Search results

This research aims to examine the intellectual structure of iMetrics through author co-citation analysis.

This research uses common techniques in bibliometrics and social network analysis. It analyses 5,944 records from the Web of Science in the field of iMetrics that are published between 1978 and 2014.

Findings indicated that researchers including “Garfield”, “Egghe”, “Glanzel”, “Leydesdorff” and “Price” have received many co-citations. The author co-citation analysis in iMetrics resulted in eight thematic clusters, including “theoretical foundations and citation analysis”, “sociology of science”, “science mapping and visualization”, “network analysis”, “classic laws of bibliometrics”, “webometrics”, “technometrics” and “miscellaneous”. “Theoretical foundations and citation analysis” is the biggest cluster which comprises 59 authors. The results suggest the crucial role of price medallists in shaping the intellectual structure of knowledge in iMetrics.

Extracting the patterns embedded in the knowledge structure of iMetrics studies provides beneficial information for both researchers and policymakers. This research study is valuable that used an appropriate set of records regarding both recall and precision. Furthermore, this study helps us better understand the characteristics of iMetrics, its subject areas, and the prominent authors in those areas.

The purpose of this study is to examine the historical continuity of James March’s contributions to management scholarship by tracing the co-citations that appear within the textual contexts of articles in premier management journals that cite both March and Simon’s 1958 book Organizations and other works co-authored by March.

This study uses within-citation context analysis to examine 522 passages from eight premier management journals that contain co-citations to Organizations and any another work co-authored by March. This entails coding the citing passages to identify the specific knowledge claims from March’s works and how citing authors used them, which establishes linkages between the content in different works of March’s works as used by citing authors.

This study finds that 31 other works by March are co-cited within the same citation contexts along with Organizations. The vast majority (71%) of these co-citations of March’s later works are to Cyert and March’s A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. The four other most highly co-cited works are Levitt and March (1988); March (1991); Cohen et al. (1972); and Levinthal and March (1993). Of the eight summary codes used in the analysis corresponding with the contents of Organizations, two summary codes – “Routines and Programs” and “Cognitive Limits” – accounted for the clear majority (60.1%) of all co-citation contexts in this study.

This study only examined the co-citations to Organizations in eight premier journals in organization studies, and a larger selection of journals might have altered the results to some degree. A truly comprehensive analysis might consider every citation context in the published literature where citing authors jointly mention any two or more of March’s works. Given the extraordinarily large number of citations to March’s works, this was impractical and unfeasible.

A time-bound and rigorous review of co-citations in common contexts allows both scholars and practitioners to recognize the genuine threads of theory presented by leading scholars and trace them through subsequent works to see how theories have evolved both in practice – reflected in empirical work – and in conception – reflected in theoretical development.

Prior research into citation methodology has shown the proliferation of references over time. It is not uncommon for contemporary works to list 100 or more references for a single paper. This research encourages and facilitates a greater discipline in understanding and using citations by tracing the roots of citations and the extent of their importance in citing works.

This paper presents an historical perspective of the influence of James March’s body of scholarship by tracking within context co-citations that link a seminal early work of March to his most cited works in premier journals. This study tracks specific knowledge claims that have persisted throughout March’s corpus of scholarship. This historical method is a systematic approach to tracing how subsequent scholarship ties together and uses multiple works to support specific knowledge claims, enabling an objective analysis of the commonalities among a scholar’s works over time. This is the first example of research using this bibliographic method to form an historical perspective of a seminal author or a classic work.

This paper focuses on the differences in domain intellectual structure discovery between author bibliographic coupling analysis (ABCA) and author co-citation analysis (ACA) considering all authors. The purpose of this study is to examine whether and in what ways these two all-author network approaches yield different results.

The sample was collected from the database of Web of Science, including all articles published in Scientometrics and Journal of Informetrics from 2011 to 2020. First, 100 representative authors were selected from each set, and ABCA matrices and ACA matrices were constructed. Second, factor analysis was carried out on the matrices, to detect the intellectual structure of scientometrics and informetrics.

The intellectual structures identified by ABCA and ACA are similar overall, but the results differ somewhat when it comes to specific structures. The ABCA is more sensitive to some highly collaborative research teams and presents a clearer picture of current intellectual structures and trends while ACA seems to have some advantages in representing the more traditional and proven research topics in the field. The combined use of ABCA and ACA allows for a more comprehensive and specific intellectual structure of research fields.

This paper compares the performance of ABCA and ACA detecting the intellectual structure of the domain from the perspective of all authors, revealing the intellectual structure of scientometrics and informetrics comprehensively.

The peer review history for this article is available at: https://publons.com/publon/10.1108/OIR-12-2020-0540.

The purpose of this paper is to further explore the co-citation and bibliographic-coupling relationship among the core authors in the field of Chinese information science (IS), to expose research activity and author impact, and to make induction analyses about Chinese IS research patterns and theme evolution.

The research data include 8,567 papers and 70,947 cited articles in the IS field indexed by Chinese Social Sciences Citation Index from 2000 to 2009. Author co-citation analysis, author bibliographic-coupling analysis, social network analysis, and factor analysis were combined to explore co-citation and bibliographic-coupling relationships and to identify research groups and subjects.

Scholars with greatest impact are different from the most active scholars of Chinese IS; there is no uniform impact pattern forming since authors’ impact subjects are scattered and not steady; while authors’ research activities present higher independence and concentration, there is still no steady research pattern due to no deep research existing. Furthermore, Chinese IS studies can be delineated by: foundation or extension. The research subjects of these two parts, as well as their corresponding/contributing authors, are different under different views. The general research status of core authors is concentrated, while their impact is broad.

The combined use of some related methods could enrich the development and methodology research of the discipline, and the results establish a reference point on the development of IS research.

Previous commonly used author co-citation analysis (ACA) methods have limited the ability to deal with accidental co-citation in constructing a raw co-citation matrix. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to propose a new method, called author tri-citation analysis (ATA), to better map knowledge domains and depict scientific intellectual structures.

Different from the previous method of using ACA that captures author co-citation relationships, the ATA method seeks tri-citation relationships among authors. Compared with ACA, ATA can ignore some accidental co-citation relationships between authors and can improve the accuracy of mapping knowledge domains.

Although ATA does not mine more sub-fields than ACA does, the results of the empirical studies show that ATA, the newly proposed method, performs better in knowledge domain maps based on publications in the field of computer science.

The definition of ATA in this article is simple and still insufficiently informative. Many other pieces of information can be involved; for example, all authors’ information, authors’ sequence in the author list, reference published time and similar. These can be enhanced in future studies.

This research will enrich the methods of mapping knowledge domains due to its new perspective.

Knowledge domain mapping is important to understand a discipline, and this research provides more potential methods for this, which benefits the performance of the maps.

ATA can provide a methodological awareness for mapping knowledge domains. This value lies in not only a tri-citation perspective, but also author bibliographic tripling and author tri-operation perspectives (“tri-” perspectives).

The purpose of this paper is to explore and map the intellectual structure of biofuel research.

The study attempts to present the structure of biofuel research through document co‐citation patterns of core references. Document co‐citation analysis was performed using the Web of Science of the Thomson‐ISI database. A sample of 26 cited references was identified and the co‐citation frequencies were analyzed and represented them systematically within groups of similar researched topics.

The study shows the co‐citation analysis method suitable for depicting structure of biofuel research in document clusters by performing multivariate analysis: cluster analysis, factor analysis, multidimensional scaling and network analysis.

The study is limited to research articles and co‐citation data for the first author only. For the co‐citation analysis, the cited references rather than the cited authors were used as the units for analysis.

Co‐citational analysis using multivariate tools provides a useful technique to explore and document the development of the field supplementing the insights normally available from the routine co‐citational analysis.

Specialties in biofuel research are identified and this may provide a valuable building block for future research.

This study continues a long history of author co-citation analysis of the intellectual structure of information science into the time period of 2011–2020. It also examines changes in this structure from 2006–2010 through 2011–2015 to 2016–2020. Results will contribute to a better understanding of the information science research field.

The well-established procedures and techniques for author co-citation analysis were followed. Full records of research articles in core information science journals published during 2011–2020 were retrieved and downloaded from the Web of Science database. About 150 most highly cited authors in each of the two five-year time periods were selected from this dataset to represent this field, and their co-citation counts were calculated. Each co-citation matrix was input into SPSS for factor analysis, and results were visualized in Pajek. Factors were interpreted as specialties and labeled upon an examination of articles written by authors who load primarily on each factor.

The two-camp structure of information science continued to be present clearly. Bibliometric indicators for research evaluation dominated the Knowledge Domain Analysis camp during both fivr-year time periods, whereas interactive information retrieval (IR) dominated the IR camp during 2011–2015 but shared dominance with information behavior during 2016–2020. Bridging between the two camps became increasingly weaker and was only provided by the scholarly communication specialty during 2016–2020. The IR systems specialty drifted further away from the IR camp. The information behavior specialty experienced a deep slump during 2011–2020 in its evolution process. Altmetrics grew to dominate the Webometrics specialty and brought it to a sharp increase during 2016–2020.

Author co-citation analysis (ACA) is effective in revealing intellectual structures of research fields. Most related studies used term-based methods to identify individual research topics but did not examine the interrelationships between these topics or the overall structure of the field. The few studies that did discuss the overall structure paid little attention to the effect of changes to the source journals on the results. The present study does not have these problems and continues the long history of benchmark contributions to a better understanding of the information science field using ACA.

The study aims to map the intellectual structure of business ethics studies by analyzing 17,246 citations of 225 papers published in Business Ethics Quarterly (BEQ) in the year between 2005 and 2014. Specifically, the purpose of the study is to describe the current state of BEQ, identify the most influential journals and works, identify the key themes of business ethics studies during 2005-2014 and, at the same time, report the changes in themes by making a comparison between two time periods – 2005-2009 and 2010-2014.

First, the study presents the information of the authors, institutions and countries that contribute to BEQ with a statistical analysis. Second, the study identifies the most cited journals and works in BEQ during 2005-2014 with a citation analysis. Third, the study identifies the key research themes in business ethics studies with a co-citation analysis. With the help of factor and social network analysis (NA), the study groups the research themes and maps their links.

First, the statistical results show that many well-known researchers from famous US institutions publishing in BEQ. Second, the citation analysis results show that quite a few journals become mature gradually in business ethics domain. Besides, most of the influential works are normative and theoretical. Third, the co-citation results indicate that “stakeholder management” and “corporate social responsibility” (CSR) are two main themes in business ethics studies in the past decade. Specifically, “stakeholder management” attracts the most research interests in both two sub-time periods. In addition, compared with the pure studies on CSR during 2005-2009, increasing researchers are keen on the theme of “political CSR under globalization” in the second five years. Meanwhile, other focus like “society, state and business ethics” earns a certain degree of attention in the time window 2005-2009. And “accountability in MNCs” and “political philosophy” are the new concerns in the year between 2010 and 2014.

The study confirms BEQ’s leadership role in business ethics domain. And, it further proves that business ethics has evolved as an independent discipline. It also helps the researchers to have a concise knowledge of the main contents and key points of business ethics research. Methodologically, co-citation analysis combined with factor and NA provides clear results and visualized figures which can be understood easily by the researchers and practitioners.

The purpose of this study is to identify the documents which have had the greatest impact on the Journal of Organizational Change Management (JOCM) articles and to analyze the evolution of the intellectual structure of the journal.

A knowledge‐stock analysis is performed to assess major trends of the JOCM. A bibliometric study is then conducted thanks to citation and co‐citation analysis about the documents which are the most cited by the articles published in the JOCM (between 1995 and 2011).

Through the results of their analysis, the authors: describe the growing stock of knowledge of the JOCM over time; identify the documents having the strongest influence on the JOCM articles; and pinpoint the evolution of the intellectual structure of the journal.

Although the sample of retained articles seems representative of the JOCM publication efforts, the data set presents some limitations. There are also some limits inherent to the research design and to the bibliometric methods. The intention of the present research is to give a quantitative overview of the intellectual evolution of the journal.

Grasping the intellectual development of the JOCM enables researchers and practitioners to better understand how issues are being approached by authors who publish in this journal. It also stimulates the scholarly debate.

This knowledge‐stock and bibliometric study is the first to be concerned with the JOCM.

The purpose of this paper is to present a quantitatively supported explanation of the intellectual development, the schools of thought and the sub-areas of the food cold chain (FCC) research to derive meaningful avenues for future research.

This study builds on bibliometric analysis and network analysis to systematically evaluate a sample of 1,189 FCC articles published over the past 25 years. The descriptive statistics and science mapping approaches using co-citation analysis were performed with VOSviewer software.

The findings reveal a state-of-the-art overview of the top contributing and influential countries, authors, institutions and articles in the area of FCC research. A co-citation analysis, coupled with content analysis of most co-cited articles, uncovered four underlying research streams including: application of RFID technologies; production and operation planning models; postharvest waste, causes of postharvest wastage and perishable inventory ordering polices and models; and critical issues in FCC. Current research streams, clusters and their sub-themes provided meaningful discussions and insights into key areas for future research in FCC.

This study might reshape practitioners’, researchers’ and policy-makers’ views on the multifaceted areas and themes in the FCC research field, to harness FCC’s benefits at both strategic and tactical level. Finally, the research findings offer a roadmap for additional research to yield more practical and modeling insights that are much needed to enrich the field.