Bibliometric Methods in Management and Organization

Ivan Zupic, Tomaž Čater

Academic Unit for Management and Organization

Faculty of Economics
University of Ljubljana

Corresponding e-mail: [email protected]

ABSTRACT

We aim to develop a meaningful single-source reference for management and organization

scholars interested in using bibliometric methods for mapping research specialties. Such

methods introduce a measure of objectivity into the evaluation of scientific literature and hold

the potential to increase rigor and mitigate researcher bias in reviews of scientific literature by

aggregating the opinions of multiple scholars working in the field. We introduce the

bibliometric methods of citation analysis, co-citation analysis, bibliographical coupling, co-

author analysis, and co-word analysis and present a workflow for conducting bibliometric

studies with guidelines for researchers. We envision that bibliometric methods will

complement meta-analysis and qualitative structured literature reviews as a method for

reviewing and evaluating scientific literature. To demonstrate bibliometric methods, we

performed a citation and co-citation analysis to map the intellectual structure of the

Organizational Research Methods journal.

Keywords: bibliometrics, co-citation, bibliographic coupling, science mapping

Electronic copy
Electronic copy available
available at:
at:https://ssrn.com/abstract=2267251
http://ssrn.com/abstract=2267251
 INTRODUCTION

Synthesizing past research findings is one of the most important tasks for advancing a

particular line of research. Scholars have traditionally used two methods to make sense of

earlier findings: the qualitative approach of a structured literature review, and the quantitative

approach of meta-analysis (Schmidt, 2008). We introduce a third method – science mapping –

which is based on the quantitative approach of bibliometric research methods and is being

increasingly used to map the structure and development of scientific fields and disciplines.

Science mapping uses bibliometric methods to examine how disciplines, fields, specialties,

and individual papers are related to one another. It produces a spatial representation of the

findings analogous to geographic maps (Calero-Medina & van Leeuwen, 2012; Small, 1999).

Science mapping is a combination of classification and visualization (Boyack & Klavans,

2013). The aim is to create a representation of the research area’s structure by partitioning

elements (documents, authors, journals, words) into different groups. Visualization is then

used to create a visual representation of the classification that emerges.

Narrative literature reviews are subjected to bias by the researcher and often lack rigor

(Tranfield, Denyer, & Smart, 2003). Bibliometric methods employ a quantitative approach for

the description, evaluation and monitoring of published research. These methods have the

potential to introduce a systematic, transparent and reproducible review process and thus

improve the quality of reviews. Bibliometric methods are a useful aid in literature reviews

even before reading begins by guiding the researcher to the most influential works and

mapping the research field without subjective bias.

Although bibliometric methods are not new (c.f. Kessler, 1963; Small, 1973), they only

started to attract widespread attention with the proliferation of easily accessible online

databases with citation data (e.g. Thomson Reuters Web of Science (WOS), which contains

Electronic copy
Electronic copy available
available at:
at:https://ssrn.com/abstract=2267251
http://ssrn.com/abstract=2267251
SSCI and SCI data) and the development of software for conducting bibliometric analyses

(e.g. BibExcel). Bibliometric methods have been used to map the fields of strategic

management (e.g. Di Stefano, Verona, & Peteraf, 2010; Nerur, Rasheed, & Natarajan, 2008;

Ramos-Rodriguez & Ruiz-Navarro, 2004), entrepreneurship (e.g. Gartner, Davidsson, &

Zahra, 2006; Landström, Harirchi, & Åström, 2012; Schildt, Zahra, & Sillanpaa, 2006),

innovation (e.g. Fagerberg, Fosaas, & Sapprasert, 2012; Fagerberg & Verspagen, 2009) and

others (see Appendix A for a full list of studies published in management and organization).

Some research fields (e.g. innovation, entrepreneurship, strategy) have more rapidly embraced

bibliometric methods, while others (e.g. organizational behavior, psychology) have been

slower. We believe this is because the knowledge base of the former is closer to bibliometric

methods and that this represents a big opportunity for researchers working in those fields that

have yet to start publishing bibliometric studies.

Bibliometric methods allow researchers to base their findings on aggregated bibliographic

data produced by other scientists working in the field who express their opinions through

citation, collaboration, and writing. When this data is aggregated and analyzed, insights into

the field’s structure, social networks and topical interests can be put forward. The use of

bibliometric analysis is growing rapidly. The median year of publication of bibliometric

studies in management and organization is 2011, meaning that over half the articles were

published in the last three years. The authors' anecdotal experience also suggests that

management scholars are becoming ever more interested in using bibliometric methods to

supplement the subjective evaluation of literature reviews. Notwithstanding this growing

interest, there are hardly any guidelines for conducting structured literature reviews with

bibliometric methods.

The purpose of this article is to develop a meaningful single-source reference for management

and organization scholars interested in bibliometric methods. The paper’s main contribution is

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2267251

the development of recommended workflow guidelines for carrying out bibliometric studies.

We synthesized the guidelines from 81 bibliometric studies in management and organization

(details about the selection and a full study list are available in Appendix A) and bibliometric

methodology literature. We demonstrated the use of these guidelines by performing a

bibliometric analysis of the Organizational Research Methods journal. Given that the use of

bibliometric methods is on the rise and there is a dearth of guidance on how to use these

methods, this article may provide a valuable reference for scholars interested in bibliometric

methods.

BIBLIOMETRIC METHODS

Almost five decades ago, Derek J. de Solla Price (1965) proposed scientific methods of

science for studying science (Boyack, Klavans, & Börner, 2005). Bibliometric methods (e.g.

co-citation analysis, bibliographic coupling) use bibliographic data from publication databases

to construct structural images of scientific fields. They introduce a measure of objectivity into

the evaluation of scientific literature (Garfield, 1979) and can be used to detect informal

research networks, i.e. “invisible colleges”, which exist under the surface but are not formally

linked (Crane, 1972; Price, 1965). These groups share research interests and have underlying

contacts through personal communication, conferences, summer schools that are invisible to

the outsider. Citation images of research fields, aggregated through time, reflect authors’

judgments on the subject matter, methodology and the value of other writers’ work (White &

McCain, 1998).

Bibliometric methods have two main uses: performance analysis and science mapping (Cobo,

López-Herrera, Herrera-Viedma, & Herrera, 2011). Performance analysis seeks to evaluate

the research and publication performance of individuals and institutions. Science mapping

aims to reveal the structure and dynamics of scientific fields. This information about structure

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2267251

and development is useful when the researcher’s aim is to review a particular line of research.

Bibliometric methods introduce quantitative rigor into the subjective evaluation of literature.

They are able to provide evidence of theoretically derived categories in a review article.

In the following section we will introduce the five main bibliometric methods. The first three

use citation data to construct measures of influence and similarity: citation analysis, co-

citation analysis, and bibliographical coupling. Co-author analysis uses co-authorship data to

measure collaboration. Co-word analysis finds connections among concepts that co-occur in

document titles, keywords or abstracts. A summary of bibliometric methods with their

strengths and weaknesses is provided in Table 1.

------------------------------
Insert Table 1 about here
------------------------------

Most reviewed studies provide a citation analysis of the research field, usually in the form of

top-N lists of the most cited studies, authors or journals in the examined area. Citations are

used as a measure of influence. If an article is heavily cited, it is considered important. This

proposition rests on the assumption that authors cite documents they consider to be important

for their work. Citation analysis can provide information about the relative influence of the

publications, but it lacks the ability to identify networks of interconnections among scholars

(Usdiken & Pasadeos, 1995).

Co-citation analysis (McCain, 1990) uses co-citation counts to construct measures of

similarity between documents, authors or journals. Co-citation is defined as the frequency

with which two units are cited together (Small, 1973). A fundamental assumption of co-

citation analysis is that the more two items are cited together, the more likely it is that their

content is related. Different types of co-citation can be utilized, depending on the unit of

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2267251

analysis: document co-citation analysis, author co-citation analysis (McCain, 1990; White &

Griffith, 1981; White & McCain, 1998), and journal co-citation analysis (McCain, 1991). Co-

citation connects documents, authors or journals according to the way writers use them. This

is a rigorous grouping principle repeatedly performed by subject-matter experts who cite

publications they deem valuable and/or interesting. Because the publication process is time-

consuming, the co-citation image reflects the state of the field sometime before, not

necessarily how it looks now or how it may look tomorrow. It is a dynamic measure that

changes through time. When examined over time, co-citations are also helpful in detecting a

shift in paradigms and schools of thought (Pasadeos, Phelps, & Kim, 1998).

Document co-citation analysis connects specific published documents (research articles,

books, editorials or other published material). Author co-citation analysis (ACA) connects

bodies of writings by a person and therefore the authors who produced them (White &

Griffith, 1981). ACA can identify important authors and connect them through citation

records (White & McCain, 1998). What is mapped is an author’s citation image. Journal co-

citation analysis (JCA) aims to connect related scientific journals.

A special form of co-citation is tri-citation analysis (Marion, 2002; McCain, 2009; McCain &

McCain, 2002), which examines the »intellectual fellow travelers« of a particular author or

publication by analyzing works which have been co-cited with them. It has the potential for

researching the legacy of important authors or seminal studies. Tri-citation is a variant of co-

citation analysis where the focal author or publication is always one of the cited publications

and provides the context for co-citation analysis. For instance, the seminal paper on

absorptive capacity (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990) is one of the most influential papers in

strategy and innovation. To examine the context of its influence, one could produce a tri-

citation analysis to connect all pairs of publications that are cited with Cohen & Levinthal

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2267251

(1990). This method could be especially appropriate for special issues which celebrate

anniversaries of important publications or are published in honor of important authors.

Although bibliographic coupling (Kessler, 1963) is a decade older than co-citation (Small,

1973), co-citation has been more frequently used for mapping science (Zhao & Strotmann,

2008). Bibliographic coupling uses the number of references shared by two documents as a

measure of the similarity between them. The more the bibliographies of two articles overlap,

the stronger their connection. The difference between co-citation analysis and bibliographic

coupling is visually presented in Figure 2.

------------------------------
Insert Figure 2 about here
------------------------------

The number of references shared between two documents is static over time (i.e. for the

relationship between two documents it does not matter when the analysis is conducted) as the

number of references within the article is unchanged, while relatedness based on co-citation

develops with citation patterns. As citation habits change, bibliographic coupling is best

performed within a limited timeframe (Glänzel & Thijs, 2012). It is best to analyze

publications from roughly the same period of time (i.e. it makes no sense to couple a

publication issued in 1964 with a publication issued in 2012). A bibliographic coupling

connection is established by the authors of the articles in focus, whereas a co-citation

connection is established by the authors who are citing the examined works.

When two documents are highly co-cited this means that each individual document is also

highly individually cited (Jarneving, 2005). This indicates that documents selected through

co-citation thresholds are deemed more important by the researchers who are citing them. Yet

the bibliographic coupling measure cannot be used in such a way, so identifying which

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2267251

documents are more important than others is a challenge when undertaking bibliographic

coupling. However, this is also a weakness of co-citation analysis: it carries more information

for highly cited documents, but is much less reliable for clustering smaller niche specialties

which are formed by less cited documents.

The choice of which method to employ depends on the goals of the analysis. To map a current

research front, bibliographical coupling might be used while, to map older papers, co-citation

could be better choice (Small, 1999). The latest studies show that the accuracy of

bibliographic coupling in representing a research front is better than that of a co-citation

analysis (Boyack & Klavans, 2010).

There are several limitations of citation-based bibliometric methods (citation analysis, co-

citation analysis, and bibliographical coupling). Based solely on the bibliometric data, it is

impossible to establish the reason that a particular publication was cited. Different citations of

the same publication can be made for many different reasons. The articles could be citing

literature to refute it (negative citations). It is quite possible for bad scientific work to receive

more citations than mere mediocre work (Wallin, 2005). However, citations for negative

reasons are extremely rare and scientists generally do not criticize previous literature too

much (Garfield, 1979). And even then it is not necessarily valid to assume that critics are

necessarily right, thus the critiqued literature is likely to contain some merit. Citation-based

metrics could be biased due to self-citation in the form of author self-citation (citing

publications where one is a co-author) or team self-citation (citing publications authored by

one’s collaborators). These practices tend to increase citation frequencies and are thus a

manipulation, although one would have to publish a tremendous amount to reasonably

increase the citation frequencies.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2267251

Co-author analysis examines the social networks scientists create by collaborating on

scientific articles (Acedo, Barroso, Casanueva, & Galan, 2006). A relationship between two

authors is established when they co-publish a paper (Lu & Wolfram, 2012). Co-authoring

scientific publications is presumed to be a measure of collaboration. Co-authorship reflects

stronger social ties than other relatedness measures, which makes it particularly suitable for

examining social networks rather than intellectual structures of research fields. Further,

because bibliographic data contains information about authors’ institutional affiliations and

their geographical location, co-author analysis can examine the issues of collaboration on the

level of institutions and countries.

Co-authorship as a measure of collaboration assumes that authoring a publication is

synonymous with being responsible for the work done. However, just because a person’s

name appears as a co-author of a scientific article it is not necessarily because they

contributed a significant amount of work, but could be purely “honorary authorship” for

social or other reasons (Katz & Martin, 1997). On the other hand, there might be scientists

who contributed to the work but whose names do not appear on the author sheet.

Co-word analysis (Callon, Courtial, Turner, & Bauin, 1983) is a content analysis technique

that uses the words in documents to establish relationships and build a conceptual structure of

the domain. The idea underlying the method is that, when words frequently co-occur in

documents, it means that the concepts behind those words are closely related. It is the only

method that uses the actual content of the documents to construct a similarity measure, while

the others connect documents indirectly through citations or co-authorships. The output of co-

word analysis is a network of themes and their relations which represent the conceptual space

of a field. This semantic map helps to understand its cognitive structure (Börner, Chen, &

Boyack, 2003). A series of such maps produced for different time periods can trace the

changes in this conceptual space (Coulter, Monarch, & Konda, 1998). Co-word analysis can

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2267251

be applied to document titles, keywords, abstracts or full texts. The unit of analysis is a

concept, not a document, author or journal.

The quality of results from co-word analysis depends on variety of factors – the quality of

keywords, the scope of the database and the sophistication of statistical methods used for

analysis (He, 1998). Solely using keywords for co-word analysis is a problem for two reasons.

First, many journals’ bibliographic data do not contain keywords. Second, relying just on

keywords suffers from so-called “indexer effect” – where the validity of the map is dependent

on whether the indexers captured all relevant aspects of the text. The solution is to use

abstracts or full texts, but this introduces noise into the data as the algorithms have difficulty

distinguishing the importance of words in large corpuses of text.

The current bibliometric landscape is dominated by co-citation analysis, which is used in the

majority of bibliometric studies in management and organization. Bibliographic coupling is a

neglected method with great potential for further use in the management domain. It is only

after 2012 that the first three studies in management and organization using bibliographic

coupling were published (Hanisch & Wald, 2012; Nosella, Cantarello, & Filippini, 2012;

Vogel & Güttel, 2013). The limited use of bibliographical coupling partially stems from

historical circumstances (co-citation analysis inventor Henry Small’s involvement with the

Institute for Scientific Information, which played a key part in the development of

bibliometrics) and partly from its own limitations as a method (limitation to short timespans,

being unable to use citation threshold filtering). However, it is especially useful for mapping

research fronts and emerging fields where citation data does not exist or smaller subfields

which are not cited enough to produce reliable connections by co-citation analysis.

Our search found 81 studies that used bibliometric methods in management and organization.

Two independent researchers coded and analyzed the studies to determine the methods used,

10

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2267251

the databases, the software and other characteristics. We describe the details of the selection,

coding and list all the studies in Appendix A. The descriptive statistics for coded categories

(the methods, databases and software used) are summarized in Table 2.

------------------------------
Insert Table 2 about here
------------------------------

Bibliometric methods and traditional methods of review

In recent years the volume of scientific research increased dramatically. It is becoming

increasingly difficult for researchers to keep track of relevant literature in their field. This fact

calls for the use of quantitative bibliometric methods which can handle this wealth of data,

filter the important works through estimating their impact and discover the underlying

structure of a field. Researchers and especially doctoral students need to be equipped with

skills that are able to make sense of this information explosion.

Traditional methods of review and evaluation of scientific literature are meta-analysis and

structured literature review. Meta-analysis seeks to synthesize empirical evidence from

quantitative studies (Aguinis, Pierce, Bosco, Dalton, & Dalton, 2010). It requires that the

researcher chooses studies based on the exact relationships they wish to explore (Raghuram,

Tuertscher, & Garud, 2010) and aggregates multiple findings on these relationships into one

overall finding. This is a very powerful method, but inherently limited in the type and breadth

of studies it can analyze. On the other hand, structured literature reviews are able to handle

the diversity of studies and methodological approaches. Such reviews can provide in-depth

analysis of literature and provide an understanding of contextual issues (Raghuram et al.,

2010). However, this process is time consuming so the number of analyzed works is limited

and prone to researcher’s biases. It is a real possibility that important studies could be

excluded.

11

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2267251

Science mapping with bibliometric methods offers a different perspective on the field. It can

analyze any type of study, as long as connections among studies exist in corpus of analyzed

studies. Compared with structured literature review, science mapping has more macro focus

and aims to find patterns in the literature as body of work. While traditional literature review

provides depth, bibliometric methods can handle a wide breadth of hundreds, even thousands

of studies. They can provide graphical description of a research field.

We believe bibliometric methods are not a substitute for but a complement to traditional

methods of review. Even when used in an ad-hoc manner, they can provide useful information

about the research field to the researcher: which are the important publications, authors, what

is the structure of the field. Bibliometric methods can be used in standalone bibliometric

analysis articles or can provide additional information for use in structured literature reviews.

Bibliometric methods, when used correctly, can provide increased objectivity in literature

reviews. They enable the researcher to look behind the scenes and base their opinions on the

aggregated opinions of the scholars working in the field. Bibliometrics can help journal

editors to evaluate past publications, design new policies and make editorial decisions.

Additionally, bibliographic data can be used as an input to other quantitative statistical

methods which provide further insight and can test hypotheses related to the structure and

development of a field.

RECOMMENDED WORKFLOW FOR CONDUCTING SCIENCE MAPPING

STUDIES

Based on the established practices and bibliometric methodology literature, we propose

recommended workflow guidelines for science mapping research with bibliometric methods.

This is not intended to be a detailed how-to guide, but as an overview of the process with the

12

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2267251

options (methods, databases, software, etc.) available to scholars and the decisions they have

to make at each stage of the research.

The recommended workflow is presented in Figure 1. We delineate a five-step procedure for

conducting science mapping in management and organization. First, researchers should define

the research question(s) and choose the appropriate bibliometric methods that are able to

answer the question(s). Second, researchers need to select the database that contains

bibliometric data, filter the core document set and export the data from the selected database.

Sometimes this step involves constructing one’s own database. Third, bibliometric software is

employed for analysis. Alternatively, researchers can write their own computer code to

accomplish this step. Results of the bibliometric analysis can be further analyzed with

statistical software to identify document subgroups that represent research specialties. Fourth,

researchers must decide which visualization method is to be used on the results of the third

step and employ appropriate software to prepare the visualization. Finally, the results must be

interpreted and described. We have organized the article according to these stages of the

research process.

------------------------------
Insert Figure 1 about here
------------------------------

Step 1: Research Design

The first, highly important step in any bibliometric study is to design the research.

Researchers need to define the research question and choose an appropriate bibliometric

method to answer it. Different bibliometric methods are suitable for answering different

research questions. We summarized typical research questions suitable for different

bibliometric methods in Table 3.

13

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2267251

 ------------------------------
Insert Table 3 about here
------------------------------

Citation is primarily a measure of impact so the major ability of citation analysis is to find the

documents, authors, and journals that are the most influential in a particular research stream.

Co-citation analysis and bibliographical coupling use citation practices to connect documents,

authors or journals. As such, they are ideally suitable for answering structural questions about

research fields.

Since co-citation is applied to the cited articles, it is capable of identifying the knowledge

base of a topic/research field and its intellectual structure. The knowledge base of a field is

the set of articles most cited by the current research. This is sometimes also referred to as the

“intellectual base” (Persson, 1994). The structure of the knowledge base is called the

intellectual structure and refers to the examined scientific domain’s research traditions, their

disciplinary composition, influential research topics and the pattern of their interrelationships

(Shafique, 2013). These publications are the foundations upon which current research is being

carried out and contain fundamental theories, breakthrough early works and methodological

canons of the field.

The concept of research front was introduced by Price (1965) and is used to describe current

scientific papers that cite the publications in the knowledge base. At any given time, these

papers are recently published papers that represent the state of the art of a scientific field.

Examining the research front of a topic or research field is a task particularly suitable for

bibliographical coupling since this method uses reference lists for coupling and does not

require the documents to be cited in order to connect them. It is performed on citing

publications as opposed to co-citation analysis, which is performed on cited publications.

Most of the bibliometric studies in management and organization examine the knowledge

14

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2267251

base while there is a distinct lack of research front analysis. This could be attributed to the

popularity of co-citation and represents an opportunity for the use of bibliographical coupling.

Boyack & Klavans (2010; p. 2391) differentiate between co-citation clustering and co-citation

analysis. Co-citation clustering is simply the formation of clusters of cited documents, while

co-citation analysis requires the additional step of assigning the research front papers to co-

citation clusters. This latest step is most often not performed in bibliometric studies. One of

the problems with co-citation clustering is that the analyzed set of documents (co-cited

documents) is not the same as the starting set of documents (core documents). Consequently,

co-citation clustering is more appropriate for studying the intellectual foundations of research

than for evaluating the current research frontier. Publications in co-citation clusters can be

connected to the research front publications that are citing them. Unfortunately, most

bibliometric software does not have this capability so it has to be done manually. One way to

do this is to import bibliometric data into a relational database and find the research front

publications that are responsible for co-citation links in each cluster through search queries.

Co-citation can be used to examine the research front of a specified domain but, because it

requires an intermediate step of matching cited and citing clusters, the resulting research front

clusters will contain more noise than when derived from bibliographical coupling.

Co-author analysis is particularly suitable for studying research questions involving scientific

collaboration. This method can analyze co-authorship patterns among contributing scientists

and produce a social network of the invisible college that makes up the research field.

Researchers can combine co-authorship data with citation data to estimate the effect of

collaboration on research impact. For instance, Fischbach, Putzke, & Schoder (2011)

examined co-authorship networks within the Electronic Markets journal to test various

hypotheses of how authors’ embeddedness in co-authorship networks affects the impact of

their research. Establishing an author’s disciplinary background can reveal interdisciplinary

15

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2267251

collaborations. Raasch, Lee, Spaeth, & Herstatt (2013) studied the emergence of open-source

innovation research to find that interdisciplinarity decreases when the research field becomes

established. Co-word analysis uses the text of the titles, author-designated keywords, abstracts

or even full texts to construct a semantic map of the field. This method can be used to

discover linkages among subjects in a research field and trace its development (He, 1998).

Science mapping is performed at a specific point in time to represent a static picture of the

field at that moment. However, the core document set can be divided into multiple time

periods to capture the development of the field over time. Each time period’s bibliometric

data is analyzed separately and compared to find changes in the field’s structure. This

longitudinal analysis can reveal how particular groups within an intellectual structure emerge,

grow or fade away.

While these are the most basic types of research questions, the authors of bibliometric studies

have started to examine more sophisticated variants of questions. Some authors have

considered differences in publication and citation practices between authors from different

geographical regions, particularly between the North American and European traditions

(Cornelius & Persson, 2006; Pilkington & Lawton, 2013; Usdiken & Pasadeos, 1995).

Bibliometric methods can uncover influences about which even field experts might be

unaware. Researchers often draw on publications from outside the field, but these publications

are rarely mentioned in literature reviews (White & McCain, 1998), which are discipline-

focused. Therefore, some recent studies tried to reveal the interdisciplinarity of particular

research streams (e.g. Bernroider, Pilkington, & Córdoba, 2013; Raasch, Lee, Spaeth, &

Herstatt, 2013).

Step 2: Compiling the bibliometric data

16

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2267251

One of the crucial decisions authors of science mapping studies must make is how to limit the

scope of their study and define which papers should be included in the set of core documents.

Two main options for limiting the scope are available. The first is to search for selected

keywords. Because not all journals publish keywords, the search should include article titles

and abstracts. Special effort should be made to define search terms that accurately represent

the examined field. To increase the validity of search terms, consulting a panel of scholars to

determine appropriate keywords is a good practice (e.g. Chabowski, Samiee, & Hult, 2013).

However, even when search terms are very carefully chosen, a database search usually finds

studies that are not within the scope of the review. These unwanted publications influence the

results of bibliometric analysis, introduce outliers into the cited publications and reduce the

validity of the results. A method to sift out unwanted documents is needed. This can be dealt

with by reading abstracts and qualitatively determining which publications returned by the

search are within the scope of the review. However, this method has the potential to introduce

bias into the results. This bias can be mitigated by (1) defining beforehand the exact criteria

used for selection and (2) having at least two researchers independently perform the selection.

The second option is to limit the scope to articles published in a single or in a small number of

journals. This selection method is especially appropriate when the goal is to analyze the

publications within a single journal or when the publications in selected specialty journals

represent a valid representation of the examined research field. Of course, these methods can

be combined to perform a keyword search within a limited range of journals and qualitatively

select the publications for bibliometric analysis. An interesting variation of selection is the

approach introduced by Fagerberg, Landström & Martin (2012) which relies on citations from

handbooks from the fields of innovation, entrepreneurship and science studies to define the

core set of documents in each field.

17

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2267251

When the core document set has been selected, authors often exclusively use documents or

journals that exceed some minimum citation threshold for the purpose of selecting only

influential publications and limiting the core document set to a manageable size. This is

sometimes necessary when bibliographic coupling or co-author analysis are used which

perform the analysis on citing publications (i.e. the core document set). If the threshold is

established on the number of total citations, newer publications are at a disadvantage so a

better practice would be to rank publications on citations per year. While co-word analysis is

also performed on citing publications, the unit of analysis is a word, which means that

thresholds should be established for word appearance.

Co-citation analysis is performed on cited publications, which can be very numerous.

Filtering through citation thresholds is thus also necessary on cited publications for two

reasons: (1) to limit the analyzed set to a manageable size; and (2) to ensure only cited

publications that contain enough citation data for analysis are retained. If publications are not

cited or are cited just a few times, it is not possible to perform a co-citation analysis so in this

case filtering through the total number of citations is appropriate. Establishing the level of

citation thresholds is a part of bibliometric analysis that is definitely more art than science.

The choice also depends on whether the goal of the researcher is analysis of a wider, more

inclusive set of cited publications or of a smaller, more focused selection. If the cited

publications are selected too narrowly, some smaller subgroups will not be found.

Bibliographic Databases

The Social Science Citation Index (SSCI), accessible online through Thomson Reuters Web

of Science (WOS), is by far the most common source of bibliographic data. It provides data

on documents published in the social sciences and the cited references they contain.

Bibliographical data for indexed documents including article title, article type, authors, author

institutional affiliations, keywords, abstract, number of citations, journal name, publisher

18

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2267251

name and address, publication year, volume, issue number, and a list of cited references is

available for analysis. All journals indexed in SSCI are assigned one or more subject

categories (e.g. Economics, Psychology) that can be used for filtering relevant publications.

The SSCI was established by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) which is now part of

Thomson Reuters. However, it is not without its limitations: the scope of journals covered by

the SSCI is limited to those with an official impact factor. It takes time for newer journals to

be included in the SSCI so it does not contain data from “just launched” publications. The

SSCI (WOS) database is the most frequently used database for bibliometric studies in

management and organization. It contains enough data to make it suitable for most

bibliometric analysis and is already included in most university subscriptions so it is

immediately available to researchers working in academic settings.

An alternative source is the Scopus database. Started in 2004 and owned by Elsevier, it is

recommended by some bibliometricians as having a wider coverage than the SSCI (SciTech

Strategies, 2012). This broader coverage is useful for mapping smaller research areas that

would be insufficiently covered by the SSCI (WOS) database. The importing of data from

Scopus is supported by the most commonly used bibliometric software packages, but its use is

not yet widespread among management and organization scholars as Scopus was employed

by only three studies (c.f. Gerdsri, Kongthon, & Vatananan, 2013; Hanisch & Wald, 2012;

Walter & Ribiere, 2013). An additional advantage of Scopus is that it contains data for all

authors in cited references making author-based citation and co-citation analysis more

accurate.

Google Scholar has gained prominence among academics since it has become the most widely

used tool for searching scientific publications. Google Scholar includes a broader range of

publications than SSCI (WOS) and includes citation data so it is a potentially useful database

for bibliometric analysis. However, Google Scholar does not provide a user interface or API

19

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2267251

(application programming interface) to enable the exporting of a document set with cited

references, which would be needed for bibliometric analysis. It would be potentially feasible

to write a program that would download the data from Google Scholar, but Google’s policy is

to not allow automatic downloading so this approach is not stable and bound to be blocked by

Google. Due to these shortcomings, Google Scholar currently cannot be easily used for

bibliometric analysis.

Some limitations of bibliometric methods are the consequence of the nature of data in

bibliographic databases. The cited reference data from the SSCI only contain information

about the first authors of cited publications, meaning that the contributions of second and

other authors are underestimated. This is especially noticeable in some seminal, highly cited

co-authored contributions (e.g. Dan Levinthal is the second author of the highly cited 1990

Cohen & Levinthal absorptive capacity paper, this omission alone is enough to produce a

biased list of top cited authors). The SSCI does not cover all scientific literature – some

relevant journals are not included. They do not encompass working papers and papers

published in open archives like arXiv and SSRN. Important contributions could be missed as

a consequence of this insufficient coverage. Another alternative to established online

databases is for researchers to construct their own database based on several different sources.

Step 3: Analysis

The analysis begins with preprocessing. To achieve accurate results it is necessary to clean the

data. Although most bibliometric data are reliable, cited references sometimes contain

multiple versions of the same publication and different spellings of an author’s names.

Moreover, since authors are usually abbreviated by their surname and first initial, this poses a

problem with some very common names (e.g. Lee, Smith) and authors with two first names

(e.g. David Bruce Audretsch could appear as both “Audretsch D.” and “Audretsch D.B.”).

Cited journals might also appear in slightly different forms. Books have different editions,
20

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2267251

which can appear as different citations (e.g. Yin’s “Case Study Research: Design and

Methods” could appear as Yin 1984, Yin 1994 or even Yin 2009). While the choice of

whether to aggregate different editions of books remains for the researcher, different spellings

of authors and journals should be corrected when these are the units of analysis. Researchers

should aggregate author or journal data under one spelling and eliminate all the others. This is

especially important for author and journal co-citation analysis, co-author analysis, and

citation analysis. Corrections can be made with more sophisticated tools that allow calculating

similarities between text strings or through capabilities of bibliometric software packages.

When performing co-word analysis it is often desirable to reduce various representations of

concepts to one form. A stemming algorithm is the procedure that transforms words to their

root form. For example, the concept of “innovation” could appear in several forms: innovation

(singular), innovations (plural), innovativeness (noun), innovative (adjective)… A stemming

algorithm would reduce all these different appearances to the root “innov” which would

represent the concept of innovation. As demonstrated here, stemmed words can be difficult to

read for humans so replacing the root with the most common full word is advisable.

Bibliometric software

Several software tools are available to facilitate the bibliometric analysis of scientific

literature. Bibliometric tools take raw bibliographic data (e.g. an export from Web of

Science), perform bibliometric calculations and calculate the similarity matrices between

items (documents, authors, journals, words). They have some analytic capabilities, but

normally rely on exporting data for statistical and visualization software for further analysis.

In this section, we will briefly introduce three bibliometric tools: BibExcel (Persson, Danell,

& Wiborg Schneider, 2009), Sitkis (Schildt et al., 2006) and SciMAT (Cobo et al., 2012).

BibExcel and Sitkis were the tools most often referenced in bibliometric analyses.

21

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2267251

Interestingly, several studies report using Microsoft Excel to perform bibliometric

calculations.

BibExcel was developed by Olle Persson (Persson et al., 2009) and is the software most used

for performing bibliometric analysis in management and organization. Although its user

interface cannot be described as being very friendly, it can be learned quickly and is very

efficient. BibExcel can perform all bibliometric methods (co-citation, bibliographical

coupling, co-author, and co-word analysis) and has many additional features (e.g. word

stemmer to aid co-word analysis). Its website contains many tutorials on how to use the

software for various bibliometric analyses. Exporting options include co-occurrence matrices

for later use in statistical software and network formats that can be used in network analysis

packages. BibExcel is easy to learn and very quick to operate. Its main drawbacks are the lack

of advanced preprocessing capabilities for data cleaning and its quirky user interface. If the

goal of the researcher is to produce quick bibliometric calculations and perform data cleaning

and advanced analysis in other programs, BibExcel is the right choice.

Sitkis (Schildt, 2005) was developed by Henri A. Schildt at the Helsinki University of

Technology. It is a bibliometric data management tool that can be used for aiding reviews and

bibliometric calculations. With Sitkis it is possible to perform basic data preprocessing tasks

and perform co-citation and co-author analysis. Data can be exported to tab-delimited Excel-

friendly text files that can also be used in UCINET network analysis software. One distinct

feature of Sitkis is that it implements a dense network subgrouping algorithm – a clustering

procedure developed especially for bibliometric analysis (Schildt & Mattsson, 2006). The tool

is relatively simple to use, but uses legacy technology (Access) for database storage and is no

longer being actively developed. The last version of this software dates from 2005. We would

thus recommend using this software option predominantly if a researcher already has Sitkis

experience.

22

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2267251

SciMAT (Cobo et al., 2012) is one of the newer additions to bibliometric software options.

Developed by a research group at the University of Granada, SciMAT is software that covers

the whole workflow of science mapping from data preprocessing to visualization. It has a

better user interface, superior preprocessing capabilities for cleaning the data, and is a more

recent and open source. It guides the user through whole workflow, being in this sense more

rigid than BibExcel. It is good software for carrying out a thorough science mapping

procedure, but it is more difficult to do “quick and dirty” ad-hoc analyses in SciMAT. Its

main drawback is the current lack of a user interface to export data matrices that could be

used in statistical software. Users can export the data for further analyses only through

(undocumented) scripts or limit the analyses to those done in SciMAT.

At least two other software options are worth mentioning. Loet Leydesdorff’s website stores a

number of simple software programs that implement various bibliometric methods

(Leydesdorff, 1999). These are very basic programs run from the command line that

transform WOS data into matrices that can be used in statistical and network analysis

software. Its use is very simple, but its preprocessing capabilities are very limited. CiteSpace

II (Chen, 2006) is another option with comprehensive bibliometric capabilities. It has many

features far beyond what is needed for basic science mapping, but the learning curve is pretty

steep. For a comprehensive analysis of available bibliometric software and their features, see

Cobo, Lopez-Herrera, Herrera-Viedma, & Herrera (2011).

Identifying subfields

Identifying subfields with quantitative analysis is one of the biggest strengths of bibliometric

methods. Various dimensionality reduction techniques are applied. The most common are

exploratory factor analysis, cluster analysis, multidimensional scaling (MDS), and network

analysis community finding algorithms (Cobo et al., 2012). Researchers are advised to use

several grouping methods simultaneously to check the robustness of the results.

23

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2267251

Exploratory factor analysis, cluster analysis, and multidimensional scaling require a similarity

matrix (produced with bibliometric software) as an input for statistical software (e.g. SPSS,

Stata, R). Bibliometric software produces a co-occurrence frequency matrix in which the

elements of the matrix are co-citations (for co-citation analysis), shared reference counts (for

bibliographical coupling), number of coauthored papers (for co-author analysis) or word co-

occurrences (for co-word analysis). However, normalized similarity measures are often

preferred to raw co-occurrence counts, e.g. Pearson’s r, Salton’s cosine, Jaccard index. These

measures normalize the matrix and compensate for different occurrence levels among items.

Normalization is especially recommended for cluster analysis as it is sensitive to scaling

issues, but exploratory factor analysis and MDS benefit from normalization as well. Network

analysis algorithms also use network topology to find network subgroups and can work with

raw co-occurrence counts so normalization of a similarity measure is not necessary (Wallace,

Gingras, & Duhon, 2009).

The similarity measure most often used is Pearson’s r correlation. However, its use has been

the subject of considerable controversy in bibliometric methodological literature. Ahlgren,

Jarneving, & Rousseau (2003) claimed that Pearson’s r does not satisfy mathematical

requirements for a good similarity measure and suggested that other measures should be

preferred. However, White (2003) showed that for practical purposes Pearson’s r is a valid

and robust measure of similarity for the purpose of mapping research specialties that

consistently produces interpretable maps.

Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with principal component analysis (PCA) as an extraction

method is one of the most frequently used techniques for finding subgroups in bibliometric

studies. Since no theoretical relationships between factors are expected in advance, PCA as an

extraction method is appropriate (Conway & Huffcutt, 2003), but requires the researcher to

specify the number of factors in advance. Several methods exist for choosing the number of

24

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2267251

factors: scree test, Kaiser’s criterion and others. We suggest using these methods just as a

starting point. Choosing the number of factors is a substantive as well as a statistical issue

(Fabrigar, Wegener, MacCallum, & Strahan, 1999). Several solutions with various factors

should be examined to determine their interpretability/practicality before the number of

factors is determined. If too few factors are used, the latent structure is not revealed while, if

too many factors are used, it becomes difficult to interpret the findings. Accordingly, several

trials should be performed to arrive at the best representation of the data.

One advantage of EFA is that because items (documents, authors, journals, words) can load

on to more than one factor, it can demonstrate the breadth of contributions that span multiple

factors. Important work is also often universal so it would be assigned to multiple subgroups

of publications (Börner et al., 2003). Items with loadings greater than 0.7 should be regarded

as core contributions to that factor and loadings larger than 0.4 should be reported as factor

members (McCain, 1990). There are two types of rotation methods in FA: orthogonal and

oblique. Orthogonal rotation assumes that factors are not correlated and works best when

factors are independent (Zhao & Strotmann, 2008). Oblique rotation is useful when factors are

correlated and can produce a component correlation matrix to indicate the degree of

correlation between factors. Because bibliographic data represents subgroups of a research

specialty, we can reasonably expect factors to be correlated (McCain, 1990) but, if factors are

uncorrelated, orthogonal and oblique rotations will give similar results (Conway & Huffcutt,

2003). Therefore, oblique rotation is the preferred method when dealing with bibliographic

data.

Hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA) is another frequently used technique for finding

subgroups. This method produces a dendogram based on the similarity of analyzed items, the

choice of where to cut the dendogram to produce clusters is left to the researcher. HCA has no

generally accepted stopping rules to guide the researcher to the best set of clusters (McCain,

25

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2267251

1990). There is a variety of HCA procedures: single linkage, complete linkage, average

linkage, Ward’s method. Of these, Ward’s method is the most frequently used for bibliometric

analysis. McCain (1990) found that both complete linkage and Ward’s method produce

similar and interpretable results. Because all analyzed items are contained in the solution,

filtering of unwanted items beforehand is necessary. Using absolute citation counts in a

matrix is less appropriate for clustering algorithms as they produce a network in which the

most cited publications dominate (Gmür, 2003).

Multidimensional scaling (MDS) can analyze any kind of similarity matrix. It produces a map

of objects in a low- (usually two-) dimensional space by optimizing distances between objects

to reflect a similarity measure. Items regarded as more similar are presented as closer on the

map. The items, however, are not explicitly assigned to groups; this decision is left to the

researcher. MDS is limited to small data sets as big maps become increasingly difficult to

read and interpret. It does not produce explicit links between objects and its major drawback

is that there are no firm rules to interpret the nature of the resulting dimensions (Börner et al.,

2003). Compared with other methods for identifying subfields in this section, MDS has

serious limitations and few relative advantages.

Network community finding algorithms have made several important advances in recent years

due to the explosion of interest in the Internet, which can be analyzed with social network

analysis methods. However, these advances are still not being exploited in bibliometric

studies to a full extent so network analysis algorithms continue to hold huge potential for the

future. In this section, we will describe two effective community finding algorithms: the

Louvain method (Blondel, Guillaume, Lambiotte, & Lefebvre, 2008) and the Islands

algorithm (Zaveršnik & Batagelj, 2004). Several other network community finding methods

exist which have not yet been used in bibliometric studies. For a detailed and comprehensive

treatment of the various network community finding methods, see Fortunato (2010).

26

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2267251

The Louvain method (Blondel et al., 2008) has been found to be very fast for large networks

and to provide excellent accuracy (Liu, Glänzel, & Moor, 2012). This method uses the notion

of network modularity, which measures the meaningfulness of network division into

communities. The Louvain algorithm starts with assigning each node to separate community.

It then iterates through all communities, checking whether adding a node from one

community to another causes an increase in modularity and choosing the change with greatest

increase in modularity. It repeats the process until there is no change in community structure.

The method works very well on co-citation networks and can be used on extremely large

networks. The limitation of the Louvain method is that it assigns all network nodes to groups

so item filtering to include only important items is necessary beforehand. Sometimes there are

items in the network that substantially do not belong to any group, but are assigned one

anyhow or the method produces artifacts - groups with just one node.

The Islands algorithm (Zaveršnik & Batagelj, 2004) can be illustrated with a mountain range

submerged in water (in our case, the height of the mountains represents similarity strength

between units of analysis – documents, authors, journals or words). When the water is

drained, the highest peak appears as an island first, and then the lower peaks gradually

emerge. These islands represent clusters of highly similar items. An important advantage of

this algorithm is that it can uncover groups of publications with varying degrees of link

intensity. In case of co-citation links, it enables less cited groups of items to be uncovered. In

summary, a group of items represents a peak within a mountain range when within-group

similarity links are stronger than those with out-of-group publications. The main advantage of

the Islands algorithm is that the found groups (islands) are only a subset of the whole network

and so it is not necessary to limit the number of items beforehand. The groups that are found

are very dense and cohesive, but are usually smaller than those found with other methods

because only the strongest members are included.

27

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2267251

Exploratory factor analysis, cluster analysis, and MDS provide complementary, often

reinforcing results when used on the same or related similarity matrices (McCain, 1990).

Several researchers found very consistent results when applying cluster analysis and

exploratory factor analysis to the same bibliometric data (e.g. Di Stefano, Gambardella, &

Verona, 2012; Samiee & Chabowski, 2012). The advantage of exploratory factor analysis

over cluster analysis is that it does not force objects into groups (clusters), but is able to

accommodate the universality of work, which can belong to multiple factors. This property of

exploratory factor analysis can make a clear delimitation of subgroups difficult, but it can

identify publications that serve as boundary spanners between different subtopics of research.

However, Gmür (2003) found that factor analysis in the conditions of high structural

complexity does not generate a true representation of co-citation clusters. Network analysis

methods are a fresh approach to finding subgroups which has yet to take hold in bibliometric

studies. We believe network analysis methods have several advantages that make them

worthwhile using: they are effective and accurate, do not require normalization of similarity

matrices (so researchers can avoid the controversy over which similarity measure to choose),

and the analysis can be done within the same software tool that is used for visualization.

Step 4: Visualization

The map of a field is primarily a visualization of its network structure. Traditionally,

multidimensional scaling (MDS) was the approach most often used for visualizing

bibliometric data (White & McCain, 1998). MDS is a technique for creating maps from

proximity matrices so that an underlying structure can be studied (McCain, 1990). However,

MDS is gradually being supplanted by network analysis visualization methods.

Network analysis produces visualizations of scientific fields in which network nodes represent

units of analysis (e.g. documents, authors, journals, words) and network ties represent

similarity connections. More strongly connected nodes are drawn closer together. Depending
28

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2267251

on the unit of analysis, several different types of maps of a scientific field can be constructed.

The most common are maps based on documents. Author-based maps are also widespread

(Börner et al., 2003) and come in two forms: author co-citation maps are constructed to

represent the intellectual structure of a field, while co-authorship maps are used to reveal the

structure of scientific networks based on collaborations. Finally, semantic maps (i.e. co-word

analyses) can be used to represent the cognitive structure of a field.

Showing different units of analysis is possible on the same map with 2-mode networks, but

this has been used very rarely. An exception is Vogel (2012) where an innovative map of an

entire management discipline featured connections among research field subgroups

(document groups collapsed into clusters) and scientific journals. Zhao & Strotmann (2008)

presented an alternative visualization of a research field in a 2-mode network, where

subgroups found by PCA are represented as type-1 nodes connected to the authors (type-2

nodes). Authors could be connected to several subgroups.

The choice of layout algorithm determines the aesthetics and usefulness of network drawing.

The most common layout algorithms are Kamada-Kawai and Fruchterman-Reingold. Both are

members of the spring-embedder family of algorithms (Kobourov, 2012). These are typically

useful for small networks (Boyack & Klavans, 2014) because the graph layouts generally

have many local minima which makes it difficult for algorithms to produce good layouts of

large graphs. Fruchterman-Reingold aims to keep adjacent nodes close together, while

Kamada-Kawai takes a graph-theoretic approach. It tries to minimize the difference between

geometric distances between two nodes in a network drawing and the graph-theoretic pairwise

distances. The latter are determined by the shortest path between the nodes. One

recommended option is to first use the Kamada-Kawai algorithm for an approximate layout

and to subsequently employ the Fruchterman-Reingold algorithm to improve the drawing

(Collberg, Kobourov, Nagra, Pitts, & Wampler, 2003).

29

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2267251

Network analysis software can calculate centrality measures (e.g. degree, betweenness,

closeness). These measures have different meanings depending on the network analyzed. In a

co-authorship network, an author’s degree centrality represents how many other authors have

written a paper with him (Fischbach et al., 2011). High betweenness centrality is an indicator

that an author is a bridge between different research streams. Authors scoring high on

closeness centrality can reach other authors in the network through a shorter chain.

With the advancement of network analysis tools we see no compelling reason to continue

using MDS for visualization purposes. Network analysis software can produce MDS-like

visualizations, but has many more options and features to choose from. The software

packages most often used for network visualization are UCINET (Borgatti, Everett, &

Freeman, 2002) and Pajek (Batagelj & Mrvar, 1998). Both of these software tools have a long

history and a large number of features. Their main drawback is the limited number of

community finding algorithms that are implemented in these packages. In addition, their

speed of development is slower compared to open-source tools like Gephi and the R iGraph

package.

Gephi is open-source network analysis and visualization software that is fast gaining traction

in the social network analysis community. Its rapid development is due to its open-source

nature and because it is more easily extendable than other options. Another visualization

option is the statistical software R with its powerful iGraph package (also available in

Python). A big advantage of iGraph package is that it has already implemented a large

number of community finding algorithms. R is also a very flexible environment that can

handle very different analysis tasks including PCA, MDS and/or cluster analysis. Producing

basic bibliometric calculations in specific bibliometric software and handling all other

analysis in R is a very powerful and flexible option.

30

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2267251

One challenge researchers face is how to visualize the changes in the research field through

several time periods. A good option to represent these changes is a bar graph, where each row

represents a publication in the intellectual structure and the width of a bar left or right from

the zero axis represents whether this publication was more or less influential than in the

previous period. A good example of the use of this graph can be found in Shafique (2013; p.

74). When implementing co-word analysis, an additional option for visualization of the

conceptual structure of a field are graphs called heat maps. These maps use warmer colors and

bolded fonts to emphasize concepts that are frequently used, while words which are used only

sporadically are shown in colder colors and subdued smaller fonts. An example of a heat map

is shown in Figure 3, which visualizes the words in abstracts of research papers dealing with

the high-tech firms published in management journals between 1973 and 1998. Two large

groups of words can be distinguished: the first deals with the role of high-tech firms in

economic growth, the second shows the words related to the management of high-tech firms.

------------------------------
Insert Figure 3 about here
------------------------------

Step 5: Interpretation

The final step in bibliometric analysis is to interpret the findings. Bibliometrics is no

substitute for extensive reading in the field. Documents that appear in the analysis need to be

thoroughly examined to reach valid conclusions. Researchers with in-depth knowledge of the

field have a distinctive advantage here. However, they need to be careful not to try to fit the

analysis to their existing preconceptions, but the opposite: to use their knowledge to enhance

the findings. Bibliometric methods will often reveal the structure of a field differently from

the classification of traditional literature reviews so these differences need to be reconciled.

Science maps provide a starting point for analytical examination, but are not an end in itself.

31

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2267251

Interpretation strategies in bibliometric analysis are dependent on the focus of the paper

authors are writing. We argue there are three major types of focus bibliometric papers can

have: focus on structure, focus on dynamics and focus on a narrow research question.

First type of paper focuses on structure. The aim is to analyze the relations among structural

elements (groups of publications, authors, concepts), find how they relate and influence each

other and examine their role in substantive questions the research field asks. Focus on

dynamics is the second type of paper that can employ bibliometric methods. The goal of this

type of paper is to track the development of a research field through time. Researchers should

divide the bibliographic data into several multi-year periods and take snapshots of the

structure of the field for each interval. Interpretation strategy would then try to explain how

the structure changed and why did this happen. It would determine which elements are new in

certain period and which are in decline. A good example of this type of focus is Vogel (2012),

who tracked the development of the management discipline over several decades. His study

used co-citation and network analysis to identify the theoretical perspectives that were

dominant in each decade.

Alternative type of paper is a focused paper with very specific research question. Typically,

these papers will have small empirical bibliometric part that is used to illustrate or prove

authors claims and extensive discussion of the relation of these claims with existing literature.

An example of a focused question would be “Is research stream X over-reliant on theoretical

perspective Y?” Researchers could then use citation analysis to prove that the research in field

X is indeed highly influenced by the theoretical perspective Y and that references to other

potentially useful theoretical perspectives are few or nonexistent. Other research goals could

fall under this focus type. For instance, Volberda, Foss, & Lyles (2010) used bibliometric

methods to investigate contextual factors that affect absorptive capacity and develop an

32

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2267251

integrative model that identifies the multilevel antecedents, process dimensions, and outcomes

of absorptive capacity.

THE INTELLECTUAL STRUCTURE OF ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH

METHODS

To demonstrate the use of bibliometric methods we performed a bibliometric analysis of the

Organizational Research Methods journal. All steps necessary to reproduce this analysis are

detailed in Appendix B. Readers can also repeat the analysis on their own data by following

the steps with data of their chosen research field.

We set out to examine the intellectual structure of the Organizational Research Methods

(ORM) journal. Our expectation was that this investigation would reveal which research

methods are dominant within organizational research. We decided to use citation and co-

citation analysis. With citation analysis we aimed to find the most influential documents

(books or articles) that were referenced in ORM. Co-citation data provided the structure of the

knowledge base of ORM.

We searched the Web of Science database for “Organizational Research Methods” in the

publication name. The search returned 483 articles, but the analysis based on publication

years revealed that the data for 1999 and 2000 were missing so we decided to only use

published articles from 2001 to 2014, covering almost 15 years. Limiting the search to that

time period left us with 465 entries that formed the data sample for our analysis.

We exported the bibliographic data with cited references for these 465 articles and imported it

into BibExcel software for bibliometric analysis. We calculated the list of the most cited

documents and the most cited journals in BibExcel. Having the list of the most cited journals

we proceeded to clean the citation data as journal names often appear in different forms in

33

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2267251

bibliographic databases. We found four instances where the journal short name was

duplicated and adjusted the citation counts accordingly. We calculated the co-citation data and

exported it to the Pajek network analysis software for further analysis and visualization. After

several trials, we decided to limit our analysis to 112 documents cited 9 or more times in the

ORM journal. Applying the Louvain community finding algorithm in Pajek, we found 11

subgroups of cited publications that represent the intellectual structure of the ORM journal.

We visualized the networks in Pajek with the Kamada-Kawai algorithm. We report the results

of our analysis in the following sections.

Citation analysis

The most cited documents in ORM are presented in Table 4. A glance at the list reveals the

knowledge base of ORM and provides hints about the topical structure of ORM, which we

will further investigate with co-citation analysis. The most cited document is Statistical Power

Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (Cohen, 1988), with 31 citations. The top of the list is

dominated by books on psychometric theory, linear regression and multilevel analysis. We

can see that some books appear in several editions, e.g. both 1978 and 1994 editions of

Nunnaly’s Psychometric Theory are featured on the list. Other works include seminal works

on grounded theory, meta-analysis and structural equation modeling. Note that the way

documents are represented in this table is the data that represents the reference list in the SSCI

(WOS) database.

------------------------------
Insert Table 4 about here
------------------------------

The most cited journals in ORM are shown in Table 4. We see that the most cited journal is

the Journal of Applied Psychology with 1,637 citations, almost twice as many as the second

on the list, which is ORM. Perhaps surprisingly for a methods journal, most of the top of the

34

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2267251

list is taken up by top-tier management journals (Academy of Management Journal, Strategic

Management Journal, Journal of Management), which is an indicator of the disciplinary

breadth of ORM. Most numerous on the list, however, are psychology journals, meaning that

methods for micro management (psychology, OB and HR) research are forming a large share

of topics in ORM.

------------------------------
Insert Table 5 about here
------------------------------

Co-citation analysis

After experimenting with several parameters for the Louvain algorithm that determine the

granularity of groups, we settled on an 11-group solution. The algorithm originally found 15

groups, but 4 groups contained only one element of non-methods origin – seminal works of

Porter, Weick and DiMaggio – so we decided to treat these four groups as outliers and report

only the first 11.

The first three groups of intellectual structure represent the knowledge base of multilevel

research methods. We labeled these groups Multilevel theory, Interrater agreement and

Multilevel analysis. The breadth of these groups indicates that debates about multilevel

methods are one of the most important themes in ORM. The group on Multilevel analysis is

shown in Figure 4. This group contains the most important books on multilevel analysis and

several articles published in ORM.

------------------------------
Insert Figure 4 about here
------------------------------

35

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2267251

The fourth group contains articles and books on psychometric measurement theory and

structural equation modeling. The group on dominance analysis is one of the smaller and

deals with choosing the importance of predictors in multiple regression. This group is

separated from one of the biggest groups that deals with multiple regression (shown in Figure

5).

------------------------------
Insert Figure 5 about here
------------------------------

We labeled the subsequent groups Measurement invariance, Validity & method variance and

Qualitative research. The tenth group is peculiar because it shows two different topics: half of

the groups contain debates about the relevance of management theory, while the other half is

dedicated to meta-analysis. The eleventh group is the smallest with three items on the topic of

missing data.

CONCLUSION

Bibliometric methods reveal great potential for the quantitative confirmation of subjectively

derived categories in published reviews as well as for exploring the research landscape and

identifying the categories. We proposed guidelines for conducting the science mapping of

management and organization research streams.

Several new bibliometric methods are likely to become prominent in the future. Hybrid

methods combining the existing bibliometric and semantic approaches (e.g. bibliographic

coupling with latent semantic indexing) could be used to detect new emerging topics in

scientific research (Glänzel & Thijs, 2012) and are rapidly becoming the preferred basis of the

mapping and visualization of science (Thijs, Schiebel, & Glänzel, 2013). Connecting

documents through a combination of bibliometric and second-order textual similarities can

36

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2267251

improve the accuracy of document clustering. Second-order similarities take the lexical

content into account and can overcome problems of simple co-word methods like synonyms

and spelling variances (e.g. British vs. American spelling of words).

Topic modeling (Blei, 2012) is a family of content analysis methods that originates from

machine learning. Latent Dirichlet allocation (LDA) is the most widely used topic modeling

method that is able to decipher the topical structure of a large corpus of unstructured

documents. It assigns the probability of topics to documents and determines which words are

connected to particular topics. Topic modeling could be applied to document abstracts and

full texts, which can be later connected based on their thematic similarity. These methods

hold great potential for expanding the scope of mapping the management and organization

domain. Management scholars can capitalize on these advances in two ways: they may wait

for suitable software to be developed or collaborate with information scientists on the

forefront of advancing bibliometric research.

We think that science mapping with bibliometric methods is useful in two main ways: (1) to

help researchers new to a field quickly grasp the field’s structure; and (2) to introduce

quantitative rigor into traditional literature reviews. We envision that in the future

bibliometric methods will become the third major approach (in addition to traditional

qualitative literature reviews and meta-analyses) used for reviewing scientific literature.

However, new doctoral students need to be trained in the technique. Some doctoral programs

already provide this, but further proliferation of this practice is called for. This paper

represents our effort to promote these methods and provide a thorough introduction to

bibliometric methods for researchers unfamiliar with them.

We are aware that other bibliometric studies have been published in journals not listed by the

SSCI or are simply unpublished. However, we included the highest quality journals so our

37

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2267251

synthesis represents the state of the art of bibliometric research in management and

organization. One trend is obvious. The bar for publishing bibliometric studies is being raised

higher. Bibliometric methods are transforming from being novel methods interesting in their

own right to a tool used for a specific purpose; namely, to increase the rigor and structuring of

literature reviews. Researchers applying bibliometric methods need to choose their research

questions much more carefully and perform the research rigorously.

Finally, bibliometric methods are no substitute for extensive reading and synthesis.

Bibliometrics can reliably connect publications, authors or journals, identify research

substreams, and produce maps of published research, but it is up to the researcher and their

knowledge of the field to interpret the findings – which is the hard part.

38

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2267251

 REFERENCES

Acedo, F. J., Barroso, C., Casanueva, C., & Galan, J. L. (2006). Co-authorship in management and
organizational studies: An empirical and network analysis. Journal of Management Studies,
43(5), 957–983. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00625.x

Acedo, F. J., Barroso, C., & Galan, J. L. (2006). The resource-based theory: dissemination and main
trends. Strategic Management Journal, 27(7), 621–636. doi:10.1002/smj.532

Acedo, F. J., & Casillas, J. C. (2005). Current paradigms in the international management field: An
author co-citation analysis. International Business Review, 14(5), 619–639.
doi:10.1016/j.ibusrev.2005.05.003

Aguinis, H., Pierce, C. A., Bosco, F. A., Dalton, D. R., & Dalton, C. M. (2010). Debunking Myths and
Urban Legends About Meta-Analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 14(2), 306–331.
doi:10.1177/1094428110375720

Ahlgren, P., Jarneving, B., & Rousseau, R. (2003). Requirements for a cocitation similarity measure,
with special reference to Pearson’s correlation coefficient. Journal of the American Society for
Information Science and Technology, 54(6), 550–560. doi:10.1002/asi.10242

Artto, K., Martinsuo, M., Gemuendne, H. G., & Murtoaro, J. (2009). Foundations of program
management: A bibliometric view. International Journal of Project Management, 27(1), 1–18.
doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.10.007

Backhaus, K., Luegger, K., & Koch, M. (2011). The structure and evolution of business-to-business
marketing: A citation and co-citation analysis. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(6, SI),
940–951. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2011.06.024

Batagelj, V., & Mrvar, A. (1998). Pajek - program for large network analysis. Connections, 21(2), 47–
57.

Baumgartner, H. (2010). Bibliometric reflections on the history of consumer research. Journal of

Consumer Psychology, 20(3), 233–238. doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2010.06.002

Benavides-Velasco, C. A., Quintana-García, C., & Guzmán-Parra, V. F. (2011). Trends in family

business research. Small Business Economics, 40(1), 41–57. doi:10.1007/s11187-011-9362-3

Bernroider, E. W., Pilkington, A., & Córdoba, J.-R. (2013). Research in information systems: a study
of diversity and inter-disciplinary discourse in the AIS basket journals between 1995 and 2011.
Journal of Information Technology, 28(1), 74–89. doi:10.1057/jit.2013.5

Bhupatiraju, S., Nomaler, Ö., Triulzi, G., & Verspagen, B. (2012). Knowledge flows – Analyzing the
core literature of innovation, entrepreneurship and science and technology studies. Research
Policy, 41(7), 1205–1218. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2012.03.011

Biemans, W., Griffin, A., & Moenaert, R. (2007). Twenty years of the Journal of product innovation
management: History, participants, and knowledge stock and flows. Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 24(3), 193–213. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5885.2007.00245.x

Blei, D. M. (2012). Probabilistic topic models. Communications of the ACM, 55(4), 77–84.

39

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2267251

Blondel, V. D., Guillaume, J.-L., Lambiotte, R., & Lefebvre, E. (2008). Fast unfolding of communities
in large networks. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, 2008(10), P10008.
doi:10.1088/1742-5468/2008/10/P10008

Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Freeman, L. C. (2002). UCINET For Windows: Software for Social
Network Analysis. Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies.

Börner, K., Chen, C., & Boyack, K. (2003). Visualizing knowledge domains. Annual Review of
Information Science and Technology, 37(1), 179–255. Retrieved from
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aris.1440370106/full

Boyack, K., & Klavans, R. (2010). Co-citation analysis, bibliographic coupling, and direct citation:
Which citation approach represents the research front most accurately? Journal of the American
Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(12), 2389–2404. doi:10.1002/asi

Boyack, K., Klavans, R., & Börner, K. (2005). Mapping the backbone of science. Scientometrics,
64(3), 351–374. Retrieved from http://www.springerlink.com/index/Q282602257566164.pdf

Boyack, K. W., & Klavans, R. (2014). Creation of a highly detailed, dynamic, global model and map
of science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 65(4), 670–685.
doi:10.1002/asi.22990

Calabretta, G., Durisin, B., & Ogliengo, M. (2011). Uncovering the Intellectual Structure of Research
in Business Ethics: A Journey Through the History, the Classics, and the Pillars of Journal of
Business Ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 104(4), 499–524. doi:10.1007/s10551-011-0924-8

Calero-Medina, C., & van Leeuwen, T. (2012). Seed Journal Citation Network Maps: A Method
Based on Network Theory. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and
Technology, 63(6), 1226–1234. doi:10.1002/asi

Callon, M., Courtial, J.-P., Turner, W. A., & Bauin, S. (1983). From translations to problematic
networks: An introduction to co-word analysis. Social Science Information, 22(2), 191–235.
doi:10.1177/053901883022002003

Carvalho, M. M., Fleury, A., & Lopes, A. P. (2013). An overview of the literature on technology
roadmapping (TRM): Contributions and trends. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,
80(7), 1418–1437. Retrieved from
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162512002934

Casillas, J., & Acedo, F. (2007). Evolution of the intellectual structure of family business literature: A
bibliometric study of FBR. Family Business Review, 20(2), 141–162.

Chabowski, B. R., Hult, G. T. M., & Mena, J. A. (2011). The Retailing Literature as a Basis for
Franchising Research: Using Intellectual Structure to Advance Theory. Journal of Retailing,
87(3, SI), 269–284. doi:10.1016/j.jretai.2011.04.001

Chabowski, B. R., Mena, J. A., & Gonzalez-Padron, T. L. (2011). The structure of sustainability
research in marketing, 1958-2008: a basis for future research opportunities. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 39(1), 55–70.

Chabowski, B. R., Samiee, S., & Hult, G. T. M. (2013). A bibliometric analysis of the global branding
literature and a research agenda. Journal of International Business Studies, 44(6), 622–634.
doi:10.1057/jibs.2013.20

40

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2267251

Chang, C.-C., & Ho, Y.-S. (2010). Bibliometric analysis of financial crisis research. African Journal
of Business Management, 4(18), 3898–3910.

Charvet, F. F., Cooper, M. C., & Gardner, J. T. (2008). The Intellectual Structure of Supply Chain
Management: A Bibliometric Approach. Journal of Business Logistics, 29(1), 47+.

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,
57(3), 359–377.

Cobo, M. J., Lopez-Herrera, A. G., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2011). Science Mapping
Software Tools: Review, Analysis, and Cooperative Study Among Tools. Journal of the
American Society for Information Science and Technology.

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), 146–166.
doi:10.1016/j.joi.2010.10.002

Cobo, M., López-Herrera, A. G., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2012). SciMAT: A new science
mapping analysis software tool. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 3(8),
1609–1630. doi:10.1002/asi

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (p. 567). Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.

Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and
innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152.

Collberg, C., Kobourov, S., Nagra, J., Pitts, J., & Wampler, K. (2003). A system for graph-based
visualization of the evolution of software. In Proceedings of the 2003 ACM symposium on
Software visualization - SoftVis ’03 (p. 77). New York, New York, USA: ACM Press.
doi:10.1145/774833.774844

Conway, J. M., & Huffcutt, A. I. (2003). A Review and Evaluation of Exploratory Factor Analysis
Practices in Organizational Research. Organizational Research Methods, 6(2), 147–168.
doi:10.1177/1094428103251541

Coombes, P. H., & Nicholson, J. D. (2013). Business models and their relationship with marketing: A
systematic literature review. Industrial Marketing Management, 42(5), 656–664. Retrieved from
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019850113000734

Cornelius, B., Landstrom, H., & Persson, O. (2006). Entrepreneurial studies: The dynamic research
front of a developing social science. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(3), 375–398.

Cornelius, B., & Persson, O. (2006). Who’s who in venture capital research. Technovation, 26(2),
142–150.

Coulter, N., Monarch, I., & Konda, S. (1998). Software engineering as seen through its research
literature: A study in co-word analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science,
49(13), 1206–1223. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(1998)49:13<1206::AID-ASI7>3.0.CO;2-F

41

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2267251

Crane, D. (1972). Invisible Colleges: Diffusion of Knowledge in Scientific Communication. Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press.

Di Guardo, M. C., & Harrigan, K. R. (2012). Mapping research on strategic alliances and innovation: a
co-citation analysis. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 37, 789–811. doi:10.1007/s10961-011-
9239-2

Di Stefano, G., Gambardella, A., & Verona, G. (2012). Technology push and demand pull
perspectives in innovation studies: Current findings and future research directions. Research
Policy, 41(8), 1283–1295. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2012.03.021

Di Stefano, G., Verona, G., & Peteraf, M. (2010). Dynamic capabilities deconstructed: a bibliographic
investigation into the origins, development, and future directions of the research domain.
Industrial and Corporate Change, 1–18.

Durisin, B., Calabretta, G., & Parmeggiani, V. (2010). 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), 437–451.

Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of
exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4(3), 272–299.

Fagerberg, J., Fosaas, M., & Sapprasert, K. (2012). Innovation: Exploring the knowledge base.
Research Policy, 41(7), 1132–1153. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2012.03.008

Fagerberg, J., Landström, H., & Martin, B. R. (2012). Exploring the emerging knowledge base of “the
knowledge society.” Research Policy, 41(7), 1121–1131. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2012.03.007

Fagerberg, J., & Verspagen, B. (2009). Innovation studies — The emerging structure of a new
scientific field. Research Policy, 38(2), 218–233. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2008.12.006

Ferreira, M. A. S. P. V., Pinto, C. S. F., Serra, F. A. R., & Santos, J. C. (2013). A Bibliometric Study
of John Dunning’s Contribution to International Business Research. Review of Business
Management, 15(46), 56–75. doi:10.7819/rbgn.v15i46.1163

Fischbach, K., Putzke, J., & Schoder, D. (2011). Co-authorship networks in electronic markets
research. Electronic Markets, 21(1), 19–40. doi:10.1007/s12525-011-0051-5

Fortunato, S. (2010). Community detection in graphs. Physics Reports, 486(3-5), 75–174. Physics and
Society; Statistical Mechanics; Information Retrieval; Biological Physics; Computational
Physics; Quantitative Methods. doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2009.11.002

Galvagno, M. (2011). The intellectual structure of the anti-consumption and consumer resistance field
An author co-citation analysis. European Journal of Marketing, 45(11-12), 1688–1701.
doi:10.1108/03090561111167441

Garfield, E. (1979). Is citation analysis a legitimate evaluation tool? Scientometrics, 1(4), 359–375.

Gartner, W. B., Davidsson, P., & Zahra, S. A. (2006). Are you talking to me? The nature of
community in entrepreneurship scholarship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(3), 321–
331.

42

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2267251

Gerdsri, N., Kongthon, A., & Vatananan, R. S. (2013). Mapping the knowledge evolution and
professional network in the field of technology roadmapping: a bibliometric analysis. Technology
Analysis & Strategic Management, 25(4), 403–422. doi:10.1080/09537325.2013.774350

Glänzel, W., & Thijs, B. (2012). Using “core documents” for detecting and labelling new emerging
topics. Scientometrics, 91(2), 399–416. doi:10.1007/s11192-011-0591-7

Gmür, M. (2003). Co-citation analysis and the search for invisible colleges: A methodological
evaluation. Scientometrics, 57(1), 27–57.

Gregoire, D. A., Noel, M. X., Dery, R., & Bechard, J. P. (2006). Is there conceptual convergence in
entrepreneurship research? A co-citation analysis of Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research,
1981-2004. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(3), 333–373. doi:10.1111/j.1540-
6520.2006.00124.x

Gundolf, K., & Filser, M. (2012). Management Research and Religion: A Citation Analysis. Journal
of Business Ethics, 112(1), 177–185. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1240-7

Hanisch, B., & Wald, A. (2012). A Bibliometric View on the Use of Contingency Theory in Project
Management Research. Project Management Journal, 43(3), 4–23. doi:10.1002/pmj.21267

He, Q. (1998). Knowledge Discovery through Co-Word Analysis. Library Trends, 48(1), 133–59.
Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ595487

Herbst, U., Voeth, M., & Meister, C. (2011). What do we know about buyer-seller negotiations in
marketing research? A status quo analysis. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(6, SI), 967–
978. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2011.07.004

Hoffman, D. L., & Holbrook, M. B. (1993). The Intellectual Structure of Consumer Research - A
Bibliometric Study of Author Cocitations In The 1st 15 Years of the Journal of Consumer
Research. Journal of Consumer Research, 19(4), 505–517. doi:10.1086/209319

Huang, C.-Y., & Ho, Y.-S. (2011). Historical research on corporate governance: A bibliometric
analysis. African Journal of Business Management, 5(2), 276–284.

Jarneving, B. (2005). A comparison of two bibliometric methods for mapping of the research front.
Scientometrics, 65(2), 245–263. doi:10.1007/s11192-005-0270-7

Katz, J. S., & Martin, B. R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26(1), 1–18.
doi:10.1016/S0048-7333(96)00917-1

Kessler, M. M. (1963). Bibliographic coupling between scientific papers. American Documentation,

14(1), 10–25. doi:10.1002/asi.5090140103

Keupp, M. M., Palmié, M., & Gassmann, O. (2012). The Strategic Management of Innovation: A
Systematic Review and Paths for Future Research. International Journal of Management
Reviews, 14, 367–390. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2370.2011.00321.x

Kim, J., & McMillan, S. J. (2008). Evaluation of Internet advertising research - A bibliometric
analysis of citations from key sources. Journal of Advertising, 37(1), 99–112.
doi:10.2753/JOA0091-3367370108

43

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2267251

Kobourov, S. G. (2012). Spring Embedders and Force Directed Graph Drawing Algorithms, 23.
Computational Geometry; Discrete Mathematics; Data Structures and Algorithms. Retrieved
from http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.3011

Kraus, S. (2011). State-of-the-art current research in international entrepreneurship: A citation

analysis. African Journal of Business Management, 5(3), 1020–1038.

Landström, H., Harirchi, G., & Åström, F. (2012). Entrepreneurship: Exploring the knowledge base.
Research Policy, 41(7), 1154–1181.

Leone, R. P., Robinson, L. M., Bragge, J., & Somervuori, O. (2012). A citation and profiling analysis
of pricing research from 1980 to 2010. Journal of Business Research, 65(7), 1010–1024.
doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.04.007

Leydesdorff, L. (1999). Software and data of Loet Leydesdorff. Retrieved July 23, 2014, from
http://www.leydesdorff.net/software.htm

Liu, X., Glänzel, W., & Moor, B. (2012). Optimal and hierarchical clustering of large-scale hybrid
networks for scientific mapping. Scientometrics, 91(2), 473–493. doi:10.1007/s11192-011-0600-
x

Lu, K., & Wolfram, D. (2012). Measuring Author Research Relatedness : A Comparison of Word-
Based , Topic-Based , and Author Cocitation Approaches. Journal of the American Society for
Information Science, 63(10), 1973–1986.

Ma, Z. (2009). The Status of Contemporary Business Ethics Research: Present and Future. Journal of
Business Ethics, 90(3), 255–265. doi:10.1007/s10551-010-0420-6

Ma, Z., Lee, Y., & Yu, K.-H. (2008). Ten years of conflict management studies: themes, concepts and
relationships. International Journal of Conflict Management, 19(3), 234–248.
doi:10.1108/10444060810875796

Ma, Z., Liang, D., Yu, K.-H., & Lee, Y. (2012). Most cited business ethics publications: mapping the
intellectual structure of business ethics studies in 2001-2008. Business Ethics: A European
Review, 21(3), 286–297. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8608.2012.01652.x

Ma, Z., & Yu, K.-H. (2010). Research paradigms of contemporary knowledge management studies:
1998-2007. Journal of Knowledge Management, 14(2), 175–189.
doi:10.1108/13673271011032337

Marion, L. (2002). A tri-citation analysis exploring the citation image of Kurt Lewin. Proceedings of
the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 39(1), 3–13. Retrieved from
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/meet.1450390101/full

Marsilio, M., Cappellaro, G., & Cuccurullo, C. (2011). The Intellectual Structure of Research Into
PPPS: A bibliometric analysis. Public Management Review, 13(6), 763–782.
doi:10.1080/14719037.2010.539112

Martin, B. R. (2012). The evolution of science policy and innovation studies. Research Policy, 41(7),
1219–1239. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2012.03.012

44

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2267251

Martin, B. R., Nightingale, P., & Yegros-Yegros, A. (2012). Science and technology studies:
Exploring the knowledge base. Research Policy, 41(7), 1182–1204. Retrieved from
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733312000716

McCain, K. W. (1990). Mapping authors in intellectual space: A technical overview. Journal of the
American Society for Information Science and Technology, 41(6), 433–443. Retrieved from
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199009)41:6<433::AID-
ASI11>3.0.CO;2-Q/full

McCain, K. W. (1991). Mapping economics through the journal literature: An experiment in journal
cocitation analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,
42(4), 290–296. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199105)42:4<290::AID-ASI5>3.0.CO;2-9

McCain, K. W. (2009). Using tricitation to dissect the citation image: Conrad Hal Waddington and the
rise of evolutionary developmental biology. Journal of the American Society for Information
Science and Technology, 60(7), 1301–1319. doi:10.1002/asi

McCain, K. W., & McCain, R. a. (2002). Mapping “a beautiful mind:” A comparison of the author
cocitation PFNets for John Nash, John Harsanyi, and Reinhard Selten-the three winners of the
1994 Nobel Prize for Economics. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science
and Technology, 39(1), 552–553. doi:10.1002/meet.14503901108

McMillan, G. S. (2008). Mapping the invisible colleges of R&D Management. R&D Management,
38(1), 69–83.

Meyer, M., Pereira, T. S., Persson, O., & Granstrand, O. (2004). The scientometric world of Keith
Pavitt - A tribute to his contributions to research policy and patent analysis. Research Policy,
33(9), 1405–1417. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2004.07.008

Montiel Campos, H., Sole Parellada, F., & Palma, Y. (2012). Mapping the Intellectual Structure of
Entrepreneurship Research: revisiting the invisible college. RBGN-Revista Brasileira de Gestao
de Negocios, 14(42), 41–58.

Muñoz-Leiva, F., Sánchez-Fernández, J., Liébana-Cabanillas, F. J., & Martínez-Fiestas, M. (2013).

Detecting salient themes in financial marketing research from 1961 to 2010. The Service
Industries Journal, 33(9-10), 925–940. doi:10.1080/02642069.2013.719884

Neely, A. (2005). The evolution of performance measurement research - Developments in the last
decade and a research agenda for the next. International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, 25(12), 1264–1277. doi:10.1108/01443570510633648

Nerur, S. P., Rasheed, A. A., & Natarajan, V. (2008). The intellectual structure of the strategic
management field: An author co-citation analysis. Strategic Management Journal, 29(3), 319–
336. doi:10.1002/smj.659

Nosella, a., Cantarello, S., & Filippini, R. (2012). The intellectual structure of organizational
ambidexterity: A bibliographic investigation into the state of the art. Strategic Organization,
10(4), 450–465. doi:10.1177/1476127012457979

Pasadeos, Y., Phelps, J., & Kim, B. H. (1998). Disciplinary impact of advertising scholars: Temporal
comparisons of influential authors, works and research networks. Journal of Advertising, 27(4),
53–70.

45

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2267251

Persson, O. (1994). The intellectual base and research fronts of JASIS 1986-1990. Journal of the
American Society for Information Science, 45(1), 31–38. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-
4571(199401)45:1<31::AID-ASI4>3.0.CO;2-G

Persson, O. D., Danell, R., & Wiborg Schneider, J. (2009). How to use Bibexcel for various types of
bibliometric analysis. In F. Åström, R. Danell, B. Larsen, & J. Schneider (Eds.), Celebrating
scholarly communication studies: A Festschrift for Olle Persson at his 60th Birthday (pp. 9–24).
Leuven, Belgium: International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics.

Phillips, D. M., Baumgartner, H., & Pieters, R. (1999). Influence in the evolving citation network of
the journal of consumer research. In L. Arnould, EJ and Scott (Ed.), Advances in Consumer
Research, VOL 26 (Vol. 26, pp. 203–210).

Pilkington, A., & Chai, K.-H. (2008). Research themes, concepts and relationships - A study of
International Journal of Service Industry Management (1990-2005). International Journal of
Service Industry Management, 19(1), 83–110. doi:10.1108/09564230810855725

Pilkington, A., & Fitzgerald, R. (2006). Operations management themes, concepts and relationships: a
forward retrospective of IJOPM. International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, 26(11-12), 1255–1275. doi:10.1108/01443570610705854

Pilkington, A., & Lawton, T. C. (2013). Divided by a Common Language? Transnational Insights into
Epistemological and Methodological Approaches to Strategic Management Research in English-
Speaking Countries. Long Range Planning. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2013.08.001

Pilkington, A., & Liston-Heyes, C. (1999). Is production and operations management a discipline? A
citation/co-citation study. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 19(1),
7–20. doi:10.1108/01443579910244188

Pilkington, A., & Meredith, J. (2009). The evolution of the intellectual structure of operations
management-1980-2006: A citation/co-citation analysis. Journal of Operations Management,
27(3), 185–202. doi:10.1016/j.jom.2008.08.001

Pilkington, A., & Teichert, T. (2006). Management of technology: themes, concepts and relationships.
Technovation, 26(3), 288–299. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2005.01.009

Price, D. J. de S. (1965). Networks of Scientific Papers. Science, 149, 510–515.

Raasch, C., Lee, V., Spaeth, S., & Herstatt, C. (2013). The rise and fall of interdisciplinary research:
The case of open source innovation. Research Policy, 42(5), 1138–1151. Retrieved from
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733313000279

Raghuram, S., Tuertscher, P., & Garud, R. (2010). Mapping the Field of Virtual Work: A Cocitation
Analysis. Information Systems Research, 21(4), 983–999. doi:10.1287/isre.1080.0227

Ramos-Rodriguez, A. R., & Ruiz-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), 981–1004. doi:10.1002/smj.397

Reader, D., & Watkins, D. (2006). The social and collaborative nature of entrepreneurship scholarship:
A co-citation and perceptual analysis. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(3), 417–441.
doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2006.00127.x

46

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2267251

Ronda-Pupo, G. A., & Guerras-Martin, L. A. (2012). Dynamics of the evolution of the strategy
concept 1962-2008: a co-word analysis. Strategic Management Journal, 33(2), 162–188.
doi:10.1002/smj.948

Samiee, S., & Chabowski, B. R. (2012). Knowledge structure in international marketing: a multi-
method bibliometric analysis. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(2), 364–386.
doi:10.1007/s11747-011-0296-8

Schildt, H. A. (2005). Sitkis - A tool for bibliometric analysis. Retrieved July 23, 2014, from
http://users.tkk.fi/hschildt/sitkis/

Schildt, H. A., & Mattsson, J. T. (2006). A dense network sub-grouping algorithm for co-citation
analysis and its implementation in the software tool Sitkis. Scientometrics, 67(1), 143–163.
doi:10.1007/s11192-006-0054-8

Schildt, H. A., Zahra, S. A., & Sillanpaa, A. (2006). Scholarly communities in entrepreneurship
research: A co-citation analysis. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(3), 399–415.

Schmidt, F. (2008). Meta-Analysis: A Constantly Evolving Research Integration Tool. Organizational

Research Methods, 11(1), 96–113. doi:10.1177/1094428107303161

Shafique, M. (2013). Thinking inside the box? Intellectual structure of the knowledge base of
innovation research (1988-2008). Strategic Management Journal, 34(1), 62–93.
doi:10.1002/smj.2002

Shilbury, D. (2011). A Bibliometric Study of Citations to Sport Management and Marketing Journals.
Journal of Sport Management, 25(5), 423–444.

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, 24(4), 265–269.

Small, H. (1999). Visualizing science by citation mapping. Journal of the American Society for
Information Science and Technology, 50(9), 799–813. Retrieved from
http://svn.assembla.com/svn/awt/literature/1999-small.pdf

Stategies, S. (2012). Methodology - History. Map of Science. Retrieved from

http://www.mapofscience.com/?page_id=237

Thijs, B., Schiebel, E., & Glänzel, W. (2013). Do second-order similarities provide added-value in a
hybrid approach? Scientometrics, 96(3), 667–677. doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0896-1

Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-
•informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of
Management, 14(3), 207–222. doi:10.1111/1467-8551.00375

Tu, P. P.-N. (2011). A study of influential authors, works and research network of consumer behavior
research. African Journal of Business Management, 5(23), 9838–9854.

Usdiken, B., & Pasadeos, Y. (1995). Organizational analysis in North-America and Europe - a
comparison of cocitation networks. Organization Studies, 16(3), 503–526.
doi:10.1177/017084069501600306

47

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2267251

Uslay, C., Morgan, R. E., & Sheth, J. N. (2009). Peter Drucker on marketing: an exploration of five
tenets. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 37(1), 47–60. doi:10.1007/s11747-008-
0099-8

Uysal, O. O. (2010). Business Ethics Research with an Accounting Focus: A Bibliometric Analysis
from 1988 to 2007. Journal of Business Ethics, 93(1), 137–160. doi:10.1007/s10551-009-0187-9

Vogel, R. (2012). The Visible Colleges of Management and Organization Studies: A Bibliometric
Analysis of Academic Journals. Organization Studies, 33(8), 1015–1043.
doi:10.1177/0170840612448028

Vogel, R., & Güttel, W. H. (2013). The Dynamic Capability View in Strategic Management: A
Bibliometric Review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 15(4), 426–446.
doi:10.1111/ijmr.12000

Volberda, H. W., Foss, N. J., & Lyles, M. A. (2010). Absorbing the Concept of Absorptive Capacity:
How to Realize Its Potential in the Organization Field. Organization Science, 21(4), 931–951.
doi:10.1287/orsc.1090.0503

Wallace, M. L., Gingras, Y., & Duhon, R. (2009). A new approach for detecting scientific specialties
from raw cocitation networks. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and
Technology, 60(2), 240–246. doi:10.1002/asi.20987

Wallin, J. A. (2005). Bibliometric Methods: Pitfalls and Possibilities. Basic & Clinical Pharmacology
& Toxicology, 97(5), 261–275.

Wallin, M. (2012). The bibliometric structure of spin-off literature. Innovation: Management, Policy
& Practice, 14(2), 162–177.

Walter, C., & Ribiere, V. (2013). A citation and co-citation analysis of 10 years of KM theory and
practices. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 11(3), 221–229. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2013.25

White, H. D. (2003). Author cocitation analysis and Pearson’s r. Journal of the American Society for
Information Science and Technology, 54(13), 1250–1259. doi:10.1002/asi.10325

White, H. D., & Griffith, B. C. (1981). Author cocitation: A literature measure of intellectual structure.
Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 32(3), 163–171.
doi:10.1002/asi.4630320302

White, H. D., & McCain, K. W. (1998). Visualizing a discipline: An author co-citation analysis of
information science, 1972–1995. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49(4),
327–355. doi:10.1002/(SICI)

Zaveršnik, M., & Batagelj, V. (2004). Islands.

Zhao, D., & Strotmann, A. (2008). Evolution of Research Activities and Intellectual Influences in
Information Science 1996 – 2005: Introducing Author Bibliographic-Coupling Analysis. Journal
of the American Society for Information Science, 59(1998), 2070–2086. doi:10.1002/asi

48

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2267251

 APPENDIX A

Study selection and coding

Falling within the scope of this paper are studies using bibliometric methods for mapping

research fields or research topics in management and organization. Using Web of Science

(WOS), a search query was made for the following terms: bibliometric* OR co-citation OR

bibliographic coupling OR co-author OR co-word in the topic of the entry. The search

returned 5,046 entries which were further filtered for publications in the management and

business domain. We then read every abstract of the remaining 381 documents. We excluded

those unrelated to the scope of our research. Documents in this phase were mainly excluded

for the following reasons:

- Studies conducted science mapping in fields unrelated to management or organization

(e.g. nanotechnology).

- A large number of documents were excluded because their main topic was measuring

the productivity of researchers, organizations or systems/countries, which is outside

the scope of our research. This research stream is more concerned with measuring the

productivity of scientists and a comparison/ranking of various journals, research

organizations or countries than with mapping the science.

- Studies examined patents, not scientific publications; as such, they belonged to the

domain of technological forecasting.

- The keyword “co-author” in a number of articles referred just to a co-author without

any connection to the bibliometric method of co-author analysis.

After filtering the publications through the WOS online user interface, we downloaded the

documents left in the set. Where articles were unavailable through our resources, we

contacted the authors for the original manuscript. We were unable to retrieve three articles

49

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2267251

even after this step. Finally, we were left with 81 studies that constitute the publications in our

data sample.

Once the list of publications had been compiled, all the manuscripts were carefully read and

coded by one of the authors and a research assistant. Agreement ranged between 87.7% and

100%. The differences were reconciled in a joint session where manuscripts in question were

analyzed and solutions determined. The categories were determined by the two authors to

cover the main aspects of the bibliometric analysis. Coders categorized the following: (a)

which bibliometric methods were utilized; (b) whether the study used multiple time periods to

track the evolution of the field through time; (c) how the selection was performed; (d) which

database was used as source of bibliometric data; (e) which bibliometric software was used;

(f) what was the unit of analysis; (g) which methods were applied to produce subgroups; (h)

which visualization method was used; and (i) which visualization software was employed.

Selected studies

Authors Year Publication name Title

Divided by a Common Language? Transnational Insights into Epistemological and
Pilkington & LONG RANGE Methodological Approaches to Strategic Management Research in English-Speaking
Lawton 2013 PLANNING Countries
KNOWLEDGE
MANAGEMENT
RESEARCH &
Walter & Ribiere 2013 PRACTICE A citation and co-citation analysis of 10 years of KM theory and practices
INTERNATIONAL
JOURNAL OF
MANAGEMENT
Vogel & Güttel 2013 REVIEWS The Dynamic Capability View in Strategic Management: A Bibliometric Review
JOURNAL OF
Chabowski, INTERNATIONAL
Samiee, & Hult 2013 BUSINESS STUDIES A bibliometric analysis of the global branding literature and a research agenda
Muñoz-Leiva,
Sánchez-
Fernández,
Liébana- THE SERVICE
Cabanillas, & INDUSTRIES
Martínez-Fiestas 2013 JOURNAL Detecting salient themes in financial marketing research from 1961 to 2010
INDUSTRIAL
Coombes & MARKETING
Nicholson 2013 MANAGEMENT Business models and their relationship with marketing: A systematic literature review
TECHNOLOGICAL
Carvalho, Fleury, FORECASTING AND An overview of the literature on technology roadmapping (TRM): Contributions and
& Lopes 2013 SOCIAL CHANGE trends
Raasch, Lee,
Spaeth, &
Herstatt 2013 RESEARCH POLICY The rise and fall of interdisciplinary research: The case of open source innovation

50

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2267251

 TECHNOLOGY
Gerdsri, ANALYSIS &
Kongthon, & STRATEGIC Mapping the knowledge evolution and professional network in the field of technology
Vatananan 2013 MANAGEMENT roadmapping: a bibliometric analysis
REVIEW OF
Ferreira, Pinto, BUSINESS A Bibliometric Study of John Dunning’s Contribution to International Business
Serra, & Santos 2013 MANAGEMENT Research
Bernroider, JOURNAL OF
Pilkington, & INFORMATION Research in information systems: A study of diversity and inter-disciplinary discourse
Córdoba 2013 TECHNOLOGY in the AIS basket journals between 1995 and 2011

JOURNAL OF
Gundolf & Filser 2013 BUSINESS ETHICS Management Research and Religion: A Citation Analysis
Benavides-
Velasco,
Quintana-García, SMALL BUSINESS
& Guzmán-Parra 2013 ECONOMICS Trends in family business research
STRATEGIC
MANAGEMENT Thinking inside the box – intellectual structure of the knowledge base of innovation
Shafique 2013 JOURNAL research (1988-2008)

Ma, Liang, Yu, BUSINESS ETHICS: A Most cited business ethics publications: mapping the intellectual structure of business
& Lee 2012 EUROPEAN REVIEW ethics studies in 2001-2008
INNOVATION:
MANAGEMENT,
Wallin 2012 POLICY & PRACTICE The bibliometric structure of spin-off literature
Leone, Robinson, JOURNAL OF
Bragge, & BUSINESS
Somervuori 2012 RESEARCH A citation and profiling analysis of pricing research from 1980 to 2010
JOURNAL OF
Di Guardo & TECHNOLOGY
Harrigan 2012 TRANSFER Mapping research on strategic alliances and innovation: a co-citation analysis

ORGANIZATION The Visible Colleges of Management and Organization Studies: A Bibliometric

Vogel 2012 STUDIES Analysis of Academic Journals
Di Stefano,
Gambardella, & Technology push and demand pull perspectives in innovation studies: Current findings
Verona 2012 RESEARCH POLICY and future research directions
Nosella,
Cantarello, & STRATEGIC The intellectual structure of organizational ambidexterity: A bibliographic
Filippini 2012 ORGANIZATION investigation into the state of the art
INTERNATIONAL
JOURNAL OF
Keupp, Palmié, MANAGEMENT The Strategic Management of Innovation: A Systematic Review and Paths for Future
& Gassmann 2012 REVIEWS Research
Fagerberg,
Fosaas &
Sapprasert 2012 RESEARCH POLICY Innovation: Exploring the knowledge base
Martin,
Nightingale, &
Yegros-Yegros 2012 RESEARCH POLICY Science and technology studies: Exploring the knowledge base
Martin 2012 RESEARCH POLICY The evolution of science policy and innovation studies

Bhupatiraju,
Nomaler, Triulzi Knowledge flows – Analyzing the core literature of innovation, entrepreneurship and
& Verspagen 2012 RESEARCH POLICY science and technology studies
Landström,
Harirchi &
Åström 2012 RESEARCH POLICY Entrepreneurship: Exploring the knowledge base
PROJECT
MANAGEMENT A Bibliometric View on the Use of Contingency Theory in Project Management
Hanisch & Wald 2012 JOURNAL Research
JOURNAL OF THE
ACADEMY OF
Samiee & MARKETING
Chabowski 2012 SCIENCE Knowledge structure in international marketing: A multi-method bibliometric analysis
STRATEGIC
Ronda-Pupo & MANAGEMENT
Guerras-Martin 2012 JOURNAL Dynamics of the evolution of the strategy concept 1962-2008: a co-word analysis

51

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2267251

 RBGN-REVISTA
Montiel Campos, BRASILEIRA DE
Sole Parella & GESTAO DE Mapping the Intellectual Structure of Entrepreneurship Research: revisiting the
Palma 2012 NEGOCIO invisible college
Calabretta,
Durisin, & JOURNAL OF Uncovering the Intellectual Structure of Research in Business Ethics: A Journey
Ogliengo 2011 BUSINESS ETHICS Through the History, the Classics, and the Pillars of Journal of Business Ethics
AFRICAN JOURNAL
OF BUSINESS A study of influential authors, works and research network of consumer behavior
Tu 2011 MANAGEMENT research
JOURNAL OF SPORT
Shilbury 2011 MANAGEMENT A Bibliometric Study of Citations to Sport Management and Marketing Journals

Chabowski, Hult, JOURNAL OF The Retailing Literature as a Basis for Franchising Research: Using Intellectual
et al. 2011 RETAILING Structure to Advance Theory
INDUSTRIAL
Backhaus, MARKETING The structure and evolution of business-to-business marketing: A citation and co-
Luegger, & Koch 2011 MANAGEMENT citation analysis
INDUSTRIAL
Herbst, Voeth, & MARKETING What do we know about buyer-seller negotiations in marketing research? A status quo
Meister 2011 MANAGEMENT analysis
AFRICAN JOURNAL
OF BUSINESS
Kraus 2011 MANAGEMENT State-of-the-art current research in international entrepreneurship: A citation analysis

ELECTRONIC
Fischbach et al. 2011 MARKETS Co-authorship networks in electronic markets research
JOURNAL OF THE
ACADEMY OF
Chabowski, MARKETING The structure of sustainability research in marketing, 1958-2008: a basis for future
Mena, et al. 2011 SCIENCE research opportunities
AFRICAN JOURNAL
OF BUSINESS
Huang & Ho 2011 MANAGEMENT Historical research on corporate governance: A bibliometric analysis
EUROPEAN
JOURNAL OF The intellectual structure of the anti-consumption and consumer resistance field: An
Galvagno 2011 MARKETING author co-citation analysis
PUBLIC
MANAGEMENT
Marsilio et al. 2011 REVIEW The Intellectual Structure of Research Into PPPS: A bibliometric analysis
AFRICAN JOURNAL
OF BUSINESS
Chang & Ho 2010 MANAGEMENT Bibliometric analysis of financial crisis research
Raghuram, INFORMATION
Tuertscher, & SYSTEMS
Garud 2010 RESEARCH Mapping the Field of Virtual Work: A Cocitation Analysis
INDUSTRIAL AND
CORPORATE Dynamic capabilities deconstructed: a bibliographic investigation into the origins,
Di Stefano et al. 2010 CHANGE development, and future directions of the research domain
JOURNAL OF
CONSUMER
Baumgartner 2010 PSYCHOLOGY Bibliometric reflections on the history of consumer research

Volberda, Foss, ORGANIZATION Absorbing the Concept of Absorptive Capacity: How to Realize Its Potential in the
& Lyles 2010 SCIENCE Organization Field
JOURNAL OF
Durisin, PRODUCT
Calabretta, & INNOVATION The Intellectual Structure of Product Innovation Research: A Bibliometric Study of the
Parmeggiani 2010 MANAGEMENT Journal of Product Innovation Management, 1984-2004

JOURNAL OF Business Ethics Research with an Accounting Focus: A Bibliometric Analysis from
Uysal 2010 BUSINESS ETHICS 1988 to 2007
JOURNAL OF
KNOWLEDGE
Ma & Yu 2010 MANAGEMENT Research paradigms of contemporary knowledge management studies: 1998-2007
JOURNAL OF
Ma 2009 BUSINESS ETHICS The Status of Contemporary Business Ethics Research: Present and Future
JOURNAL OF
Pilkington & OPERATIONS The evolution of the intellectual structure of operations management – 1980-2006: A
Meredith 2009 MANAGEMENT citation/co-citation analysis

52

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2267251

 JOURNAL OF THE
ACADEMY OF
Uslay, Morgan, MARKETING
& Sheth 2009 SCIENCE Peter Drucker on marketing: an exploration of five tenets
INTERNATIONAL
Artto, Martinsuo, JOURNAL OF
Gemuendne, & PROJECT
Murtoaro 2009 MANAGEMENT Foundations of program management: A bibliometric view

JOURNAL OF Evaluation of Internet advertising research – A bibliometric analysis of citations from

Kim & McMillan 2008 ADVERTISING key sources
STRATEGIC
MANAGEMENT The intellectual structure of the strategic management field: An author co-citation
Nerur et al. 2008 JOURNAL analysis
INTERNATIONAL
JOURNAL OF
CONFLICT
Ma, Lee, & Yu 2008 MANAGEMENT Ten years of conflict management studies: themes, concepts and relationships
INTERNATIONAL
JOURNAL OF
Pilkington & SERVICE INDUSTRY Research themes, concepts and relationships – A study of International Journal of
Chai 2008 MANAGEMENT Service Industry Management (1990-2005)
JOURNAL OF
Charvet, Cooper, BUSINESS
& Gardner 2008 LOGISTICS The intellectual structure of supply chain management: A bibliometric approach
R&D
McMillan 2008 MANAGEMENT Mapping the invisible colleges of R&D Management
FAMILY BUSINESS Evolution of the intellectual structure of family business literature: A bibliometric
Casillas & Acedo 2007 REVIEW study of FBR
JOURNAL OF
PRODUCT
Biemans, Griffin, INNOVATION Twenty years of the Journal of product innovation management: History, participants,
& Moenaert 2007 MANAGEMENT and knowledge stock and flows
Acedo, Barroso, JOURNAL OF
Casanueva, & MANAGEMENT Co-authorship in management and organizational studies: An empirical and network
Galan 2006 STUDIES analysis
STRATEGIC
Acedo, Barroso, MANAGEMENT
& Galan 2006 JOURNAL The resource-based theory: Dissemination and main trends
ENTREPRENEURSHIP
Gregoire, Noel, THEORY AND Is there conceptual convergence in entrepreneurship research? A co-citation analysis
Dery, & Bechard 2006 PRACTICE of Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, 1981-2004
Cornelius, ENTREPRENEURSHIP
Landstrom, & THEORY AND
Persson 2006 PRACTICE Entrepreneurial studies: The dynamic research front of a developing social science
ENTREPRENEURSHIP
Schildt, Zahra, THEORY AND
Sillanpaa 2006 PRACTICE Scholarly communities in entrepreneurship research: A co-citation analysis
ENTREPRENEURSHIP
Reader & THEORY AND The social and collaborative nature of entrepreneurship scholarship: A co-citation and
Watkins 2006 PRACTICE perceptual analysis
Pilkington &
Teichert 2006 TECHNOVATION Management of technology: themes, concepts and relationships
Cornelius &
Persson 2006 TECHNOVATION Who's who in venture capital research
INTERNATIONAL
JOURNAL OF
OPERATIONS &
Pilkington & PRODUCTION Operations management themes, concepts and relationships: a forward retrospective of
Fitzgerald 2006 MANAGEMENT IJOPM
INTERNATIONAL Current paradigms in the international management field: An author co-citation
Acedo & Casillas 2005 BUSINESS REVIEW analysis
INTERNATIONAL
JOURNAL OF
OPERATIONS &
PRODUCTION The evolution of performance measurement research – Developments in the last
Neely 2005 MANAGEMENT decade and a research agenda for the next
Meyer, Pereira,
Persson, & The scientometric world of Keith Pavitt – A tribute to his contributions to research
Granstrand 2004 RESEARCH POLICY policy and patent analysis

53

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2267251

Ramos- STRATEGIC
Rodriguez & MANAGEMENT Changes in the intellectual structure of strategic management research: A bibliometric
Ruiz-Navarro 2004 JOURNAL study of the Strategic Management Journal, 1980-2000
Phillips, ADVANCES IN
Baumgartner, & CONSUMER
Pieters 1999 RESEARCH, VOL 26 Influence in the evolving citation network of the journal of consumer research
INTERNATIONAL
JOURNAL OF
OPERATIONS &
Pilkington & PRODUCTION
Liston-Heyes 1999 MANAGEMENT Is production and operations management a discipline? A citation/co-citation study

Pasadeos, Phelps, JOURNAL OF Disciplinary impact of advertising scholars: Temporal comparisons of influential
& Kim 1998 ADVERTISING authors, works and research networks
Usdiken & ORGANIZATION Organizational analysis in North-America and Europe – a comparison of cocitation
Pasadeos 1995 STUDIES networks
JOURNAL OF
Hoffman & CONSUMER The intellectual structure of consumer research – a bibliometric study of author
Holbrook 1993 RESEARCH cocitations in the 1st 15 years of the Journal of Consumer Research

54

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2267251

 APPENDIX B

Exact steps to reproduce a bibliometric analysis of the ORM journal.

1. Select and download data from the Web of Science website

a. Go to WOS website apps.webofknowledge.com (subscription needed, often included in university library access)
b. Select “Web of Science Core Collection” (this step is needed to be able to export cited references)
c. Search for “Organizational Research Methods” in Publication Name
d. Exclude publication year 1998 (since the years 1999 and 2000 are missing from Web of Science records we will perform the
analysis on papers published since 2001) – 465 records are left
e. Export bibliometric data – Select “Save to Other File Formats”
f. Choose record numbers from 1 to 465 (the WoS interface enables the export of up to 500 records. If the search returns more than
500 records, each batch of 500 has to be exported separately: 1-500, 501-1000 etc. Files can be later combined in WordPad or
another text processor.)
g. Choose Record Content: “Full Record and Cited References”
h. Choose File Format: “Plain Text”
i. Click Send and save to file “orm.txt”
2. Perform bibliometric analysis in BibExcel
a. Open the file “orm.txt” in the BibExcel software
b. File preprocessing (these steps are outlined in the BibExcel PowerPoint tutorial “Mapping science using Bibexcel and Pajek”
i. Replace line feeds with the carriage return – BibExcel->Edit doc-file->Replace line feed with carriage return
ii. Convert to the Dialog format – BibExcel-> Misc->Convert to Dialog format->Convert from Web of Science
iii. Process the cited references data into an intermediate .out file for co-citation analysis– Select “Any ; separated field” as the
field to be analyzed, put “CD” into the Old tag field. Press the “Prep” button.
iv. Process the author names to keep only the first initial BibExcel->Edit out-file->Keep only author’s first initial
v. Process the cited references - BibExcel->Edit out-file->Convert Upper Lower Case->Good for Cited reference strings

55

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2267251

 c. Perform citation analysis for journals, first authors and documents
i. Get the top cited journals - BibExcel->Select type of unit “Cited journal”; Check the “Sort descending” option; press the
Start button.
ii. Save the file with the top cited journals - rename the “orm.cit” file “orm-journal.cit”.
iii. Clean the data for the top cited journals – add citation counts for journals that are represented with several different strings
iv. Get the top cited documents - BibExcel->Select type of unit “Whole string”; press the Start button.
v. Save the file with the top cited documents - rename the “orm.cit” file “orm-document.cit”.
vi. Clean the data for the top cited documents – add citation counts for documents that are represented with several different
strings.
d. Perform co-citation analysis with document as the unit of analysis.
i. Establish the citation threshold on which to perform the co-citation analysis. We decided to establish the cut-off point at 9
citations, meaning we are doing co-citation analysis on the top 112 cited documents.
ii. Double-click on the orm.cit file; keep only the first 112 entries in the window “The List”.
iii. Initiate co-citation frequency counts – first click on the orm.low file, then BibExcel->Analyze->Co-occurrence->Make
pairs via listbox (first No, then OK).
iv. Produce a square co-citation frequency matrix that will be later analyzed with PCA – Keep only the first 77 entries in the
window “The List”; click on the orm.coc file; BibExcel->Analyze->Make a matrix for MDS etc.
v. Open the square matrix “orm.ma2” file in Microsoft Excel, transpose the column headers to row labels (first column), save
as “orm.csv”.
vi. Export the co-citation network in the Pajek format, this can be later imported into any network analysis software – select
the “orm.coc” file and choose BibExcel->Mapping->Create net-file for Pajek.
vii. Export the node citation vector in the Pajek format – this information will be used to represent the size of network nodes –
select the “orm.cit” file and choose BibExcel->Mapping->Create vec-file.
3. Find subgroups and visualize the network in Pajek.
a. Open file “orm.net” in Pajek – Pajek->Networks->Read network
b. Implement Louvain algorithm to find subgroups – Pajek->Create Partition->Communities->Louvain Method->Multilevel
Coarsening + Single Refinement (Resolution parameter = 1.5)

56

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2267251

c. Extract each subgroup into separate network – Pajek->Operations->Network+Partition->Extract Subnetwork
d. Draw each subgroup as separate network – Pajek->Draw->Network
e. Use Kamada-Kawai algorithm for network visualization – Pajek(drawing)->Layout->Energy->Kamada-Kawai->Free

57

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2267251

TABLE 1

Summary of bibliometric methods

Method Description Units of analysis Pros Cons

Citation Estimates influence of document Can quickly find the important Newer publications had less time to be cited,
documents, authors or author works in the field. therefore citation count as a measure of influence is
journals through journal biased towards older publications.
citation rates.

Co-citation Connects documents, document It is the most used and validated Co-citation is performed on cited articles so it is not
authors or journals on author bibliometric method. Connecting optimal for mapping research fronts. Citations take
the basis of joint journal documents, authors or journals time to accumulate so new publications cannot be
appearances in with co-citation has been shown connected directly but only through knowledge base
reference lists. to be reliable. clusters.

Since citation is a measure of Several citations are needed to map articles so it is

influence it offers a method to impossible to map articles which are not cited much.
filter the most important works.
When performing author co-citation analysis on SSCI
(WOS) data, only first-author information is available.

Bib. Coupling Connects documents, document Immediately available: does not It can only be used for limited timeframe (up to a
authors or journals on author require citations to accumulate. five-year interval).
the basis of the journal Can be used for new
number of shared publications which are not cited It does not inherently identify the most important
references. yet, emerging fields and smaller works by citation counts as co-citation; it is difficult to
subfields. know whether mapped publications are important or
not.

Co-author Connects authors when author Can provide evidence of Collaboration is not always acknowledged with co-

58

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2267251

 they co-author the collaboration and produce the authorship.
paper. social structure of the field.

Co-word Connects keywords word It uses the actual content of Words can appear in different forms and can have
when they appear in documents for analysis (other different meanings.
the same title, abstract methods only use bibliographic
or keyword list. meta-data).

59

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2267251

TABLE 2

Descriptive statistics of the 81 bibliometric studies published in management and organization (full list in Appendix A). The percentages do not

necessarily add up to 100% as studies can use multiple methods or units of analysis.

No. % Sample studies

Bibliometric method
Citation 54 66.7% Coombes & Nicholson, 2013; Durisin, Calabretta, & Parmeggiani, 2010; Martin, 2012
Co-citation 59 72.8% Pilkington & Meredith, 2009; Samiee & Chabowski, 2012; Shafique, 2013
Bib. coupling 3 3.7% Hanisch & Wald, 2012; Nosella et al., 2012; Vogel & Güttel, 2013
Co-author 6 7.4% Acedo et al., 2006; Fischbach, Putzke, & Schoder, 2011; Raasch et al., 2013
Co-word 11 13.6% Benavides-Velasco et al., 2011; Leone, Robinson, Bragge, & Somervuori, 2012; Wallin, 2012
Multiple time periods
Yes 42 51.9% Samiee & Chabowski, 2012; Shafique, 2013; Vogel, 2012
No 39 48.1% Di Stefano et al., 2012; Keupp et al., 2012; Walter & Ribiere, 2013
Selection method
Journal 41 50.6% Pilkington & Teichert, 2006; Ramos-Rodriguez & Ruiz-Navarro, 2004; Vogel, 2012
Search 47 58.0% Chabowski,et al., 2011; Di Stefano, et al., 2012; Pilkington & Lawton, 2013
Qualitative 17 22.2% Backhaus, Luegger, & Koch, 2011; Keupp, Palmié, & Gassmann, 2012
Other 6 6.2% Acedo, Barroso & Galan, 2006; Fagerberg, Fosaas, et al., 2012
Database
SSCI (WOS) 56 69.1% Chabowski, Samiee, & Hult, 2013; Di Guardo & Harrigan, 2012; Nerur et al., 2008
Scopus 3 3.7% Gerdsri, Kongthon, & Vatananan, 2013; Hanisch & Wald, 2012; Walter & Ribiere, 2013
Other 4 4.9% Charvet, Cooper, & Gardner, 2008; Gundolf & Filser, 2012; Kraus, 2011
Self-constructed 13 16.0% Bhupatiraju, et al., 2012; Fagerberg, Fosaas, et al., 2012; Hoffman & Holbrook, 1993
Not reported 5 6.2%
Bibliometric software

60

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2267251

 BibExcel 11 13.6% Cornelius, Landstrom, & Persson, 2006; Landström et al., 2012; Pilkington & Chai, 2008
Sitkis 6 7.4% Raghuram, Tuertscher, & Garud, 2010; Schildt et al., 2006
Microsoft Excel 12 14.8% Kim & McMillan, 2008; Ma & Yu, 2010
Other 3 3.7% Muñoz-Leiva, Sánchez-Fernández, Liébana-Cabanillas, & Martínez-Fiestas, 2013
Not reported 49 60.5%
Unit of analysis
Document 45 55.6% Pilkington & Meredith, 2009; Shafique, 2013; Vogel & Güttel, 2013
Author 27 33.3% Acedo et al., 2006; Landström et al., 2012; Nerur et al., 2008; Raasch et al., 2013
Journal 7 8.6% Vogel, 2012; Wallin, 2012
Grouping method
PCA/Factor analysis 27 33.3% Reader & Watkins, 2006; Shafique, 2013; Vogel & Güttel, 2013
Clustering 21 25.9% Di Stefano et al., 2012; Keupp et al., 2012; Samiee & Chabowski, 2012
MDS 14 17.3% Chabowski et al., 2013; Di Guardo & Harrigan, 2012; Nerur et al., 2008
Network 12 14.8% Backhaus et al., 2011; Ma, Liang, Yu, & Lee, 2012; Walter & Ribiere, 2013
Visualization method
MDS 20 24.7% Chabowski et al., 2013; Cornelius & Persson, 2006; Shafique, 2013
Network analysis 34 42.0% Fagerberg, Fosaas, et al., 2012; Pilkington & Meredith, 2009; Vogel & Güttel, 2013
Other 13 16.0% Herbst, Voeth, & Meister, 2011; Muñoz-Leiva et al., 2013
No visualization 14 17.3% Casillas & Acedo, 2007; Coombes & Nicholson, 2013; Keupp et al., 2012
Visualization software
UCINET 21 25.9% Pilkington & Chai, 2008; Uysal, 2010; Vogel & Güttel, 2013
Pajek 4 4.9% Ronda-Pupo & Guerras-Martin, 2012; Landström et al., 2012; Wallin, 2012
Other 6 7.4% Gerdsri et al., 2013; Muñoz-Leiva et al., 2013; Walter & Ribiere, 2013
No visualization 14 17.3% Casillas & Acedo, 2007; Coombes & Nicholson, 2013; Keupp et al., 2012
Not reported 36 44.4%

61

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2267251

TABLE 3

Research questions answered by different bibliometric methods

Citation analysis
Which authors most influenced the research in a journal?
Which journals and disciplines had the most impact on a research stream?
What is the “balance of trade” between journals/disciplines?
Who are the experts in a given research field?
What is the recommended “reading list” for a specific area?

Co-citation analysis
What is the intellectual structure of literature X?
Who are the central, peripheral or bridging researchers in this field?
How has the diffusion of the concept through research literature taken place?
What is the structure of the scientific community in a particular field?
How has the structure of this field developed over time?

Bibliographical coupling
What is the intellectual structure of recent/emerging literature?
How does the intellectual structure of the research stream reflect the richness of the theoretical
approaches?
How has the intellectual structure of small niche X developed through time?

Co-author analysis
Are authors from different disciplinary backgrounds working together on a new research field or do they
remain within disciplinary boundaries?
Which factors determine co-authorship?
What is the effect of collaboration on the impact?
Are co-authored articles more cited?
Do more prolific authors collaborate more frequently?
Are internationally co-authored papers more cited?

62

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2267251

What is the social structure of the field?

Co-word analysis
What are the dynamics of the conceptual structure of a field?
Uncover the conceptual building blocks of a literature.
What are the topics associated with a particular line of research?
Track the evolution of concept X.

63

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2267251

TABLE 4

Most cited documents in Organizational Research Methods

Citations Document
31 Cohen J, 1988, Stat Power Anal Beha
27 Nunnally J, 1994, Psychometric Theory
27 Cohen J, 2003, Appl Multiple Regres
26 Bollen K. A, 1989, Structural Equations
24 Raudenbush S, 2002, Hierarchical Linear
23 Campbell D, 1959, V56, P81, Psychol Bull
22 Cohen J, 1983, Appl Multiple Regres
21 Vandenberg Robert J, 2000, V3, P4, Organ Res Methods
21 Chan D, 1998, V83, P234, J Appl Psychol
21 James L, 1984, V69, P85, J Appl Psychol
20 Nunnally J. C, 1978, Psychometric Theory
20 Baron R, 1986, V51, P1173, J Pers Soc Psychol
20 Cook T. D, 1979, Quasiexperimentation
20 Scandura T, 2000, V43, P1248, Acad Manage J
19 Bliese P. D, 2000, P349, Multilevel Theory Re
19 Gephart R, 2004, V47, P454, Acad Manage J
19 Aiken L. S, 1991, Multiple Regression
18 Kozlowski S, 2000, P3, Multilevel Theory Re
18 Glaser B. G, 1967, Discovery Grounded T
18 Chan D, 1998, V1, P421, Organ Res Methods
18 Hu L, 1999, V6, P1, Struct Equ Modeling
18 Hunter J. E, 2004, Methods Metaanalysis
16 Bryk A. S, 1992, Hierarchical Linear
15 Aguinis H, 2005, V90, P94, J Appl Psychol
14 Podsakoff P, 2003, V88, P879, J Appl Psychol
14 Eisenhardt K, 1989, V14, P532, Acad Manage Rev
14 Lance C, 2006, V9, P202, Organ Res Methods

64

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2267251

TABLE 5

Most cited journals in Organizational Research Methods

Citations Journal
1637 Journal of Applied Psychology
888 Organizational Research Methods
823 Academy of Management Journal
557 Strategic Management Journal
509 Journal of Management
490 Psychological Bulletin
478 Personell Psychology
439 Academy of Management Review
354 Administrative Science Quarterly
337 Psychological Methods
223 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
184 Educational and Psychological Measurement
184 American Psychologist
183 Journal of Organizational Behavior
182 Applied Psychological Measurement
175 Psychometrika
173 Organization Science
170 Multivariate Behavioral Research
156 Structural Equation Modeling
136 Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Proc
123 Journal of International Business Studies
113 Psychological Review
109 Journal of Management Studies

65

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2267251

FIGURE 1

Bibliometric workflow

66

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2267251

FIGURE 2

Co-citation vs. bibliographic coupling

FIGURE 3

HeatMap high-tech -1973-1998

67

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2267251

FIGURE 4

Multilevel analysis

68

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2267251

FIGURE 5

Multiple regression

69

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2267251