ArticlePDF Available

Twenty years of the Journal of Knowledge Management : a bibliometric analysis

Authors:

Abstract

Purpose 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. Design/methodology/approach 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. Findings 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. Practical implications 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. Originality/value From the historical record of JKM publications, this study presents an exclusive bibliometric analysis of its publications until 2016 and identifies its main trends.
Twenty years of the Journal of Knowledge
Management: a bibliometric analysis
Magaly Gaviria-Marin, Jose M. Merigo and Simona Popa
Abstract
Purpose 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 itspublications between 1997 and 2016.
Design/methodology/approach 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.
Findings 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.
Practical implications 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.
Originality/value From the historical record of JKM publications, this study presents an exclusive
bibliometric analysis of its publications until 2016 and identifies its maintrends.
Keywords Scopus, Bibliometrics, h-index, Science mapping, Co-citation, Journal analysis
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
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
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 Cat
olica de la
Santı
´sima Concepci
on,
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.
Received 27 October 2017
Revised 28 March 2018
Accepted 11 April 2018
DOI 10.1108/JKM-10-2017-0497 VOL. 22 NO. 8 2018, pp. 1655-1687, ©Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 1367-3270 jJOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT jPAGE 1655
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:
Q1. What are the total number of publications in JKM?
Q2. What are the core JKM articles?
Q3. Who are the main researchers, universities and countries in JKM?
Q4. What are the core journals used in JKM?
Q5. What is the affiliations of researchers?
Q6. What are the topics main in articlesof JKM?
Q7. 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,
PAGE 1656 jJOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT jVOL. 22 NO. 8 2018
Technovation (Gar
´a-Merino et al., 2006)andKnowledge-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 Ribie
`re,
2013). Other journals, such as International Journal of Intelligent Systems (Merig
oet al.,
2017)andJournal 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.
2. Methodology
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 (Merig
oet 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-Martı
´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 (Merig
oet al., 2015b), the European Journal of Marketing (Martı
´nez-L
opez 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)orInformation Sciences (Merig
oet 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:
nquantity indicators, which measure productivity;
nquality indicators, which measure the impact; and
nstructural indicators, which measure the connections between the various scientific
actors.
VOL. 22 NO. 8 2018 jJOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT jPAGE 1657
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
(Bo
¨rner et al., 2003). According to Baraba
´si 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 (Merig
o,
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[1]. 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
PAGE 1658 jJOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT jVOL. 22 NO. 8 2018
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 (Merig
oet al.,2016). As a result of this process, the
search query yielded a sample of 1068 documents.
3. Results
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)
Figure 1 Number of JKM publications by year
VOL. 22 NO. 8 2018 jJOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT jPAGE 1659
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
Table I Annual productivity of the JKM
Period Volume
Issue
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) TP AP TI AI
Decade 1 1997 Vol 1 9 8 8 8 33 33 4 4
1998 Vol 2 9 9 18 51 2 6
1999 Vol 3 8 6 5 7 26 77 4 10
2000 Vol 4 7 8 8 9 32 109 4 14
2001 Vol 5 10 7 7 9 33 142 4 18
2002 Vol 6 8 8879 40182523
2003 Vol 7 9 10 10 11 11 51 233 5 28
2004 Vol 8 10 10 10 8 9 10 57 290 6 34
2005 Vol 9 10 10 10 10 9 10 59 349 6 40
2006 Vol 10 11 9 11 12 14 9 66 415 6 46
Decade 2 2007 Vol 11 12 9 11 13 13 11 69 484 6 52
2008 Vol 12 12 12 12 12 14 10 72 556 6 58
2009 Vol 13 13 9 12 14 13 12 73 629 6 64
2010 Vol 14 12 11 10 7 9 17 66 695 6 70
2011 Vol 15 10 10 10 8 9 11 58 753 6 76
2012 Vol 16 10 10 8 11 10 8 57 810 6 82
2013 Vol 17 9 10 9 9 9 10 56 866 6 88
2014 Vol 18 12 12 8 10 13 9 64 930 6 94
2015 Vol 19 10 13 12 10 13 10 68 998 6 100
2016 Vol 20 9 11 11 12 15 12 70 1068 6 106
Note: 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
Table II Annual citation structure of the JKM
YEAR TP TC 200 100 50 20 10 51 =0 H TC/TP IF
1997 33 313 1 2 1 4 12 7 6 7 9.48
1998 18 248 11 4 2 8 2 7 13.78
1999 26 569 1 3 2 8 3 6 3 12 21.88
2000 32 526 18 3 8 10 2 11 16.44
2001 33 937 1 3 4 3 11 8 3 11 28.39
2002 40 777 1 1 5 9 12 9 3 13 19.43
2003 51 1012 1 5 8 10 8 17 2 16 19.84
2004 57 1009 2 4 6 6 16 20 3 13 17.70
2005 59 3359 3 5 13 24 10 1 3 32 56.93
2006 66 2002 1 1 11 18 14 11 6 4 25 30.33
2007 69 2265 2 1 11 21 15 13 2 4 28 32.83
2008 72 1874 1 7 24 25 11 3 1 26 26.03
2009 73 2380 1 4 10 16 24 12 5 1 25 32.60
2010 66 1677 1 8 25 14 12 6 26 25.41
2011 58 1543 ––7261410 1 25 26.60 1.248
2012 57 1224 1 1 26 16 7 6 23 21.47 1.474
2013 56 1016 ––4 14 21 11 5 1 19 18.14 1.257
2014 64 461 –– 2 17 19 24 2 12 7.20 1.586
2015 68 359 –– 1 11 20 33 3 11 5.28 1.689
2016 70 118 –––4 43 23 4 1.69 2.053
Total 1068 23669 9 21 90 232 228 203 222 63 –– –
Percentage papers 100% 0.84% 1.97% 8.43% 21.72% 21.35% 19.01% 20.79% 5.90% –– –
Accumulated papers ––
9 30 120 352 580 783 1005 1068 –– –
Percentage
Accumulated papers
100% 0.84% 2.81% 11.24% 32.96% 54.31% 73.31% 94.10% 100% –– –
Notes: 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
PAGE 1660 jJOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT jVOL. 22 NO. 8 2018
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 (Merig
oet 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.
Table III Total authors per paper
Year TP
No. of researchers
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8-10 CR TAY ACR
1997 33 23 6 1 2 1 –– – 10 47 2.40
1998 18 11 6 1 –––– 7 26 2.14
1999 26 15 7 2 1 1 –– – 11 44 2.64
2000 32 17 11 4 –––– 15 49 2.13
2001 33 14 10 7 1 1–– 19 65 2.68
2002 40 23 11 4 2 –––– 17 65 2.47
2003 51 18 19 10 4 –––– 33 110 2.79
2004 57 22 20 9 4 2 –– – 35 137 3.29
2005 59 20 19 9 5 3 2 1 1 39 137 3.00
2006 66 20 24 13 6 3 –– – 46 141 2.63
2007 69 29 16 19 4 1 –– – 40 135 2.65
2008 72 26 25 14 3 3 1 ––46 149 2.67
2009 73 21 23 24 5 –––– 52 156 2.60
2010 66 16 31 12 5 1 1 ––50 140 2.48
2011 58 10 21 22 5 –––– 48 137 2.65
2012 57 10 18 24 5 –––– 47 132 2.60
2013 56 10 21 21 3 1 –– – 46 128 2.57
2014 64 11 23 19 8 3 –– – 53 151 2.64
2015 68 10 27 22 8 1–– 58 160 2.59
2016 70 12 24 19 9 5 1 ––58 160 2.55
Total 1068 338 362 256 80 24 7 1 1 730 2269
Average 31.6 33.9 23.9 7.5 2.2 0.7 0.1 0.1
Notes: 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
VOL. 22 NO. 8 2018 jJOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT jPAGE 1661
Table IV 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
Ma
´rtensson, 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
(continued)
PAGE 1662 jJOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT jVOL. 22 NO. 8 2018
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.
Table IV
R Title Name of authors YFT AGE TC TC/AGE
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
Pe
´rez-L
opez, S.,
Montes-Pe
on, J.M.,
Va
´zquez-Orda
´s, 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
Notes: Abbreviations: R: rank; YFP: year first publication; AGE = (Current year: 2016) -YFP); TC: total citations; TC/AGE: citations per year
VOL. 22 NO. 8 2018 jJOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT jPAGE 1663
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
PAGE 1664 jJOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT jVOL. 22 NO. 8 2018
Table V Most cited documents in JKM publications
R Cited reference Type Citations TLS
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
A9696
6 Grant, R.M., Toward a knowledge based theory of the firm (1996); Strategic Management J, 17,
pp. 109-122
A7676
7 Nahapiet, J., Ghoshal, S., Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage
(1998); Academy of Management Review, 23 (2), pp. 242-266
A6761
8 Barney, J., Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage (1991); J Management, 17 (1),
pp. 99-120
A664
9 Kogut, B., Zander, U., Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of
technology (1992); Organization Science, 3 (3), pp. 383-397
A6564
10 Gold, A., Malhotra, A., Segars, A., Knowledge management: an organizational capabilities
perspective (2001); J Management Information Systems, 18 (1), pp. 185-214
A5959
11 Szulanski, G., Exploring internal stickiness: impediments to the transfer of best practice within the
firm (1996); Strategic Management J, 17, pp. 27-43
A5656
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
A4442
14 Hansen, M.T., Nohria, N., Tierney, T., What’s your strategy for managing knowledge? (1999);
Harvard Business Review, 77 (2), pp. 106-116
A4040
15 Lave, J., Wenger, E., (1991); Situated Learning: legitimate peripheral participation; Cambridge
University Press
B4039
16 Teece, D., Pisano, G., Shuen, A., Dynamic capabilities and strategic management (1997);
Strategic Management J, 18 (7), pp. 509-533
A4038
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
A3535
18 Zack, M., Developing a knowledge strategy (1999); California Management Review,41 (3), pp.
125-145
A3535
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
A3333
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
A3232
21 Nonaka, I., Konno, N., The concept of ‘ba’: building a foundation for knowledge creation (1998);
California Management Review, 40 (3), pp. 40-54
A3129
23 Wenger, E., (1998); Communities of practice: learning, meaning and identity; Cambridge
University Press
B3130
24 Grant, R.M., Prospering in dynamically-competitive environments: organizational capability as
knowledge integration (1996); Organization Science, 7 (4), pp. 375-387
A3028
25 March, J., Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning (1991); Organization Science, 2
(1), pp. 71-87
A3030
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
A2827
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
A2727
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
A2727
30 Nelson, R., Winter, S., (1982); An evolutionary theory of economic change; Belknap Press B 27 26
(continued)
VOL. 22 NO. 8 2018 jJOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT jPAGE 1665
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.
Table V
R Cited reference Type Citations TLS
31 Wernerfelt, B., A resource-based view of the firm (1984); Strategic Management J, 5 (2), pp. 171-
180
A2727
32 Spender, J.C., Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the firm (1996); Strategic
Management J, 17, pp. 45-62
A2626
33 Von Krogh, G., Care in knowledge creation (1998); California Management Review, 40 (3), pp.
133-153
A2625
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
A2525
35 McDermott, R., O’Dell, c., Overcoming cultural barriers to sharing knowledge (2001); J
Knowledge Management, 5 (1), pp. 76-85
A2524
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
A2525
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
A2424
39 Riege, A., Three-dozen knowledge-sharing barriers managers must consider (2005); J
Knowledge Management, 9 (3), pp. 18-35
A2424
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
A2323
41 Ruggles, R., The state of the notion: knowledge management in practice (1998); California
Management Review, 40 (3), pp. 80-89
A2321
42 Serenko, A., Bontis, N., Global ranking of knowledge management and intellectual capital
academic journals (2009); J Knowledge Management, 13 (1), pp. 4-15
A2322
43 Davenport, T.H., De Long, D.W., Beers, M.C., Successful knowledge management projects
(1998); Sloan Management Review, 39 (2), pp. 43-57
A215
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
A2121
45 Zahra, S.A., George, G., Absorptive capacity: a review, reconceptualization, and extension
(2002); Academy Management Review, 27 (2), pp. 185-203
A2121
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
A2020
47 De Long, D.W., Fahey, L., Diagnosing cultural barriers to knowledge management (2000);
Academy Management Executive, 14 (4), pp. 113-127
A2020
48 Earl, M., Knowledge management strategies: toward a taxonomy (2001); J Management
Information Systems, 18 (1), pp. 215-233
A2019
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
A2020
50 Eisenhardt, K.M., Building theories from case study research (1989); Academy Management
Review, 14 (4), pp. 532-550
A1919
Notes: Abbreviations: Type (A: article; B: book); TLS: total link strength
PAGE 1666 jJOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT jVOL. 22 NO. 8 2018
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
Table VI Citing articles of the JKM: Journals
R Journal TP Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
1Journal of Knowledge Management 557 17 91 182 267
2Knowledge Management Research and Practice 132 0 8 44 81
3Proceedings of the European Conference on Knowledge Management 103 0 19 84 0
4Vine 99 0 3 38 58
5Journal of Information and Knowledge Management 96 0 11 28 57
6Journal of Intellectual Capital 81 5 10 18 48
7International Journal of Knowledge Management 79 0 0 27 52
8Knowledge and Process Management 72 0 0 17 55
9Learning Organization 72 1 13 30 28
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
13 Management Decision 56 0 5 19 32
14 Espacios 53 0 0 3 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
45 Information Development 18 0 1 1 16
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
Notes: 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)
VOL. 22 NO. 8 2018 jJOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT jPAGE 1667
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
Table VII Citing articles classied by year, authors, universities and countries
R Years TP Author TP University TP Country TP
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 ––Lo
¨nnqvist, 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 ––Urbancova
´, 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
Note: Abbreviations available in Table II
PAGE 1668 jJOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT jVOL. 22 NO. 8 2018
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.
Table VIII Most-productive and inuential authors publishing in the JKM
R Author Name University C TP
JKM General description
LA SA YFT TC C/P H T50 C-JKM TP TC C/P H C-G CA
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 Du
¨sseldorf 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 Sa
´enz, 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 L
opez-Sa
´ez, 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 Ord
on
˜ez de Pablos, P U. Oviedo ESP 3 2 1 2002 65 22 3 0 65 169 1132 7 20 817 131
Notes: 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)
VOL. 22 NO. 8 2018 jJOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT jPAGE 1669
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
Table IX The productive and inuential institutions publishing in the JKM
R Institution Country YFP TP TC H C/P 100 50 25 51 ARWU QS T50
1 Cranfield U UK 1997 14 406 7 29 1 1 3 4 4 ––1
2 Tech. Monterrey MEX 1997 13 112 7 9 0 0 1 8 3 238
3 Lakehead U CAN 2007 13 402 11 31 0 3 3 5 2 ––1
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
6 Macquarie U AUS 2000 11 167 8 15 0 0 1 10 0 201-300 229
7 McMaster U CAN 2003 11 365 8 33 0 3 3 3 2 83 149 1
8 Griffith U AUS 2005 10 846 8 84 1 4 2 2 1 301-400 329
9 National Technical U. Athens GRE 2001 10 231 8 23 0 1 2 6 1 376 1
10 U. Manchester UK 2003 9 162 6 18 0 1 0 5 2 35 33 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 ––
13 Loughborough U UK 2004 8 297 6 37 1 1 0 6 0 228 1
14 Stanford U USA 1997 8 65 5 8 0 0 1 4 2 2 3
15 Lappeenranta U. Tech FIN 2002 8 158 4 20 0 2 0 1 5 ––1
16 U. Murcia ESP 2007 7 112 5 16 0 0 3 2 1 701
17 U. Padova ITA 2009 7 124 5 18 0 0 2 3 1 309
18 George Washington U USA 2004 7 171 7 24 0 1 2 3 1 301-400 327
19 U. Waikato NZL 2005 7 204 4 29 1 0 2 1 3 338 1
20 U. Oviedo ESP 1999 7 104 5 15 0 0 1 4 2 ––
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 ––
23 U. Wollongong AUS 2003 7 109 5 16 0 0 2 3 2 301-400 243
24 Ulster U IRL 2003 7 159 7 23 0 1 1 5 0 551-600
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
29 U. Maine USA 2001 6 104 5 17 0 1 0 4 1 ––
30 U. Newcastle AUS 2010 6 95 4 16 0 0 2 2 1 301-400 256
31 Bangkok U THA 2008 6 55 4 9 0 0 0 3 3 ––
32 U. Twente NDL 2004 6 26 2 4 0 0 0 2 1 301-400 188
33 U. Warwick UK 1998 6 266 4 44 1 1 1 1 2 151-200 48 1
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 ––
38 U. Deusto ESP 2006 5 81 4 16 0 0 1 3 1 ––
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
42 U. Basilicata ITA 2008 5 149 5 30 0 0 4 1 0 ––
43 U. North Texas USA 2008 5 91 5 18 0 1 0 4 0 301-400 ––
44 U. Sydney AUS 2005 5 92 4 18 0 0 2 2 1 82 45
45 Polytechnic Bari ITA 2008 5 76 5 15 0 0 1 4 0 ––
46 U. Stockholm SWE 2000 5 55 4 11 0 0 1 2 2 81 182
47 Curtin U AUS 2007 5 96 5 19 0 0 2 3 0 201-300 284
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
Notes: Abbreviations available in Tables I and VIII, except for ARWU = academic ranking of world universities (only the top 500); QS =
world university rankings (only the top 800); countries (DNK: Denmark; THA: Thailand)
PAGE 1670 jJOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT jVOL. 22 NO. 8 2018
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
Table X Temporal evolution of the publications classied by country
R Country TP TC H C/P
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
TP TC TP TC TP TC TP TC P/Po C/Po T50
1 USA 229 5573 39 24,34 57 1283 72 2360 65 1638 35 292 0,7 17,25 12
2 UK 163 3842 34 23,57 39 487 42 1630 48 1362 34 363 2,5 58,38 11
3 Australia 99 2217 25 22,39 13 120 25 946 29 786 32 365 4,1 92,60 2
4 Spain 70 1113 20 15,90 1 13 21 354 22 560 26 186 1,5 23,92 1
5 China (Hong Kong) 47 825 17 17,55 1 17 8 252 14 350 24 206 0,0 0,60
6 Italy 46 681 16 14,80 –– 3 103 13 239 30 339 0,8 11,24
7 Canada 45 1165 17 25,89 2 21 6 394 13 493 24 257 1,2 32,16 2
8 Germany 45 1059 19 23,53 4 47 17 359 14 549 10 104 0,5 12,79 3
9 France 38 403 11 10,61 1 14 8 50 8 269 21 70 0,6 6,01 1
10 Finland 31 709 15 22,87 –– 8 236 9 305 14 168 5,6 128,83 3
11 Netherlands 29 603 13 20,79 2 165 10 249 7 148 10 41 2,9 60,20 2
12 Sweden 27 320 10 11,85 5 52 8 136 6 106 8 26 2,7 32,02
13 India 25 490 11 19,60 0 0 3 131 13 292 9 67 0,0 0,37
14 Taiwan 25 475 12 19,00 0 0 4 28 8 328 13 119 1,1 20,18
15 South Korea 25 339 11 13,56 0 0 8 113 6 153 11 73 0,5 6,65
16 New Zealand 24 973 15 40,54 0 0 7 589 9 311 8 73 5,1 205,01 3
17 Japan 22 325 10 14,77 0 0 6 34 12 279 4 12 0,2 2,56
18 Malaysia 21 705 13 33,57 0 0 4 379 4 173 13 153 0,7 22,27 2
19 Greece 19 523 12 27,53 1 7 10 325 8 191 0 0 1,8 48,62 1
20 Denmark 19 335 10 17,63 4 28 7 163 2 90 6 54 3,3 58,27 1
21 Singapore 18 407 12 22,61 1 13 3 39 10 253 4 102 3,2 72,59 1
22 Brazil 16 186 8 11,63 1 1 2 4 5 117 8 64 0,1 0,90
23 Switzerland 15 350 8 23,33 2 35 4 143 4 153 5 19 1,8 41,58 1
24 Mexico 15 124 7 8,27 1 7 5 29 7 87 2 1 0,1 1,02
25 Israel 13 485 9 37,31 1 3 5 154 6 318 1 10 1,5 56,76 2
26 Austria 11 176 7 16,00 0 0 1 28 7 114 3 34 1,3 20,06
27 Thailand 10 94 5 9,40 0 0 3 51 0 0 7 43 0,1 1,37
28 South Africa 9 364 7 40,44 0 0 3 41 3 270 3 53 0,2 6,51 1
29 Norway 9 79 6 8,78 1 0 1 6 3 45 4 28 1,7 15,02
30 Iran 9 50 5 5,56 0 0 0 0 3 20 6 30 0,1 0,62
31 Portugal 7 210 6 30,00 2 48 1 71 1 37 3 54 0,7 20,37 1
32 United Arab Emirates 6 52 5 8,67 0 0 2 13 2 19 2 20 0,6 5,61
33 Russian Federation 5 257 4 51,40 0 0 1 90 1 58 3 109 0,0 1,79 2
34 Turkey 5 188 5 37,60 0 0 0 0 4 179 1 9 0,1 2,36 1
35 Ireland 5 137 5 27,40 0 0 1 13 3 67 1 57 1,0 28,69
36 Slovenia 4 122 4 30,50 0 0 2 122 0 0 0 0 1,9 59,05
37 Poland 4 63 3 15,75 0 0 0 0 2 49 2 14 0,1 1,66
38 Saudi Arabia 4 50 4 12,50 0 0 0 0 2 46 2 4 0,1 1,61
39 Bahrain 3 265 3 88,33 0 0 0 0 3 265 0 0 2,3 204,79 1
40 Liechtenstein 3 135 3 45,00 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 135 79,3 3570,01 1
41 Colombia 3 82 3 27,33 0 0 0 0 2 58 1 24 0,1 1,70
42 Egypt 3 57 3 19,00 0 0 0 0 1 44 2 13 0,0 0,63
43 Nigeria 3 37 3 12,33 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 37 0,0 0,20
44 Belgium 3 18 2 6,00 1 1 0 0 1 13 1 4 0,3 1,58
45 Jamaica 2 279 2 139,50 0 0 0 0 2 279 0 0 0,7 99,15 2
46 Iceland 2 105 1 52,50 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 105 5,9 310,33 1
47 Georgia 2 37 2 18,50 0 0 2 37 0 0 0 0 0,5 9,95
48 Peru 2 22 2 11,00 0 0 0 0 1 11 1 11 0,1 0,71
49 Pakistan 2 19 2 9,50 0 0 1 8 1 11 0 0 0,0 0,10
50 Lebanon 2 15 2 7,50 0 0 0 0 1 7 1 8 0,3 2,51
Note: Abbreviations available in Tables VI and VIII, except for P/Po and C/Po = papers and cities per million inhabitants
VOL. 22 NO. 8 2018 jJOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT jPAGE 1671
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 (Merig
oet 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
PAGE 1672 jJOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT jVOL. 22 NO. 8 2018
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 2 Co-citation of Journal cited in the JKM
VOL. 22 NO. 8 2018 jJOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT jPAGE 1673
Table XI Most cited journals and books in the JKM
R
Global 1997-2006 2007-2016
Journal Cit CLS Journal Cit CLS Journal Cit CLS
1Journal of Knowledge
Management
3257 2497 Strategic Management Journal 408 339 Journal of Knowledge
Management
2528 1922
2Strategic Management Journal 1772 1524 Journal of Knowledge
Management
404 286 Strategic Management Journal 1291 1111
3Organization Science 1505 1356 Harvard Business Review 303 263 Organization Science 1125 1015
4Academy of Management
Review
826 782 Organization Science 279 249 Academy of Management
Review
640 603
5Harvard Business Review 819 750 California Management Review 259 233 Academy of Management
Journal
556 525
6California Management Review 729 682 Academy of Management Review 155 147 Administrative Science Quarterly 543 511
7Administrative Science Quarterly 707 666 Administrative Science Quarterly 136 128 MIS Quarterly 534 494
8Academy of Management
Journal
685 649 Sloan Management Review 127 118 Management Science 472 449
9MIS 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-Crea ting
Company: How Japanese
Companies Create the Dynamics
of Innovation
41 39 Technovation 136 129
(continued)
PAGE 1674 jJOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT jVOL. 22 NO. 8 2018
Table XI
R
Global 1997-2006 2007-2016
Journal Cit CLS Journal Cit CLS Journal Cit CLS
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
Notes: Abbreviations available in Table IV, except for Cit: total citations in the JKM; CLS: co-citation links
VOL. 22 NO. 8 2018 jJOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT jPAGE 1675
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.
Figure 3 Co-citation of authors cited in the JKM
PAGE 1676 jJOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT jVOL. 22 NO. 8 2018
Figure 4 Bibliographic coupling of countries that publish in the JKM
Figure 5 Citation analysis of countries publishing in the JKM
VOL. 22 NO. 8 2018 jJOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT jPAGE 1677
Alternatively, Figures 8 and 9present 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 6 Co-authorship of countries that publish in the JKM
Figure 7 Co-occurrence of author keywords of documents published in the JKM
PAGE 1678 jJOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT jVOL. 22 NO. 8 2018
Figure 8 Co-occurrence of author keywords of documents published in the JKM (1997-
2006)
Figure 9 Co-occurrence of author keywords of documents published in the JKM (2007-
2016)
VOL. 22 NO. 8 2018 jJOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT jPAGE 1679
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 7,8and 9.
4. Conclusions
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
PAGE 1680 jJOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT jVOL. 22 NO. 8 2018
Table XII Most common keyword occurrences in the JKM
R
Global 1997-2006 2007-2016
Keyword OC TLS Keyword OC TLS Keyword OC TLS
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
4 Innovation 96 95 Tacit knowledge 18 18 Innovation 60 58
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
12 Organizations 28 28 Organizational learning 14 13 Organizations 19 19
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
18 Knowledge workers 22 20 Networks 10 8 China 13 13
19 Knowledge organizations 21 21 Organizations 9 9 Knowledge economy 13 13
20 Organizational performance 21 21 Cities 8 8 Research 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
27 Management 17 17 Internet 6 6 Knowledge 11 11
28 Trust 17 16 Knowledge economy 6 6 Knowledge processes 11 11
29 Cities 16 16 Space technology 6 6 Leadership 11 11
30 Modelling 16 16 Strategy 6 6 Spain 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
38 Leadership 14 13 Language 5 5 Project management 9 9
39 Information systems 13 13 Organizational culture 5 5 Competences 9 8
40 Motivation 13 13 Organizational
development
5 5 Cities 8 8
41 Performance 13 12 Organizational performance 5 5 Collaboration 8 8
42 Collaboration 12 12 Performance measurement 5 5 Communities 8 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
88
45 India 12 12 Semantics 5 5 Social media 8 7
46 Knowledge-based systems 12 12 Narratives 5 4 Absorptive capacity 7 7
(continued)
VOL. 22 NO. 8 2018 jJOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT jPAGE 1681
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
Table XII
R
Global 1997-2006 2007-2016
Keyword OC TLS Keyword OC TLS Keyword OC TLS
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
50 Networks 12 10 Cognition 4 4 Organizational structures 7 7
Notes: Abbreviations available in Table IV, except for; C = occurrences; TLS = total link strength
PAGE 1682 jJOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT jVOL. 22 NO. 8 2018
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.
Note
1. The original definition of the h-index, proposed by Hirsch (2005), was: “A scientist has index hif hof
his or her N
p
papers have at least hcitations each and the other (N
p
h) papers have hcitations
each.”
References
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-Milla
´n, A. and Cepeda-Carri
on, G. (2017), “Mapping the field: a
bibliometric analysis of green innovation”, Sustainability, Vol. 9No. 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, E
´., Campbell, D., Gingras, Y. and Larivie
`re, 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.7No.1,
pp. 64-77.
Bai, D. and Yu, H. (2017), “Knowledge management impacts on organizational innovation performance”,
International Journal of InnovativeComputing, Information and Control, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 2133-2141.
Baier-Fuentes, H., Merig
o, J.M., Amor
os, J.E. andGaviria-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
Baraba
´si, A.L., Jeong, H., Ne
´da, 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., Merig
o, J.M. and Torres-Abad, C. (2015), “Economics in latin america: a bibliometric
analysis”, Scientometrics, Vol. 105 No. 2, pp. 1239-1252.
Bo
¨rner, 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.
VOL. 22 NO. 8 2018 jJOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT jPAGE 1683
Cadavid-Higuita, L., Awad, G. and Franco-Cardona, C.J. (2012), “Ana
´lisis bibliome
´trico del campo
modelado de difusi
on 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., Merig
o, 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., L
opez-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., L
opez-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., Martı
´nez, M.A., Gutie
´rrez-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., Merig
o, J.M. and Baier-Fuentes, H. (2018), “Knowledge management: a global
examination based on bibliometric analysis”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change,
Forthcoming.
Garcı
´a-Merino, M.T., do Carmo, M.L.P. and A
´lvarez, 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?”, SmallBusiness 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.
PAGE 1684 jJOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT jVOL. 22 NO. 8 2018
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., Mu
¨hlbacher, J. and Mu
¨ller, 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., Merig
o, J.M., Miranda, J., Słowı
´nski, 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.
Martı
´nez-L
opez, F.J., Merig
o, J.M., Valenzuela, L. and Nicola
´s, C. (2018), “Fifty years of the European
journal of marketing: a bibliometric analysis”, European Journal of Marketing,Vol.52Nos1/2,
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.
Merig
o, 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.
Merig
o, 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.
Merig
o, 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.
Merig
o, 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.
Merig
o, 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. 13No. 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 A
˚stro
¨m, 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
Scientometricsand Infometrics, Leuven, pp. 9-24.
VOL. 22 NO. 8 2018 jJOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT jPAGE 1685
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.34No.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-Martı
´, A., Ribeiro-Soriano, D. and Palacios-Marque
´s, 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 factsheet. 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.34No.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., Merig
o, 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. 32No. 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. 81No. 2, pp. 587-600.
Walter, C. and Ribie
`re, 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.
PAGE 1686 jJOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT jVOL. 22 NO. 8 2018
Wang, W., Laengle, S., Merig
o, 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.10No.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.
Corresponding author
Magaly Gaviria-Marin can be contacted at: mgaviria@ucsc.cl
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
VOL. 22 NO. 8 2018 jJOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT jPAGE 1687
... Dalam hal ini, pengetahuan harus diperiksa mengenai manajemen pengetahuan (Ferraris et al., 2017). Pengembangan manajemen pengetahuan dimulai pada awal 1960-an, ketika para peneliti prihatin dengan kodifikasi pengetahuan dan menyimpan pengetahuan eksplisit, mengingat penekanan kali ini pada pembelajaran melalui praktik dan pelajaran terbaik (Gaviria-Marin et al., 2018). Pada awal 1950-an, pentingnya menggabungkan pengetahuan implisit dan eksplisit ditekankan, dan hubungannya ini memicu perdebatan saat ini tentang manajemen pengetahuan (Schumpeter, 1999). ...
... Ini berarti bahwa organisasi yang bertujuan untuk mengatasi dinamika perubahan perlu menciptakan informasi dan pengetahuan, bukan hanya memprosesnya secara efisien. Pada tahap perkembangan ini, peneliti semakin fokus mempelajari dan mendeskripsikan proses berbagi pengetahuan dan mengubah pengetahuan tacit menjadi pengetahuan eksplisit untuk meningkatkan modal intelektual (Gaviria-Marin et al., 2018). Selanjutnya, dari tahun 2000-an hingga awal 2018, penelitian terkait berfokus pada jejaring sosial, media otonom, dan interaksi manusia-komputer, dan penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa MP strategis untuk organisasi (Gaviria-Marin et al., 2018). ...
... Pada tahap perkembangan ini, peneliti semakin fokus mempelajari dan mendeskripsikan proses berbagi pengetahuan dan mengubah pengetahuan tacit menjadi pengetahuan eksplisit untuk meningkatkan modal intelektual (Gaviria-Marin et al., 2018). Selanjutnya, dari tahun 2000-an hingga awal 2018, penelitian terkait berfokus pada jejaring sosial, media otonom, dan interaksi manusia-komputer, dan penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa MP strategis untuk organisasi (Gaviria-Marin et al., 2018). Pengetahuan individu mengacu pada kemampuan individu untuk membuat penilaian dan keputusan berdasarkan pengetahuan mereka. ...
Article
This article is an overview of the Systematic Literature Review (SLR) on Knowledge Management (KM), Digital Transformation (DT), and Industry 4.0, which defines the interactions, bonds, and interdependencies of these new research streams. Playing an important role in a progressive discipline, our research summarizes the state of the art past literature using a rigorous methodological approach. The researchers adopted the Scopus database in their analysis and used the Bibliometrix R package. The analysis revealed 761 peer-reviewed English articles. This study shows several research clusters: KM and DT; KM and innovation ecosystem; KM and border technology; and KM, decision making, and Industry 4.0. In addition, this article contributes to identifying growing areas of research that have uncovered previously unknown and interesting relationships between KM, DT, and the public sector. Therefore, the article emphasizes the important role of DT in the development of KM,, discusses future research perspectives as quantitative analysis and combines academics and practitioners.
... This study follows the guidelines provided by Cobo et al. [48] and Zupic andČater [40], similarly to several studies in different research streams [52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60]. Accordingly, in the first stage, bibliometric methods are employed. ...
Full-text available
Article
This study provides an outlook of the evolution of cross-border innovation literature. A sample of 226 articles addressing cross-border innovation and knowledge transfer published between 1997 and 2022 was screened using bibliometric methods. Data are split over three time slices and a thematic analysis is conducted, suggesting three main themes in literature: research-and-development, mostly linked with mergers and acquisitions and competitiveness, knowledge creation and transfer linked with innovations systems and performance, and innovation linked with networks, firms’ capabilities, and absorptive capacity. A co-citation analysis was also conducted which showed that the background literature of the research stream is based on the internationalization process, knowledge transfer and competitiveness, research-and-development, business performance and innovation systems. Results further introduce a geographic boundary to the research in knowledge and innovation, particularly frontier and regional innovation systems. Based on the results, future research lines are suggested, including the role of organizational learning and knowledge creation, towards the innovation of new products and services of companies seeking internationalization, and how disruptive events in worldwide supply chains affect cross-border innovation.
Article
Stock Market Forecasting (SMF) has become a spotlighted area and is receiving increasing attention due to the potential that investment returns can generate profound wealth. In the past, researchers have made significant efforts to forecast the stock market trends and predict the best time to buy, sell, or hold. The essence of past investigators’ various techniques and methods was to maximise the abundant opportunities that abound in the stock market trading and amass huge wealth from it. Over the years, no scientometric review has been conducted to scientifically map out the trends, progress, and limitations in the subject area. In this regard, this paper presents a pioneering scientometric review in SMF. It investigates a total of 220 reputable articles (2001–2021) to identify trends and patterns in stock market forecasting studies. VOSviewer software was used to conduct science mapping analysis. Actionable insights from the analysis explain significant metrics such as the top research outlets, most-cited articles, most co-occurred keywords, most influential countries, and much more. More so, a key finding in this paper is the introduction of a less computational approach that has the possibility of making a better forecast. Yet, past researchers have not thoroughly explored this option. This paper is beneficial to Early Stage Researchers (ESR), governments, funding bodies, managers, analysts, financial enthusiasts, practitioners, and investors, so as to understand the current progress and focus areas in stock market prediction.
Article
Fazla niteliklilik üzerine yapılan araştırmalar, son yirmi yılda büyüyen bir ilgi alanı haline gelmiştir. Buna rağmen, fazla nitelikliliğin yapısı ve gelişimi hakkındaki bilgi birikimi sınırlıdır. Bu araştırmanın temel amacı, algılanan fazla niteliklilik araştırmalarının evrimini belirlemek için bibliyometrik analiz yöntemlerinden konu haritalama (ortak anahtar kelime analizi) ve yazar düzeyinde ortak atıf analizi ile alandaki en önemli konuların bilimsel haritalar aracılığıyla görselleştirilmesini sağlamaktır. Algılanan fazla niteliklilik araştırmalarının entelektüel yapısını belirlemek için Web of Science veri tabanında taranan ve başlığında “algılanan fazla niteliklilik” kelimesi yer alan İngilizce dilinde 56 yayın VOSviewer ile analiz edilmiştir. İlk olarak, betimsel analiz yöntemi ile, konu ile ilgili en önemli yayınlar, en üretken dergiler, en etkili yazarlar ve yayınların ülkelere göre dağılımı özetlenmiştir. Ardından, bibliyometrik analiz yöntemi ile, algılanan fazla niteliklilik araştırmalarındaki en belirgin temalar ve ortak atıf sıklığına göre yazarlar arasındaki etkileşimler tespit edilmiştir. Mevcut araştırmanın sonuçlarına göre; algılanan fazla niteliklilik, fazla niteliklilik, iş tatmini, göreli yoksunluk, iş becerikliliği, işten ayrılma niyeti, nicel, kişi-iş uyumu ve performans, en yaygın kullanılan anahtar kelimelerdir. Ortak atıf (yazar düzeyinde) analizinde iki küme ortaya çıkmış olup, en çok alıntılanan yazarlar; Erdogan, B. ve Maynard, D.C.’dir. Bu çalışmanın bulguları, araştırmacıların, ana temaları açıkça anlamalarına ve konu ile ilgili olası boşlukları belirlemelerine katkıda bulunacaktır.
Article
Purpose This study aims to investigate the global issues of youth unemployment using bibliometric analysis covering the period from 1983 to 2022. There is a dearth of a bibliometric study analysis on unemployment, particularly youth unemployment even at the global level. The present study seeks to fill this gap by exploring the prominent studies related to youth unemployment at the global level. Design/methodology/approach Using VOSviewer software bibliometric results and the Scopus database, the study uncovered the most frequently cited, prominent and influential authors, as well as the institutions that have worked on youth unemployment and the most prominent keywords published on youth unemployment. Findings Nearly 80% of the research articles on youth unemployment were published from 2005 to 2022, and a significant increase in publication after 2012 is observed. Based on the published papers, the most studied determinants of youth unemployment are increased levels of regional economic advances, state demographics, relocation, household conditions, regional openness and export/import. Economic freedom, labour market reforms, economic growth, high proportion of part-time employment, active labour market policies, minimum wage norms, extent of bargaining scope and alignment are prominent determinants that reduce unemployment at large and improve labour market performance of youth in particular. Research limitations/implications Bibliometric analysis, like the present study, can narrow down the most prominent sources of information on youth unemployment for beginners in this field of research. Practical implications This bibliometric study on youth employment assists researchers and policymakers in understanding and summarizing the necessary determinants of youth employment that are already being identified and studied based on practical evidence from the authors’ case study-based research work. The present study raises the issue of youth unemployment at large. It helps in identifying factors in one place and thus new researchers can use it as a starting point for their research on youth unemployment. It helps in providing clustering of factors. It highlighted the significant studies, authors and institutions working in this field. Social implications On social implication, it can be argued that studies on topics related to human resources have a direct impact on society standards. By producing scientific knowledge that aids in the recognition of the complexities of human processes and behaviours, social science research significantly contributes to the enrichment of the community as a whole. When young people are unemployed, it causes social unrest and may increase crime and terrorism, all of which contribute to political instability. Youth unemployment causes psychological illness because of anxiety, alienation and depression. As a result, it causes social instability and necessitates immediate attention in all societies. The present study highlights that although the unemployment rate of youth is significantly higher in underdeveloped countries than the developed countries, their representation in the publication is significantly low. This under-representation of countries shows their lack of commitment to society in working on the issue of youth unemployment. Originality/value It is assumed that there are plenty of research studies on unemployment, particularly at the global level. However, various domains of researchers may require a bibliometric kind of analysis wherein they may get an idea about the prominent number of literatures arguing concerning issues at large, in the sense of “focused studies” covering the comprehensive viewpoint on youth unemployment. The paper aimed to emphasize the topic of youth unemployment, its development in the research field and the usefulness of bibliometric analysis in social sciences in general, and youth unemployment in particular.
Full-text available
Article
The article aims to acknowledge the characteristics of recent high academic impact consumer experience literature. Bibliometric was used to study the most cited scientific articles published between 2010 and 2019. Results point some traces of the field according to publishing years, related areas and key notions, academic journals and authors: most of them were published between 2010 and 2015; there are 17 areas related to consumer experience, among which stand out technology, marketing and tourism; a few journals have more than one publication among them stand out the International Journal of Hospitality Management and the Journal of Business Research; also a few authors have more than one article in the sample and Andrew Walls can be highlighted; some main seminal authors identified were Bernd Schmitt, James Gilmore and Morris Holbrook. Universities: The United States and The United Kingdom concentrates the most publication in an overall flat distribution. At last, a research agenda is proposed. The article offers landscape for researchers, offering possibilities to access theory and methodology sources more properly. The list of key notions, well regarded and seminal authors given in this article can be pointed out in this perspective.
Article
Purpose This study explores the concept of “talent agility” since its inception using bibliometric analysis and paves the way for future research agenda in the field of business and management. Design/methodology/approach The articles were retrieved from the Scopus database comprising 67 publications from 2001 to September 2020. This study has applied bibliometric techniques such as citation analysis, co-citation analysis, bibliographic coupling, co-authorship analysis, and co-occurrence keyword analysis. Findings The bibliometric analysis reveals the publication trends, most influential authors, articles, journals, countries, and important keywords. Subsequently, it presents the network connections among them in the field of talent agility. It identified emerging research diversifications in the literature on talent agility. Research limitations/implications The limitation of this study is the extraction of research articles from a single database, i.e. Scopus. This study provides insights to the researchers and practitioners on comprehensive understandings of the emerging concept “talent agility”, an overview of the publication trends, emerging research themes identified in the clusters, and suggests possible directions for further study. Originality/value This study provides the intellectual structure of talent agility literature and its advancement over the periods.
Purpose Journal of Enterprise Information Management ( JEIM ) is a leading journal that publishes studies on applied information management relevant to industry personals, academicians and researchers. This study uses bibliometric tools to present a retrospective analysis of the journal's outcomes. Design/methodology/approach The authors applied bibliometric tools for analysing the impact, topic coverage, renowned authors with affiliation, citation, methodology and analysis of the JEIM corpus. Additionally, they used bibliographic coupling to develop a graphical visualisation and analyse the journal's thematic evolution. Findings With 16 yearly articles, JEIM contributed 656 research articles on various themes. The major themes that have come to define the JEIM over this time include information and systems, supply chain management, manufacturing resource planning, communication technologies and small- to medium-sized enterprises. Empirical methodology, quantitative techniques with descriptive analysis and regression methods are the most preferred. The article's primary research purpose shows the majority of theory-verifying articles. Co-authorship analysis reveals that the single-author trend is decreasing and the journal now has articles with international collaborations. Originality/value This study is the retrospective analysis of the JEIM , which is useful for aspiring contributors and the journal's editors.
Full-text available
Article
The aim of this paper is to provide an overview of the academic research on International Entrepreneurship (IE). To accomplish this, an exhaustive bibliometric analysis was carried out, involving a bibliometric performance analysis and a graphic mapping of the references in this field. Our analysis focuses on journals, papers, authors, institutions and countries. To perform the performance analysis, the work uses a series of bibliometric indicators such as h-index, productivity and citations. Furthermore, the VOS viewer to graphically map the bibliographic material is used. The graphical analysis uses co-citation, bibliographic coupling and co-occurrence of keywords. The results of both analyzes are consistent among them, and show that the USA is the most influential country in IE research as it houses the main authors and institutions in this research field. Moreover, is observed and expected the continued growth of the field globally. Our research plays an informative and complementary role as it presents most of the key aspects in International Entrepreneurship research.
Article
El objetivo del artículo es presentar los resultados de un análisis bibliométrico en el campo del modelado de la difusión de innovaciones que permita realizar un diagnóstico de la evolución y estado actual del tema. La metodología empleada consiste en la construcción y posterior análisis de los indicadores bibliométricos de cantidad y calidad, así como un análisis de la estructura topológica de las redes de autores atendiendo a su evolución temporal en el intervalo 2005- 2011. Como resultado, se encuentra un campo en continuo crecimiento y de gran dispersión, con alta dinámica en la evolución de sus redes.
Article
Knowledge management (KM) is a field of research that has gained wide acceptance in the scientific community and management literature. This article presents a bibliometric overview of the academic research on KM in the business and management areas. Various bibliometric methods are used to perform this overview, including performance analysis and science mapping of the KM field. The performance analysis uses a series of bibliometric indicators, such as the h-index, productivity and citations. In addition, the VOSviewer software is used to map the bibliographic material. Science mapping uses co-citations and the concurrency of keywords. References were obtained from the Web of Science database. We identified and classified the most relevant research in the field according to journals, articles, authors, institutions and countries. The results show that research in this field has increased significantly in the last ten years and that the USA is the most influential country in all aspects in this field. It is important to consider, however, that science continues to advance in this and in all fields and that data rapidly change over time. Therefore, this paper fulfills an informational role that shows that most of the fundamental research of KM is in business and management areas.
Article
Since the International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems published its first issue in 1993, it has made important contributions to the research field of computer science. In this study, based on the dataset of the publications published in this journal between 1993 and 2016 retrieved from Web of Science, a general overview of this journal is performed using bibliometric methods and visualized networks. First, the productive and influential publications, authors, institutions, countries/territories, and supraregions are analysed based on the total number of citations, publications, and different citation thresholds. Second, network visualization analysis is applied to illustrate the links and connections between terms by using the VOSviewer software. Moreover, the most cited journals and common author keywords of three continents, including North America, Europe, and Asia, are also presented. This paper will hopefully help researchers understand the research patterns of this journal.