A BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS OF THE JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

Abstract

This paper aims to examine the Journal of Knowledge Management (JKM), by conducting a bibliometric study, in order to identify the most popular form of contributions, publication pattern, highly cited articles and most prolific countries and institutions. The other important bibliometric indicators that were used are: citations per publication (CPP), number of citations up to 2016 (TC2016), number of citations in 2016 (C2016), number of articles with single, collaborative, first and corresponding authors. A total of 1214 authors from 57 countries and 584 institutions published 508 papers in the journal from 2009 to 2016. Contributions from USA&UK was found to be126 (24.8%) publications collectively. The two leading contributing institutions, i.e., Lakehead University and McMaster University were both from Canada and the top two contributing authors were also from these two universities.

Full text

91
JOURNAL OF INDIAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION, 54(2) APRIL-JUNE, 2018
A BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS OF THE JOURNAL OF
KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
Ali Raza
Basharat Ahmad Malik
This paper aims to examine the Journal of Knowledge Management (JKM), by
conducting a bibliometric study, in order to identify the most popular form of
contributions, publication pattern, highly cited articles and most prolific countries and
institutions. The other important bibliometric indicators that were used are: citations
per publication (CPP), number of citations up to 2016 (TC2016), number of citations
in 2016 (C2016), number of articles with single, collaborative, first and corresponding
authors. A total of 1214 authors from 57 countries and 584 institutions published 508
papers in the journal from 2009 to 2016. Contributions from USA&UK was found to
be126 (24.8%) publications collectively. The two leading contributing institutions, i.e.,
Lakehead University and McMaster University were both from Canada and the top
two contributing authors were also from these two universities.
Keywords: Bibliometric Analysis; Citation; Journal of Knowledge Management; SSCI;
TC2016.
INTRODUCTION
The Journal of Knowledge Management (ISSN:1367-3270), a quarterly journal
published since 1997, is a peer-reviewed journal committed to exchange up to date
intellectual studies and useful information on all those areas of study which are
mainly concerned with the management of organizational knowledge. The subject
areas covered under this journal are Human Resource (HR), Learning &
Organization Studies, and Information & Knowledge Management. The journal is
being indexed in Web of Sciences (WoS), Social Science Citation Index (SSCI)
since 2009 and listed among two subject categories of WoS, i.e., Information
Science & Library Science and Management [1]. The impact factor (IF) of this
journal as per Journal Citation Report (JCR of 2016) is 2.053 and 5-year Impact
Factor (2016) is 3.293. Taking the aforesaid information’s into consideration, an
attempt has been made to decipher the primary qualities of the journal by examining
its research output.
OBJECTIVE
The present study undertakes the analysis of the eight-year research publications
of JKM using different bibliographic indicators. The study aims to identify the most
popular form of contributions, publication pattern, highly cited articles and most
prolific countries and institutions. The bibliometric examination of the data in terms
of some publications, citations, and other interrelated indicators has been
extensively used from time to time to disclose the development, purpose and
performance of journals.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Several such types of bibliometric analyses of journals has been done in the recent
Ali Raza
Dept. of Library and
Information Science, Aligarh
Muslim University, Aligarh,
U.P.
meetaliraza@gmail.com
Basharat Ahmad Malik
Dept. of Library and
Information Science, Aligarh
Muslim University, Aligarh,
U.P.
basharatmalik123@gmail.com
Corresponding Author
Basharat Ahmad Malik

JOURNAL OF INDIAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION, 54(2), APRIL-JUNE, 2018
92
past. For instance, a study to assess research
output of Journal of Product Innovation
Management (JPIM) in terms of Product
innovation research has already been conducted
[2]. This study assesses the citations in multiple
frames. Some other similar bibliometric studies
have been conducted to analyze their research
productivity and domain of interest for example
American Journal of Roentgenology [3], the
American Journal of Veterinary Research [4],
Intelligence [5], 11 major peer-reviewed journals
of Knowledge Management and Intellectual
Capital (KM/IC) [6], the Malaysian Journal of
Library and Information Science (MJLIS) [7]
and Journal of Documentation [8]. Likewise,
Vijay and Raghavan in 2007 analysed 779
articles produced from 2000 to 2004 in the
Journal of Food Science and Technology [9].
Chuang, Olaiya, & Holcarried out 12-year
bibliometric analysis of the Polish Journal of
Environmental Studies from 2000 to 2011. The
study analyzed the research output by
publications output, keyword distribution, and
country, institution and author performance. The
study further examined the research productivity
by using five bibliometric indicators (total,
single, collaborative, first author, and
corresponding author publications) [10]. A
scientometric analysis to explore the current
research trends in Knowledge Management
(KM) published in Knowledge Management
Research & Practice (KMRP). The study
analysed 506 articles in terms of Research
Productivity, Research Themes and Methods,
and Citation Analysis [11]. Swain, K. Swain, &
Rautaray examined the intellectual output
reflected in Library Review (LR) from 2007-
2011. The study discovered that single-authored
articles occupy the prominent position. The
study also showed an average of 22 citations per
article of LR from 2007 to 2011 [12].
The present study aims to investigate the
number of research publications in terms of total
number, document types, global distribution,
authorship pattern, length, and citation pattern in
the JKM during 2009 to 2016. In light of all the
studies mentioned above, it could be deduced
that the bibliometric indicators are the essential
factors in deciding the nature of research
publication, and are essential factors that can be
utilised to decide the nature of publication
contained in journals.
METHODOLOGY
The data was collected from “Journal of
Knowledge Management” (JKM)using Social
Science Citation Index (SSCI) database of the
Web of Science database (Clarivate Analytics
earlier known as Thomson Reuters) (accessed on
12
th
December, 2017). A total of 508
publications from 2009 to 2016 were identified
and downloaded in plain text format then
imported to MS-Excel for further analysis. The
study was conducted on various indicators, such
as Document type, bibliometric characteristics,
citation indicators [citation per publication
(CPP), total citation publication of paper to till
2016 (TC2016), Citation in 2016 (C2016),
citation of papers in publication year (C0)],
quantity related indicators (TP, SP, CP, FP and
RP) [13]. Articles originating from England,
Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales were
clubbed together under UK [14].
DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
Document Types
Total numbers of papers published in the
Journal of Knowledge Management from 2009
to 2016 were 508 including 5 document types
(Table-1). Articles (478) were the leading
document type comprising 94.09% and got
CPP=11.34. It implies that, on an average, one
article in JKM receives approximately 11
citations. Second-leading document types were
Editorial Materials and Reviews contributing
1.97% each. Lowest document type was
‘Correction’ whose contribution in terms of
percentage was 0.20 with zero TC2016 and CPP.
Further analysis is covering year wise
publication outputs, contributions of
countries/territories and institutions and citation
life cycles of the most cited articles.

RAZA & MALIK: A Bibliometric Analysis of the Journal of Knowledge Management
93
Table 1: Document Types of the JKM
Document Type
TP
P
TC2016
CPP
Article
478
94.09
5420
11.34
Editorial Material
10
1.97
69
0.14
Review
10
1.97
179
0.37
Proceedings Paper Article
9
1.77
109
0.23
Correction
1
0.20
0
0
Grand Total
508
100
5777
12.08
TP Total Publications; P Percentage; TC2016 Total Citation Till 2016; CPP Citation Per Publication
Table 2 shows the yearly distribution of a
number of publications, authors, references, pages,
citation (till 2016) and citation per publication. It
shows that the yearly publications decreased by 4%
from 74 to 71 in all the years under study. Whereas,
the number of authors, references and pages for each
publication shows an increasing trend from 2.18,
40.22, and 14.23 in 2009 to 2.61, 73.69, and 19.72 in
2016, respectively. It is evident from the table that on
an average each publication consisted of 2 authors, 62
references, 17 pages and 10 citation approximately
Table 2: Journal Characteristics (2009 to 2016)
Year
TP
P
AU
AU/TP
NR
NR/TP
PG
PG/TP
TC2016
CPP
2009
74
14.57
161
2.18
2976
40.22
1054
14.24
1573
21.26
2010
58
11.42
128
2.21
2957
50.98
922
15.9
1110
15
2011
58
11.42
139
2.4
3488
60.14
1035
17.84
1056
14.27
2012
57
11.22
137
2.4
3577
62.75
955
16.75
898
12.14
2013
56
11.02
129
2.3
3968
70.86
973
17.38
697
9.42
2014
65
12.8
164
2.52
4153
63.89
1225
18.85
266
3.59
2015
69
13.58
171
2.48
5049
73.17
1347
19.52
164
2.22
2016
71
13.98
185
2.61
5232
73.69
1400
19.72
13
0.18
Total
508
100
1214
31400
8911
5777
78.07
Average
2.3875
61.9625
17.525
9.76
TP Total Publications; AU Number of Authors; NR Cited Reference Counts; PG Page Counts; AU/TP; Number of Authors Per
Publication; NR/TP; Cited Reference Counts Per Publication, PG/TP; Page Counts Per Paper; TC2016; Total Citation Till 2016;
CPP; Citation Per Publication
Characteristics of Countries and Institutions
Contribution by various countries and
institutions in the Journal of Knowledge Management
is shown in Table 3 and 4 respectively. The study
revealed that a total of 508 articles were contributed
from 57 countries during the period under study. Out
of the total, 401 publications are single author articles
from 48 countries and 107 are collaborative articles
contributed from 49 countries. 385 (75.79%)
publications were contributed by top ten countries
shown in table 3. Among them, the USA and the UK
got 1st and 2ndrank in five indicators. Australia was
ranked 3rd in TP and CP, while it got 4th rank in SP
and RP. Although India was ranked 9thin terms of TP,
but its SP% is highest among all the top 10 countries.
Figure 1 shows the worldwide distribution of articles
published in the JKM by authors’ affiliation. The
maximum number of publications came from the
western countries.

JOURNAL OF INDIAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION, 54(2), APRIL-JUNE, 2018
94
Table 3: Top 10 Prolific Countries
Country
TP
TP R (P)
SP R (P)
CP R (P)
FP R (P)
RP R (P)
S P
USA
69
1 (13.58)
1 (10.22)
1 (26.17)
1 (10.24)
1 (10.63)
59.42
UK
57
2 (11.22)
2 (8.23)
2 (22.43)
2 (8.66)
2 (8.46)
57.89
Australia
47
3 (9.25)
4 (6.23)
3 (20.56)
5 (5.91)
4 (5.91)
53.19
Spain
40
4 (7.87)
3 (7.23)
6 (10.28)
3 (6.89)
3 (6.69)
72.5
Italy
38
5 (7.48)
5 (5.74)
4 (14.02)
4 (6.3)
4 (5.91)
60.53
Peoples R
China
34
6 (6.69)
5 (5.74)
6 (10.28)
6 (5.51)
6 (5.51)
67.65
Canada
31
7 (6.1)
9 (3.99)
4 (14.02)
7 (4.92)
7 (4.92)
51.61
France
25
8 (4.92)
8 (4.24)
8 (7.48)
9 (4.13)
8 (4.33)
68
Finland
22
9 (4.33)
11 (3.74)
10 (6.54)
10 (3.35)
10 (3.35)
68.18
India
22
9 (4.33)
7 (5.24)
33 (0.93)
8 (4.33)
8 (4.33)
95.45
TP Total articles; R Rank; P Percentage; SP Single country articles; CP Collaborative articles; FP First author articles; RP
Corresponding author articles; S Percentage of single country articles out of the total articles for each country
Figure 1. The Worldwide Distribution of Articles Published in JKM
A total of 584 institutions from 57 countries
contributed 508 publications, 188 articles are single
institutions articles and 320 are collaborative articles.
Table 4 shows the top 10 institutions contributing 81
(15.94%) publications out of 508. Top two
institutions in TP were from Canada; two were from
Spain and one each from New Zealand, Singapore,
Italy, Australia, Finland and Thailand. The Lakehead
University of Canada was ranked 1st in TP, CP, FP
and RP but was ranked 15th in SP. The Nanyang
Technology University of Singapore was ranked 1st
in SP; 2nd in FP and RP. The McMaster University
of Canada was ranked 2nd in TP with 9 publications
and had no SP.

RAZA & MALIK: A Bibliometric Analysis of the Journal of Knowledge Management
95
Table 4: Top Ten Prolific Institutions
Institution
Total
TP R (P)
SP R (P)
CP R (P)
FP R (P)
RP R (P)
S P
Lakehead University, Canada
12
1 (2.36)
15 (0.39)
1 (3.13)
1 (2.17)
1 (1.97)
16.67
McMaster University, Canada
9
2 (1.77)
N/A
2 (2.81)
84 (0.2)
15 (0.59)
0
University Waikato, New
Zealand
9
2 (1.77)
3 (0.79)
5 (1.56)
7 (0.79)
3 (0.98)
44.44
Nanyang Technology
University, Singapore
8
4 (1.57)
1 (0.98)
24 (0.94)
2 (1.38)
2 (1.38)
62.5
University Padua, Italy
8
4 (1.57)
3 (0.79)
10 (1.25)
3 (0.98)
3 (0.98)
50
University Castilla La Mancha,
Spain
7
6 (1.38)
3 (0.79)
24 (0.94)
3 (0.98)
3 (0.98)
57.14
University Newcastle, Australia
7
6 (1.38)
8 (0.59)
10 (1.25)
15 (0.59)
15 (0.59)
42.86
Tampere University
Technology, Finland
7
6 (1.38)
3 (0.79)
24 (0.94)
7 (0.79)
8 (0.79)
57.14
University Complutense
Madrid, Spain
7
6 (1.38)
15 (0.39)
5 (1.56)
7 (0.79)
8 (0.79)
28.57
Bangkok University, Thailand
7
6 (1.38)
37 (0.2)
3 (1.88)
15 (0.59)
15 (0.59)
14.28
TP Total articles; R Rank; P Percentage; SP Single institution articles; CP Collaborative articles; FP First author articles; RP
Corresponding author articles; S Percentage of the single institution articles out of the total articles of each institution
Most Productive Authors
The study examines the authors of
publications in this journal by using five bibliometric
indicators Table-6. In total 508 publications were
contributed by 1214 number of authors. Serenko
Alexander and Bontis, Nick were the most prolific
authors with 11 and 9 publications respectively; both
these authors belonged to the top two institutions
mentioned in table-4. The study revealed eight
collaborative publications between the top two
authors. Their collaborative publication titled
“Global ranking of knowledge management and
intellectual capital academic journals” got
TC2016=57 and is placed at 8th rank among highly
cited publications Table-5. Kianto, A and Del Giudice
M contributed 5 each and seven authors among the
top 11 authors contributed 4 publications each.
Serenko A. is the only author who is having 90% of
his publications as FP and CP.
Table 2: Author with at least Four Publication
AU
TP
FP
SP
CP
RP
Serenko Alexander
11
10
1
10
9
Bontis, Nick
9
1
NA
9
3
Kianto, Aino
5
1
NA
5
2
Del GiudiceManlio
5
3
NA
5
3
Magnier-Watanabe Remy
4
2
NA
4
2
Dumay, John
4
NA
NA
4
NA
Schiuma Giovanni
4
1
1
3
2
Bolisani, Ettore
4
2
NA
4
NA
Scarso Enrico
4
1
NA
4
3
Lopez-Saez Pedro
4
1
NA
4
1
Chua Alton Y. K
4
2
1
3
3
TP Total number of articles; FP First author articles; SP Single authored articles; CP Collaborative articles RP corresponding
authored articles; NA Not available
Most Frequently Cited Articles
Table 5 lists the 12 highly cited publications
published during the period under study. Out of 12,
10 publications were an article,and two were reviews.
The six publications had a TC2016>75 Figure 2.
There are three publications which got more than 100

JOURNAL OF INDIAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION, 54(2), APRIL-JUNE, 2018
96
citations and all of them were published in the year
2009. Only two single-authored papers with
TC2016=130 and TC2016=118 got 1st and 3rd ranks
among the top cited articles in Table 5. An article
titled “Knowledge management and organisational
performance: an exploratory analysis” by Zack,
McKeen, &Singh [15] ranked 1stin terms of citation
in 2016, i.e., C2016=34. It was found that two reviews
titled as “Knowledge management in SMEs: a
literature review” and “Wikis as a knowledge
management tool” got 6th and 10th rank respectively
in terms of TC2016. It was also revealed that out of
the total of highly cited publications (Table 5) there
are only six publications which got citation in the
publication year.
Figure 2: Top Six Publications are having TC2016 >75
Table 5: Highly Cited Publications having TC2016≥50 (2009 to 2016)
TC2016(R)
C2016(R)
C0(R)
Title
Authors
Type
130(1)
25(5)
0(85)
Harmonisation of knowledge management -
comparing 160 KM frameworks around the globe
Heisig, 2009 [16]
Article
122(2)
34(1)
0(85)
Knowledge management and organizational
performance: an exploratory analysis
Zack, McKeen, & Singh,
2009 [15]
Article
118(3)
26(4)
4(1)
WEB 2.0 implications on knowledge management
Levy, 2009 [17]
Article
90(4)
21(9)
0(85)
Determinants of knowledge sharing using Web 2.0
technologies
Paroutis & Al Saleh, 2009
[18]
Article
82(5)
22(8)
1(27)
Trust and tacit knowledge sharing and use
Holste & Fields, 2010 [19]
Article
76(6)
32(2)
0(85)
Knowledge management in SMEs: a literature
review
Durst & Edvardsson, 2012
[20]
Review
64(7)
30(3)
0(85)
Does knowledge management really matter?
Linking knowledge management practices,
competitiveness and economic performance
Andreeva & Kianto, 2012
[21]
Article
57(8)
3(187)
1(27)
Global ranking of knowledge management and
intellectual capital academic journals
Serenko & Bontis, 2009
[22]
Article
53(9)
14(18)
2(6)
Knowledge communication and translation - a
knowledge transfer model
Liyanage, Elhag, Ballal, &
Li, 2009 [23]
Article
52(10)
10(32)
0(85)
Wikis as a knowledge management tool
Grace, T P L. 2009 [24]
Review
52(10)
20(10)
2(6)
Organisational culture's influence on tacit
knowledge-sharing behaviour
Suppiah & Singh Sandhu,
2011 [25]
Article
50(12)
9(39)
1(27)
Critical factors for knowledge management in
project business
Ajmal, Helo, Kekäle, &
Kekä, 2010 [26]
Article
TC2016 Total number of citations till 2016; R Rank; C2016 Number of citations in 2016; C0 Number of citations in publication year
of the articles.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Number of Citations
Year
Heisig (2009), TC2016=130, Rank=1
Zack et. al. (2009), TC2016=122, Rank=2
Levy (2009), TC2016=118, Rank=3
Paroutis & Fields (2009), TC2016=90, Rank=4
Holste et. al. (2010), TC2016=82, Rank=5
Durst & Edvardsson (2012), TC2016=76, Rank=6

RAZA & MALIK: A Bibliometric Analysis of the Journal of Knowledge Management
97
Keywords
Table 6 shows the keyword distribution in the
publications of this journal. 1204 keywords were
selected from 508 publications in Journal of
Knowledge Management. The most regularly used
keyword is “Knowledge Management” as it was used
in 307 publications, constituting almost 61% of the
total publications. Second most frequently used
keyword is “Knowledge Sharing” (TP = 110; 21.8%).
Out of the total keywords, 939 keywords were used
once. Figure 3, shows the top thirteen most frequently
used keywords assigned by the author
Table 6: Keywords
Keywords (1204)
TP
R (P)
Keywords (1204)
TP
R (P)
Knowledge management
307
1 (60.9)
Organizations
14
10 (2.8)
Knowledge sharing
110
2 (21.8)
Social networks
13
14 (2.6)
Knowledge transfer
64
3 (12.7)
China
12
15 (2.4)
Innovation
49
4 (9.7)
Communities of practice
12
15 (2.4)
Knowledge creation
30
5 (6)
Trust
11
17 (2.2)
Organizational culture
19
6 (3.8)
Knowledge
11
17 (2.2)
Tacit knowledge
16
7 (3.2)
Information technology
11
17 (2.2)
Social capital
15
8 (3)
Organizational performance
10
20 (2)
Learning
15
8 (3)
Research
10
20 (2)
Knowledge management systems
14
10 (2.8)
Knowledge-based view
10
20 (2)
Communication technologies
14
10 (2.8)
Case studies
10
20 (2)
Intellectual capital
14
10 (2.8)
Multinational companies
10
20 (2)
TP Total articles; R Rank; P Percentage of the total articles.
Figure 2: The top 13 Most Frequently Used Author keywords
CONCLUSION
The advancement and utilization of
bibliometric indicators give rise to a discussion
among members of the common research field, under
study, by quality, scope, and operationalization [27].
Creation of information by bibliometric studies could
be used to assess the research performance in a
particular field or journal and its allied research to
regulate policies both in terms of allocation of funds
and scientific research area.
Thus, the reason for our investigation was to
explore the research productivity reflected in the JKM
in order to mark out those features that play an
essential role in creating better impact, visibility and
citation.
307
110
64
49
30
19
16
15
15
14
14
14
14
050 100 150 200 250 300 350
Knowledge management
Knowledge sharing
Knowledge transfer
Innovation
Knowledge creation
Organizational culture
Tacit knowledge
Social capital
Learning
Knowledge management systems
Communication technologies
Intellectual capital
Organizations
No. of Keywords
Keywords

JOURNAL OF INDIAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION, 54(2), APRIL-JUNE, 2018
98
A total of 508 publications published during
2009 to 2016 in JKM, were categorized into 5
document types. Articles formed the most dominant
type of document with the highest CPP of 11.34. A
yearly decrease in publications by 4% was noticed
during the period understudy, whereas, the number of
authors per publication, references per publication,
and pages per publications shows an increasing trend.
On an average, there are approximately 2.4 authors
per publications with NR/TP=62, PG/TP=17.5 and
CCP=9.76.
The Publications were contributed by 584
institutions from 57 countries, of which USA and UK
ranked first and second respectively. The most
prolific institution was found to be Lakehead
University, Canada with 12 publications. In
particular, among the top 12 publications having
TC2016>50, two are reviews and ten are journal
articles. There are only two single-authored
publications with TC2016>100 and are ranked1st and
3rd among the top cited articles from JKM.
1214 number of authors authored the 508
publications. Among them, the two most prolific
authors were Serenko Alexander and Bontis, Nick
with 11 and 9 publications respectively and both of
them are from Canada. However, Canada was placed
at 7th position with 31 publications in terms of country
wise contribution.
JKM has shown significant progress during
the period, but more efforts are required to increase
its horizons for attracting authors from other countries
as well. It will undoubtedly help improve its ranking
and citations in the publications world.
REFERENCES
[1] Journal of knowledge management. (n.d.).
Retrieved January 9, 2018, from
http://www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/JKM
.htm
[2] Durisin, B., Calabretta, G., & Parmeggiani, V.
The intellectual structure of product innovation
research: A bibliometric study of the journal of
product innovation management, 1984-2004.
Journal of Product Innovation Management,
27(3), 2010, 437-451.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.15405885.2010.0072
6.x
[3] Chen, M. Y., Jenkins, C. B., & Elster, A. D.
Internationalization of the American Journal of
Roentgenology: 1980-2002. American Journal
of Roentgenology, 181(4), 2003, 907-912.
[4] Crawley-Low, J. Bibliometric analysis of the
American Journal of Veterinary Research to
produce a list of core veterinary medicine
journals. Journal of the Medical Library
Association, 94(4), 2006, 430-434. Retrieved
from:http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/
articlerender.fcgi?artid=1629416
[5] Wicherts, J. M. The impact of papers published
in Intelligence 1977-2007 and an overview of
the citation classics. Intelligence, 37(5), 2009,
443-446.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2009.06.004
[6] Serenko, A., Bontis, N., Booker, L., Sadeddin,
K., & Hardie, T. A scientometric analysis of
knowledge management and intellectual capital
academic literature (1994‐2008). Journal of
Knowledge Management, 14(1), 2010, 3-23.
https://doi.org/10.1108/13673271011015534
[7] Aryati Bakri, & Willett, P. The Malaysia
Journal of Library and Information Science
2001-2006: A Bibliometric Study, 13(1), 2008,
103-116.
[8] Tsay, M., & Shu, Z. Journal bibliometric
analysis: a case study on the Journal of
Documentation. Journal of Documentation,
67(5), 2011, 806-822.
https://doi.org/10.1108/00220411111164682
[9] Vijay, K., & Raghavan, I. Journal of Food
Science and Technology : A bibliometric study.
Annals of Library and Information Studies,
54(December), 2007.
[10] Chuang, K.-Y., Olaiya, M. T., & Hol, Y.-S.
Bibliometric Analysis of the Polish Journal of
Environmental Studies, 21(5), 2012, 1175-
1183.
[11] Ramy, A., Floody, J., Ragab, M. A., & Arisha,
A. A scientometric analysis of Knowledge
Management Research and Practice literature:
2003–2015. Knowledge Management Research
& Practice, 2017, 1-12.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14778238.2017.14057
76
[12] Swain, C., K. Swain, D., & Rautaray, B.
Bibliometric analysis of Library Review from

RAZA & MALIK: A Bibliometric Analysis of the Journal of Knowledge Management
99
2007 to 2011. Library Review, 62(8/9), 2013,
602-618.
https://doi.org/10.1108/LR-02-2013-0012
[13] Chuang, K.-Y., Wang, M.-H., & Ho, Y.-S.
High-impact papers presented in the subject
category of water resources in the essential
science indicators database of the institute for
scientific information. Scientometrics, 87(3),
2011, 551-562.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0365-2
[14] Chiu, W. T., & Ho, Y. S. Bibliometric analysis
of homeopathy research during the period of
1991 to 2003. Scientometrics, 63(1), 2005, 3-
23.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-005-0201-7
[15] Zack, M., McKeen, J., & Singh, S. Knowledge
management and organizational performance:
an exploratory analysis. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 13(6), 2009, 392-409.
https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270910997088
[16] Heisig, P. Harmonisation of knowledge
management – comparing 160 KM frameworks
around the globe. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 13(4), 2009.
https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270910971798
[17] Levy, M. WEB 2.0 implications on knowledge
management. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 13(1), 2009, 120-134.
https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270910931215
[18] Paroutis, S., & Al Saleh, A. Determinants of
knowledge sharing using Web 2.0 technologies.
Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(4),
2009, 52-63.
https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270910971824
[19] Holste, J. S., & Fields, D. Trust and tacit
knowledge sharing and use. Journal of
Knowledge Management, 14(1), 2010, 128-
140.
https://doi.org/10.1108/13673271011015615
[20] Durst, S., & Edvardsson, I. R. Knowledge
management in SMEs: a literature review.
Journal of Knowledge Management, 16(6),
2012, 879-903.
https://doi.org/10.1108/13673271211276173
[21] Andreeva, T., & Kianto, A. Does knowledge
management really matter? Linking knowledge
management practices, competitiveness and
economic performance. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 16(4), 2012, 617-636.
https://doi.org/10.1108/13673271211246185
[22] Serenko, A., & Bontis, N. Global ranking of
knowledge management and intellectual capital
academic journals. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 13(1), 2009, 4-15.
https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270910931125
[23] Liyanage, C., Elhag, T., Ballal, T., & Li, Q.
Knowledge communication and translation – a
knowledge transfer model. Journal of
Knowledge Management, 13(1), 2009, 118-
131.
Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1108/
1367327091096291430
[24] Grace, T P L. Wikis as a knowledge
management tool. Journal of Knowledge
Management Journal of Knowledge
Management, 13(4), 2009, 64-74.
Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1108/
13673270910971833
[25] Suppiah, V., & Singh Sandhu, M.
Organisational culture’s influence on tacit
knowledge‐sharing behaviour. Journal of
Knowledge Management, 15(3), 2011, 462-
477.
https://doi.org/10.1108/13673271111137439
[26] Ajmal, M., Helo, P., Kekäle, T., & Kekä, T.
Critical factors for knowledge management in
project business. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 14(3), 2010.
Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1108/
13673271011015633
[27] Moed, H. F., Luwel, M., & Nederhof, A. J.
Towards research performance in the
humanities. Library Trends, 50(3), 2001, 498-
520.
Retrieved from: http://hdl.handle.net/2142/8415