Search results

Entrepreneurship-related research in management and organizational journals has experienced rapid growth, particularly in the last several years. The purpose of this study is to identify the researchers and universities that have had the greatest influence on entrepreneurship research since the turn of the century. Using a systematic and comprehensive study identification protocol, the authors delve into the individual and institutional actors contributing to scholarship in entrepreneurial studies for the period from 2000 to 2015. Examination of top-tier management and organizational journals revealed that a total of 371 entrepreneurship-related articles were published during this period by 618 authors from 303 different institutions. Rankings for the most prolific individuals as well as institutions, adjusted and unadjusted for journal quality, are presented. The article concludes with a discussion of the limitations and implications of the research undertaken here.

This paper aims to the identification of journal articles that probably report on interdisciplinary research at Wageningen University & Research (WUR).

For identification of interdisciplinary research, an analysis is performed on journals from which articles have been cited in articles (co-)authored by WUR staff. The journals with cited articles are inventoried from the reference lists of the WUR articles. For each WUR article, a mean dissimilarity is calculated between the journal in which it has been published and the journals inventoried from the reference lists. Dissimilarities are derived from a large matrix with similarity values between journals, calculated from co-occurrence of these journals in the WUR articles’ reference lists.

For 21,191 WUR articles published between 2006 and 2015 in 2,535 journals mean dissimilarities have been calculated. The analysis shows that WUR articles with high mean dissimilarities often are published in multidisciplinary journals. Also, WUR articles with high mean dissimilarities are found in non-multidisciplinary (research field-specific) journals. For these articles (with high mean dissimilarities), this paper shows that citations are often made to more various research fields than for articles with lower mean dissimilarities.

Identification of articles reporting on interdisciplinary research may be important to WUR policy for strategic purposes or for the evaluation of researchers or groups. Also, this analysis enables to identify journals with high mean dissimilarities (due to WUR articles citing more various research fields). Identification of these journals with a more interdisciplinary scope can be important for collection management by the library.

The purpose of this paper is to examine how rural entrepreneurship is discussed by analyzing articles in the leading journals of the two main research fields, entrepreneurship studies, and rural studies, through the concept of rural proofing.

The systematic literature review centers on the two main fields where rural entrepreneurship is studied and covers papers in nine leading journals in entrepreneurship studies and two leading journals in rural studies, between the years 1989 and 2020. In total, 97 papers were reviewed and we utilize and operationalize the rural proofing concept based on Fahmy et al.'s (2004) 3 characteristics of rural: remoteness, accessibility, and rural locale and sense of place. The authors take stock of the dimensions of rural proofing addressed within each of the research fields to find similarities and differences; that is, if articles are rural proofed (or not) when discussing rural entrepreneurship.

The classification of articles across the three dimensions of rural proofing shows that the field of rural entrepreneurship is being addressed mainly in the dimensions of remoteness and accessibility, while few authors in rural studies journals give priority to the rural locale and sense of place dimension. The results of the authors' review reveal that out of a total of 97 articles on rural entrepreneurship, 56 articles address at least one dimension of rural proofing and 41 articles do not address any dimension. Among the 41 articles not rural proofed, rurality is not problematized when discussing rural entrepreneurship. Instead, the authors focus on specific topics such as social capital, community entrepreneurship/networks, entrepreneurs'/farmers' identity, illegality in rural areas, and institutional framework. The number of non-rural-proofed articles in entrepreneurship journals is almost double that in rural studies journals. This means that authors in entrepreneurship journals do not problematize rurality to the same extent as authors in rural studies journals when addressing rural entrepreneurship.

The authors emphasize the need for increased cross-fertilization between the fields of entrepreneurship and rural studies as an avenue to develop the entrepreneurship field in the direction towards rural proofing. A close collaboration with academia and policymakers is essential to promote interdisciplinary research in order to make a distinctive contribution to rural development. Scholars in either of the two fields will benefit from our review and identification of similarities and differences in the research. The review is one step towards promoting a closer dialog between the two fields.

Previous reviews have focused mainly on what rural entrepreneurship entails (e.g. what topics are discussed) rather than how rural entrepreneurship is discussed. This paper centers on the differences and similarities of the two main fields and provides an in-depth qualitative analysis of how rural entrepreneurship is discussed by utilizing the rural proofing concept.

This paper investigates a retrospective on the Journal of Derivatives and Quantitative Studies (JDQS) on its 30th anniversary based on bibliometric. JDQSs yearly publications, citations, impact factors, and centrality indices grew up in early 2010s, and diminished in 2020. Keyword network analysis reveals the JDQS's main keywords including behavioral finance, implied volatility, information asymmetry, price discovery, KOSPI200 futures, volatility, and KOSPI200 options. Citations of JDQS articles are mainly driven by article age, demeaned age squared, conference, nonacademic authors and language. In comparison between number of views and downloads for JDQS articles, we find that recent changes in publisher and editorial and publishing policies have increased visibility of JDQS.

The goal of this article is to provide an overview of healthcare entrepreneurship, both in terms of its current trends and future directions.

The article engages in a systematic review of extant research on healthcare entrepreneurship using the scientific procedures and rationales for systematic literature reviews (SPAR-4-SLR) as the review protocol and bibliometrics or scientometrics analysis as the review method.

Healthcare entrepreneurship research has fared reasonably well in terms of publication productivity and impact, with diverse contributions coming from authors, institutions and countries, as well as a range of monetary and non-monetary support from funders and journals. The (eight) major themes of healthcare entrepreneurship research revolve around innovation and leadership, disruption and technology, entrepreneurship models, education and empowerment, systems and services, orientations and opportunities, choices and freedom and policy and impact.

The article establishes healthcare entrepreneurship as a promising field of academic research and professional practice that leverages the power of entrepreneurship to advance the state of healthcare.

The article offers a seminal state of the art of healthcare entrepreneurship research.

This paper analyses the research in Library and Information Science (LIS) and reports on (1) the status of LIS research in 2015 and (2) on the evolution of LIS research longitudinally from 1965 to 2015.

The study employs a quantitative intellectual content analysis of articles published in 30+ scholarly LIS journals, following the design by Tuomaala et al. (2014). In the content analysis, we classify articles along eight dimensions covering topical content and methodology.

The topical findings indicate that the earlier strong LIS emphasis on L&I services has declined notably, while scientific and professional communication has become the most popular topic. Information storage and retrieval has given up its earlier strong position towards the end of the years analyzed. Individuals are increasingly the units of observation. End-user's and developer's viewpoints have strengthened at the cost of intermediaries' viewpoint. LIS research is methodologically increasingly scattered since survey, scientometric methods, experiment, case studies and qualitative studies have all gained in popularity. Consequently, LIS may have become more versatile in the analysis of its research objects during the years analyzed.

Among quantitative intellectual content analyses of LIS research, the study is unique in its scope: length of analysis period (50 years), width (8 dimensions covering topical content and methodology) and depth (the annual batch of 30+ scholarly journals).

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.

This paper aims to compare the nature of three different business and management education (BME) research streams (online/blended learning, entrepreneurship education and experiential learning), along with their citation sources to draw insights on their support and legitimacy bases, with lessons on improving such support and legitimacy for the streams and the wider BME research field.

The authors analyze the nature of three BME research streams and their citation sources through tests of differences across streams.

The three streams differ in research foci and approaches such as the use of managerial samples in experiential learning, quantitative studies in online/blended education and literature reviews in entrepreneurship education. They also differ in sources of legitimacy recognition and avenues for mobilization of support. The underlying literature development pattern of the experiential learning stream indicates a need for BME scholars to identify and build on each other’s work.

Identification of different research bases and key supporting literature in the different streams shows important core articles that are useful to build research in each stream.

Readers will understand the different research bases supporting the three research streams, along with their targeted audience and practice implications.

The discovery of different support bases for the three different streams helps identify the network of authors and relationships that have been built in each stream.

According to the authors’ knowledge, this paper is the first to uncover differences in nature and citation sources of the three continuously growing BME research streams with recommendations on ways to improve the support of the three streams.

The present study seeks to answer the following research question: what is the profile of the academic production related to the interorganizational networks in the period between 2006 and 2016? Thus, this study aims to characterize the academic production about the subject interorganizational networks available in national journals with Concept “A” (Qualis Capes), in the period between 2006 and 2016.

This paper uses national journals with Concept “A” of the Qualis classification (2016) for journal selection. In total, 12 “A” concept journals were identified. However, it was decided to analyze ten of them. The procedures suggested by Crossan and Apaydin (2010) for conducting bibliometric studies were adopted. It has been identified that 77 articles were published in eight journals. The R 3.3.2 and R Studio 1.0.136 software were used. The IGRAPH 0.5.5-2 extension (package) was used to analyze graphs and co-authorship networks (Csárdi and Nepusz, 2006). This extension is able to manipulate networks with millions of vertices and edges and provides a series of functions to analyze the properties of social networks, such as subnetworks, intermediation, centrality, among other characteristics (Csárdi and Nepusz, 2006). Correspondence analysis (CA) was also performed. CA is a multivariate exploratory technique that converts a data matrix into a graphical representation, so that rows and columns are represented by points in a graph (Greenacre and Hastie, 1987). This extension is dedicated to the multivariate analysis of data and allows the manipulation of different types of variables (quantitative or categorical). In the present research, multiple CA (MCA) was applied – indicated when the elements are described as categorical variables (Lê et al., 2008). The characteristics considered for carrying out MCA were the “main term”, “research approach”, “type of research”, “constructs” and “research strategies”. By using the FactoMineR 1.34 extension, the hierarchical clustering on principal components (HCPC) function was used (Husson et al., 2007; Lê et al., 2008). This function allows creating clusters from the characteristics of the articles analyzed and highlights the justifications for the groupings created. The function allows forming as many clusters the researcher wishes, being of its attribution to analyze a division that best represents the characteristics of the data (Husson, Josse, and Pagès, 2010). Husson et al. (2010) suggest that an analysis should be performed from the hierarchical tree, thus the number of clusters can be defined considering the overall appearance (or shape) of the tree formed. At last, a word cloud was created using the Wordcloud 2.5 extension (Fellows, 2013). The noticed advantage of using this extension is that it does not separate the terms that form a keyword when generating the cloud. It has been used for the keywords of the 77 articles analyzed; however, it has been decided to keep those that presented frequency greater than or equal to two. By avoiding occasional terms, a more intelligible cloud was obtained.

The present study was not able to verify if the journals analyzed by Andrighi et al. (2011) have influenced others to publish on the subject, as suggested by the Bradford’s Law. The standard “success breeds success”, suggested by the Bradford’s Law, was not confirmed. The so-called nuclear zone (Brookes, 1969; Novaretti et al., 2015) is composed of the journals Brazilian Administration Review (BAR), Revista de Administração Contemporânea (RAC), Revista de Administração Pública (RAP) and Revista Brasileira de Gestão de Negócios (RBGN). The journal RAC stands out for having been the one that has increased its annual average of publication in relation to the theme, when compared with the findings of Andrighi et al. (2011). The journals BAR and RBGN stand out because they are in the nuclear zone, even though they were not considered in the work of Andrighi et al. (2011). It should be noted that all the analyzed journals have in common the fact of addressing the themes of management and administration and, more specifically, making room for the “competitiveness” and “cooperation” constructs. These constructs are related to the theme of networks and were the most recurrent in the articles analyzed. “Cooperation” (29), “competitiveness” (27), “knowledge” (12), “learning” (6) and “trust” (3) were the “constructs” used to compose the 77 articles analyzed. In turn, “network” (49), “alliance” (18) and “cluster” (9) were the “main term” most used in the articles. This implies that the topic of cooperation is more linked to a vision of strategy. As occurred in the research of Andrighi et al. (2011), the term “network” is the most recurrent; in addition, the growth of space obtained by the term “alliance” stands out. The terms “network” and “alliance” were the most used by the articles, being predominant in 87 per cent of the research. In the present research, the predominance of the term “network” may have occurred because its concept is broader and it is used in the literature in different ways, even in contradictory ways (Andrighi et al., 2011; Schommer, 2001). In turn, the term “alliance” may have been recurrent because it has a wide dispersion of published issues, such as governance structure, cooperation, knowledge transfer and trust (Lima and Campos Filho, 2009). By using the HCPC function of the FactoMineR extension, the articles were grouped according to their characteristics, and then three clusters were formed. By analyzing the generated results, it is assumed that the division into three clusters was the one that best represented the data. Cluster 1 is characterized by descriptive, quantitative, half documentary and half survey research studies, being “cluster” the main term. Cluster 2 is characterized by exploratory case studies with qualitative–quantitative analyzes. Cluster 3 is characterized by theoretical tests. The Zipf’s law points out that a small group of words occurs many times; however, when considering the most recurrent words Networks (9), Strategic Alliances (8), Cooperation (8), Interorganizational Networks (8) and Alliances (6) show that they were present in only about 10 per cent of the works. Lotka’s Law, which states that few authors publish much and many authors publish little, was not confirmed. The authors who presented the highest number of publications, T. Diana L. v. A. de Macedo-Soares (6); Jorge Renato Verschoore (6); Alsones Balestrin (5); Douglas Wegner (4); Humberto Elias Garcia Lopes (4), participated in less than 10 per cent of the works. Thus, the authorship was characterized by many researchers publishing few works, what can be an effect of the behavior of these authors, who prefer to publish in network. The centrality of the relations between the authors was analyzed and, in addition, the intermediation points of the network were identified. The present study also analyzed all the references used by the 77 articles that compose the study. The main author of each of the references used was identified. Among the 30 identified authors, Yin and Hair Jr. stand out for books related to fundamentals and research methodologies. Borgatti and Eisenhardt developed research on the topic of interorganizational networks and also created works for methodological foundations. Powell was the most frequently mentioned author (28) and had more different works referenced (9). Powell stands out for the production of articles published in periodicals, not books. Porter’s situation is the opposite. Most of the quotations made to the author come from his books, especially the work “Competitive strategy” (Porter, 1980). All authors identified are foreigners, with the exception of Balestrin. Marshall, Polanyi, Granovetter and Williamson are authors of works considered seminal, being them, respectively, “Principles of economics” (Marshall, 1890), “Personal knowledge: towards a post critical philosophy” (Polanyi, 1958) and “The strength of weak ties” (Granovetter, 1973) and “Markets and hierarchies, analysis and antitrust implications” (Williamson, 1975).

Like all research, it has limitations. The first one derives from the selection criteria of the periodicals to be analyzed. The cut referring to the journals of greater impact excludes most of the national articles. These studies may contain important contributions to the knowledge of the national publication profile. In addition, the choice to analyze the journals disregards other types of work, such as books, scientific events, dissertations and thesis and reports. The choice of articles published in journals is based on the fact that these are a “certified knowledge”, as the studies are peer-reviewed, and in the case of the Qualis “A” stratum, a review of exogenous quality is supposed on this production. Despite its flaws, this system can be considered reliable to evaluate scientific knowledge (Bedeian, 2004; Shugan, 2007). The analysis of the most recent articles may have been hampered by a temporal issue. In addition, the choice of keywords, a necessary step, leaves out other studies. Another limitation refers to the fact that the articles have been analyzed and classified by the authors, which presupposes the use of their value judgments, at least to some extent. Other limitations refer to the bibliometric techniques employed. The main authors referenced in the studies were demonstrated, that is, those authors who have been used as a theoretical reference for studies of interorganizational networks. However, the circumstances under which these citations occurred were not analyzed. For example, an author may be quoted to use the contribution of his/her study, to be criticized or just to be another reference in the text. The lack of this analysis can be considered a fragility of the study.

This text was started talking about the dispersion of the studies on networks in the country. Previous work has been used, theoretically and empirically demonstrating this fact. Zipf’s Law applied to bibliometrics, as described by Guedes and Borschiver (2005), Novaretti et al. (2015) and Pao (1978), was not confirmed in this study, which seems to be an indicative fact that the research on this theme in Brazil presents fragmentation as an intrinsic characteristic. That is, it must remain fragmented, as this would be its own way to evolve. This is evident especially when comparing the study of Andrighi et al. (2011) and its results. With several but continuous temporal cut-outs, and the same keywords, the maintenance of this dispersion is evident. This is also a contribution of this study.

The study contributed to updating the research profile, mainly after the triennium 2013-2015 of Qualis Capes’ evaluations. It also added to the mapping of recent Brazilian academic production related to interorganizational networks, completing studies by Alves et al. (2013), Andrighi et al. (2011), Balestrin et al. (2010), Cunha and Carrieri (2003) and Mascena et al. (2013). Thus, it is believed that the research reached the proposed objectives, despite its limitations.

The present research is also justified by helping to understand the subject being useful for researchers, educators and students, in general, in the task of demonstrating gaps and opportunities of future researches and collaborating with the elaboration of a research agenda (Baumgartner and Pieters, 2003). The work has updated bibliometrics on the subject and allows comparisons with previous bibliometric studies (Alves et al., 2013; Andrighi et al., 2011; Balestrin et al., 2010; Cunha and Carrieri, 2003; Ferreira et al., 2014; Lima and Campos Filho, 2009; Mascena et al., 2013). It is believed that the present study differs from the others because of the analysis performed, the way the data were treated, with techniques that are rarely used simultaneously, going beyond the descriptive statistics.

Open-access mega-journals (OAMJs) represent an increasingly important part of the scholarly communication landscape. OAMJs, such as PLOS ONE, are large scale, broad scope journals that operate an open access business model (normally based on article-processing charges), and which employ a novel form of peer review, focussing on scientific “soundness” and eschewing judgement of novelty or importance. The purpose of this paper is to examine the discourses relating to OAMJs, and their place within scholarly publishing, and considers attitudes towards mega-journals within the academic community.

This paper presents a review of the literature of OAMJs structured around four defining characteristics: scale, disciplinary scope, peer review policy, and economic model. The existing scholarly literature was augmented by searches of more informal outputs, such as blogs and e-mail discussion lists, to capture the debate in its entirety.

While the academic literature relating specifically to OAMJs is relatively sparse, discussion in other fora is detailed and animated, with debates ranging from the sustainability and ethics of the mega-journal model, to the impact of soundness-only peer review on article quality and discoverability, and the potential for OAMJs to represent a paradigm-shifting development in scholarly publishing.

This paper represents the first comprehensive review of the mega-journal phenomenon, drawing not only on the published academic literature, but also grey, professional and informal sources. The paper advances a number of ways in which the role of OAMJs in the scholarly communication environment can be conceptualised.