (1), pp. 76-85||A||25||24|
|36||Wasko, M., Faraj, S., Why should i share? examining social capital and knowledge contribution in electronic networks of practice (2005); MIS Quarterly, 29 (1), pp. 35-57||A||25||25|
|37||Zack, M.H., Managing codified knowledge (1999); Sloan Management Review, 40 (4), pp. 45-58||A||25||24|
|38||Gupta, A.K., Govindarajan, V., Knowledge flows within multinational corporations (2000); Strategic Management J, 21 (4), pp. 473-496||A||24||24|
|39||Riege, A., Three-dozen knowledge-sharing barriers managers must consider (2005); J Knowledge Management, 9 (3), pp. 18-35||A||24||24|
|40||Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error (1981); J Marketing Research, 18 (1), pp. 39-50||A||23||23|
|41||Ruggles, R., The state of the notion: knowledge management in practice (1998); California Management Review, 40 (3), pp. 80-89||A||23||21|
|42||Serenko, A., Bontis, N., Global ranking of knowledge management and intellectual capital academic journals (2009); J Knowledge Management, 13 (1), pp. 4-15||A||23||22|
|43||Davenport, T.H., De Long, D.W., Beers, M.C., Successful knowledge management projects (1998); Sloan Management Review, 39 (2), pp. 43-57||A||21||5|
|44||Wang, S., Noe, R.A., Knowledge Sharing: a review and directions for future research (2010); Human Resource Management Review, 20 (2), pp. 115-131||A||21||21|
|45||Zahra, S.A., George, G., Absorptive capacity: a review, reconceptualization, and extension (2002); Academy Management Review, 27 (2), pp. 185-203||A||21||21|
|46||Cabrera, A., Collins, W.C., Salgado, J.F., Determinants of individual engagement in knowledge sharing (2006); International J Human Resource Management, 17 (2), pp. 245-264||A||20||20|
|47||De Long, D.W., Fahey, L., Diagnosing cultural barriers to knowledge management (2000); Academy Management Executive, 14 (4), pp. 113-127||A||20||20|
|48||Earl, M., Knowledge management strategies: toward a taxonomy (2001); J Management Information Systems, 18 (1), pp. 215-233||A||20||19|
|49||Zander, U., Kogut, B., Knowledge and the speed of the transfer and imitation of organizational capabilities: an empirical test (1995); Organization Science, 6 (1), pp. 76-92||A||20||20|
|50||Eisenhardt, K.M., Building theories from case study research (1989); Academy Management Review, 14 (4), pp. 532-550||A||19||19|
Abbreviations: Type (A: article; B: book); TLS: total link strength
Citing articles of the JKM: Journals
|1||Journal of Knowledge Management||557||17||91||182||267|
|2||Knowledge Management Research and Practice||132||0||8||44||81|
|3||Proceedings of the European Conference on Knowledge Management||103||0||19||84||0|
|5||Journal of Information and Knowledge Management||96||0||11||28||57|
|6||Journal of Intellectual Capital||81||5||10||18||48|
|7||International Journal of Knowledge Management||79||0||0||27||52|
|8||Knowledge and Process Management||72||0||0||17||55|
|10||International Journal of Knowledge Based Development||63||0||0||18||45|
|11||Expert Systems with Applications||61||0||5||22||34|
|12||Computers in Human Behavior||58||0||0||8||50|
|15||International Journal of Knowledge Management Studies||51||0||2||22||27|
|16||Industrial Management and Data Systems||46||0||3||17||26|
|17||International Journal of Information Management||46||0||0||15||31|
|18||Business Process Management Journal||44||0||4||17||23|
|19||Journal of Business Research||44||0||1||2||41|
|20||International Journal of Innovation and Learning||41||0||2||24||15|
|21||International Journal of Technology Management||38||0||6||20||12|
|22||Asian Social Science||36||0||0||1||35|
|23||International Journal of Project Management||35||0||1||4||30|
|24||International Journal of Knowledge Management||33||0||17||16||0|
|25||International Journal of Knowledge Culture and Change Management||31||0||0||23||8|
|26||Knowledge Management and E Learning||29||0||0||6||23|
|27||Service Industries Journal||28||0||0||12||16|
|28||International Journal of Knowledge and Learning||27||0||3||14||10|
|29||World Applied Sciences Journal||27||0||0||3||24|
|30||Information and Management||25||0||1||3||21|
|31||International Journal of Human Resource Management||25||0||1||8||16|
|32||International Journal of Innovation Management||25||0||0||4||21|
|33||Decision Support Systems||24||1||1||6||16|
|34||Journal of Enterprise Information Management||24||0||3||10||11|
|35||International Journal of Business Information Systems||23||0||0||9||14|
|36||Journal of Workplace Learning||23||1||6||8||8|
|37||International Business Management||22||0||0||0||22|
|38||International Journal of Production Research||22||0||0||5||17|
|39||Iranian Journal of Information Processing Management||22||0||0||0||22|
|40||Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management||22||0||2||5||15|
|41||International Journal of Learning and Intellectual Capital||21||0||2||12||7|
|42||Journal of Information Science||21||1||1||13||6|
|43||Total Quality Management and Business Excellence||20||0||2||9||9|
|44||Technological Forecasting and Social Change||19||0||0||7||12|
|46||International Journal of Business Innovation and Research||18||0||0||7||11|
|47||International Journal of Managing Projects in Business||18||0||0||4||14|
|48||Journal of Management Development||18||0||3||5||10|
|49||Management Research Review||18||0||0||5||13|
|50||Perspectivas em Ciencia da Informacao||18||0||0||10||8|
Abbreviations available in Table II, except for Q = quiquennium: number of papers published in the JKM in the period considered (Q1: 1997-2001; Q2: 2002-2006; Q3: 2007-2011; Q4: 2012-2016)
Citing articles classified by year, authors, universities and countries
|1||2016||1,192||Bontis, N||41||U. Tech. Malaysia||73||USA||1056|
|2||2015||979||Akhavan, P||30||Multimedia U||66||UK||984|
|3||2014||827||Serenko, A||28||Islamic Azad U||66||Australia||560|
|4||2013||752||Yigitcanlar, T||26||Hong Kong Polytechnic U||62||China||500|
|5||2012||703||Ooi, K.B||23||Loughborough U||60||Spain||471|
|6||2011||562||Metaxiotis, K||21||U. Tehran||60||Malaysia||403|
|7||2010||505||Grimaldi, M||20||Queensland U. Tech||58||Taiwan||343|
|8||2009||427||Kant, R||20||McMaster U||55||Canada||342|
|9||2008||332||Cegarra-Navarro, J.G||18||U. Tech. Lappeenranta||50||Iran||297|
|10||2007||226||Chong, S.C||18||Tampere U. Technology||48||Italy||281|
|11||2006||153||Ergazakis, K||18||U. Malaya||46||Finland||269|
|12||2005||106||Wong, K.Y||18||Nanyang Tech. U||46||India||257|
|13||2004||102||Soto-Acosta, P||17||McMaster U||44||Germany||219|
|14||2003||65||Cricelli, L||16||U. Valencia||44||Brazil||213|
|15||2002||57||Kianto, A||16||City U. Hong Kong||44||Netherlands||173|
|16||2001||39||Schiuma, G||16||RMIT U||43||Sweden||154|
|17||2000||14||Lin, B||15||Cranfield U||43||South Korea||145|
|18||1999||1||Bolisani, E||14||Griffith U||42||France||144|
|19||1998||5||Lytras, M.D||14||U. Manchester||42||Greece||130|
|20||1997||3||McAdam, R||14||U. Granada||41||New Zealand||119|
|21||–||–||Scarso, E||14||Northern U. Malaysia||40||South Africa||105|
|22||–||–||Carrillo, F.J||13||National Cheng Kung U||37||Singapore||89|
|23||–||–||Durst, S||13||U. Stud Padova||36||Turkey||88|
|24||–||–||Jafari, M||13||Tech. Monterrey||36||Portugal||87|
|25||–||–||Lin, H.F||13||U. Murcia||35||Thailand||85|
|26||–||–||Lönnqvist, A||13||U. Sao Paulo - USP||34||Denmark||82|
|27||–||–||Oliveira, M||13||National Tech. U. Athens||33||Norway||77|
|28||–||–||Singh, M.D||13||U. Politec Valencia||33||Mexico||67|
|29||–||–||Andreeva, T||12||Brunel U. London||33||Ireland||66|
|30||–||–||Chua, A.Y.K||12||Aston U||33||Pakistan||63|
|31||–||–||Chong, C.W||11||Ulster U||33||Austria||63|
|32||–||–||Gonzalez, R.V.D||11||Iran U. Science and Tech||32||United Arab Emirates||61|
|33||–||–||Laihonen, H||11||U. Putra Malaysia||32||Japan||59|
|34||–||–||Psarras, J||11||U. Federal Santa Catarina||31||Poland||59|
|35||–||–||Tseng, S.M||11||U. Queensland||31||Switzerland||58|
|36||–||–||Boateng, H||10||Lakehead U||31||Indonesia||56|
|37||–||–||Colomo-Palacios, R||10||Deakin U||31||Slovenia||55|
|38||–||–||Davison, R.M||10||MARA U. Tech||30||Saudi Arabia||51|
|39||–||–||Edwards, J.S||10||National U. Singapore||30||Israel||47|
|40||–||–||Koskinen, K.U||10||Aalto U||30||Jordan||46|
|41||–||–||Lee, G.G||10||U. Oulu||29||Lithuania||44|
|42||–||–||Martins, M.F||10||U. Sevilla||29||Colombia||43|
|43||–||–||Rowley, J||10||U. Oviedo||29||Russian Federation||40|
|44||–||–||Tsui, E||10||U. Salford||29||Nigeria||38|
|45||–||–||Urbancová, H||10||U. Science Malaysia||29||Belgium||37|
|46||–||–||Dumay, J||9||National U. Malaysia||28||Egypt||33|
|47||–||–||Grandinetti, R||9||U. Nottingham||28||Czech Republic||33|
|48||–||–||Holsapple, C.W||9||Payame Noor U||28||Romania||23|
|49||–||–||Lee, V.H||9||Copenhagen Business Sch||28||Vietnam||22|
|50||–||–||Lin, C||9||U. South Australia||28||Ghana||20|
Abbreviations available in Table II
Most-productive and influential authors publishing in the JKM
|R||Author Name||University||C||TP||JKM||General description|
|1||Serenko, A||Lakehead U||CAN||12||9||1||2007||380||32||10||1||246||86||1978||23||24||1403||34|
|2||Bontis, N||McMaster U||CAN||11||3||0||2003||364||33||8||1||259||105||4991||48||30||3304||91|
|3||Carrillo, F.J||Tech. Monterrey||MEX||9||2||5||1997||65||7||6||0||46||32||145||5||7||106||17|
|4||Chase, R.L||Milton Keynes Council||UK||8||0||8||2006||178||18||3||0||178||12||178||15||3||171||0|
|5||Metaxiotis, K||U. Piraeus||GRE||7||2||0||2004||179||26||6||1||149||113||1146||10||17||958||64|
|6||Sun, P.Y.T||U. Waikato||NZL||6||1||1||2005||199||33||4||1||192||15||359||24||10||342||6|
|7||Ergazakis, K||National Tech. U. Athens||GRE||6||3||0||2004||173||29||6||1||146||41||442||11||12||362||27|
|8||Massingham, P||U. Wollongong||AUS||6||1||4||2004||107||18||5||0||100||18||183||10||7||168||8|
|9||Schiuma, G||U. Arts London||UK||5||2||0||2008||148||30||5||0||128||83||1655||20||22||1315||39|
|10||Kianto, A||U. Tech. Lappeeranta||FIN||5||1||0||2011||142||28||3||0||133||47||548||12||12||429||40|
|11||McAdam, R||Ulster U||UK||5||3||0||2001||112||22||5||0||108||174||2371||14||25||2118||111|
|12||Shariq, S.Z||Stanford U||USA||5||0||3||1997||28||6||3||0||26||9||36||4||3||33||10|
|13||Chatzkel, J||Mayfield Village||USA||5||0||5||2002||17||3||3||0||17||20||97||5||5||89||6|
|14||Riege, A||E.ON Düsseldorf||DEU||4||1||2||2005||586||147||4||1||563||8||714||89||6||690||6|
|15||Chua, A.Y.K||Nanyang Tech. U||SGP||4||2||1||2005||235||59||5||1||234||135||1565||12||22||1347||63|
|16||Heisig, P||U. App. Sci. Potsdam||DEU||4||1||1||2004||195||49||2||1||192||22||255||12||5||247||39|
|17||Yigitcanlar, T||Queensland U. Tech||AUS||4||2||1||2007||195||49||4||1||140||103||1041||10||17||526||82|
|18||Lytras, M.D||American College Greece||GRE||4||2||1||2002||150||38||3||0||147||130||1222||9||20||887||117|
|19||Psarras, J||National Tech. U. Athens||GRE||4||0||0||2004||142||36||4||1||130||224||2723||12||26||2090||146|
|20||Herschel, R.T||U. Philadelphia||USA||4||2||0||2001||95||24||4||0||95||17||385||23||8||375||19|
|21||Wiig, K.M||Knowledge Research Inst||USA||4||0||4||1997||90||23||4||0||90||19||787||41||9||743||12|
|22||Senoo, D||Tokyo Inst. Tech||JPN||4||0||0||2008||84||21||3||0||80||29||405||14||7||383||26|
|23||Magnier-Watanabe, R||U. Tsukuba||JPN||4||3||0||2008||81||20||3||0||78||30||165||6||7||154||16|
|24||Lee, W.B||Hong Kong Polytechnic U||HKG||4||0||0||2005||68||17||3||0||65||431||5813||13||42||4325||42|
|25||Petruzzelli, A.M||Polytech Bari||ITA||4||3||1||2007||60||15||4||0||54||52||509||10||14||385||26|
|26||Mentzas, G||National Tech. U. Athens||GRE||4||0||0||2004||57||14||3||0||57||183||1483||8||19||1349||140|
|27||Sáenz, J||U. Deusto||ESP||4||2||0||2006||54||14||3||0||53||25||175||7||6||167||12|
|28||Scarso, E||U. Padua Studies||ITA||4||1||0||2009||50||13||3||0||49||49||296||6||9||269||18|
|29||Bolisani, E||U. Padua Studies||ITA||4||2||0||2009||50||13||3||0||49||59||301||5||8||271||33|
|30||Dumay, J||Macquarie U||AUS||4||0||0||2015||49||12||5||0||33||53||1092||21||17||543||42|
|31||López-Sáez, P||U. Complutense Madrid||ESP||4||1||0||2010||48||12||4||0||48||21||310||15||8||303||13|
|32||Giudice, M.D||Paris Sch. Business||FRA||4||2||0||2014||35||9||3||0||30||8||47||6||3||38||10|
|33||Smith, A.D||Robert Morris U||USA||4||2||2||2002||27||7||3||0||27||200||1646||8||21||1063||29|
|34||Suh, E||Pohang U. Science and Tech||KOR||4||0||0||2003||27||7||2||0||26||46||1338||29||15||1239||50|
|35||Millar, C.C.J.M||Hult International Business Sch||USA||4||2||0||2004||26||7||2||0||26||41||245||6||7||239||38|
|36||Wong, K.Y||U. Malaysia Tech||MAL||3||2||0||2004||453||151||5||1||418||143||2118||15||20||1764||137|
|37||Levy, M||Bar-Ilan U||ISR||3||0||3||2009||246||82||3||1||244||4||246||62||3||244||0|
|38||Kimble, C||KEDGE Business Sch||FRA||3||1||0||2000||244||81||3||1||236||67||748||11||11||684||42|
|39||Awazu, Y||Lille U||FRA||3||0||1||2004||198||66||2||1||198||32||505||16||13||487||19|
|40||Andreeva, T||Polytech. Bari||IRL||3||2||0||2011||164||55||3||1||156||22||231||11||6||209||17|
|41||Bhatt, G.D||Morgan State U||USA||3||0||3||2000||139||46||3||1||128||25||1022||41||13||971||16|
|42||Durst, S||U. Skovde||SWE||3||2||0||2012||133||44||2||1||120||36||226||6||7||191||39|
|43||Liebowitz, J||Harrisburg U. Science Tech||USA||3||0||2||2000||110||37||2||1||110||115||1413||12||20||1326||83|
|44||Rowley, J||Manchester Metropolitan U||UK||3||0||0||2010||105||35||3||0||92||219||3512||16||32||3220||88|
|45||Eppler, M.J||U. St. Gallen||SWI||3||2||0||2007||94||31||3||1||93||75||1697||23||15||1519||48|
|46||Ganesh, L.S||Indian Inst. Tech||IND||3||0||0||2009||88||29||2||0||88||31||961||31||30||900||30|
|47||Lerro, A||U. Basilicata||ITA||3||2||0||2008||82||27||3||0||75||30||305||10||10||249||10|
|48||Murray, A||Applied Knowledge Sciences||USA||3||0||0||2004||69||23||3||0||69||7||80||11||4||78||6|
|49||Stankosky, M||Hong Kong Polytech. U||CHI||3||0||0||2004||69||23||3||0||69||32||171||5||7||171||22|
|50||Ordóñez de Pablos, P||U. Oviedo||ESP||3||2||1||2002||65||22||3||0||65||169||1132||7||20||817||131|
Abbreviations available in Table IV except for LA: lead author; SA: single author; C/P = citation per paper; H = h-index; Top 50 = papers among the fifty most cited; C-JKM: cited by the JKM; C-G: cited generally; CA: total co-authors; countries (AUS: Australia; CAN: Canada; CHE: Switzerland; CHI: China; DEU: Germany; ESP: Spain; FIN: Finland; FRA: France; GRC: Greece; IND: India; IRL: Ireland; ISR: Israel; ITA: Italy; JPN: Japan; KOR: South Korea; MEX: Mexico; MYS: Malaysia; NZL: New Zealand; SGP: Singapore; SWE: Sweden; UK: United Kingdom; USA: United States)
The productive and influential institutions publishing in the JKM
|4||Nanyang Tech. U||SGP||2001||12||320||11||27||1||0||3||8||0||101-150||13||1|
|5||Hong Kong Polytechnic U||CHI||2005||11||251||8||23||0||0||5||4||1||301-400||116||–|
|9||National Technical U. Athens||GRE||2001||10||231||8||23||0||1||2||6||1||–||376||1|
|11||Queensland U. Tech||AUS||2004||9||284||7||32||0||3||1||4||1||201-300||263||1|
|12||Copenhagen Business Sch||DNK||1999||9||159||7||18||0||0||2||6||1||–||–||–|
|15||Lappeenranta U. Tech||FIN||2002||8||158||4||20||0||2||0||1||5||–||–||1|
|18||George Washington U||USA||2004||7||171||7||24||0||1||2||3||1||301-400||327||–|
|21||Tampere U. Tech||FIN||2003||7||83||6||12||0||0||1||5||1||–||356||–|
|22||Japan Advanced Inst. Sci. Tech||JPN||2003||7||176||6||25||0||0||3||3||1||–||–||–|
|25||Stockholm Sch. Economics||SWE||2000||7||91||5||13||0||0||1||4||2||–||–||–|
|26||U. Tech. Sydney||AUS||2000||7||76||5||11||0||0||2||4||1||301-400||218||–|
|27||U. St. Gallen||SWI||1999||7||239||6||34||0||2||1||3||1||–||329||1|
|28||Victoria U. Wellington||NZL||2003||6||116||5||19||0||1||0||4||0||301-400||229||–|
|34||U. Campania Luigi Vanvitelli||ITA||2012||6||57||4||10||0||0||1||2||3||–||–||–|
|35||U. Complutense Madrid||ESP||2010||6||86||5||14||0||0||0||6||0||301-400||226||–|
|36||SKEMA Business Sch||FRA||2004||6||95||4||16||0||1||0||3||1||–||–||–|
|37||U. Castilla-La Mancha||ESP||2011||5||125||5||25||0||1||0||4||0||–||–||–|
|39||Vrije U. Amsterdam||NDL||2007||5||114||4||23||0||1||1||2||1||–||176||–|
|40||Morgan State U||USA||2000||5||197||5||39||0||1||2||1||1||–||–||1|
|41||Brunel U. London||UK||2001||5||41||3||8||0||0||1||1||2||401-500||331||–|
|43||U. North Texas||USA||2008||5||91||5||18||0||1||0||4||0||301-400||–||–|
|48||Korea Advanced Inst. Sci & Tech||KOR||2005||5||133||3||27||0||1||1||1||1||201-300||43||–|
|49||Chalmers U. Tech||SWE||2006||4||102||4||25||0||1||1||2||0||201-300||132||–|
|50||U. Sao Paulo||BRA||2012||4||67||4||17||0||0||1||2||1||101-150||143||–|
Temporal evolution of the publications classified by country
|5||China (Hong Kong)||47||825||17||17,55||1||17||8||252||14||350||24||206||0,0||0,60||–|
|32||United Arab Emirates||6||52||5||8,67||0||0||2||13||2||19||2||20||0,6||5,61||–|
Most cited journals and books in the JKM
|1||Journal of Knowledge Management||3257||2497||Strategic Management Journal||408||339||Journal of Knowledge Management||2528||1922|
|2||Strategic Management Journal||1772||1524||Journal of Knowledge Management||404||286||Strategic Management Journal||1291||1111|
|3||Organization Science||1505||1356||Harvard Business Review||303||263||Organization Science||1125||1015|
|4||Academy of Management Review||826||782||Organization Science||279||249||Academy of Management Review||640||603|
|5||Harvard Business Review||819||750||California Management Review||259||233||Academy of Management Journal||556||525|
|6||California Management Review||729||682||Academy of Management Review||155||147||Administrative Science Quarterly||543||511|
|7||Administrative Science Quarterly||707||666||Administrative Science Quarterly||136||128||MIS Quarterly||534||494|
|8||Academy of Management Journal||685||649||Sloan Management Review||127||118||Management Science||472||449|
|9||MIS Quarterly||677||626||Academy of Management Journal||90||86||Harvard Business Review||459||437|
|10||Management Science||582||556||Management Science||81||79||California Management Review||443||423|
|11||Journal of Management Studies||457||437||Long Range Planning||79||74||Journal of Management Studies||375||357|
|12||Journal of Management Information Systems||437||416||Journal of Management Studies||66||63||Research Policy||325||282|
|13||Research Policy||380||333||Journal of Management Information Systems||63||60||Journal of Management Information Systems||322||307|
|14||Sloan Management Review||327||312||European Management Journal||61||58||Journal of Intellectual Capital||260||233|
|15||Journal of Intellectual Capital||326||298||MIS Quarterly||57||53||Knowledge Management Research and Practice||246||234|
|16||Journal of Management||320||313||Expert System with Applications||52||40||Journal of Management||245||239|
|17||Knowledge and Process Management||302||291||Communications of the ACM||51||43||Knowledge and Process Management||232||222|
|18||Knowledge Management Research and Practice||292||279||Journal of International Business Studies||48||43||Journal of International Business Studies||222||202|
|19||Long Range Planning||280||271||The Knowledge-Creating Company||48||46||Organization Studies||197||191|
|20||Journal of International Business Studies||275||250||Journal of Marketing||47||42||Long Range Planning||188||183|
|21||Organization Studies||248||241||Journal of Management||45||44||Sloan Management Review||187||182|
|22||Expert Systems with Applications||217||203||Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know||45||45||The Learning Organization||173||162|
|23||Journal of Applied Psychology||211||199||Journal of Intellectual Capital||44||43||Journal of Applied Psychology||170||160|
|24||The Learning Organization||207||195||Knowledge and Process Management||43||42||Expert Systems with Applications||159||149|
|25||Journal of Marketing||197||181||Organizational Dynamics||42||41||Journal of Marketing||142||129|
|26||Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know||189||189||The Tacit Dimension||42||41||Management Decision||137||133|
|27||European Management Journal||185||181||The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation||41||39||Technovation||136||129|
|28||International Journal of Information Management||183||178||Research Policy||40||37||Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know||130||130|
|29||Management Decision||177||171||American Journal of Sociology||38||36||International Journal of Information Management||129||126|
|30||Decision Support Systems||162||158||Academy of Management Executive||37||36||Information and Management||123||118|
|31||Technovation||162||154||Organization Studies||37||36||Human Relations||121||117|
|32||Human Relations||158||153||The Knowledge Creating Company||35||33||American Journal of Sociology||119||115|
|33||Information and Management||158||152||Fortune||33||30||European Management Journal||119||117|
|34||American Journal of Sociology||157||152||Human Relations||32||31||Journal of Business Research||119||115|
|35||The Tacit Dimension||157||156||Computerworld||31||25||Decision Support Systems||113||111|
|36||The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create The Dynamics of Innovation||143||140||Decision Support Systems||30||29||Industrial and Corporate Change||110||107|
|37||Industrial and Corporate Change||142||139||Knowledge Management||30||27||The Tacit Dimension||108||108|
|38||Journal of Business Research||141||137||Management Decision||29||26||Journal of Information Science||106||104|
|39||Journal of Marketing Research||135||130||Post-Capitalist Society||28||28||Journal of Marketing Research||104||102|
|40||Information Systems Research||134||131||American Sociological Review||27||24||Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes||101||99|
|41||Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes||134||131||An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change||26||26||Information Systems Research||98||97|
|42||Communications of the ACM||126||117||Industrial and Corporate Change||26||25||Journal of Knowledge Management Practice||97||90|
|43||Journal of Information Science||126||124||International Journal of Information Management||25||24||The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation||96||96|
|44||Academy of Management Executive||122||121||International Journal of Technology Management||25||24||Industrial Management and Data Systems||95||91|
|45||Industrial Management and Data Systems||120||115||Knowledge Management Handbook||25||24||Journal of Product Innovation Management||94||89|
|46||International Journal of Technology Management||118||116||The New Organizational Wealth: Managing And Measuring Knowledge-Based Assets||24||24||International Journal of Technology Management||87||85|
|47||The Knowledge-Creating Company||114||112||American Economic Review||23||21||British Journal of Management||86||85|
|48||Journal of Product Innovation Management||113||108||Working Knowledge||23||23||Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology||86||83|
|49||Organizational Dynamics||112||111||Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes||22||21||Human Resource Management||84||81|
|50||Human Resource Management||107||103||Intellectual Capital: The New Wealth of Organizations||21||21||Scientometrics||84||73|
Abbreviations available in Table IV, except for – Cit: total citations in the JKM; CLS: co-citation links
Most common keyword occurrences in the JKM
|1||Knowledge management||670||579||Knowledge management||238||208||Knowledge management||405||359|
|2||Knowledge sharing||140||127||Innovation||36||36||Knowledge sharing||127||115|
|3||Knowledge transfer||98||92||Intellectual capital||23||23||Knowledge transfer||85||80|
|5||Knowledge creation||55||52||Information||17||17||Knowledge creation||41||40|
|6||Tacit knowledge||48||46||Learning organizations||17||16||Tacit knowledge||28||27|
|7||Intellectual capital||47||45||Knowledge workers||17||15||Organizational culture||27||27|
|8||Knowledge management systems||38||36||Learning||16||15||Communication technologies||23||23|
|9||Learning||36||34||Knowledge processes||15||15||Intellectual capital||23||22|
|10||Organizational culture||33||33||Management||15||15||Knowledge management systems||21||20|
|11||Learning organizations||31||27||Information technology||14||14||Social capital||20||20|
|13||Communication technologies||28||27||Competitive advantage||13||13||Learning||19||17|
|14||Information technology||27||26||Knowledge management systems||12||12||Knowledge organizations||17||17|
|15||Knowledge processes||26||24||Knowledge creation||11||11||Social networks||16||15|
|16||Knowledge||24||24||Knowledge transfer||11||10||Organizational performance||14||14|
|17||Organizational learning||24||22||Knowledge||10||9||Learning organizations||14||13|
|19||Knowledge organizations||21||21||Organizations||9||9||Knowledge economy||13||13|
|21||Social capital||20||20||Explicit knowledge||8||8||Trust||13||13|
|22||Social networks||20||18||Case studies||7||7||Modelling||12||12|
|23||Knowledge economy||19||19||Corporate culture||7||7||Multinational companies||12||12|
|24||Case studies||18||18||Information systems||7||7||Communities of practice||12||11|
|25||Competitive advantage||18||18||Knowledge sharing||7||7||Information technology||12||11|
|26||Information||18||17||Project management||7||7||Critical success factors||11||11|
|28||Trust||17||16||Knowledge economy||6||6||Knowledge processes||11||11|
|31||Project management||16||16||Creativity||6||5||Organizational learning||10||9|
|32||Research||16||16||Knowledge-based systems||6||4||Case studies||10||10|
|33||China||16||15||Communication technologies||5||5||Human resource management||10||10|
|34||Multinational companies||15||15||Culture change||5||5||India||10||10|
|35||Communities of practice||15||14||Decision making||5||5||Knowledge-based view||10||10|
|36||Human resource management||14||14||Intangible assets||5||5||Motivation||9||9|
|37||Spain||14||14||Intellectual property||5||5||National cultures||9||9|
|39||Information systems||13||13||Organizational culture||5||5||Competences||9||8|
|43||Critical success factors||12||12||Process management||5||5||Performance||8||8|
|44||Explicit knowledge||12||12||Resources||5||5||Small to medium-sized enterprises||8||8|
|46||Knowledge-based systems||12||12||Narratives||5||4||Absorptive capacity||7||7|
|47||Small to medium-sized enterprises||12||12||Performance||5||4||Culture||7||7|
|48||Big data||12||11||Technology||5||4||Knowledge acquisition||7||7|
|49||Decision making||12||11||Collaboration||4||4||Knowledge mapping||7||7|
Abbreviations available in Table IV, except for; C = occurrences; TLS = total link strength
The original definition of the h-index, proposed by Hirsch (2005), was: “A scientist has index h if h of his or her Np papers have at least h citations each and the other (Np − h) papers have ≤ h citations each.”
Albort-Morant, G. and Ribeiro-Soriano, D. (2016), “A bibliometric analysis of international impact of business incubators”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 5, pp. 1775-1779.
Albort-Morant, G., Henseler, J., Leal-Millán, A. and Cepeda-Carrión, G. (2017), “Mapping the field: a bibliometric analysis of green innovation”, Sustainability, Vol. 9 No. 6, p. 1011.
Alonso, S., Cabrerizo, F.J., Herrera-Viedma, E. and Herrera, F. (2009), “h-index: a review focused in its variants, computation and standardization for different scientific fields”, Journal of Informetrics, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 273-289.
Archambault, É., Campbell, D., Gingras, Y. and Larivière, V. (2009), “Comparing bibliometric statistics obtained from the web of science and scopus”, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, ASIS, Vol. 60 No. 7, pp. 1320-1326.
Ardichvili, A., Page, V. and Wentling, T. (2003), “Motivation and barriers to participation in virtual knowledge-sharing communities of practice”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 64-77.
Bai, D. and Yu, H. (2017), “Knowledge management impacts on organizational innovation performance”, International Journal of Innovative Computing, Information and Control, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 2133-2141.
Baier-Fuentes, H., Merigó, J.M., Amorós, J.E. and Gaviria-Marin, M. (2018), “International entrepreneursip: an overview from bibliometric analysis”, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-017-0487-y
Barabási, A.L., Jeong, H., Néda, Z., Ravasz, E., Schubert, A. and Vicsek, T. (2002), “Evolution of the social network of scientific collaborations”, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications, North-Holland, Vol. 311 Nos 3/4, pp. 590-614.
Barley, S.R. (2016), “60th anniversary essay: ruminations on how we became a mystery house and how we might get out”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 61 No. 1, pp. 1-8.
Bonilla, C.A., Merigó, J.M. and Torres-Abad, C. (2015), “Economics in latin america: a bibliometric analysis”, Scientometrics, Vol. 105 No. 2, pp. 1239-1252.
Börner, K., Chen, C. and Boyack, K.W. (2003), “Visualizing knowledge domains”, Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 179-255.
Broadus, R.N. (1987), “Toward a definition of ‘bibliometrics”, Scientometrics, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Vol. 12 Nos 5/6, pp. 373-379.
Cadavid-Higuita, L., Awad, G. and Franco-Cardona, C.J. (2012), “Análisis bibliométrico del campo modelado de difusión de innovaciones”, Estudios Gerenciales, Vol. 28, pp. 213-236.
Callon, M., Courtial, J., Turner, W. and Bauin, S. (1983), “From translations to problematic networks: an introduction to co-word analysis”, Social Science Information, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 191-235.
Cancino, C., Merigó, J.M., Coronado, F., Dessouky, Y. and Dessouky, M. (2017), “Forty years of computers & industrial engineering: a bibliometric analysis”, Computers & Industrial Engineering, Vol. 113, pp. 614-629.
Centobelli, P., Cerchione, R. and Esposito, E. (2017), “Knowledge management in startups: systematic literature review and future research agenda”, Sustainability, Vol. 9 No. 3, p. 361.
Chen, C. (2006), “CiteSpace II: detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature”, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 57 No. 3, pp. 359-377.
Cobo, M.J., López-Herrera, A.G., Herrera-Viedma, E. and Herrera, F. (2011), “An approach for detecting, quantifying, and visualizing the evolution of a research field: a practical application to the fuzzy sets theory field”, Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 146-166.
Cobo, M.J., López-Herrera, A.G., Herrera-Viedma, E. and Herrera, F. (2012), “SciMAT: a new science mapping analysis software tool”, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 63 No. 8, pp. 1609-1630.
Cobo, M.J., Martínez, M.A., Gutiérrez-Salcedo, M., Fujita, H. and Herrera-Viedma, E. (2015), “25 Years at knowledge-based systems: a bibliometric analysis”, Knowledge-Based Systems, Vol. 80, pp. 3-13.
Daim, T.U., Rueda, G., Martin, H. and Gerdsri, P. (2006), “Forecasting emerging technologies: use of bibliometrics and patent analysis”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, North-Holland, Vol. 73 No. 8, pp. 981-1012.
Davenport, T.H. and Prusak, L. (1998), “Working knowledge-how organizations manage what they know”, Harvard Business School Press, Harvard Business School Press, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 193-211.
Del Giudice, M. and Della Peruta, M.R. (2016), “The impact of IT-based knowledge management systems on internal venturing and innovation: a structural equation modeling approach to corporate performance”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 484-498.
Diem, A. and Wolter, S.C. (2013), “The use of bibliometrics to measure research performance in education sciences”, Research in Higher Education, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 86-114.
Drucker, P. (1968), The Age of Discontinuity: Guidelines to our Changing Society, Heinemann Publishers, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/C2013-0-04383-6
Durieux, V. and Gevenois, P.A. (2010), “Bibliometric indicators: quality measurements of scientific publication”, Radiology, Radiological Society of North America, Vol. 255 No. 2, pp. 342-351.
Ellinger, A.E. and Chapman, K. (2016), “IJPDLM’s 45th anniversary: a retrospective bibliometric analysis and future directions”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 2-18.
Franks, A.L., Simoes, E.J., Singh, R. and Gray, B.S. (2006), “Assessing prevention research impact: a bibliometric analysis”, American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 211-216.
Garfield, E. (1955), “Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation”, Science, Vol. 122 No. 3159, pp. 108-111.
Garfield, E. (1994), “Scientography: mapping the tracks of science”, Current Contents: Social & Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 7, pp. 5-10.
Gaviria-Marin, M., Merigó, J.M. and Baier-Fuentes, H. (2018), “Knowledge management: a global examination based on bibliometric analysis”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Forthcoming.
García-Merino, M.T., do Carmo, M.L.P. and Álvarez, M.V.S. (2006), “25 Years of technovation: characterisation and evolution of the journal”, Technovation, Vol. 26 No. 12, pp. 1303-1316.
Gkypali, A., Kokkinos, V., Bouras, C. and Tsekouras, K. (2016), “Science parks and regional innovation performance in fiscal austerity era: less is more?”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 313-330.
Hirsch, J.E. (2005), “An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 102 No. 46, pp. 16569-16572.
Holsapple, C.W. and Wu, J. (2008), “In search of a missing link”, Knowledge Management Research & Practice, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 31-40.
Kasper, H., Lehrer, M., Mühlbacher, J. and Müller, B. (2013), “On the different ‘worlds’ of intra-organizational knowledge management: understanding idiosyncratic variation in MNC cross-site knowledge-sharing practices”, International Business Review, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 326-338.
Kessler, M.M. (1963), “Bibliographic coupling between scientific papers”, American Documentation, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 10-25.
Kessler, M.M. (1965), “Comparison of the results of blbliographic coupling and analytic subject indexing”, American Documentation, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 223-233.
Krampen, G., Becker, R., Wahner, U. and Montada, L. (2007), “On the validity of citation counting in science evaluation: content analyses of references and citations in psychological publications”, Scientometrics, Vol. 71 No. 2, pp. 191-202.
Laengle, S., Merigó, J.M., Miranda, J., Słowínski, R., Bomze, I., Borgonovo, E., Dyson, R.G., Oliveira, J.L. and Teunter, R. (2017), “Forty years of the European journal of operational research: a bibliometric overview”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 262 No. 3, pp. 803-816.
Li, X., Wu, P., Shen, G.Q., Wang, X. and Teng, Y. (2017), “Mapping the knowledge domains of building information modeling (BIM): a bibliometric approach”, Automation in Construction, Elsevier, Vol. 84, pp. 195-206.
McDermott, R. and O’Dell, C. (2001), “Overcoming cultural barriers to sharing knowledge”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 76-85.
Martinez-Conesa, I., Soto-Acosta, P. and Carayannis, E.G. (2017), “On the path towards open innovation: assessing the role of knowledge management capability and environmental dynamism in SMEs”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 553-570.
Martínez-López, F.J., Merigó, J.M., Valenzuela, L. and Nicolás, C. (2018), “Fifty years of the European journal of marketing: a bibliometric analysis”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52 Nos 1/2, pp. 439-468.
Meho, L.I. and Yang, K. (2007), “Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: web of science versus scopus and google scholar”, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 58 No. 13, pp. 2105-2125.
Merigó, J.M., Gil-Lafuente, A.M. and Yager, R.R. (2015a), “An overview of fuzzy research with bibliometric indicators”, Applied Soft Computing, Vol. 27, pp. 420-433.
Merigó, J.M., Blanco-Mesa, F., Gil-Lafuente, A.M. and Yager, R.R. (2017), “Thirty years of the international journal of intelligent systems: a bibliometric review”, International Journal of Intelligent Systems, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 526-554.
Merigó, J.M., Cancino, C.A., Coronado, F. and Urbano, D. (2016), “Academic research in innovation: a country analysis”, Scientometrics, Vol. 108 No. 2, pp. 559-593.
Merigó, J.M., Mas-Tur, A., Roig-Tierno, N. and Ribeiro-Soriano, D. (2015b), “A bibliometric overview of the journal of business research between 1973 and 2014”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 68 No. 12, pp. 2645-2653.
Merigó, J.M., Pedrycz, W., Weber, R. and de la Sotta, C. (2018), “Fifty years of information sciences: a bibliometric overview”, Information Sciences, Vol. 432, pp. 245-268.
Meyer, R. and Winer, R.S. (2014), “Introduction to the JMR 50th anniversary special section”, Journal of Marketing Research (JMR), Vol. 51 No. 1, pp. 83-83.
Mongeon, P. and Paul-Hus, A. (2016), “The journal coverage of web of science and scopus: a comparative analysis”, Scientometrics, Vol. 106 No. 1, pp. 213-228.
Nissen, M., Kamel, M. and Sengupta, K. (2000), “Integrated analysis and design of knowledge systems and processes”, Information Resources Management Journal, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 24-43.
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge-Creating Company, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Persson, O., Danell, R. and Schneider, J.W. (2009), “How to use Bibexcel for various types of bibliometric analysis”, in Åström, F., Danell, R., Larsen, B. and Schneider, J.. (Eds), Celebrating Scholarly Communication Studies: A Festschrift for Olle Persson at His 60th Birthday, International Society for Scientometrics and Infometrics, Leuven, pp. 9-24.
Podsakoff, P.M., Mackenzie, S.B., Podsakoff, N.P. and Bachrach, D.G. (2008), “Scholarly influence in the field of management: a bibliometric analysis of the determinants of university and author impact in the management literature in the past quarter century”, Journal of Management, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 641-720.
Polanyi, M. (1966), The Tacit Dimension, Routledge & Kegan Paul, Doubleday, Garden City, NY.
Pritchard, A. (1969), “Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics?”, Journal of Documentation, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 348-349.
Rastogi, P.N. (2000), “Knowledge management and intellectual Capital – the new virtuous reality of competitiveness”, Human Systems Management, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 39-48.
Rey-Martí, A., Ribeiro-Soriano, D. and Palacios-Marqués, D. (2016), “A bibliometric analysis of social entrepreneurship”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 5, pp. 1651-1655.
Riege, A. (2005), “Three‐dozen knowledge‐sharing barriers managers must consider”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 18-35.
Schwert, G.W. (1993), “The journal of financial economics a retrospective evaluation (1974-91)*”, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 369-424.
Scopus (2017), “SciVerse Scopus fact sheet. SciVerse® Scopus.”
Scuotto, V., Del Giudice, M., Holden, N. and Mattiacci, A. (2017), “Entrepreneurial settings within global family firms: research perspectives from cross-cultural knowledge management studies”, European Journal of International Management, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 469-489.
Serenko, A. and Bontis, N. (2017), “Global ranking of knowledge management and intellectual Capital academic journals: 2017 update”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 675-692.
Serenko, A., Cox, R.A.K., Bontis, N. and Booker, L.D. (2011), “The superstar phenomenon in the knowledge management and intellectual Capital academic discipline”, Journal of Informetrics, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 333-345.
Small, H. (1973), “Co-citation in the scientific literature: a new measure of the relationship between two documents”, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 265-269.
Small, H. (1997), “Update on science mapping: creating large document spaces”, Scientometrics, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 275-293.
Soto-Acosta, P. and Cegarra-Navarro, J.-G. (2016), “New ICTs for knowledge management in organizations”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 417-422.
Thelwall, M. (2008), “Bibliometrics to webometrics”, Journal of Information Science, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 605-621.
van Eck, N.J. and Waltman, L. (2010), “Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping”, Scientometrics, Vol. 84 No. 2, pp. 523-538.
van Eck, N. and Waltman, L. (2014), “CitNetExplorer: a new software tool for analyzing and visualizing citation networks”, Journal of Informetrics, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 802-823.
Valenzuela, L.M., Merigó, J.M., Johnston, W.J., Nicolas, C. and Jaramillo, J.F. (2017), “Thirty years of the journal of business & industrial marketing: a bibliometric analysis”, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 1-17.
Van Fleet, D.D. (2006), “The journal of management’s first 30 years”, Journal of Management, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 477-506.
Vanclay, J.K. (2007), “On the robustness of the h-index”, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 58 No. 10, pp. 1547-1550.
Vieira, E.S. and Gomes, J.A.N.F. (2009), “A comparison of scopus and web of science for a typical university”, Scientometrics, Vol. 81 No. 2, pp. 587-600.
Walter, C. and Ribière, V. (2013), “A citation and co-citation analysis of 10 years of KM theory and practices”, Knowledge Management Research & Practice, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 221-229.
Wang, S. and Ariguzo, G. (2004), “Knowledge management through the development of information schema”, Information and Management, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 445-456.
Wang, W., Laengle, S., Merigó, J.M., Yu, D., Herrera-Viedma, E., Cobo, M.J. and Bouchon-Meunier, B. (2018), “A bibliometric analysis of the first twenty-five years of the international journal of uncertainty, fuzziness and knowledge-based systems”, International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 169-193.
Ynalvez, M.A. and Shrum, W.M. (2010), “Professional networks, scientific collaboration, and publication productivity in resource-constrained research institutions in a developing country”, Research Policy, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 204-216.
Yoon, B. and Lee, S. (2012), “Managing technological knowledge for supporting R&D activities: scientometrics-based approach”, Knowledge Management Research & Practice, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 237-251.
Zhou, H., Yang, Y., Chen, Y. and Zhu, J. (2018), “Data envelopment analysis application in sustainability: the origins, development and future directions”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 264 No. 1, pp. 1-16.
About the authors
Magaly Gaviria-Marin is a PhD candidate at the Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Barcelona and Associate Researcher at the Faculty of Economics and Administration Sciences of Universidad Católica de la Santísima Concepción, Chile
Jose M. Merigo is based at the Department of Management Control and Information Systems, School of Economics and Business, University of Chile, Santiago, Chile
Simona Popa is based at the Department of Business Administration, Universidad Catolica San Antonio de Murcia, Murcia, Spain