International Journal of Production Research

ISSN: 0020-7543 (Print) 1366-588X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tprs20

Disruption risks in supply chain management: a

literature review based on bibliometric analysis

Song Xu, Xiaotong Zhang, Lipan Feng & Wenting Yang

To cite this article: Song Xu, Xiaotong Zhang, Lipan Feng & Wenting Yang (2020): Disruption
risks in supply chain management: a literature review based on bibliometric analysis, International
Journal of Production Research, DOI: 10.1080/00207543.2020.1717011

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2020.1717011

Published online: 24 Jan 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tprs20
International Journal of Production Research, 2020
https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2020.1717011

Disruption risks in supply chain management: a literature review based on bibliometric analysis
Song Xua , Xiaotong Zhanga∗ , Lipan Fengb and Wenting Yangc
a Business
School, Nankai University, Tianjin, People’s Republic of China; b Institute of Supply Chain Analytics, Dongbei University of
Finance and Economics, Dalian, People’s Republic of China; c School of Economics & Management, Tongji University, Shanghai,
People’s Republic of China
(Received 11 June 2019; accepted 10 January 2020)

Disruption risks in supply chain management have a great negative influence on the performance of supply chain mem-
bers. Therefore, the field of supply chain disruption (SCD) has received increasing attention on mitigating the risks and
improving the supply chain performance. This paper presents a comprehensive bibliometric overview and visualisation of
the field of SCD based on 1,310 publications derived from the core collection of the Web of Science. The influential authors,
organisations, and SCD keywords are discussed in detail based on some visualisation tools. Then, the leading publica-
tions and main clusters of SCD are identified to find out the key research topics based on citation analysis and reference
co-citation analysis. The paper will be a helpful resource for researchers and practitioners who are interested in the field of
SCD to capture the current research hotspots and potential research directions.
Keywords: supply chain disruption; supply chain resilience; bibliometric analysis; citation analysis; co-citation analysis

1. Introduction
With the increasing complexity and uncertainty of global supply chains, disruption events are frequently occurring in supply
chain management (Hosseini, Ivanov, and Dolgui 2019; Kim, Chen, and Linderman 2015; Kamalahmadi and Parast 2016).
According to the EventWatch Supply Chain Disruption Report (Material Handling & Logistics 2018), 1,069 events of supply
chain disruption (SCD) occurred in the first half of 2018, reaching the highest rate in three years. Furthermore, the 2018
EventWatch Report (Burnson 2019) revealed that the global supply chain risk events increased by 36% throughout the year.
The events of SCDs have a great negative impact on the financial and operational performance of supply chain members
as well as the entire supply chain. For example, Shanghai Jielong Metal Wiredrawing Co., Ltd., who is a sole supplier of
needle bearings for the leading global auto parts supplier, Shaeffler, was enforced to shut down by the Shanghai government
due to environmental law violations in September of 2017 (Xie and Chu 2017). As a result, 49 automakers in China suffered
from a shortage of Schaeffler supplies and had to reduce their production of 3 million vehicles with a total loss of RMB 300
billion. Therefore, SCDs have attracted an increasing amount of attention in industrial and academic fields.
Disruptions in supply chain management are usually caused by natural catastrophes (e.g. earthquakes, hurricanes, and
floods), man-made threats (e.g. fires, strikes, and terrorism), and severe legal disruptions (e.g. environmental laws) (Ivanov
et al. 2017; Kleindorfer and Saad 2005; Ivanov 2018; Hosseini, Ivanov, and Dolgui 2019). These disruption events might
cause structural dynamics in supply chains and a ripple effect, which refers to disruption propagation in supply chains and
the disruption-based scope of changes in the supply chain design structures (Ivanov, Sokolov, and Dolgui 2014; Levner
and Ptuskin 2018; Liberatore, Scaparra, and Daskin 2012; Ivanov 2018; Dolgui, Ivanov, and Rozhkov 2019). Therefore,
to reduce the impact of disruptions on supply chain members, it is necessary to control the ripple effect. According to the
control framework of a ripple effect (Dolgui, Ivanov, and Sokolov 2018), its four main elements are resilience, redundancy,
robustness, and flexibility. Resilience refers to the adaptive capability of supply chains to prepare for and/or respond to
SCD events (Tukamuhabwa et al. 2015). Building resilient supply chains is usually based on redundancy, which is closely
linked with robustness and flexibility. Specifically, to enhance the robustness of supply chains, a proactive approach (e.g.
risk mitigation inventory and backup facilities) is usually employed to maintain the planned execution and performance
of the supply chain in the designing and planning stage. To enhance the flexibility of supply chains, a reactive approach
(e.g. parametric recovery and structural recovery) is usually employed to re-allocate the inventories and capacities (indirect

*Corresponding author. Email: nku_zhang_xt@163.com

© 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

2 S. Xu et al.

usage of redundancy) while considering the recovery ability in the presence of unexpected SCD events (Dolgui, Ivanov, and
Sokolov 2018; Ivanov et al. 2016).
An increasing number of scholars have been conducting and publishing articles about SCDs in the past two decades (Qi,
Bard, and Yu 2004; Chopra, Reinhardt, and Mohan 2007; Ivanov, Sokolov, and Dolgui 2014; Cui et al. 2016). It is necessary
to provide a comprehensive review of the SCD domain. Recently, some scholars have proposed systematic reviews about
SCD, including Snyder et al. (2016), Paul, Sarker, and Essam (2016), Ivanov et al. (2017), and Mishra et al. (2018). However,
these literature reviews were focused on content analysis to discuss aspects related to the field of SCD, such as disruption
recovery or marketing disruption, rather than exploring the knowledge structure and distribution of the SCD field through
bibliographic and network analysis. The bibliometric method (Osareh 1996) is a cross-disciplinary science of quantitative
analysis based on published documents and their references. It is widely used in the domain of supply chain management
(Charvet, Cooper, and Gardner 2008), including green supply chain (Taticchi et al. 2015; Fahimnia, Sarkis, and Davarzani
2015), automotive supply chain (González-Benito, Lannelongue, and Alfaro-Tanco 2013), supply chain risk management
(Fahimnia et al. 2015; Colicchia and Strozzi 2012), supply chain resilience (Hosseini, Ivanov, and Dolgui 2019), and supply
chain finance (Xu et al. 2018). However, to the best of our knowledge, there have been few studies to present the rules of
scientific activities regarding the SCD domain. Therefore, this paper addresses two research questions about the field of
SCD: (1) What is the current status regarding the field of SCD, including the tendency of publications, publications types,
top journals, and co-occurrence network of categories? (2) What are the potential research gaps in the field of SCD for
scholars to explore in the future?
To solve the two questions above, the bibliometric method is employed to systematically analyze the knowledge structure
and distribution regarding the field of SCD to present a comprehensive overview and visualisation. It would be beneficial
for scholars who are interested in SCD to rapidly understand its current status and capture the potential research gaps. In
this study, 1,310 academic publications closely related to SCD were first selected from the core collection of the Web of
Science (WoS), after retrieving, reviewing, and cleaning them. Then, the development path of the field of SCD based on the
1,310 publications is presented, including the tendency of publications, publications types, top journals, and co-occurrence
network of categories. Furthermore, citation analysis can be carried out to obtain the top ten publications based on local
citations and PageRank scores. Moreover, reference co-citation analysis can be employed to capture some promising future
research opportunities in a certain field based on the publication references. It can be implemented to cluster the five groups
based on 616 references, and the literature of each cluster provides potential future research opportunities in the field of
SCD. Citation analysis and reference co-citation analysis are based on three visualisation tools, including CiteSpace (Chen
2006), VOSview (Van Eck and Waltman 2010), and HitSite (Garfield, Paris, and Stock 2006). Finally, the potential research
gaps and future research opportunities are identified based on the results of bibliometric analysis.
The remaining parts of this paper are organised as follows: Section 2 describes the data source of this study and the
main visualisation tools. Section 3 presents the current status of the field of SCD. Section 4 describes the implementation
of bibliometric analysis, including author analysis, affiliation analysis, and keywords analysis. Section 5 addresses the
citation analysis and reference co-citation analysis. Section 6 discusses the current research directions and potential research
opportunities based on the bibliometric analysis. Finally, Section 7 concludes this paper and presents its limitations.

2. Data source and methodology

The data source plays an important role in conducting a bibliometric study. In this study, the literature data were collected
from the WoS core collection, which includes about 18,000 high-quality journals and 1.3 billion cited references beginning
in 1900 (Wang 2018). The literature retrieval strategy was based on advanced search, and the specific strategies are given
below.
TS = (supply chain) AND TS = (‘disruption*’ OR ‘resilien*’)

Languages = ‘All languages’

Document types = ‘All document types’

Timespan = ‘All year’

Databases = ‘WoS Core Collection’

After executing the retrieval strategy, a total number of 2,366 publications were obtained. However, noise existed in the
raw data of the literature because of the intrinsic drawbacks of retrieval technologies. Therefore, the raw data was cleaned to
remove irrelevant and repeated publications. After cleaning the raw literature date, 1,310 publications that are closely related
to the field of SCD were downloaded from the WoS on April 5th, 2019. It should be noted that these 1,310 publications are
 International Journal of Production Research 3

scholarly articles, including the literature review. The literature reviews only present a summary of existing data and thus
cause potential noise in the research data. However, these literature reviews play an important role in promoting knowledge
communication and the development of the field of SCD. Thus, their scientific contributions to the development path of
the field of SCD should not be ignored. Besides, most of these literature reviews were conducted from different research
branches of SCD, such as disruption recovery (Ivanov et al. 2017) and the ripple effect (Dolgui, Ivanov, and Sokolov 2018).
Therefore, these literature reviews are considered in our research to ensure the integrity of the literature data.
Next, some visualisation tools were employed to present some meaningful results regarding the field of SCD. First,
Statistical Analysis Toolkit for Informetrics (SATI) is a C# language-based visualised software developed by Liu and Ye
(2012). It can be used to extract field information (e.g. keywords, authors, and references), implement frequency statistics,
and create co-occurrence matrices for further mapping knowledge domains of co-occurrence networks (e.g. co-occurrence
network of categories and keywords in this study). Second, CiteSpace is a Java-based computer program developed by Chen
(2006). It is popularly applied in bibliometric analysis to identify and present emerging developments regarding trends and
dynamics of a certain field. In this study, CiteSpace is employed to detect and visualise distribution features of the discipline
category, cluster topic terms, and a timeline view of the reference cluster. Third, VOSview is a freely available bibliometric
mapping tool developed by Van Eck and Waltman (2010). In this study, VOSviewer is employed to demonstrate mapping
analysis of international cooperation, a collaborative network of core authors and density visualisation of the keywords.
Fourth, HitSiteTM is a software developed by Garfield, Paris, and Stock (2006) for network analysis. It is usually employed
to visualise and analyze citation relationships (e.g. the network of the co-cited references in this study). Moreover, to present
both popularity and prestige references, SCI2 is used to calculate the PageRank score of each reference in a cited network.
As a result, five clusters regarding leading co-cited references can be obtained for further discussion.

3. Current status of the field of SCD

This section presents the current status of the field of SCD, including the tendency of publications, publications types, top
journals, and co-occurrence network of categories.
Figure 1 shows the number of publications in the field of SCD as well as the citations from 1999 to 2019. The overall
trend of the publications follows an exponential growth (y = 2.9245e0.2429x ; R2 = 0.7521) after mathematical exponential
adjustment. The result accords with a Price curve (1965) and it demonstrates that the field of SCD has received increasing
attention. Similar verifications about a Price curve (1965) are also presented in other literature (e.g. Li, Qiao, and Wang
2017; Ruhanen et al. 2015). Furthermore, according to the number of the publications, some interesting results can be
observed. Specifically, the number of publications in the domain of SCD slightly increased from 1999 to 2012 but there
was a sharp increase from 2012 to 2019. The reason might be that some SCD events before 2012 have happened to trigger
an increasing number of scholars paying attention to mitigate the disruption risks. For example, the 2011 tsunami in Japan
caused enormous loss and the supply chain of the automobile industry stagnated for months around the world. Additionally,
in 2011, floods in Thailand disrupted the supply chain of electronics and car parts. Therefore, an increasing number of
scholars paid attention to mitigate the disruption risks of the supply chain after these emergency events. Furthermore,
Figure 1 indicates that the number of citations increased from 1999 to 2016, and then decreased.
Figure 2 shows the six types of the 1,310 downloaded publications, including the article, proceeding paper, review,
editorial material, book review, and book chapter. The results demonstrate that 96% of the publications are articles and
proceeding papers, and only 4% of the publications belong to other types.
There are 499 journals and proceedings included the publications about the subject of SCD. Table 1 demonstrates the
top 20 journals and proceedings in the field of SCD. The results show that the top ten journals and proceedings published
approximately 30.84% of the publications in the field of SCD. In other words, around 30.84% of the publications were
published in 2% of the journals. Furthermore, the International Journal of Production Research ranks first and published 94
publications. The result indicates that the International Journal of Production Research occupied a significant status in the
field of SCD. Furthermore, the International Journal of Production Economics, Computers & Industrial Engineering, Trans-
portation Research Part E-Logistics and Transportation Review, European Journal of Operational Research completed the
top five journals, which occupied more than 20% of the publications.
Table 1 also shows the Total Local Citation Score (TLCS) and Total Global Citation Score (TGCS) of the top 20 jour-
nals and proceedings on SCD. There are six journals whose TGCSs exceeded 1,000, including the International Journal of
Production Economics, International Journal of Production Research, Production and Operations Management, European
Journal of Operational Research, Omega-International Journal of Management Science, and Journal of Operations Man-
agement. The results indicate that the publications about SCD included in the six journals with higher TGCSs have great
communication and integration with other domains. It is interesting to note that according to the number of publications,
Production and Operations Management and Journal of Operations Management were respectively ranked 9 and 18, while
4 S. Xu et al.

Figure 1. Number of publications and citations in the field of SCD from 1999 to 2019.

Figure 2. Publication types in the field of SCD.

both obtained higher TLCSs and TGCSs. These results reveal that the articles published in the Production and Operations
Management and Journal of Operations Management had a great contribution on knowledge innovation and development
in the field of SCD.
Subject category co-occurrence analysis is an effective approach to detect the disciplines involved in the development
of a certain knowledge domain (Liu et al. 2015). Figure 3 demonstrates that the co-occurrence network of categories regard-
ing the field of SCD through Pathfinder network scaling in CiteSpace. The results show that the 1,310 publications are
divided into 51 categories. As shown in Figure 3, the size of a circle (category) represents the frequency of the part of 1,310
publications divided into the same category, and each line refers to the co-occurrence relationship of a certain publication
classified into the two subject categories. The top five categories in the field of SCD are Engineering, Operations Research
& Management Science, Business & Economics, Engineering Industrial Management, and Computer Science, respectively.
These results reveal that SCD is an interdisciplinary area. Scholars have focused on the perspective of engineering, manage-
ment science, and computer science to conduct SCD research. However, it can also be combined with some other promising
topics, such as transportation and business.
 International Journal of Production Research 5

Table 1. Top 20 journals and proceedings in the field of SCD.

Cumulative
Total Percentage percentage
Rank Journal number (%) (%) TLCS TGCS
1 International Journal of Production Research 94 7.18% 7.18% 719 1905
2 International Journal of Production Economics 72 5.50% 12.67% 1123 3327
3 Computers & Industrial Engineering 47 3.59% 16.26% 222 629
4 Transportation Research Part E-Logistics and Transportation Review 39 2.98% 19.24% 367 809
5 European Journal of Operational Research 36 2.75% 21.98% 505 1303
6 Omega-International Journal of Management Science 34 2.60% 24.58% 624 1283
7 Supply Chain Management-An International Journal 26 1.98% 26.56% 214 531
8 International Journal of Logistics Management 20 1.53% 28.09% 141 399
9 Production and Operations Management 18 1.37% 29.47% 608 1339
10 Sustainability 18 1.37% 30.84% 7 53
11 IFAC PapersOnline 17 1.30% 32.14% 28 43
12 Transportation Research Part B-Methodological 16 1.22% 33.36% 153 383
13 Annals of Operations Research 15 1.15% 34.50% 94 193
14 Computers & Operations Research 14 1.07% 35.57% 198 442
15 International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 14 1.07% 36.64% 147 495
16 Journal of Cleaner Production 13 0.99% 37.63% 21 159
17 Journal of Business Logistics 12 0.92% 38.55% 289 651
18 Journal of Operations Management 12 0.92% 39.47% 330 1121
19 Journal of Supply Chain Management 12 0.92% 40.38% 48 415
20 Production Planning & Control 12 0.92% 41.30% 26 73

Figure 3. Co-occurrence network of categories in the field of SCD.

4. Bibliometric analysis
This section presents the core authors who have contributed to the field of SCD. Moreover, the collaborative network
between the core authors is analysed. Furthermore, the influence of affiliation on the field of SCD is discussed.

4.1. Influence of authors

An author analysis based only on the number of publications may not be an effective method to reveal the contributions of
authors. According to Price’s Law (Price 1965), around 75% of scholars published only one publication, and half of these
publications were generated by 10% of scholars. Therefore, it is important to identify the core authors who not only have
good publication abilities but also ones who have greater contributions on promoting the development of the discipline.
Therefore, Price’s Law is presented, and it has been widely employed to identify core authors in a certain field (e.g. Wang
2018; Zhong 2012). In this study, Price’s Law is employed to calculate the minimum number of publications published by
6 S. Xu et al.

Table 2. Top 25 influential authors based on local citation.

The number
Local Global of
Rank Name citation citation publications
1 Brian Tomlin 507 1023 6
2 Jennifer Blackhurst 468 956 12
3 Christopher Craighead 373 779 8
4 Lawrence Snyder 363 657 14
5 Gang Yu 361 584 7
6 Robert Handfield 297 622 2
7 Paul Kleindorfer 285 682 1
8 Germaine H. Saad 285 682 1
9 Tadeusz Sawik 264 449 16
10 Amanda Schmitt 264 434 8
11 Stephan Wagner 258 622 13
12 Christopher Tang 240 781 2
13 Xiangtong Qi 232 371 5
14 Sunil Chopra 214 344 4
15 Tiaojun Xiao 212 390 6
16 Dmitry Ivanov 208 360 24
17 Volodymyr Babich 204 479 6
18 Johnny Rungtusanatham 204 431 3
19 Kevin Hendricks 201 501 4
20 Vinod Singhal 201 501 4
21 Boris Sokolov 188 324 19
22 Zuojun Max Shen 187 359 10
23 Amy Zeng 178 292 6
24 Lindu Zhao 174 301 11
25 Daryl Essam 148 238 11

one scholar, and the equation of the threshold number of publications is as follows:


TPn = 0.749 Nmax (1)

where Nmax denotes the number of publications of the most prolific author in this field.
According to the collected data, there are 2,465 authors published in the SCD domain. The most prolific author was
Dmitry Ivanov who contributed to 24 publications. Therefore, the threshold number of publications of the core author can
be calculated as 3.67, and 129 authors are identified as core authors. Apart from Dmitry Ivanov, four other authors made
up the top five prolific authors, including Boris Sokolov (19), Tadeusz Sawik (16), Lawrence Snyder (14), and Stephan
Wagner (13). Additionally, Table 2 demonstrates the top 25 influential authors identified by their local citations. The top
five authors, who have made a great contribution to the field of SCD, are Brian Tomlin, Jennifer Blackhurst, Christopher
Craighead, Lawrence Snyder, and Gang Yu. The results reveal that although Brian Tomlin is not a prolific author based on
the number of publications, he also has made a greater contribution to the development of the field of SCD. Moreover, Brian
Tomlin is the only author whose global citation was higher than 1,000, and thus his publications also had a greater positive
influence on other domains. Furthermore, it can be found that Christopher Tang is not a prolific author in the field of SCD,
but he is a very famous scholar in the domain of operations management and ranked third according to his global citation.
The result indicates that Christopher Tang makes greater contributions to the domain knowledge diffusion and dissemination
from the field of SCD to other domains.
Furthermore, with the assistance of the VOSviewer tool, the collaborative relationships between different core authors
can be used to discover the influential researcher groups to the field of SCD. As shown in Figure 4, it is obvious that a
collaborative network can be divided into several groups with different colours based on cooperation strength. The size of
the circle represents the frequency of occurrence of each author. The line between the circles refers to the collaborative
relationships between the core authors. It should be noted that the core author in a certain group may also have weak
collaborative relationships with those who were in other groups. For example, Shouyang Wang mainly cooperated with the
core authors in the orange group, but he also has a weak collaborative relationship with Jian Li who belongs to the gray
group.
 International Journal of Production Research 7

Figure 4. Collaborative network of core authors.

4.2. Affiliation statistics and analysis

According to the collected data, the author’s organisation information was extracted by using SATI. Table 3 shows the top
ten organisations sorted by the number of publications in the field of SCD. The results show that the research about the field
of SCD was conducted around the world, including Iran, Singapore, German, and so on. The most prolific organisation,
with 31 publications, was the University of Tehran located in Iran, followed by the National University of Singapore, Berlin
School of Economics and Law, MIT, and Pennsylvania State University to complete the top five.
Additionally, the burst detections of the institutions are presented to identify the active institutions in the field of SCD
during a certain period by using the CiteSpace tool. Figure 5 demonstrates the top 15 institutions with the strongest citation
bursts that are identified by CiteSpace with the burst detection algorithm. As shown in Figure 5, the field of SCD has
been paid attention to by the top 15 institutions since 1996. The first institution burst is associated with the University
of Texas from 2006 to 2007. Scholars from the University of Texas paid lots of attention to the field of SCD around
2006. Furthermore, an increasing number of Chinese institutions (e.g. Xiamen University and Beijing Jiaotong University)
became active organisations in conducting SCD research from 2008 to 2010. The reason for this might be that a catastrophic
earthquake occurred in Sichuan Province, China, on May 21st, 2008, which caused some SCD events in the industrial field
(Cui et al. 2016). Therefore, Chinese institutions paid more attention to the field of SCD to provide some managerial
implications for supply chain members to mitigate disruption risks.
8 S. Xu et al.

Table 3. Top ten organisations based on the number of publications.

The number of
Rank Affiliation publications Country
1 University of Tehran 31 Iran
2 National University of Singapore 27 Singapore
3 Berlin School of Economics and Law 24 German
4 MIT 22 United States
5 Pennsylvania State University 21 United States
6 Huazhong University of Science and Technology 20 P. R. China
7 Nanyang Technological University 20 Singapore
8 AGH University of Science and Technology 19 Poland
9 University of Michigan 19 United States
10 Shanghai Jiao Tong University 17 P. R. China

Figure 5. Top 15 institutions with citation bursts.

4.3. Keyword analysis

From the 1,310 publications, 1,844 keywords were extracted and analysed using VOSviewer. Figure 6 illustrates the co-
occurrence network of keywords about the field of SCD. Similar to the selection of the core author, Price’s Law was used to
identify the minimum co-occurrence times in one literature. From the 1,844 keywords extracted from the 1,310 publications,
479 keywords were selected to find out more interesting results by identifying the threshold frequency of co-occurrence.
Furthermore, burst detection on keywords was detected to discuss the booming topics in this research area (Chen,
Dubin, and Kim 2014; Yu and Xu 2017). The top 15 keywords with bursts were extracted using the CiteSpace tool, as
shown in Figure 7. The research topics about SCD changed over time. In the late 20th and early 21st centuries, ‘disruption
management’ and ‘supply chain management’ were the two most popular topics in the field of SCD. Around 2000, some
significant disruption events occurred in the industrial field, such as a fire at a Toyota’s supplier facility in 1997 that caused
huge losses to supply chain members. As a result, ‘disruption management’ and ‘supply chain management’ attracted an
increasing amount of attention in academics between 1996 and 2010. After that, research about ‘coordination’ and ‘supply
chain coordination’ became popular research topics. This indicates that scholars not only focused on how to reduce the loss
when the supply chain members suffer SCD events but also intended to improve the performance of the entire supply chains.
 International Journal of Production Research 9

Figure 6. Co-occurrence network of keywords about the field of SCD.

Figure 7. Top 15 keywords with citation bursts.

10 S. Xu et al.

Table 4. Top ten publications based on local citations.

Author (Year) Location Citation Global Citation
Tomlin (2006) 339 611
Kleindorfer and Saad (2005) 285 682
Tang (2006a) 240 781
Craighead et al. (2007) 204 431
Hendricks and Singhal (2005) 165 380
Qi, Bard, and Yu (2004) 131 221
Ponomarov and Holcomb (2009) 114 255
Chopra, Reinhardt, and Mohan (2007) 105 150
Yu, Zeng, and Zhao (2009) 103 177
Blackhurst et al. (2005) 93 191

5. Citation analysis and reference co-citation analysis

This section discusses citation analysis and reference co-citation analysis based on the 1,310 publications and their
references. HistciteTM was employed to obtain the results of citation analysis and reference co-citation analysis.

5.1. Citation analysis

Citation analysis was employed to determine the popularity of a publication based on its citation frequency in the 1,310-
node network (Ding and Cronin 2011). Citation analysis is usually measured by two indexes: the local and global citations.
The former represents when one publication was cited by others within the 1,310-node network while the latter refers to the
total number of citations included from other disciplines and research areas.
Table 4 shows the top ten publications based on local citations in the field of SCD as well as their corresponding
global citations. The highest local citation among the publications is Tomlin (2006), which was published in Management
Sciences and was authored by the most influential core author Tomlin B. Tang (2006a) who was ranked third based on their
location citations. However, its global citations were higher than that of Tomlin (2006). Thus, Tang (2006a) not only had
contributions to the field of SCD but also attracted more attention from other disciplines and research areas. The difference
between local citations and global citations occurred because that Tang (2006a) not only addressed some specific SCD
problems but also overviewed some important aspects regarding risk management in supply chains and summarised four
papers published in a special issue of International Journal of Production Economics.
Citation analysis mainly focuses on the popularity of a publication based on its citation times in the field of SCD.
However, another important indicator of ‘prestige’ is ignored. The ‘prestige’ is usually measured by the number of times a
publication is cited by other highly cited papers (Fahimnia, Sarkis, and Davarzani 2015; Ding et al. 2009).
PageRank (Brin and Page 1998) is a scientific and popular ranking algorithm to measure both the popularity and prestige
of a certain node in a cited network. It was first presented for application on the Google search engine to recommend higher
quality web pages to consumers. Given that the network of web pages is similar to the citation network of the 1,310
publications, it is popular to employ the PageRank algorithm to find out publications with high popularity and prestige (e.g.
Xu et al. 2018; Fahimnia, Sarkis, and Davarzani 2015). In the 1,310-node network, it was assumed that paper A was cited
by other publications T1 . . . Tn . The PageRank score PR(A) of the paper A can be calculated by the following equation (Brin
and Page 1998):
 
(1 − d) PR(T1 ) PR(Tn )
PR(A) = +d + ... + (2)
N C(T1 ) C(Tn )
where d denotes damping factor (0, 1) that refers to the fraction of random walks that continue to the propagate along with
the citations (Xu et al. 2018; Fahimnia, Sarkis, and Davarzani 2015), N represents the total number of publication in the
network, and C(Ti ) is defined the citation times of the publication Ti . It should be noted that the damping factor was set
to 0.85, which is consistent with the traditional PageRank algorithm (Brin and Page 1998), and the sum of the PageRank
scores was equal to one. Additionally, the PageRank scores calculated by an iterative algorithm correspond to the principal
eigenvector of the normalised citation matrix of the publications (Fahimnia, Sarkis, and Davarzani 2015).
The SCI2 tool was employed to select the top ten publications based on the PageRank scores, as shown in Table 5.
The top four publications (i.e. Kleindorfer and Saad 2005; Tomlin 2006; Qi, Bard, and Yu 2004; Tang 2006a) based on the
PageRank scores are almost consistent with those based on local citations (see Table 4). The top four papers are selected
with high popularity and prestige in the field of SCD by using the PageRank algorithm. As the local citations of Xiao et al.
 International Journal of Production Research 11

Table 5. Top ten publications based on PageRank scores.

Author (Year) PageRank Local Citation Global Citation
Kleindorfer and Saad (2005) 0.084440434 285 682
Tomlin (2006) 0.053661201 339 611
Qi, Bard, and Yu 2004 0.035070077 131 221
Tang (2006a) 0.033341076 240 781
Craighead et al. (2007) 0.021132415 204 431
Blackhurst et al. (2005) 0.015865993 93 191
Xiao et al. (2005) 0.01258519 57 99
Chopra, Reinhardt, and Mohan (2007) 0.012000314 105 150
Babich, Burnetas, and Ritchken (2007) 0.010230928 72 163
Ponomarov and Holcomb (2009) 0.008071336 114 255

(2005) and Babich, Burnetas, and Ritchken (2007) were only 57 and 72, respectively, they were not very popular in the field
of SCD. However, they were listed in the top ten publications based on their PageRank scores.

5.2. Reference co-citation analysis of SCD

Reference co-citation mapping consists of a set of nodes (references) and a set of edges, which denote the co-occurrence
of nodes in the reference list of papers of that map (Leydesdorff 2011). In other words, reference co-citation refers to
two documents occurring together in the references list of another publication. The analysis of reference co-citation plays
an important role in detecting the development and evolutionary path of a specific area (Yu, Xu, and Wang 2018). It is
beneficial for the scholars who are interested in this field to find some potential research opportunities through reference
co-citation analysis. Generally, multidimensional scaling, clustering, and factor analysis are three typical methods for co-
citation analysis (Charvet, Cooper, and Gardner 2008). According to Waltman, Van Eck, and Noyons (2010), visualisation
of similarities (VOS) mapping technology can be used for multidimensional scaling. Additionally, to obtain a picture of the
bibliometric network structure, VOSviewer software can be used to carry out the combination of mapping and clustering.
Therefore, VOSviewer was employed to construct the network of co-cited references in the field of SCD. Five clustered
groups were obtained, and the potential research opportunities can be discussed from each clustered group through reference
co-citation analysis.
Figure 8 demonstrates that 616 references out of 30,029 were co-cited more than ten times by the publications. As
shown in Figure 8, Tomlin (2006) is the biggest node, which indicates that it is the most frequently co-cited reference in the
field of SCD up to now. This study was published in Management Science in 2006 and provided a great contribution to the
development of the field of SCD. It was regarded as one of the most popular and prestigious papers about SCD based on its
local citation and PageRank score.
Furthermore, Figure 8 shows that the 616 references can be clustered into five groups distinguished by different colours,
and each group represents well-connected references in the SCD research area. The leading ten co-cited references of each
cluster were extracted to identify the area of research focus, as shown in Table 6. Specifically, Cluster 1 mainly focuses
on unreliable suppliers and how to coordinate the supply chain in the presence of SCD risks. The stream of literature
in Cluster 1 can be further extended to explore the sustainability of unreliable suppliers and to consider the impact of
the ripple effect on coordination mechanisms. Cluster 2 mainly investigates how to design a reliable facility location of
supply chain networks to mitigate disruption risks. The stream of the literature in Cluster 2 can be further extended for
incorporation with more practical hazard modelling about SCDs, such as limited facility and supplier capacity. Cluster 3
provides some robust strategies or proactive planning for mitigating the disruption risks of supply chains. To extend the
stream of literature in Cluster 3, some emergency technologies can be employed, such as big data and blockchain, to predict
the negative influence of disruptions and make reliable decisions to mitigate the disruption risks. Cluster 4 addresses how to
build resilient enterprises or supply chains to reduce the negative impact of SCDs. According to the literature in Cluster 4,
the supply chain dynamics of different industries should be explored in building resilient enterprises or supply chains. The
works in Cluster 5 mainly discuss the selection of resilient supply portfolios under disruption risks. It might be a potential
research direction to consider the ethical and social responsibilities of the suppliers into the selection of resilient supply
portfolios according to the stream of literature in Cluster 5.
To identify the hot topics in the field of SCD, the CiteSpace tool was employed to cluster the research topics of the
co-cited references. Figure 9 shows the dynamic evolutionary path of topics in SCD, and it indicates the knowledge source.
The references can be divided into 17 clusters. Each cluster was labelled by a keyword, which was extracted from the title
12 S. Xu et al.

Figure 8. Network of the co-cited reference in the field of SCD.

Table 6. Leading co-cited references of each cluster in the field of SCD.

Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Cluster 4 Cluster 5
Tomlin (2006) Snyder and Daskin Kleindorfer and Saad Christopher and Peck Zsidisin and Wagner
(2005) (2005) (2004) (2010)
Chopra, Reinhardt, and Mohan (2007) Cui, Ouyang, and Shen Tang (2006a) Sheffi and Rice Jr Sawik (2013)
(2010) (2005)
Qi, Bard, and Yu (2004) Peng et al. (2011) Hendricks, Singhal, Ponomarov and Heckmann, Comes,
and Zhang (2009) Holcomb (2009) and Nickel (2015)
Yu, Zeng, and Zhao (2009) Baghalian, Rezapour, Craighead et al. (2007) Carvalho et al. (2012) Sawik (2011)
and Farahani (2013)
Dada, Petruzzi, and Schwarz (2007) Qi, Shen, and Snyder Hendricks and Singhal Jüttner and Maklan Park, Hong, and Roh
(2010) (2005) (2011) (2013)
Dong and Tomlin (2012) Santoso et al. (2005) Chopra and Sodhi Wieland and Marcus Schmitt (2011)
(2004) Wallenburg (2013)
Chen and Xiao (2009) Klibi, Martel, and Tang (2006b) Pettit, Croxton, and Liu and Papageorgiou
Guitouni (2010) Fiksel (2013) (2013)
Xiao and Qi (2008) Snyder et al. (2016) Jüttner, Peck, and Blackhurst, Dunn, and Sawik (2014)
Christopher (2003) Craighead (2011)
Cachon and Lariviere (2005) Schmitt and Singh Tang and Tomlin Chopra and Sodhi Sawik (2015)
(2012) (2008) (2014)
Anupindi and Akella (1993) Ivanov, Sokolov, and Knemeyer, Zinn, and Spiegler, Naim, and Berger, Gerstenfeld,
Dolgui (2014) Eroglu (2009) Wikner (2012) and Zeng (2004)

item of the references. The vertical line denotes different research topics based on the clustering results while the horizontal
line represents changes over time of the research hotspots. The size of the circle refers to the hot degree of the field of SCD
in a certain period. As shown in Figure 9, the risk was ranked first, and it burst around the year 2007. This may be associated
with some risk events in the industrial field. It indicates that the risk problem might often occur in the industrial domain near
2007 and that SCD received increased attention from the scholars. In recent years, mixed integer programming and supply
chain dynamics have become hot topics in the field of SCD. They were ranked sixth and seventh, respectively. These two
areas may be potential research topics in the near future.
 International Journal of Production Research 13

Figure 9. Timeline view of reference clusters in the field of SCD.

6. Research gaps and future research opportunities

This section discusses current research gaps and potential future research opportunities in the field of SCD based on biblio-
metric analysis. It might be beneficial for scholars who are interested in the field of SCD to capture the emerging research
areas in their future studies.

(1) Although SCD studies were conducted in an interdisciplinary nature (see Figure 3), the categories were mainly
focused on the top five categories (i.e. Engineering, Operations Research & Management Science, Business &
Economics, Engineering Industrial Management, and Computer Science, respectively). Therefore, the diversity
of categories can be further extended to promote cross-disciplinary research. For example, as shown in Figure 3,
although transportation is a marginal category in the field of SCD, it still has a great influence on disruption risks and
the decision-making of supply chain members. Therefore, transportation might be a potentially promising future
research opportunity when researching SCDs. For example, transportation disruptions also have a greater negative
impact on the performance of supply chains (Wilson 2007). However, in recent years, only a few publications (e.g.
mitigation strategies based on cost-effectiveness, Albertzeth et al. 2019) explored the problem from transportation
disruptions. Therefore, to mitigate transportation disruption and make the supply chain more resilient, research
should be conducted on how to design effective, efficient, and flexible mechanisms in transportation operations.
Furthermore, some categories that are absent from the co-occurrence network of categories in Figure 3 can be
explored in the future, such as psychology. The retailers with different attitudes (e.g. optimism, pessimism, and
opportunism) on the disruption risks usually make different operational decisions in the face of unreliable suppliers
or uncertain demand. Thus, how to develop robust and efficient decision support systems for retailers with different
psychology in the face of different disruptions can be explored in the future.
(2) The ripple effect refers to disruption propagation in the supply chain. It seems that the ripple effect has drawn
widespread attention in the field of SCD (e.g. Ivanov, Sokolov, and Dolgui 2014; Levner and Ptuskin 2018; Liber-
atore, Scaparra, and Daskin 2012; Dolgui, Ivanov, and Rozhkov 2019). However, according to the co-occurrence
network of keywords in Figure 6 (at the top left), the ripple effect is a small orange circle and received little attention
from the scholars. Thus, there is still plenty of room for improvement in conducting the SCD studies. For exam-
ple, although some scholars have been studying the impact of the ripple effect on the competition (e.g. Rezapour,
14 S. Xu et al.

Farahani, and Pourakbar 2017), few have considered this topic from the perspective of both horizontal and vertical
competition. The decisions of the supply chain members might be significantly changed when considering the SCD
events under horizontal and vertical competition. Therefore, in the future, scholars can employ some optimisation
and simulation methods (e.g. a multi-agent system) to characterise the complex relationships between the ripple
effect and competition and discover additional managerial insights for industries.
(3) Emerging technologies have become increasingly popular to be employed in various industries. Recently, some
studies have explored how to employ emerging technologies to mitigate the risks of supply chain management
and build resilient supply chains, including big data analysis (Mishra et al. 2018), digital technology, Industry
4.0 (Ivanov, Dolgui, and Sokolov 2019), and blockchain (Min 2019). However, the emerging technologies still
have large room for improvement regarding the field of SCD. For example, although big-data analysis has been
widely employed in various fields, Figure 6 (on the left with orange colour) demonstrates that big-data analysis
has received little attention in the field of SCD. Thus, emerging technologies are very important for supply chain
members to mitigate disruption risks. Future research can focus on exploring how to design efficient and flexible
mechanisms with rapid responses and disruption recovery methods. For example, big-data analysis can be employed
to provide suitable suggestions for supply chain members in front of disruptions or even to predict the disruption
risk probability based on the historical data.
(4) In recent years, an increasing number of enterprises have not only pursued maximum profit but have also paid more
attention to sustainability to achieve further development. Disruptions in the supply chain have a great negative
impact on the sustainability of the supply chain members, including economic, ecological, and social aspects. A
few studies have considered economic and social sustainability when conducting SCD studies (e.g. Fahimnia and
Jabbarzadeh 2016; Zahiri, Zhuang, and Mohammadi 2017; Jabbarzadeh, Fahimnia, and Sabouhi 2018; Mari, Lee,
and Memon 2014). However, as shown in Figure 9, the ecology of sustainability was ranked last in the reference
clusters and received less attention in the past two decades. Additionally, the ethics of sustainability would have
a great impact on the performance of the supply chain, especially the ethical problem of unreliable suppliers.
Therefore, a comprehensive (i.e. economic, social, ecological, and ethical) perspective about sustainable strategies
should be considered for supply chain members to mitigate the disruption risks when designing sustainable and
resilient supply chains. From comprehensive aspects of sustainability, case studies and empirical studies might be
more suitable methodologies to be employed to discover more managerial insights for sustainable supply chain
members.
(5) According to Figures 6 and 7, current research about the field of SCD is mainly focused on general quantitative
models to characterise the impact of disruption events on the performance of the supply chain members. How-
ever, SCD events that occur in different industries usually have different impacts on the performance of the supply
chain members. For example, mitigating disruption risks in agricultural or food supply chains usually need higher
requirements of recovery polices than automobile supply chains. Therefore, it is necessary to present more general
or robust and effective mechanisms to mitigate the SCDs in different industries. Furthermore, it might be an inter-
esting topic to combine different methodologies, such as quantitative modelling (Fahimnia et al. 2015), simulations
(Ivanov 2018, 2019), and empirical studies (Dubey et al. 2019a, 2019b; Ambulkar, Blackhurst, and Grawe 2015;
Mishra et al. 2016), to mutually justify the correctness of the proposed managerial insights. As a result, the proposed
managerial insights would be more accurate and profitable for the supply chain members to mitigate the SCDs in
their practical operations.

7. Conclusion
In this paper, we presented the development path of the field of SCD as well as the research hotspots and potential research
directions based on the bibliometric method. The literature data was collected from the core collection of WoS, and 1,310
related publications were obtained after cleaning the data. The yearly research output regarding SCD shows that it steadily
increased from 1999 to 2019. Furthermore, other measures of the current status were conducted, including publication
types, top journals, and co-occurrence network of categories. Moreover, to discover more meaningful results, bibliometric
analysis, citation analysis, and co-citation analysis were conducted.
According to the bibliometric analysis, the major conclusions can be presented as follows: (1) the number of publica-
tions in the domain of SCD slightly increased from 1999 to 2012, but it changed to a sharp increase from 2012 to 2019; (2)
there are 499 journals and proceedings included the publications about SCD, in which around 30.84% of the publications
were published in 2% of the journals, and International Journal of Production Research was ranked first according to their
outputted number of articles; (3) 129 authors were identified as core authors among the 2,465 authors involved based on
 International Journal of Production Research 15

Price’s Law, and the core authors in different research groups had different influences on scientific communication. Addi-
tionally, according to citation analysis, the top ten publications were picked up based on local citations and PageRank scores.
Furthermore, reference co-citation analysis presented five clustered groups based on 616 references, and the literature of
each cluster might provide potential future research opportunities regarding SCDs. Specifically, the literature in Cluster 1
can be extended to consider the sustainability of unreliable suppliers. The literature in Cluster 2 can be explored for incorpo-
ration with more practical hazard modelling about SCDs. From the perspective of the literature in Cluster 3, some emerging
technologies, such as big data and blockchain, can be employed to predict the influence of disruptions and make reliable
decisions to mitigate the disruption risks. According to the stream of literature in Cluster 4, the supply chain dynamics of
different industries could be considered when building resilient supply chains. Finally, according to the stream of literature
in Cluster 5, it might be a potential research direction to consider the ethical and social responsibilities of suppliers in the
selection of resilient supply portfolios.
The main contributions of this paper can be concluded as follows: First, an overview of the knowledge structure and a
development path of the field of SCD are presented to help the researchers capture new research opportunities and build new
perspectives. Specifically, the contributions of leading journals, publications, authors, institutions, and keywords regarding
SCD were identified. Second, we concluded the potential research opportunities for the field of SCD. This may be helpful
for researchers in identifying future research hotspots while conducting studies about SCD.
However, there are some limitations needed to be addressed in future work. The data source was collected from the core
collection of WoS, which may cause deviations in the results of bibliometric analysis. We could extend the data source to
include more publications about the field of SCD, such as ProQuest Dissertations, Theses, and Google Scholar. Moreover,
although we could obtain objective results about the field of SCD based on bibliometric analysis, some underlying reasons
for these results are not explained. Some social science research methods, such as expert interviews, could be employed in
the future to address this limitation.

Acknowledgement
The authors thanks three anonymous reviewers and the associate editor for their insightful comments that greatly contributed to improve
the manuscript.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

References
Albertzeth, G., I. N. Pujawan, P. Hilletofth, and B. Tjahjono. 2019. “Mitigating Transportation Disruptions in a Supply Chain: A Cost-
Effective Strategy.” International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications. doi:10.1080/13675567.2019.1648640.
Ambulkar, S., J. Blackhurst, and S. Grawe. 2015. “Firm’s Resilience to Supply Chain Disruptions: Scale Development and Empirical
Examination.” Journal of Operations Management 33–34: 111–122.
Anupindi, R., and R. Akella. 1993. “Diversification Under Supply Uncertainty.” Management Science 39 (8): 944–963.
Babich, V., A. N. Burnetas, and P. H. Ritchken. 2007. “Competition and Diversification Effects in Supply Chains with Supplier Default
Risk.” Manufacturing & Service Operations Management 9 (2): 123–146.
Baghalian, A., S. Rezapour, and R. Z. Farahani. 2013. “Robust Supply Chain Network Design with Service Level Against Disruptions
and Demand Uncertainties: A Real-Life Case.” European Journal of Operational Research 227 (1): 199–215.
Berger, P. D., A. Gerstenfeld, and A. Z. Zeng. 2004. “How Many Suppliers are Best? A Decision-Analysis Approach.” Omega 32 (1):
9–15.
Blackhurst, J., C. W. Craighead, D. Elkins, and R. B. Handfield. 2005. “An Empirically Derived Agenda of Critical Research Issues for
Managing Supply-Chain Disruptions.” International Journal of Production Research 43 (19): 4067–4081.
Blackhurst, J., K. S. Dunn, and C. W. Craighead. 2011. “An Empirically Derived Framework of Global Supply Resiliency.” Journal of
Business Logistics 32 (4): 374–391.
Brin, S., and L. Page. 1998. “The Anatomy of a Large-Scale Hypertextual web Search Engine.” Computer Networks and ISDN Systems
30 (1–7): 107–117.
Burnson, P. 2019. Global supply chain risk events increased 36% in 2018 according to resilinc’s annual EventWatch. Accessed November
8 2019. https://www.scmr.com/article/global_supply_chain_risk_events_increased_36_in_2018_according_to_resilincs.
Cachon, G. P., and M. A. Lariviere. 2005. “Supply Chain Coordination with Revenue-Sharing Contracts: Strengths and Limitations.”
Management Science 51 (1): 30–44.
Carvalho, H., A. P. Barroso, V. H. Machado, S. Azevedo, and V. Cruz-Machado. 2012. “Supply Chain Redesign for Resilience Using
Simulation.” Computers & Industrial Engineering 62 (1): 329–341.
16 S. Xu et al.

Charvet, F. F., M. C. Cooper, and J. T. Gardner. 2008. “The Intellectual Structure of Supply Chain Management: A Bibliometric
Approach.” Journal of Business Logistics 29 (1): 47–73.
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.
Chen, C., R. Dubin, and M. C. Kim. 2014. “Emerging Trends and new Developments in Regenerative Medicine: A Scientometric Update
(2000–2014).” Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy 14 (9): 1295–1317.
Chen, K., and T. Xiao. 2009. “Demand Disruption and Coordination of the Supply Chain with a Dominant Retailer.” European Journal
of Operational Research 197 (1): 225–234.
Chopra, S., G. Reinhardt, and U. Mohan. 2007. “The Importance of Decoupling Recurrent and Disruption Risks in a Supply Chain.”
Naval Research Logistics 54 (5): 544–555.
Chopra, S., and M. S. Sodhi. 2004. “Supply-chain Breakdown.” MIT Sloan Management Review 46 (1): 53–61.
Chopra, S., and M. S. Sodhi. 2014. “Reducing the Risk of Supply Chain Disruptions.” MIT Sloan Management Review 55 (3): 72–80.
Christopher, M., and H. Peck. 2004. “Building the Resilient Supply Chain.” The International Journal of Logistics Management 15 (2):
1–14.
Colicchia, C., and F. Strozzi. 2012. “Supply Chain Risk Management: A new Methodology for a Systematic Literature Review.” Supply
Chain Management: An International Journal 17 (4): 403–418.
Craighead, C. W., J. Blackhurst, M. J. Rungtusanatham, and R. B. Handfield. 2007. “The Severity of Supply Chain Disruptions: Design
Characteristics and Mitigation Capabilities.” Decision Sciences 38 (1): 131–156.
Cui, T., Y. Ouyang, and Z. J. M. Shen. 2010. “Reliable Facility Location Design Under the Risk of Disruptions.” Operations Research 58
(4-part-1): 998–1011.
Cui, J., M. Zhao, X. Li, M. Parsafard, and S. An. 2016. “Reliable Design of an Integrated Supply Chain with Expedited Shipments Under
Disruption Risks.” Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 95: 143–163.
Dada, M., N. C. Petruzzi, and L. B. Schwarz. 2007. “A Newsvendor’s Procurement Problem When Suppliers are Unreliable.”
Manufacturing & Service Operations Management 9 (1): 9–32.
Ding, Y., and B. Cronin. 2011. “Popular and/or Prestigious? Measures of Scholarly Esteem.” Information Processing & Management 47
(1): 80–96.
Ding, Y., E. Yan, A. Frazho, and J. Caverlee. 2009. “PageRank for Ranking Authors in co-Citation Networks.” Journal of the American
Society for Information Science and Technology 60 (11): 2229–2243.
Dolgui, A., D. Ivanov, and M. Rozhkov. 2019. “Does the Ripple Effect Influence the Bullwhip Effect? An Integrated Anal-
ysis of Structural and Operational Dynamics in the Supply Chain.” International Journal of Production Research.
doi:10.1080/00207543.2019.1627438.
Dolgui, A., D. Ivanov, and B. Sokolov. 2018. “Ripple Effect in the Supply Chain: An Analysis and Recent Literature.” International
Journal of Production Research 56 (1–2): 414–430.
Dong, L., and B. Tomlin. 2012. “Managing Disruption Risk: The Interplay Between Operations and Insurance.” Management Science 58
(10): 1898–1915.
Dubey, R., A. Gunasekaran, S. J. Childe, S. Fosso Wamba, D. Roubaud, and C. Foropon. 2019a. “Empirical Investigation of Data Ana-
lytics Capability and Organizational Flexibility as Complements to Supply Chain Resilience.” International Journal of Production
Research. doi:10.1080/00207543.2019.1582820.
Dubey, R., A. Gunasekaran, S. J. Childe, T. Papadopoulos, C. Blome, and Z. Luo. 2019b. “Antecedents of Resilient Supply Chains: An
Empirical Study.” IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 66 (1): 8–19.
Fahimnia, B., and A. Jabbarzadeh. 2016. “Marrying Supply Chain Sustainability and Resilience: A Match Made in Heaven.”
Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 91: 306–324.
Fahimnia, B., J. Sarkis, and H. Davarzani. 2015. “Green Supply Chain Management: A Review and Bibliometric Analysis.” International
Journal of Production Economics 162: 101–114.
Fahimnia, B., C. S. Tang, H. Davarzani, and J. Sarkis. 2015. “Quantitative Models for Managing Supply Chain Risks: A Review.”
European Journal of Operational Research 247 (1): 1–15.
Garfield, E., S. Paris, and W. G. Stock. 2006. “HistCiteTM : A Software Tool for Informetric Analysis of Citation Linkage.” Information
Wissenschaft und Praxis 57 (8): 391–400.
González-Benito, J., G. Lannelongue, and J. A. Alfaro-Tanco. 2013. “Study of Supply-Chain Management in the Automotive Industry: A
Bibliometric Analysis.” International Journal of Production Research 51 (13): 3849–3863.
Heckmann, I., T. Comes, and S. Nickel. 2015. “A Critical Review on Supply Chain Risk–Definition, Measure and Modeling.” Omega 52:
119–132.
Hendricks, K. B., and V. R. Singhal. 2005. “Association Between Supply Chain Glitches and Operating Performance.” Management
Science 51 (5): 695–711.
Hendricks, K. B., V. R. Singhal, and R. Zhang. 2009. “The Effect of Operational Slack, Diversification, and Vertical Relatedness on the
Stock Market Reaction to Supply Chain Disruptions.” Journal of Operations Management 27 (3): 233–246.
Hosseini, S., D. Ivanov, and A. Dolgui. 2019. “Review of Quantitative Methods for Supply Chain Resilience Analysis.” Transportation
Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 125: 285–307.
Ivanov, D. 2018. “Revealing Interfaces of Supply Chain Resilience and Sustainability: A Simulation Study.” International Journal of
Production Research 56 (10): 3507–3523.
 International Journal of Production Research 17

Ivanov, D. 2019. “‘A Blessing in Disguise’ or ‘as if it Wasn’t Hard Enough Already’: Reciprocal and Aggravate Vulnerabilities in the
Supply Chain.” International Journal of Production Research. doi:10.1080/00207543.2019.1634850.
Ivanov, D., A. Dolgui, and B. Sokolov. 2019. “The Impact of Digital Technology and Industry 4.0 on the Ripple Effect and Supply Chain
Risk Analytics.” International Journal of Production Research 57 (3): 829–846.
Ivanov, D., A. Dolgui, B. Sokolov, and M. Ivanova. 2017. “Literature Review on Disruption Recovery in the Supply Chain.” International
Journal of Production Research 55 (20): 6158–6174.
Ivanov, D., B. Sokolov, and A. Dolgui. 2014. “The Ripple Effect in Supply Chains: Trade-off ‘Efficiency-Flexibility-Resilience’ in
Disruption Management.” International Journal of Production Research 52 (7): 2154–2172.
Ivanov, D., B. Sokolov, I. Solovyeva, A. Dolgui, and F. Jie. 2016. “Dynamic Recovery Policies for Time-Critical Supply Chains Under
Conditions of Ripple Effect.” International Journal of Production Research 54 (23): 7245–7258.
Jabbarzadeh, A., B. Fahimnia, and F. Sabouhi. 2018. “Resilient and Sustainable Supply Chain Design: Sustainability Analysis Under
Disruption Risks.” International Journal of Production Research 56 (17): 5945–5968.
Jüttner, U., and S. Maklan. 2011. “Supply Chain Resilience in the Global Financial Crisis: An Empirical Study.” Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal 16 (4): 246–259.
Jüttner, U., H. Peck, and M. Christopher. 2003. “Supply Chain Risk Management: Outlining an Agenda for Future Research.”
International Journal of Logistics: Research and Applications 6 (4): 197–210.
Kamalahmadi, M., and M. M. Parast. 2016. “A Review of the Literature on the Principles of Enterprise and Supply Chain Resilience:
Major Findings and Directions for Future Research.” International Journal of Production Economics 171: 116–133.
Kim, Y., Y. S. Chen, and K. Linderman. 2015. “Supply Network Disruption and Resilience: A Network Structural Perspective.” Journal
of Operations Management 33: 43–59.
Kleindorfer, P. R., and G. H. Saad. 2005. “Managing Disruption Risks in Supply Chains.” Production and Operations Management 14
(1): 53–68.
Klibi, W., A. Martel, and A. Guitouni. 2010. “The Design of Robust Value-Creating Supply Chain Networks: A Critical Review.”
European Journal of Operational Research 203 (2): 283–293.
Knemeyer, A. M., W. Zinn, and C. Eroglu. 2009. “Proactive Planning for Catastrophic Events in Supply Chains.” Journal of Operations
Management 27 (2): 141–153.
Levner, E., and A. Ptuskin. 2018. “Entropy-based Model for the Ripple Effect: Managing Environmental Risks in Supply Chains.”
International Journal of Production Research 56 (7): 2539–2551.
Leydesdorff, L. 2011. “Bibliometrics/Citation Networks.” In Encyclopedia of Social Networks, edited by G. A. Barnett, 73–74. Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Li, X., H. Qiao, and S. Wang. 2017. “Exploring Evolution and Emerging Trends in Business Model Study: A co-Citation Analysis.”
Scientometrics 111 (2): 869–887.
Liberatore, F., M. P. Scaparra, and M. S. Daskin. 2012. “Hedging Against Disruptions with Ripple Effects in Location Analysis.” Omega
40 (1): 21–30.
Liu, S., and L. G. Papageorgiou. 2013. “Multiobjective Optimisation of Production, Distribution and Capacity Planning of Global Supply
Chains in the Process Industry.” Omega 41 (2): 369–382.
Liu, Q., and Y. Ye. 2012. “A Study on Mining Bibliographic Records by Designed Software SATI: Case Study on Library and Information
Science.” Journal of Information Resources Management 1: 50–58. (in Chinese).
Liu, Z., Y. Yin, W. Liu, and M. Dunford. 2015. “Visualizing the Intellectual Structure and Evolution of Innovation Systems Research: A
Bibliometric Analysis.” Scientometrics 103 (1): 135–158.
Mari, S., Y. Lee, and M. Memon. 2014. “Sustainable and Resilient Supply Chain Network Design Under Disruption Risks.” Sustainability
6 (10): 6666–6686.
Material Handling & Logistics. 2018. Supply chains disruptions at highest rate in 3 years. Accessed November 8 2019.
https://www.mhlnews.com/global-supply-chain/supply-chains-disruptions-highest-rate-3-years#close-olyticsmodal.
Min, H. 2019. “Blockchain Technology for Enhancing Supply Chain Resilience.” Business Horizons 62 (1): 35–45.
Mishra, D., A. Gunasekaran, T. Papadopoulos, and S. J. Childe. 2018. “Big Data and Supply Chain Management: A Review and
Bibliometric Analysis.” Annals of Operations Research 270 (1–2): 313–336.
Mishra, D., R. R. K. Sharma, S. Kumar, and R. Dubey. 2016. “Bridging and Buffering: Strategies for Mitigating Supply Risk and
Improving Supply Chain Performance.” International Journal of Production Economics 180: 183–197.
Osareh, F. 1996. “Bibliometrics, Citation Analysis and co-Citation Analysis: A Review of Literature.” International Journal of Libraries
and Information Studies 46 (3): 149–158.
Park, Y., P. Hong, and J. J. Roh. 2013. “Supply Chain Lessons From the Catastrophic Natural Disaster in Japan.” Business Horizons 56
(1): 75–85.
Paul, S. K., R. Sarker, and D. Essam. 2016. “Managing Risk and Disruption in Production-Inventory and Supply Chain Systems: A
Review.” Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization 12 (3): 1009–1029.
Peng, P., L. V. Snyder, A. Lim, and Z. Liu. 2011. “Reliable Logistics Networks Design with Facility Disruptions.” Transportation Research
Part B: Methodological 45 (8): 1190–1211.
Pettit, T. J., K. L. Croxton, and J. Fiksel. 2013. “Ensuring Supply Chain Resilience: Development and Implementation of an Assessment
Tool.” Journal of Business Logistics 34 (1): 46–76.
18 S. Xu et al.

Ponomarov, S. Y., and M. C. Holcomb. 2009. “Understanding the Concept of Supply Chain Resilience.” The International Journal of
Logistics Management 20 (1): 124–143.
Price, D. J. D. S. 1965. Little Science, Big Science and Beyond. New York: Columbia University Press.
Qi, X., J. F. Bard, and G. Yu. 2004. “Supply Chain Coordination with Demand Disruptions.” Omega 32 (4): 301–312.
Qi, L., Z. J. M. Shen, and L. V. Snyder. 2010. “The Effect of Supply Disruptions on Supply Chain Design Decisions.” Transportation
Science 44 (2): 274–289.
Rezapour, S., R. Z. Farahani, and M. Pourakbar. 2017. “Resilient Supply Chain Network Design Under Competition: A Case Study.”
European Journal of Operational Research 259 (3): 1017–1035.
Ruhanen, L., B. Weiler, B. D. Moyle, and C. L. J. McLennan. 2015. “Trends and Patterns in Sustainable Tourism Research: A 25-Year
Bibliometric Analysis.” Journal of Sustainable Tourism 23 (4): 517–535.
Santoso, T., S. Ahmed, M. Goetschalckx, and A. Shapiro. 2005. “A Stochastic Programming Approach for Supply Chain Network Design
Under Uncertainty.” European Journal of Operational Research 167 (1): 96–115.
Sawik, T. 2011. “Selection of Supply Portfolio Under Disruption Risks.” Omega 39 (2): 194–208.
Sawik, T. 2013. “Selection of Resilient Supply Portfolio Under Disruption Risks.” Omega 41 (2): 259–269.
Sawik, T. 2014. “Joint Supplier Selection and Scheduling of Customer Orders Under Disruption Risks: Single vs. Dual Sourcing.” Omega
43: 83–95.
Sawik, T. 2015. “On the Fair Optimization of Cost and Customer Service Level in a Supply Chain Under Disruption Risks.” Omega 53:
58–66.
Schmitt, A. J. 2011. “Strategies for Customer Service Level Protection Under Multi-Echelon Supply Chain Disruption Risk.”
Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 45 (8): 1266–1283.
Schmitt, A. J., and M. Singh. 2012. “A Quantitative Analysis of Disruption Risk in a Multi-Echelon Supply Chain.” International Journal
of Production Economics 139 (1): 22–32.
Sheffi, Y., and J. B. Rice Jr. 2005. “A Supply Chain View of the Resilient Enterprise.” MIT Sloan Management Review 47 (1): 41.
Snyder, L. V., Z. Atan, P. Peng, Y. Rong, A. J. Schmitt, and B. Sinsoysal. 2016. “OR/MS Models for Supply Chain Disruptions: A
Review.” IIE Transactions 48 (2): 89–109.
Snyder, L. V., and M. S. Daskin. 2005. “Reliability Models for Facility Location: The Expected Failure Cost Case.” Transportation
Science 39 (3): 400–416.
Spiegler, V. L., M. M. Naim, and J. Wikner. 2012. “A Control Engineering Approach to the Assessment of Supply Chain Resilience.”
International Journal of Production Research 50 (21): 6162–6187.
Tang, C. S. 2006a. “Perspectives in Supply Chain Risk Management.” International Journal of Production Economics 103 (2): 451–488.
Tang, C. S. 2006b. “Robust Strategies for Mitigating Supply Chain Disruptions.” International Journal of Logistics: Research and
Applications 9 (1): 33–45.
Tang, C., and B. Tomlin. 2008. “The Power of Flexibility for Mitigating Supply Chain Risks.” International Journal of Production
Economics 116 (1): 12–27.
Taticchi, P., P. Garengo, S. S. Nudurupati, F. Tonelli, and R. Pasqualino. 2015. “A Review of Decision-Support Tools and Performance
Measurement and Sustainable Supply Chain Management.” International Journal of Production Research 53 (21): 6473–6494.
Tomlin, B. 2006. “On the Value of Mitigation and Contingency Strategies for Managing Supply Chain Disruption Risks.” Management
Science 52 (5): 639–657.
Tukamuhabwa, B. R., M. Stevenson, J. Busby, and M. Zorzini. 2015. “Supply Chain Resilience: Definition, Review and Theoretical
Foundations for Further Study.” International Journal of Production Research 53 (18): 5592–5623.
Van Eck, N. J., and L. Waltman. 2010. “Software Survey: VOSviewer, a Computer Program for Bibliometric Mapping.” Scientometrics
84 (2): 523–538.
Waltman, L., N. J. Van Eck, and E. C. Noyons. 2010. “A Unified Approach to Mapping and Clustering of Bibliometric Networks.”
Journal of Informetrics 4 (4): 629–635.
Wang, Q. 2018. “Distribution Features and Intellectual Structures of Digital Humanities: A Bibliometric Analysis.” Journal of
Documentation 74 (1): 223–246.
Wieland, A., and C. Marcus Wallenburg. 2013. “The Influence of Relational Competencies on Supply Chain Resilience: A Relational
View.” International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 43 (4): 300–320.
Wilson, M. C. 2007. “The Impact of Transportation Disruptions on Supply Chain Performance.” Transportation Research Part E:
Logistics and Transportation Review 43 (4): 295–320.
Xiao, T., and X. Qi. 2008. “Price Competition, Cost and Demand Disruptions and Coordination of a Supply Chain with one Manufacturer
and two Competing Retailers.” Omega 36 (5): 741–753.
Xiao, T., G. Yu, Z. Sheng, and Y. Xia. 2005. “Coordination of a Supply Chain with one-Manufacturer and two-Retailers Under Demand
Promotion and Disruption Management Decisions.” Annals of Operations Research 135 (1): 87–109.
Xie, J., and D. Chu. 2017. Auto parts maker seeks government leniency over illegal Shanghai supplier. Accessed November 8 2019.
http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1067182.shtml.
Xu, X., X. Chen, F. Jia, S. Brown, Y. Gong, and Y. Xu. 2018. “Supply Chain Finance: A Systematic Literature Review and Bibliometric
Analysis.” International Journal of Production Economics 204: 160–173.
Yu, D., and C. Xu. 2017. “Mapping Research on Carbon Emissions Trading: A co-Citation Analysis.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews 74: 1314–1322.
 International Journal of Production Research 19

Yu, D., Z. Xu, and W. Wang. 2018. “Bibliometric Analysis of Fuzzy Theory Research in China: A 30-Year Perspective.” Knowledge-Based
Systems 141: 188–199.
Yu, H., A. Z. Zeng, and L. Zhao. 2009. “Single or Dual Sourcing: Decision-Making in the Presence of Supply Chain Disruption Risks.”
Omega 37 (4): 788–800.
Zahiri, B., J. Zhuang, and M. Mohammadi. 2017. “Toward an Integrated Sustainable-Resilient Supply Chain: A Pharmaceutical Case
Study.” Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 103: 109–142.
Zhong, W. J. 2012. “Evaluation About the Core Authors Based on Price law and Comprehensive Index Method-Take Journal of Library
Development as an Example.” Science and Technology Management Research 2: 57–60.
Zsidisin, G. A., and S. M. Wagner. 2010. “Do Perceptions Become Reality? The Moderating Role of Supply Chain Resiliency on
Disruption Occurrence.” Journal of Business Logistics 31 (2): 1–20.