Articles

Abstract

Knowledge Management Research and Practice (KMRP) is a reputed international journal in the field of knowledge management. Motivated by the stature of the journal, this study aims to analyse the journal’s impact, prominent themes, and frequently contributing authors and their affiliated institutions and countries using bibliometric analysis. Network analysis is used to observe the trends in collaboration in the journal. Bibliographic coupling analysis grouped the journal’s publications into four different groups with the objective of identifying the leading trends and the evolution of the journal. The study uses the Scopus database to extract the bibliographic data of the journal along with VOSviewer and Gephi software for graphical visualisation of the bibliographic data.

1. Introduction

Knowledge Management Research and Practice (KMRP) publishes peer-reviewed research covering all components of managing knowledge. The journal is broad in its scope and presents articles that carry a multidisciplinary approach and robust conceptual integration. It primarily addresses issues relating to organisational learning, intellectual capital, knowledge economics, sustained innovation, franchise networks, human capital, renewal capital, and entrepreneurial capital. The journal published its first issue in 2003 under the editorial direction of Professor John S Edwards of Aston University. The journal was published by Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. up to the 2nd issue of volume 16 in 2018 and subsequently, the journal shifted publishing to Taylor and Francis Ltd. Beginning with 10 articles and three book reviews in 2003 the journal has impressively escalated its productivity to 48 articles 2019 and received more than 5000 citations till 2018. According to Scopus, KMRP ranks 30th in the categories of “Library and Information Sciences” and “Management Information Systems” in terms of CiteScore. The journal is ranked “A” by Australian Business Deans Council (ABDC) and the Social Science Citation Index (SSCI), Association of Business Schools’ Academic Journal Quality Guide and Scopus indexes it and maintains a repository of the abstracts of its published articles. In addition, Serenko and Bontis (2017) studied the global ranking of 27 Knowledge Management and Intellectual Capital (KM/IC) academic journals. The study through a survey of 482 KM/IC researchers reports that experts rank KMRP in the upper third position. It shows the acceptability and reputation of the journal in its field. The study also reports the journal ranking list by aggregating the results of the expert survey and citation impact. KMRP ranks fourth in this list after the Journal of Knowledge Management, Journal of Intellectual Capital, and The Learning Organisation.

It is a frequent exercise among journals to publish an editorial, review or a special issue on the completion of a substantial tenure (Schwert, 2002). In recognition of KMRP’s achievements, this study provides a retrospective analysis of the journal’s publications between 2006 and 2019. Following previous journal bibliometric studies like (Baker et al., 2020; Donthu et al., 2020; Kumar et al., 2020; Laengle et al., 2017; Merigo et al., 2018; Valenzuela-Fernandez et al., 2019), the study offers a comprehensive review of the publication and citation trends of the journal along with its most contributing authors, and their affiliated institutions and countries. Intellectual influence in the journal is identified by studying the articles most referred by KMRP articles. The thematic structure and the development of the journal are also discussed using bibliometric coupling analysis and author keyword analysis. Network analysis is used to explore the collaboration patterns among KMRP authors and their affiliated countries from 2006 to 2019. Serenko et al. (2010) conduct a scientometric analysis of 11 major KM/IC peer-reviewed journals. Serenko et al. (2010) studied the trends of the country, institutional, and author productivity in the KM/IC field whereas this study exclusively focuses on KMRP. Moreover, unlike Serenko et al. (2010) this study offers the thematic evolution of KMRP articles through clusters formed using bibliographic coupling and network analysis. Thus, the current studies assume a more comprehensive methodology to get a bird’s eye view about KMRP and its positioning in the knowledge management field.

The remainder of the study is structured as follows: Section 2 provides a review of bibliometric studies and Section 3 summarises the methodology. Section 4 presents the results of descriptive analysis followed by a bibliometric analysis in Section 5 and network analysis in Section 6. Section 7 provides a discussion of the significant findings and Section 7 concludes the study.

2. Literature review

The tool of bibliometrics comes from the field of information and library sciences (Kumar et al., 2020). It was first coined by Pitchard in 1969 as a methodology studying bibliographic data quantitatively (Pritchard, 1969). It majorly explores the major trends, research yield, and impact in a research area (Cobo et al., 2011; Henderson et al., 2009; Pritchard, 1969). Bibliometrics thus provides a quantitative analysis of existing literature and has wide application in many fields (Ellegaard & Wallin, 2015). This method is extremely pertinent to review and consolidate large corpus of data without the researcher’s bias due to its quantitative components (Ramos-Rodrígue & Ruíz-Navarro, 2004). Thus, we found this method most suitable to synthesise the large corpus of KMRP publications. Moreover, literature consists of a pool of similar studies using bibliometrics to study the research outlets of several areas. Gaviria-Marin et al. (2018) analysed the 20 years of publication and citation patterns of the Journal of Knowledge Management using the bibliometric method. Heck and Bremser (1986) used bibliometrics to explore six decades of The Accounting Review. Majorly using co-citation analysis Schrock et al. (2016) studied the intellectual structure and thematic developments of Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management. Laengle et al. (2017) studied four decades of the European Journal of Operational Research through bibliometrics. Martínez-López et al. (2018) explored fifty years of the European Journal of Marketing using several bibliometric indicators so as Merigo et al. (2018) reviewed five decades of the Information Sciences, Valenzuela-Fernandez et al. (2019) for 25 years of the Journal of Business- to- Business Marketing, Wang et al. (2019) for International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications and Kumar et al. (2020) for International Journal of Social Economics. Baker et al. (2020) developed clusters using bibliometric coupling analysis to study the thematic structure of the three decades of Small Business Economics. On a similar line, Donthu et al. (2020) used the variety of bibliometric tools for studying works of Journal of Business Research. Martínez-López et al. (2020) used several bibliometric tools to study Industrial Marketing Management. Therefore, recognising the suitability and wide acceptability of the bibliometric method, this study uses bibliometrics to analyse and synthesise KMRP publications between 2006 and 2019.

3. Methodology

In bibliometrics bibliographic data is analysed using quantitative tools (Pritchard, 1969) which facilitates more objective interpretations. Also, bibliometrics uses various bibliometric indicators to statistically investigate a group of related documents to provide a general overview of a research field. The methodology is complementary to econometrics and social network analysis. Bibliometrics is a widely used methodology for constructing a broad overview of a journal (Barilan, 2008). There are substantial studies employing bibliometrics to access the trends and thematic structures of a journal (Barik & Jena, 2013; Gaviria-Marin et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2019).

The study employs several bibliometric indicators to provide a comprehensive overview of KMRP. The count of publications is the measure of productivity and the count of citations is the measure of influence (Kumar et al., 2020; Svensson, 2010). The study also employees indicators such as h-index (Alonso et al., 2009), bibliographic coupling (Kessler, 1963; Martyn, 1964), and keyword co-occurrence (Callon et al., 1983). These indicators were identified after reviewing several similar studies published in repute journals like Merigo et al. (2018), Valenzuela-Fernandez et al. (2019), Baker et al. (2020), and Donthu et al. (2020). Along with descriptive analysis, the study identifies the thematic structure of the journal using bibliometric coupling analysis. Kessler proposed that documents citing an identical third document tend to form a bibliographic couple and that bibliographic couples discuss similar intellectual themes (Martyn, 1964). Thus, bibliographic coupling analysis was used to analyse the topics present in KMRP. VOSviewer and Gephi software (Bastian et al., 2009; Van Eck & Waltman, 2017) were used to study and visualise the network of the bibliographic data. Figure 1 provides the analytical structure of the study.

Figure 1. Analytical structure of the study

Google Scholar, Scopus, and the Web of Science are the three major abstract and citation database (Farooque et al., 2019). Because of the low data quality of Google Scholar literature points questions about its relevance for research (Mongeon & Paul-Hus, 2016). In comparison to Web of Science, Scopus has extensive coverage of academic literature (Farooque et al., 2019; Gaviria-Marin et al., 2018). Moreover, Scopus is one of the largest multidisciplinary databases of peer-reviewed literature from scholarly journals (Bartol et al., 2014; Norris & Oppenheim, 2007). Therefore, Scopus was used to extract the bibliographic data for the study. Following the earlier work on bibliometrics (Baker et al., 2020; Donthu et al., 2020; Gaviria-Marin et al., 2018; Kumar et al., 2020), we choose Scopus for extracting bibliographic data of KMRP. The only issue with Scopus data is that it is not as uncontaminated as Web of Science (Strozzi et al., 2017). Thus, the data were further reviewed and improved to overcome the issue. Initially, on searching for KMRP under “source title” in Scopus, a total of 547 documents were retrieved. To ascertain that only peer-reviewed articles were used for the study, the search was limited to articles, reviews, conference papers, and undefined pieces, which left us with 514 documents. Further, on verifying the authors, 11 papers were isolated which were editorials (5), guest editorials (4) and position papers (2), were found mentioned as articles under “document type” head within the set of 514 documents. After removing these 11 documents, a final set of 503 studies between 2006 and 2019 was considered for analysis.

4. Descriptive analysis

The Scopus database shows that KMRP published 463 articles, 34 reviews and six conference papers between 2006 and 2019. The following subsections display the results of the descriptive analysis for these 503 documents.

4.1. KMRP – annual publication and citation structure

KMRP published 35.93 articles on an average between 2006 and 2019. The average citations credited to the published works during this period is 10.45. The count of publications nearly doubled from 2006 to 2018, while the citation count grew from 3 in 2006 to 269 in 2019. Count of articles published is a measure of journal productivity, and the count of citations is a measure of journal influence (Svensson, 2010). KMRP has grown both in terms of productivity and impact. Out of 503 total publications, count of cited articles is 426. Note that 64 out of 77 non quoted articles are those published in 2018 and 2019. Generally, newly published articles may do not have enough time to be cited. Table 1 provides descriptive statistics on KMRP’s yearly publications and citations between 2006 and 2019.

Table 1. Citation structure of KMRP between 2006 and 2019

KMRP has an (SCImago Journal Rank) SJR of 0.462, meaning KMRP publications have received 0.462 average-weighted citations with the source of quote weighed according to prestige. It has a CiteScore of 3.6 which indicates that the average citation received by documents published between 2016 and 2019 is 3.6 and Source Normalised Impact per Paper (SNIP) is 1.063 implying KMRP articles have received on average 1.063 citations from its subject area. Figure 2 shows the journal’s increasing trend in terms of Cite Score, SJR and SNIP from 2006 to 2019. Journal citation report by Clarivate Analytics presents KMRP with a 2 years impact factor of 1.583 meaning that articles published in 2017 and 2018 have received an average of 1.583 citations.

Figure 2. KMRP’s Cite Score, SJR and SNIP between 2006 and 2019

4.2. KMRP – leading authors and their affiliated institutions and countries

Muller-Merbach Heiner from Technische Universität Kaiserslautern has contributed the most to KMRP with nine articles followed by Ettore Bolisani from Università degli Studi di Padova with six articles and Enrico Scarso from Università degli Studi di Padova with five articles. However, the highest number of citations (137) is credited to Cress Ulrike from only three articles followed by Edvardsson, Ingi Runar with 101 cites to four articles. Out of the top 20 contributors to KMRP, 14 have at least 40 citations. Table 2 presents the descriptive statistics for the top 20 most contributing KMRP authors.

Table 2. Top 20 KMRP authors between 2006 and 2019

Table 3 lists the institutions of affiliation for the most contributing KMRP authors. Università degli Studi di Padova, Italy is the highest contributing institution with 13 articles followed by the Tampere University of Technology and Technische Universität Kaiserslautern with nine articles each. It is usually found that the institutions affiliated to top contributing authors show the most productivity. The top 3 most contributing authors of the journal are affiliated to Technische Universität Kaiserslautern and Università degli Studi di Padova.

Table 3. Top institutions affiliated with KMRP authors between 2006 and 2019

Table 4 shows the counties of affiliation for the most frequent KMRP authors. The United States leads the list with 73 publications and 893 citations, which signifies that the United States is credited with around 17% of the total citations. It also has the highest h-index of 16 showing that 16 articles affiliated to the United States are cited at least 16 times. The other most contributing countries are Italy (55), United Kingdom (49), and Spain (46) articles. Hong Kong heads the citation per publication ratio with 23.25, being credited with 186 total citations with only eight articles.

Table 4. Top countries affiliated with KMRP authors between 2006 and 2019

Further, to understand the contribution pattern of authors and their affiliated institutions and countries, trends were studied over 5-year periods. Table 5 lists the top authors, institutions and countries over these 5-year periods.

  • KMRP from 2006 to 2010: authors Muller-Merbach H., Cress U. and Zhu Z. were significant contributors to the journal. As Muller-Merbach H with nine publications between these phases is affiliated to Technische Universität Kaiserslautern, the university got maximum affiliations as well. Authors affiliated to the United States and United Kingdom dominated KMRP publications along with other countries like Germany, Australia, Italy and Japan.

  • KMRP from 2011 to 2015: During this period many authors like Amores-Salvado J., Delgado-Verde M., Navas-Lopez J.E., Salmador M.P., Cegarra-Navarro J.-G. and Hossain L contributed significantly to the journal. Although the United States and the United Kingdom acquire the position of the top three most contributing countries during this period, authors from Spain featured majorly with 25 articles.

  • KMRP from 2016 to 2019: Bolisani E. began contributing in the previous period with two publications and has contributed four articles between 2016 and 2019. Esposito E. and Scarso E. are also significant authors from this period. Along with the domination of North American and European countries like United States, United Kingdom and Spain, many other countries like China, Taiwan and South Korea had a considerable contribution to KMRP. This shows that the journal currently has publications from diverse geographical regions.

Table 5. Temporal pattern of top contributing KMRP authors, top institutions and top countries

4.3. KMRP – co-authorship pattern

Collaborations among researchers and the proportion of global submissions are vital factors for an increase in the number of publications (Finardi & Buratti, 2016; Su et al., 2015) which led us to study the author collaboration pattern in KMRP. More than 75% of the studies published in the journal were two-author and three-author studies while 121 articles were single-author studies. Articles consisting seven-author or six-author studies were published between 2006 and 2015 in the journal. Gradually, the number of multiple author studies increased as out of 179 studies published between 2016 and 2019, only six articles were single-authored. Figure 3 presents the collaboration pattern in KMRP publications.

Figure 3. Collaboration pattern in KMRP articles

4.4. KMRP most cited articles

The influence of an article is indicated by the count of its citations (Tsay, 2009). The most influential publications of the KMRP are listed in Table 6. “The theoretical foundations of knowledge management (2006) by Baskerville R. and Dulipovici A is the most cited article of the journal with 178 cites followed by “Trust as an antecedent to knowledge sharing in virtual communities of practice” (Usoro et al., 2007) by Usoro A., Sharratt M.W., Tsui E. and Shekhar S. with 135 cites. The top 20 most cited articles of KMRP carry more than 43 citations.

Table 6. Most cited articles of KMRP.

4.5. KMRP – citations by authors, countries and journals

The authors, countries and journals which often cite the journal are listed in Table 7. Nonaka, I. has mentioned the journal 72 times followed by Bontis, N. and Schiuma, G. citing 40 times each. Authors affiliated to the United States, along with having the maximum contributions to the journal also cite the journal the most with 4391 citations. The United Kingdom (1722), Canada (641) and Australia (595) come next. Journal of Knowledge Management which is one of the leading journals in the area of “knowledge management” with an impact factor of (4.488) cited KMRP the most with 565 citations. Interestingly, authors writing for KMRP also cite the journal often. Other journals influenced by KMRP are Strategic Management Journal (306), Research Policy (290) and Organisation Science (235) cites.

Table 7. Authors, countries and journals mostly citing KMRP during 2006–2019) cites.

5. Bibliometric analysis

5.1. Most referred documents and journals by KMRP

Table 8 lists the documents most cited in KMRP publications. The study mostly influencing the works in KMRP is “A dynamic theory of organisational knowledge creation” (1994) by Nonaka I. with 103 citations. The article was published by the journal Organisation Science. Other frequently referred works include “Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm” (1996) by Grant R. M with 85 cites and “Review: knowledge management and knowledge management systems: conceptual foundations and research issues” (2001) by Alavi M., Leidner D.E with 78 cites. This implies that KMRP studies are majorly influenced by highly regarded works in the field of “knowledge management” and “knowledge creation”.

Table 8. Most referred documents by KMRP between 2006 and 2019

To locate the source of influence in KMRP studies, journals most often cited by KMRP are listed in Table 9. Journal of Knowledge Management is cited the most by the journal with 1135 cites followed by Strategic Management Journal with 1029 cites.

Table 9. Most referred sources by KMRP between 2006 and 2019

5.2. KMRP – author keyword analysis

Author keywords symbolise the article content or the article’s association with its research question (Strozzi et al., 2017). Articles with common keywords could carry a common research theme (Ding et al., 2001; Sureka et al., 2020). Callon et al. (1983) argued that the co-occurrence of author keywords shows the theoretical structure of the existing literature. Therefore, author keyword analysis with VOSviewer (Van Eck & Waltman, 2017) is used to identify the themes present in KMRP. Figure 4 shows the temporal evolution of KMRP keywords over three periods between 2006 and 2019. Results infer that “knowledge management” and “knowledge sharing” stayed as the most dominant themes from 2006 to 2019.

  • Themes during 2006–2010: the major focus of the journal was on “knowledge management”, “knowledge sharing” and “knowledge management practices”, gradually the focus shifted to “tactic knowledge”, “knowledge management strategy”, “collaborative systems” and ‘knowledge creation. From 2008, themes like “innovation”, “ontology”, “intellectual capital”, and “performance management” came into focus. At the end of this period studies of “knowledge communication” and “theory of knowledge” emerged.

  • Themes during 2011–2015: Along with the ongoing themes, 2011 and 2012 showed new works in KMRP on “knowledge management strategy”, 2013 and 2014 showed a major focus on “intellectual capital”, “knowledge management tools”, “knowledge acquisition”, “knowledge transfer” and “knowledge communities”. By the end of 2014 to 2015, the attention shifted to “explicit knowledge” and “social capital”.

  • Themes during 2016–2019: Studies focused on new topics like “marketing”, “communities of practice”, “supply chain management”, “absorptive capacity”, ‘business strategy and “relational capital” along with “knowledge sharing” and ‘knowledge management which are the prime focus of the journal. “Organisational learning”, “innovativeness”, “technology transfer”, “family firms”, “taxonomy” and ‘industry 4.0ʹ are the current areas of focus for KMRP.

Figure 4. Author keyword network in KMRP over 3 periods

5.3. Bibliographic coupling analysis of KMRP documents

According to Kessler (1963), when two documents tend to cite one or more common references, they establish a bibliographic couple. Documents displaying an identical pattern in their source of influence by forming bibliographic couples share similar intellectual content (Weinberg, 1974). Bibliographic coupling analysis was conducted employing VOSviewer to identify the important topics of research for KMRP. The study divided the 503 KMRP articles into 14 groups, out of which four significant clusters comprise 498 (99%) articles. Table 10 offers a summary of the four KMRP clusters, together with the most cited representative articles in each group. The naming of clusters is based on subjective judgement. The subsequent subsections provide a discussion of these four major clusters.

  1. Acedo, F. J., Barroso, C., Casanueva, C., & Gala, J. L. (2006). Coauthorship in management and organisational Studies. Journal of Management Studies, 43(5), 00222380. https://doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2011.39 [Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]
  2. Alonso, S., Cabrerizo, F. J., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2009). h-Index: A review focused in its variants, computation and standardisation for different scientific fields. Journal of Informetrics, 3(4), 273289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2009.04.001 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]
  3. Ashyrov, G., Alunurm, R., Pentus, K., & Vadi, M. (2019). The future of university–industry collaboration: Scenario analysis based on case of Estonia. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 17(4), 421435. https://doi.org/10.1080/14778238.2019.1599307 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]
  4. Asimakou, T. (2009). The knowledge dimension of innovation management. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 7(1), 8290. https://doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2008.34 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]
  5. Baker, H. K., Kumar, S., & Pandey, N. (2020). Thirty years of Small Business Economics: A bibliometric overview. Small Business Economics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-020-00342-y [Crossref][Google Scholar]
  6. Barik, N., & Jena, P. (2013). Bibliometric analysis of journal of knowledge management practice, 2008–2012. Library Philosophy and Practice, 1020. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/1020 [Google Scholar]
  7. Barilan, J. (2008). Informetrics at the beginning of the 21st century — A review. Journal of Informetrics, 2(1), 152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2007.11.001 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]
  8. Bartol, T., Budimir, G., Dekleva-Smrekar, D., Pusnik, M., & Juznic, P. (2014). Assessment of research fields in scopus and web of science in the view of national research evaluation in Slovenia. Scientometrics, 98(2), 14911504. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1148-8 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]
  9. Baskerville, R., & Dulipovici, A. (2006). The theoretical foundations of knowledge management. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 4(2), 83105. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.kmrp.8500090 [Taylor & Francis Online][Google Scholar]
  10. Bastian, M., Heymann, S., & Jacomy, M. (2009). Gephi: An open source software for exploring and manipulating networks. Third International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media. California. [Google Scholar]
  11. Begoña Lloria, M. (2008). A review of the main approaches to knowledge management. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 6(1), 7789. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.kmrp.8500164 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]
  12. Berbegal-Mirabent, J., Gil-Doménech, D., & Ribeiro-Soriano, D. E. (2019). Fostering university- industry collaborations through university teaching. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 18(3), 113. https://doi.org/10.1080/14778238.2019.1638738 [Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]
  13. Bosua, R., & Scheepers, R. (2007). Towards a model to explain knowledge sharing in complex organisational environments. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 5(2), 93109. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.kmrp.8500131 [Taylor & Francis Online][Google Scholar]
  14. Burnett, S., Grinnall, A., & Williams, D. (2015). What have we learned so far? The development and application of an organisational learning narrative. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 13(2), 160167. https://doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2013.38 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]
  15. Callon, M., Courtial, J.-P., Turner, W. A., & Bauin, S. (1983). From transaction to problematic networks: An introduction to co-word analysis. Social Science Information, 22(2), 191235. https://doi.org/10.1177/053901883022002003 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]
  16. Calvo, N., Fernández-López, S., & Rodeiro-Pazos, D. (2019). Is university-industry collaboration biased by sex criteria? Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 17(4), 408420. https://doi.org/10.1080/14778238.2018.1557024 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]
  17. Cisneros, L., Ibanescu, M., Keen, C., Lobato-Calleros, O., & Niebla-Zatarain, J. (2018). Bibliometric study of family business succession between 1939 and 2017: Mapping and analysing authors’ networks. Scientometrics, 117(2), 919951. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2889-1 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]
  18. Cobo, M. J., López-Herrera, A. G., Herrera-Viedma, E., & 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, 5(1), 146166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.10.002 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]
  19. Díez-Vial, I., & Montoro-Sánchez, Á. (2014). Social capital as a driver of local knowledge exchange: A social network analysis. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 12(3), 276288. https://doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2014.7 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]
  20. Ding, Y., Chowdhury, G. G., & Foo, S. (2001). Bibliometric cartography of information retrieval research by using co-work analysis. Information Processing & Management, 37(6), 817842. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0306-4573(00)00051-0 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]
  21. Dixon, B. E., McGowan, J. J., & Cravens, G. D. (2009). Knowledge sharing using codification and collaboration technologies to improve health care: Lessons from the public sector. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 7(3), 249259. https://doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2009.15 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]
  22. Donthu, N., Satish, K., & Debidutta, P. (2020). Forty-five years of journal of business research: A bibliometric analysis. Journal of Business Research, 109(2020), 114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.10.039 [Crossref][Google Scholar]
  23. Ellegaard, O., & Wallin, J. A. (2015). The bibliometric analysis of scholarly production: How great is the impact? Scientometrics, 105(3), 18091831. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1645-z [Crossref], [Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]
  24. Farooque, M., Zhang, A., Thürer, M., Qu, T., & Huisingh, D. (2019). Circular supply chain management: A definition and structured literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 228, 882900. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.303 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]
  25. Finardi, U., & Buratti, A. (2016). Scientific collaboration framework of BRICS countries: An analysis of international co-authorship. Scientometrics, 109(1), 433446. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1927-0 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]
  26. Frank, A. G., & Ribeiro, J. L. D. (2014). An integrative model for knowledge transfer between new product development project teams. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 12(2), 215225. https://doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2012.57 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]
  27. García, A. B., & Bounfour, A. (2014). Knowledge asset similarity and business relational capital gains: Evidence from European manufacturing firms. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 12(3), 246260. https://doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2014.2 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]
  28. Gaviria-Marin, M., Merigo, J., & Popa, S. (2018). Twenty years of the Journal of Knowledge Management: A bibliometric analysis. Journal of Knowledge Management, 22(8), 16551687. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-10-2017-0497 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]
  29. Gonzalez, R. V. D. (2017). Knowledge management taxonomy in the Brazilian automotive industry. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 15(3), 491505. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41275-017-0061-y [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]
  30. Gourlay, S. (2006). Towards conceptual clarity for “tacit knowledge”: A review of empirical studies. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 4(1), 6069. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.kmrp.8500082 [Taylor & Francis Online][Google Scholar]
  31. Heck, J. L., & Bremser, W. G. (1986). Six decades of the accounting review: A summary of author and institutional contributors. The Accounting Review, 61(4), 735744. http://www.jstor.org/stable/247367 [Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]
  32. Henderson, M., Shurville, S., & Fernstrom, K. (2009). The quantitative crunch: The impact of bibliometric research quality assessment exercises on academic development at small conferences”. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 26(3), 149167. https://doi.org/10.1108/10650740910967348 [Crossref][Google Scholar]
  33. Kang, M., & Kim, B. (2017). Motivation, opportunity, and ability in knowledge transfer: A social network approach. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 15(2), 214224. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41275-016-0045-3 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]
  34. Kang, S.-W. (2016). Knowledge withholding: Psychological hindrance to the innovation diffusion within an organisation. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 14(1), 144149. https://doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2014.24 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]
  35. Kessler, M. M. (1963). Bibliographic coupling between scientific articles. American Documentation, 14(1), 123131. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.5090140103 [Crossref][Google Scholar]
  36. Kianto, A., Andreeva, T., & Pavlov, Y. (2013). The impact of intellectual capital management on company competitiveness and financial performance. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 11(2), 112122. https://doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2013.9 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]
  37. Kianto, A., & Waajakoski, J. (2010). Linking social capital to organisational growth. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 8(1), 414. https://doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2009.29 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]
  38. Kong, E., & Thomson, S. B. (2009). An intellectual capital perspective of human resource strategies and practices. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 7(4), 356364. https://doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2009.27 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]
  39. Kumar, S., Sureka, R., & Pandey, N. (2020). Forty-five years of the International journal of social economics (IJSE): A bibliometric overview. International Journal of Social Economics, 47(7), 831849. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSE-08-2019-0492 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]
  40. Laengle, S., Merigo, J. M., Miranda, J., Słowinski, R., Bomze, I., Borgonovo, E., Dyson, R. G., Oliveira, J. F., & Teunter, R. (2017). Forty years of the European journal of operational research: A bibliometric overview. European Journal of Operational Research, 262(3), 803816. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2017.04.027 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]
  41. Lee, E. S., & Song, D. W. (2018). Knowledge management in freight forwarding as a logistics intermediator: Model and effectiveness. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 16(4), 19. https://doi.org/10.1080/14778238.2018.1475848 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]
  42. Lin, H.-F. (2006). Impact of organisational support on organisational intention to facilitate knowledge sharing. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 4(1), 2635. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.kmrp.8500083 [Taylor & Francis Online][Google Scholar]
  43. Marra, M., Ho, W., & Lee, C. K. M. (2016). Managing supply chain knowledge-based linkages for improving operational performance. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 14(3), 256269. https://doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2014.28 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]
  44. Martínez-López, F. J., Merigó, J. M., Gázquez-Abad, J. C., & Ruiz-Real, J. L. (2020). Industrial marketing management: Bibliometric overview since its foundation. Industrial Marketing Management, 84, 1938. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2019.07.014 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]
  45. Martínez-López, F. J., Merigó, J. M., Valenzuela-Fernández, L., & Nicolás, C. (2018). Fifty years of the European Journal of Marketing: A bibliometric analysis. European Journal of Marketing, 52(1–2), 439468. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-11-2017-0853 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]
  46. Martyn, J. (1964). Bibliographic coupling. Journal of Documentation, 20(4), 236. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb026352 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]
  47. Massa, S., & Testa, S. (2009). How do Miles and Snow’s strategic types differ in their knowledge assets? Evidence from Italian SMEs. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 7(4), 377386. https://doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2009.30 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]
  48. Merigo, J. M., Pedrycz, W., Weber, R., & de la Sotta, C. (2018). Fifty years of information sciences: A bibliometric overview”. Information Sciences, 432, 245268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2017.11.054 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]
  49. Michailova, S., & Sidorova, E. (2011). From group-based work to organisational learning: The role of communication forms and knowledge sharing. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 9(1), 7383. https://doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2011.4 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]
  50. Mingers, J. (2008). Management knowledge and knowledge management: Realism and forms of truth. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 6(1), 6276. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.kmrp.8500161 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]
  51. Mongeon, P., & Paul-Hus, A. (2016). The journal coverage of web of science and scopus: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 106(1), 213228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1765-5 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]
  52. Moustaghfir, K. (2009). How knowledge assets lead to a sustainable competitive advantage: Are organisational capabilities a missing link? Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 7(4), 339355. https://doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2009.26 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]
  53. Noblet, J.-P., Simon, E., & Parent, R. (2011). Absorptive capacity: A proposed operationalization. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 9(4), 367377. https://doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2011.26 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]
  54. Norris, M., & Oppenheim, C. (2007). Comparing alternatives to the web of science for coverage of the social sciences’ literature. Journal of Informetrics, 1(2), 161169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2006.12.001 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]
  55. Palacios-Callender, M., & Roberts, S. A. (2018). Scientific collaboration of cuban researchers working in Europe: Understanding relations between origin and destination countries. Scientometrics, 117(2), 745769. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2888-2 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]
  56. Park, J. Y., Im, I., & Sung, C.-S. (2017). Is social networking a waste of time? The impact of social network and knowledge characteristics on job performance. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 15(4), 560571. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41275-017-0071-9 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]
  57. Pritchard, A. (1969). Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics? Journal of Documentation, 25(4), 348349. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb026482 [Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]
  58. Ramos-Rodrígue, A., & Ruíz-Navarro, J. (2004). Changes in the intellectual structure of strategic management research: A bibliometric study of the strategic management journal, 1980–2000. Strategic Management Journal, 25(10), 9811004. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.397 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]
  59. Riss, U. V., Cress, U., Kimmerle, J., & Martin, S. (2007). Knowledge transfer by sharing task templates: Two approaches and their psychological requirements. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 5(4), 287296. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.kmrp.8500155 [Taylor & Francis Online][Google Scholar]
  60. Scarso, E., & Bolisani, E. (2012). Trust in knowledge exchanges between service providers and clients: A multiple case study of KIBS. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 10(1), 1626. https://doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2011.28 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]
  61. Schiuma, G. (2009). The managerial foundations of knowledge assets dynamics. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 7(4), 290299. https://doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2009.21 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]
  62. Schrock, W. A., Zhao, Y., Hughes, D. E., & Richards, K. A. (2016). JPSSM since the beginning: Intellectual cornerstones, knowledge structure, and thematic developments. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 36(4), 321343. https://doi.org/10.1080/08853134.2016.1253019 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]
  63. Schwert, G. W. (2002). The journal of financial economics A retrospective evaluation (1974-91). Journal of Financial Economics, 33(3), 369424. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(93)90012-Z [Crossref][Google Scholar]
  64. Serenko, A., & Bontis, N. (2017). Global ranking of knowledge management and intellectual capital academic journals: 2017 update. Journal of Knowledge Management., 21(3), 675692. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-11-2016-0490 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]
  65. Serenko, A., Bontis, N., Booker, L., Sadeddin, K., & Hardie, T. (2010). A scientometric analysis of knowledge management and intellectual capital academic literature (1994‐2008). Journal of Knowledge Management., 14(1), 0323. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673271011015534 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]
  66. Strozzi, F., Colicchia, C., Creazza, A., & Noè, C. (2017). Literature review on the smart factory concept using bibliometric tools. International Journal of Production Research, 55(22), 6572–6591. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2017.1326643 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]
  67. Su, J., Zhai, Q., & Landström, H. (2015). Entrepreneurship research in China: Internationalisation or contextualisation? Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 27(1–2), 5079. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2014.999718 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]
  68. Sureka, R., Kumar, S., Mangla, S. K., & Junior, F. H. (2020). Fifteen years of international journal of productivity and performance management (2004–2018). International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-11-2019-0530 [Crossref][Google Scholar]
  69. Svensson, G. (2010). SSCI and its impact factors: A ‘prisoner’s dilemma’? European Journal of Marketing, 44(1–2), 2333. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090561011008583 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]
  70. Tsay, M.-Y. (2009). Citation analysis of Ted Nelson’s works and his influence on hypertext concept. Scientometrics, 79(3), 451472. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-008-1641-7 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]
  71. Usoro, A., Sharratt, M. W., Tsui, E., & Shekhar, S. (2007). Trust as an antecedent to knowledge sharing in virtual communities of practice. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 5(3), 199212. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.kmrp.8500143 [Taylor & Francis Online][Google Scholar]
  72. Valenzuela-Fernandez, L., Merigo, J. M., Lichtenthal, J. D., & Nicolas, C. (2019). A bibliometric analysis of the first 25 years of the journal of business-to business marketing. Journal of Business-To-Business Marketing, 26(1), 7594. https://doi.org/10.1080/1051712X.2019.1565142 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]
  73. Valkokari, K., Paasi, J., & Rantala, T. (2012). Managing knowledge within networked innovation. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 10(1), 2740. https://doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2011.39 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]
  74. Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2017). VOSviewer manual version 1.6.6. Universiteit Leiden. Netherlands. [Google Scholar]
  75. Van Reijsen, J., Helms, R., Batenburg, R., & Foorthuis, R. (2015). The impact of knowledge management and social capital on dynamic capability in organisations. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 13(4), 401417. https://doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2013.59 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]
  76. Veltri, S., Mastroleo, G., & Schaffhauser-Linzatti, M. (2014). Measuring intellectual capital in the university sector using a fuzzy logic expert system. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 12(2), 175192. https://doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2012.53 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]
  77. Wang, C., Lim, M. K., & Lyons, A. (2019). Twenty years of the international journal of logistics research and applications: A bibliometric overview. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, 22(3), 304323. https://doi.org/10.1080/13675567.2018.1526262 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]
  78. Weinberg, B. H. (1974). Bibliographic coupling: A review. Information Storage and Retrieval, 10(5–6), 189196. https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-0271(74)90058-8 [Crossref][Google Scholar]
  79. Yi, J. (2009). A measure of knowledge sharing behaviour: Scale development and validation. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 7(1), 6581. https://doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2008.36 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]
  80. Zaragoza-Sáez, P., & Claver-Cortés, E. (2011). Relational capital inside multinationals. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 9(4), 293304. https://doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2011.34 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]

Research constituents and authorship patterns in the Knowledge Management Research and Practice

Author(s): Giovnni Schiuma,Satish Kumar,Riya Sureka &Rohit Joshi

Alternative formats

ARTICLE


Rusdin Tahir

Senior Lecturer [study on leaves] Department of Business Administration Science Faculty of Social and Political Science UNIVERSITY OF PADJADJARAN Jalan Raya Bandung-Sumedang KM 21 Jatinangor 45363, West Java, Indonesia Ph: +62 22 7792647,7796416 Fax: +62 22 7792647 Mobile: +62 81 123 9491; 822 919 356 65 Email: rusdin.tahir@yahoo.com; rusdin@unpad.ac.id; rusdin@rusdint.com Web: https://rusdintahir.com Web: http://rusdint.com Web: http://www.blog.unpad.ac.id/rusdintahir Web: http://www.rusdintahir.wordpress.com Web: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Rusdin_Tahir/publications

Tinggalkan Balasan