Search results

The purpose of this study is to conduct a scientometric analysis of the body of literature contained in 11 major knowledge management and intellectual capital (KM/IC) peer‐reviewed journals.

A total of 2,175 articles published in 11 major KM/IC peer‐reviewed journals were carefully reviewed and subjected to scientometric data analysis techniques.

A number of research questions pertaining to country, institutional and individual productivity, co‐operation patterns, publication frequency, and favourite inquiry methods were proposed and answered. Based on the findings, many implications emerged that improve one's understanding of the identity of KM/IC as a distinct scientific field.

The pool of KM/IC journals examined did not represent all available publication outlets, given that at least 20 peer‐reviewed journals exist in the KM/IC field. There are also KM/IC papers published in other non‐KM/IC specific journals. However, the 11 journals that were selected for the study have been evaluated by Bontis and Serenko as the top publications in the KM/IC area.

Practitioners have played a significant role in developing the KM/IC field. However, their contributions have been decreasing. There is still very much a need for qualitative descriptions and case studies. It is critically important that practitioners consider collaborating with academics for richer research projects.

This is the most comprehensive scientometric analysis of the KM/IC field ever conducted.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the classic characteristics of highly cited articles (HCAs) of top-ranked library and information science (LIS) journals and get acquainted with the high-quality works in specific areas of LIS for distinguishing what gets cited and who the prolific authors are.

The HCAs published across the top four LIS journals were downloaded, coded and a database was developed with basic metadata elements for analysis using bibliometric indicators. Lotka’s Inverse Square Law of Scientific Productivity was applied to assess the author’s productivity of HCA. The content analysis method was also used to find out the emerging areas of research that have sought high citations.

Inferences were drawn for the proposed five number of research questions pertaining to individual productivity, collaboration patterns country and institutional productivity, impactful areas of research. The Netherland found to be the potential player among all the affiliating countries of authors and Loet Leydesdorff tops the list among the prolific authors. It is observed that Lotka’s Classical Law also fits the HCA data set in LIS. “Research impact measurement and research collaboration,” “Social networking” and “Research metrics and citation-based studies” are found to be the emerging areas of LIS research.

Researchers may find a way what gets cited in specific areas of LIS literature and why along with who are the prolific authors.

This study is important from the perspective of the growing research field of the LIS discipline to identify the papers that have influenced others papers as per citation count, spot the active and more impactful topics in LIS research.

This paper aims to examine the scholarly communications in Library Review (LR) from 2007 to 2011 and to reveal key aspects of its publication trends.

The study analyses five volumes of LR from the year 2007 to 2011 and employs the required bibliometric measures to analyze specific aspects of publishing trends of LR for the stated period.

The study finds that single authored articles occupy the prominent position indicating the supremacy of solo research in LR. The degree of collaboration in the publications of this journal is found to be 0.36. It is evident that LR has accommodated over 22 citations per article during the publication phase from 2007 to 2011. In regard to country productivity, the UK leads the table, followed by the USA and Nigeria. However, Poland occupies the bottom position in the ranking. Hence, it is evident that the major chunks of contributions reflected in the publications of LR during the stated period are emanated from the UK and the USA.

The study focuses on the publication patterns of LR over a period of five years. Patterns of research output in 275 publications are analyzed. Further studies can include a comparative study of LR with that of a contemporary journal in the field of library and information science (LIS).

Teachers and research scholars of LIS can benefit from insights into the scholarly contributions of LR that has accommodated 312 authors representing 49 countries.

The study yields some interesting findings of academic publishing in LR. It can help the readers of LR to understand the most striking contributions, highly cited journals, the most prolific authors, country productivity, and assorted parameters.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the scholarly communications in Journal of Financial Crime (JFC) during the last five years and to study the key dimensions of its publication trends.

For the analysis of the study, five volumes containing 20 issues of Journal of Financial Crime during the years 2006 to 2010 have been taken up for evaluation. The authors employ necessary bibliometric measures to analyze different publication parameters.

It is found that the contribution of articles to each volume of JFC is very consistent and the journal has published around 30 articles per year. Single authored papers are found to be the highest, followed by two‐authored and then three‐authored papers. The degree of collaboration in JFC is found to be 0.246. In regards to ranking of country productivity, the UK topped the list followed by the USA, Canada and Australia. Journal of Financial Crime, which is the source journal, leads the table followed by Journal of Business Ethics, Crime Law and Social Change and Journal of Money Laundering Control.

This paper focuses on the publication traits of Journal of Financial Crime over a five‐year period. Patterns of research output in 155 publications are analyzed. Further studies can include other journals in the field of economics.

Scholars can benefit from insights into the scholarly contributions of Journal of Financial Crime that has accommodated 220 authors from 41 different countries of the world.

The paper provides valuable insights into the nature of academic publishing of Journal of Financial Crime. It can help JFC readers to understand the most striking contributions, highly cited journals, the most prolific authors, country productivity, and assorted parameters.

The purpose of this study is to develop a list of citation classics published in knowledge management (KM) journals and to analyze the key attributes and characteristics of the selected articles to understand the development of the KM discipline.

This study identifies 100 citation classics from seven KM-centric journals based on their citation impact reported by Google Scholar and analyzes their attributes.

The KM discipline is at the pre-science stage because of the influence of normative studies espousing KM practice. However, KM is progressing toward normal science and academic maturity. While the discipline does not exhibit the signs of the superstar effect, scholars from the USA and UK have made the most significant impact on the development of the KM school of thought. KM scholars should be more engaged in international collaboration.

Practitioners played a key role in the development of the KM discipline and thus there is an opportunity to develop more scientific research approaches based on critical and performative research agenda.

The study is novel and a must read for KM scholars because it is the first to comprehensively analyze the ideas that are the origins of the KM discipline.

The purpose of this paper is to analyse the highly cited articles published in Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal (AAAJ), since its inception, to answer three research questions: first, how have scholarly articles published in AAAJ developed? second, what are the focus areas and characteristics of articles in AAAJ, and who are the influential authors? third, who are the emerging next generation scholars and what are the emerging research themes in AAAJ?

A structured literature review (SLR) was used to analyse 126 most cited classic AAAJ articles and 21 additional emerging articles published between 1988 and 2016. Traditional literature reviews can have varied results because of a lack of rigour. The SLR method allows for an examination in detail of the articles, authors, focus areas and pattern of AAAJ publishing over three decades.

The findings show increased diversity in more recent years in theories, methods, origins, focus areas, and where AAAJ articles are cited, which highlights that the interdisciplinary accounting research project is maturing and remaining true to the ideal of being inclusive.

Within this diversity, the analyses show that AAAJ remains focussed on and presents opportunities for impactful accounting research related to social issues, including non-financial corporate reporting/disclosure, public sector accounting, corporate governance and alternative forms of accounting, audit and accountability. Additionally, there is a need for more practice-based research to address the “wicked” problems at the intersection between accounting and society.

This paper presents accounting researchers with an opportunity to develop insightful and publishable studies. Also, it serves as a basis for developing future research agendas in the interdisciplinary accounting field.

This paper seeks to present a scientometric analysis of the Proceedings of the McMaster World Congress on the Management of Intellectual Capital and Innovation for the 1996‐2008 period in order to better understand the evolution and identity of the discipline.

Qualitative and quantitative data analysis techniques were applied to determine author distribution, country, individual and institutional‐level productivity rankings, and employed methodologies.

It was found that an average manuscript was written by 1.73 authors. The USA, Canada and the UK were the three most productive countries, which is consistent with prior KM/IC productivity research. Most productive institutions were the University of Calgary (Canada), Polytechnic University of Catalonia (Spain) and Universidad de Oviedo (Spain). The most productive individuals were James Falconer, Jose Maria Viedma Marti and Scott Erickson. Lotka's α, which represents the degree of conference delegate retention rate, was established as 2.7. Case studies were the most frequent method of inquiry, followed by framework development and literature reviews. Surveys and usage of secondary data were the leading empirical methodologies. Interviews, laboratory experiments, and field studies were under‐represented.

The findings offer valuable insights into the state and development of the KM/IC discipline and shed some light on its identity.

Scientometric analyses are of primary interest for academic researchers and therefore the practical implications of this study are limited.

The research reported is among the first to investigate the issue of the KM/IC discipline identity from a descriptive perspective.

This study aims to examine the scholarly impact of funded and non-funded research published in ten core library and information science (LIS) journals published in 2016.

In total, ten high-impact LIS journals were selected using Google Scholar metrics. The source title of each selected journal was searched in the Scopus database to retrieve the articles published in 2016. The detailed information of all the retrieved articles for every journal was exported in a CSV Excel file, and after collecting all the journal articles’ information, all CSV Excel files were merged into a single MS Excel file for data analysis.

The study analyzed 1,064 publications and found that 14% of them were funded research articles. Funded articles received higher average citation counts (24.56) compared to non-funded articles (20.49). Funded open-access articles had a higher scholarly impact than funded closed-access articles. The research area with the most funded articles was “Bibliometrics,” which also received the highest number of citations (1,676) with an average citation count of 24.64. The National Natural Science Foundation of China funded the most papers (30), while the USA funded the highest number of research publications (36) in the field of LIS.

This study highlights the importance of securing funding, open access publishing, discipline-specific differences, diverse funding sources and aiming for higher citations. Researchers, practitioners and policymakers can use these findings to enhance research impact in LIS.

This study explores the impact of funding on research LIS and provides valuable insights into the intricate relationship between funding and research impact.

This paper aims to propose a new metric, called the Research Productivity Index (RPI), which can be used to measure universities’ research productivity and benchmark them accordingly at both national and global levels.

The paper used a partial-factor productivity measurement as the basis to develop RPI, which considers the ratio of total weighted publications (outputs) to the used input (affiliated researchers). To demonstrate the applicability of the RPI, data were collected from Scopus to assess the research productivity of a university in the UAE, as an example. The methodological steps (algorithm) were demonstrated using mathematical and query functions to extract the required data from the Scopus data set and then compute the RPI value.

A new effective and objective metric was developed for measuring universities’ research productivity.

This paper suggests that Scopus could use RPI as a metric for measuring the research productivity of each university. RPI can be used by university administrators and government decision-makers to evaluate and rank/benchmark institutions’ research productivity. They can consequently make more effective decisions with regard to the efficient allocation of research budgets and funding.

This paper distinguishes between measuring research impact and research productivity. It proposes RPI for measuring the latter, whereas most existing metrics measure the former. RPI is an objective measurement, as it is calculated based on a constant period of time, three years, and takes into consideration the university size (i.e. affiliated researchers) in addition to the quality and quantity (total) of research outcomes.

Knight's Industrial Law Reports goes into a new style and format as Managerial Law This issue of KILR is restyled Managerial Law and it now appears on a continuous updating basis rather than as a monthly routine affair.