Search results

The purpose of this paper is to describe the “scientific identity” and “ethnocentricity” in the “top” journals of logistics management by studying the categories of papers published and the geographical affiliations of authors, editorial review boards, and editors in selected journals.

A sample of “top” scholarly journals in logistics management is selected on the basis of previous research, expert opinion, and journal ranking lists. The selection includes the International Journal of Logistics Management (IJLM), the International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management (IJPDLM), and the Journal of Business Logistics (JBL). The study considers all available papers (a total of 657) published in these journals over an eight‐year period from 2000 to 2007. The compiled results are analyzed for patterns that reveal the “scientific identity” and “ethnocentricity” of each of the selected journals.

There is a range of different categories of papers in the selected journals and there a fairly broad range of geographical affiliations of authors, editorial review boards, and editors. The overall variety of “scientific identities” and “ethnocentricity” among the journals studied here support in part the ongoing scientific exploration of logistics management, though it may be improved in the future.

Further research of the “scientific identity” and “ethnocentricity” of individual research journals is required in other sub‐disciplines of logistics.

Scholars will benefit from insights into the “scientific identities” and “ethnocentricity” of the “top” journals in logistics management. In particular, scholars can note the particular features of individual journals while acknowledging the paradigmatic flexibility and richness of research designs that are present in most of these journals.

This paper updates and extends previous research on methodological approaches in logistics management journals, but it appears to be the first study of the “scientific identity” of “top” logistics management journals in terms of categories of papers published and geographical affiliation of authors, editorial review boards, and editors. This paper provides valuable insights into the nature of academic publishing in the flourishing research field of logistics management.

The purpose of this paper is to describe selected journals in logistics management in terms of: the proportion of different “empirical” contributions; the proportion of national versus international research data; the geographical origin of research data; and the authors' geographical affiliations.

A sample of “top” scholarly journals in logistics management is selected on the basis of previous research, expert opinion and journal ranking lists. The selection includes the International Journal of Logistics Management (IJLM), the International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management (IJPDLM), and the Journal of Business Logistics (JBL). The research considers all available papers (a total of 657) published in these journals over an eight‐year period from 2000 to 2007.

The “empirical characteristics” and “geocentricity” were found to be variable across the studied journals in logistics management.

The present research is limited to the “empirical characteristics” and “geocentricity” of “top” journals in logistics management. It provides opportunity for further research.

The present research provides valuable insights into the nature of academic publishing in the area of top journals of logistics management. The findings presented may be used by authors to direct their submissions to the proper journal.

Scholars will benefit from insights into the “empirical characteristics” and “geocentricity” of the “top” journals in logistics management. Specifically, scholars can note the particular features of individual journals. Further studies of the “empirical characteristics” and “geocentricity” of individual research journals are required in other related journals to the field of logistics management.

Logistics and supply chain management (SCM) are broad disciplines in which many different, cross‐functional tasks are investigated. In Scandinavia, research in logistics and SCM experienced a significant boom during the 1990s; the steadily increasing interest in participation in the annual NOFOMA Nordic Logistics Conference and the steadily growing number of PhD students enrolled in the Scandinavian research environments emphasizing the study of logistics and SCM bear witness to this intensification. In addition, a great number of doctoral dissertations in this field are completed in Scandinavia, adding greatly to the existent store of knowledge concerning a wide range of logistics and SCM phenomena. However, to date, precious little effort has been devoted to providing an overview of these dissertations. This paper is designed to fill that void. To that end, 75 doctoral dissertations published from 1990 to 2001 are identified. The framework classifies the dissertations into a series of main themes indicative of the state of Nordic research in logistics and SCM. Suggestions for future research based on this survey are likewise provided.

This paper describes how qualitative research methods, particularly action research case studies, can contribute to further advance and develop logistics research. The paper also describes limitations with the current dominance of quantitative (especially survey) research in logistics. However, the paper is not a pure criticism of the use of quantitative research methods in general or in logistics in specific. Rather, the argument is that it is necessary to use both quantitative and qualitative methods if we really want to develop and advance logistics research. Logistics problems are often ill‐structured, even messy, real‐world problems. Modern logistics is based on holistic and systemic thinking and uses multi‐disciplinary and cross‐functional approaches. Thus action research case studies are especially suited for an applied field such as logistics since they strive to advance both science and practice. This should also be reflected in published logistics research, which it is not. In order to change this situation, we first have to understand paradigms and their influence on how we approach and evaluate research. Second, we have to define what case studies in journal articles mean. Third, we need to develop criteria for evaluating action research case studies.

In the logistics literature, it is stated that research results are produced almost entirely within a positivistic paradigm. As a consequence, there is only one school in logistics research, and it is based on the positivistic approach. It also means that the research questions are derived from the same methodological approach, which tends to produce similar questions and answers. In this paper, Arbnor and Bjerke's methodological framework is presented as a basic platform for analysing logistics research. By using the framework, it becomes evident that logistics research can be divided into two schools based on the underlying methodological approach. The schools are the analytical school, building on positivism, and the systems school, building on systems theory. Arbnor and Bjerke's framework also provides a basis for expanding the logistics discipline with yet another school, the actors school, based on sociological meta‐theories. Hence, the framework provides logistics research with a solid basis for analyzing existing research and a direction for future research.

The purpose of this research is to develop a conceptual framework in which dynamic capabilities (DCs) for the creation of logistics flexibility are outlined, and elaborate it further based on empirical data from a case study at a Swedish fast fashion retailer.

A conceptual framework that aims to delineate the relationship between generic classes of DCs and logistics flexibility is proposed. Thereafter, based on a theory elaboration approach, empirical data from a case study at a Swedish fast fashion retailer is used to identify more specific DCs and further outline the characteristics of the DCs classes.

The proposed framework draws on the three DC classes of sensing, seizing and reconfiguring, and how they underscore logistics range and logistics response flexibility. The framework also distinguishes between DC classes and logistics flexibility that occur at operational, structural and strategic levels. DCs for the creation of logistics flexibility at a Swedish fast fashion retailer have also been identified and described as a means to further elaborate the characteristics of the DC classes.

Current empirical data is limited to one specific company context.

The research presents a systematic and comprehensive map of different DCs that underscore logistics flexibility, a useful tool supporting logistics development efforts regarding flexibility.

The establishment of a more detailed DC lens, in which different classes of DCs are included, means that an improved understanding for how flexibility is created can be achieved. It helps the research to move beyond the “here and now” existence of logistics flexibility to instead focus on how logistics flexibility can be created.

This is a polemical paper challenging both the principle and practice of journal ranking. In recent years academics and their institutions have become obsessive about the star‐ratings of the journals in which they publish. In the UK this is partly attributed to quinquennial reviews of university research performance though preoccupation with journal ratings has become an international phenomenon. The purpose of this paper is to examine the arguments for and against these ratings and argue that, on balance, they are having a damaging effect on the development of logistics as an academic discipline.

The arguments advanced in the paper are partly substantiated by references to the literature on the ranking of journals and development of scientific research. A comparison is made of the rating of logistics publications in different journal ranking systems. The views expressed in the paper are also based on informal discussions with numerous academics in logistics and other fields, and long experience as a researcher, reviewer and journal editor.

The ranking of journals gives university management a convenient method of assessing research performance across disciplines, though has several disadvantages. Among other things, it can skew the choice of research methodology, lengthen publication lead times, cause academics to be disloyal to the specialist journals in their field, favour theory over practical relevance and unfairly discriminate against relatively young disciplines such as logistics. Research evidence suggests that journal ratings are not a good proxy for the value and impact of an article. The paper aims to stimulate a debate on the pros and cons of journal rankings and encourage logistics academics to reflect on the impact of these rankings on their personal research plans and the wider development of the field.

The review of journal ranking systems is confined to three countries, the UK, Germany and Australia. The analysis of journal ranking was also limited to 11 publications with the word logistics or supply chain management. The results of this review and analysis, however, provide sufficient evidence to support the main arguments advanced in the paper.

The paper asserts that the journal ranking system is encouraging a retreat into ivory towers where academics become more interested in impressing each other with their intellectual brilliance than in doing research that is of real value to the outside world.

Many logistics academics are concerned about the situation and trends outlined in this paper, but find it very difficult to challenge the prevailing journal ranking orthodoxy. This paper may give them greater confidence to question the value of the journal ranking systems that are increasing dominating academic life.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the state of logistics management research in Asia. The study focuses on the research agenda, the topics of interest, and the extent of research collaboration in logistics theory building and knowledge specific to Asia.

This study uses a mixed methods approach namely, content analysis drawn from the articles found in six well-recognized peer-reviewed logistics management related journals from 2003 to 2013, followed by social network analysis which is applied on the selected articles to provide a structure of the collaboration relationship.

Initial findings suggest that there are some scholars in Asia who are instrumental in research collaboration and in building a body of knowledge on logistics management focused on Asia. More co-production of knowledge from deeper and tightly knit industry-academic collaboration is needed to progress this domain. Most of the published work use an empirical instrument drawn from the resource-based view to explore firm level supply chain collaboration and strategy. This suggests a positivist research tradition within logistics. There is a shortage of studies conducted on the supply chain as a network of enterprises.

The review of the articles is limited to six logistics specific journals and the authors only concentrate on logistics management research focused on Asia. The contributions from the other journals may have been missed. More collaboration at the institutional, national, and international levels is called for especially on cross-collaboration between practice and theory.

Though the analysis is restricted to 260 articles found in six journals, this paper can shed light on the research needs from different perspectives and facilitate the progress of logistics management research in Asia.

This is the first paper to discuss the state of logistics management research collaboration in Asia, and provides an overview of the research issues, topics, and approaches undertaken thus far. Through this work, this study hopes that it will encourage greater research collaboration between industry and academia, and academics themselves.

The belt and road initiative (BRI) emanates from China and seeks to connect Europe, Asia and Africa through transport and telecommunications infrastructure. Despite the importance of Africa in the BRI network, very little research has been done on the BRI in Africa, and even less of this emanates from Africa itself. In particular, considering that the BRI investments in Africa are largely transport related, there is almost no research covering the area of logistics, which should be greatly affected by the infrastructure investments. This paper sought to establish the current state of logistics research related to the BRI in Africa.

A bibliometric analysis was conducted on documents extracted from the SCOPUS database.

The findings indicate that there is a lack of research in critical areas such as environmental, social and economic impact of BRI transport investments, governance, logistics performance and international cooperation. In particular, there is a massive gap in local knowledge regarding the BRI.

The study is limited to published research indexed in the SCOPUS database. Future research directions include empirical studies into BRI project initiation investigation, economic and environmental impacts, governance structures and policy intervention requirements and macro-level logistics impacts.

The study emphasises the importance publishing all the relevant information regarding BRI related projects in Africa to create transparency.

The study investigates the current research on the effect of China's BRI on transport and logistics in Africa through a bibliometric analysis. The investigation reveals that while there are huge investments in infrastructure, the actual effect on logistics of participating countries in Africa has not been interrogated.

The purpose of this paper is to contribute to a more complete understanding of logistics preparedness. By comparing extant research in preparedness and logistics with findings from empirical analysis of secondary data, the authors develop a definition of and framework for logistics preparedness, along with suggestions for future research agenda.

The authors link the way in which humanitarian organizations define and aim to achieve logistics preparedness with extant academic research. The authors critically analyze public data from 13 organizations that are active in disaster relief and review papers on logistics preparedness and humanitarian logistics.

The authors found that, despite the increased attention, there is no unified understanding across organizations about what constitutes logistics preparedness and how it can contribute to improvements in operations. Based on the review of the academic literature, the authors found that the same is true for humanitarian logistics research. The lack of a common understanding has resulted in low visibility of efforts and lack of knowledge on logistics preparedness.

On the basis of extant research and practice, the authors suggest a definition of and framework for logistics preparedness with related suggestions for future studies.

Findings can help the humanitarian community gain a better understanding of their efforts related to developing logistics preparedness and can provide a better basis for communicating the need for, and results from, funding in preparedness.

Results can support improvements in humanitarian supply chains, thereby providing affected people with rapid, cost-efficient, and better-adapted responses.

The findings contribute to humanitarian logistics literature, first by identifying the issues related to the lack of a common definition. Second, the authors extend the understanding of what constitutes logistics preparedness by proposing an operationalized framework and definition. Finally, the authors add to the literature by discussing what future topics and types of research may be required.