SCM research leadership: the ranked

agents and their networks

Sunil Babbar
Department of Information Technology and Operations Management, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Florida, USA
Xenophon Koufteros
INFO, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA
Ravi S. Behara
Department of Information Technology and Operations Management, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Florida, USA, and
Christina W.Y. Wong
Business Division Institute Textiles and Clothing, Polytechnic University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong

Abstract
Purpose – This study aims to examine publications of supply chain management (SCM) researchers from across the world and maps the leadership
role of authors and institutions based on how prolific they are in publishing and on network measures of centrality while accounting for the quality
of the outlets that they publish in. It aims to inform stakeholders on who the leading SCM scholars are, their primary areas of SCM research, their
publication profiles and the nature of their networks. It also identifies and informs on the leading SCM research institutions of the world and where
leadership in specific areas of SCM research is emerging from.
Design/methodology/approach – Based on SCM papers appearing in a set of seven leading journals over the 15-year period of 2001-2015,
publication scores and social network analysis measures of total degree centrality and Bonacich power centrality are used to identify the highest
ranked agents in SCM research overall, as well as in some specific areas of SCM research. Social network analysis is also used to examine the nature
and scope of the networks of the ranked agents and where leadership in SCM research is emerging from.
Findings – Authors and institutions from the USA and UK are found to dominate much of the rankings in SCM research both by publication score
and social network analysis measures of centrality. In examining the networks of the very top authors and institutions of the world, their
networks are found to be more inward-looking (country-centric) than outward-looking (globally dispersed). Further, researchers in Europe and
Asia alike are found to exhibit significant continental inclinations in their network formations with researchers in Europe displaying greater
propensity to collaborate with their European-based counterparts and researchers in Asia with their Asian-based counterparts. Also, from among
the journals, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal is found to exhibit a far more expansive global reach than any of the other
journals.
Research limitations/implications – The journal set used in this study, though representative of high-quality SCM research outlets, is not
exhaustive of all potential outlets that publish SCM research. Further, the measure of quality that this study assigns to the various publications is
based solely on a publication score that accounts for the quality of the journals, as rated by Association of Business Schools that the papers appear
in and nothing else.
Practical implications – By informing the community of stakeholders of SCM research about the top-ranked SCM authors, institutions and
countries of the world, the nature of their networks, as well as what the primary areas of SCM research of the leading authors in the world are, this
research provides stakeholders, including managers, researchers and students, information that is helpful to them not only because of the insights it
provides but also for the gauging of potential for embedding themselves in specific networks, engaging in collaborative research with the leading
agents or pursuing educational opportunities with them.
Originality/value – This research is the first of its kind to identify and rank the top SCM authors and institutions from across the world using a
representative set of seven leading SCM and primary OM journals based on publication scores and social network measures of centrality. The
research is also the first of its kind to identify and rank the top authors and institutions within specific areas of SCM research and to identify future
research opportunities relating to aspects of collaboration and networking in research endeavors.
Keywords Research, Impact, Intellectual capital, Collaboration, Empirical study, Knowledge diffusion, Rankings, Supply chain management,
Top authors, Top institutions, Leading journals, Research collaborations, Networks, Social network analysis,
Rankings within specific areas of SCM research, Global reach
Paper type Research paper

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on
Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/1359-8546.htm

Received 6 November 2018

Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Revised 1 March 2019
24/6 (2019) 821–854 20 May 2019
© Emerald Publishing Limited [ISSN 1359-8546] 27 May 2019
[DOI 10.1108/SCM-11-2018-0386] Accepted 27 May 2019

821
 SCM research leadership
Sunil Babbar et al.
1. Introduction
With supply chain management (SCM) being not only an
important but also dominant area of research and study in the
field of operations management, no research has identified and
ranked SCM authors and institutions from across the world
based on SCM publications appearing in an exclusive set of
relevant elite journals, such as those used in this study, using not
only a publication score that accounts for the quality of the outlet
published in but also using social network measures of centrality.
Research has also not examined the nature of the networks of the
top SCM authors and institutions from across the world. In
addition, no research has informed stakeholders on what the
primary areas of SCM research are of the authors, who rank
among the top in the world. This research attempts to fill these
gaps by informing the community of stakeholders of SCM
research about the top-ranked SCM authors, institutions and
countries of the world, the nature of their networks, and the
primary areas of SCM research of each of the ranked authors
from across the world. In so doing, it provides stakeholders,
including managers, researchers and students, information that
can be helpful to them not only because of the insights it provides
but also for gauging of potential to embed themselves in specific
networks, engage in collaborative research endeavors with the
leading agents or to pursue educational opportunities with them.
In this study, we rank authors and institutions from across
the world using a “publication score” that incorporates both the
frequency of papers on which they are included in authorship
and the quality of the particular journals that their papers
appear in. We derive the rankings based on authorship and the
institutional and country affiliations of the authors as they
appear on the SCM papers published across a set of seven
pertinent journals: Journal of Operations Management (JOM),
International Journal of Operations & Production Management
(IJOPM), Production and Operations Management (POM),
Manufacturing and Service Operations Management (MSOM),
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal (SCMIJ),
Journal of Supply Chain Management (JSCM) and Journal of
Business Logistics (JBL) over the 15-year period of 2001-2015.
We also rank authors and institutions using social network
analysis measures of centrality as, in the context of research
networks, such social network analysis measures of centrality
are indicative not only of the nature and extent of relationships
that authors and institutions have developed but also of the
potential they possess to stimulate research and enhance the
quality of research outcomes by serving as hubs of connectivity
and informational bridges between entities engaged in SCM
research. In addition to overall rankings in SCM research, we
also rank authors and institutions within specific domains of
SCM research; domains that are receiving increased attention
in the literature. These domains include relationships and
relationship management, risk and disruption management,
sustainability and environmental management and emerging
markets and economies.
Our use of social network centrality measures for ranking
authors and institutions, in addition to publication scores, is
motivated by the fact that networked collaborations, such as in
research, have the potential to not only generate higher quality
research but also desirable outcomes for participants by rendering
them synergistic benefits. These benefits to networked participants
822
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Volume 24 · Number 6 · 2019 · 821–854
accrue from elements such as the pooling of resources, ideas and
competencies and tend to increase as the size of their network
grows (Hite and Hesterly, 2001; Papadopoulos et al., 2011; Uzzi,
1996). As such, co-authorship in research endeavors, as a form of
social networking, has not only increased (Acedo et al., 2006; Ye
et al., 2011) but also drawn considerable attention of the academic
community (Barabási et al., 2002; Borgatti and Li, 2009; Laband
and Tollison, 2000; Martins et al., 2012; Moody, 2004).
Social network analysis has long been used to examine human
interactions and relationships (Fischer and Shavit, 1995;
Wasserman and Faust, 1994). More recently, in the field of
SCM, supply networks have garnered considerable research
attention (Gualandris et al., 2018; Kim et al., 2011; Mitrega et al.,
2017; Rajapakshe et al., 2014; Wu and Pullman, 2015). Social
network analysis maps the relational linkages between agents
(Carter et al., 2007a; Scott, 2000). In the context of research,
such agents can be authors or academic institutions. In
conducting social network analysis, individual agents are
considered as being part of the larger structure they are
embedded in (Fombrun, 1982). In a business context, pooled
resources constitute a form of social capital for networked firms
(Burt, 1997; Gulati, 1999) and can be a source of competitive
advantage for them (Carter et al., 2007a; Chakkol et al., 2018;
Cheung et al., 2010; Cousins et al., 2006; Gulati et al., 2000; Hult
et al., 2003; Morris et al., 2006; Smart et al., 2007; Zhang and
Gregory, 2011). As an example, the structure of the network a
firm is embedded in and relational linkages can influence the
firm’s ability to learn, acquire knowledge and innovate within its
supply chain (Cap o-Vicedo et al., 2011; Carnovale and Yeniyurt,
2015; Nair et al., 2016; Narasimhan and Narayanan, 2013;
Schoenherr et al., 2015; Wagner, 2012). Accordingly, in a
manner similar to that by which businesses create and manage
knowledge to gain competitive advantage, in the research
context, stakeholders, such as faculty, students and managers,
can benefit from knowing who the leading SCM authors are,
their social networks, and their areas of research to assess the
potential for embedding themselves within desired networks.
2. Methodology
2.1 The journal set
As discussed earlier, in this study we analyze SCM papers
published across seven leading journals, namely, JOM, IJOPM,
POM, MSOM, SCMIJ, JSCM and JBL. The thought process
underlying our selection of these seven journals for this study was
to include dedicated SCM journals of high quality as one of our
subsets of journals. Accordingly, SCMIJ, JSCM and JBL were
selected in view of their being SCM-specific journals that are
generally considered to be of high quality. While SCMIJ and
JSCM have an Association of Business Schools (ABS) journal rating
of three (ABS Academic Journal Guide, 2018), JBL, which
carries an ABS rating of two, is included because of the high rank
that it generally holds among SCM journals (Menachof et al.,
2009; Watson and Montabon, 2014) and its high standing at
numerous schools with a rich tradition in logistics management.
Beyond the three dedicated SCM journals of high quality, we
also included a second subset of journals: JOM, IJOPM, POM
and MSOM as these are all journals deemed to be among the
most relevant core OM journals of high quality (Agarwal, 2002;
Barman et al., 2001; Pilkington and Meredith, 2018;
 SCM research leadership
Sunil Babbar et al.
Theoharakis et al., 2007). We limited this subset to “core” OM
journals of “highest relevancy” to the particular field of OM
and did not collect data from or include broader journals of
quality that also publish papers from disciplines other than
OM. Scholars from Europe have ranked JOM, IJOPM and
POM as the three journals having the highest relevancy to OM
(Soteriou et al., 1999). These journals have also been ranked as
the three journals most relevant to OM research (Barman et al.,
2001) based on a survey of members of the Production and
Operations Management Society (POMS). Further, JOM,
IJOPM and POM have been recognized in the literature as
constituting a representative set of high-quality OM journals
for analyzing OM research in general (Machuca et al., 2007;
Pilkington and Meredith, 2009; Pilkington and Meredith,
2018). In addition, MSOM appears among the OM journals
included in the University of Texas-Dallas 24 leading business
journals (University of Texas-Dallas, 2017) and the Financial
Times Top 50 Journals (Financial Times, 2016). Of the four
core OM journals in our second subset, JOM carries an ABS
rating of four , IJOPM and POM an ABS rating of four and
MSOM an ABS rating of three (ABS Academic Journal Guide,
2018). Because JOM, IJOPM, POM and MSOM are not
dedicated SCM journals, as explained in the following section,
only those papers appearing in these journals that were deemed
SCM-related papers were included for analysis in our study.
In constituting our journal set for this study, we included only
relevant journals that are also “highly-rated.” Our use of a set of
only highly-rated (i.e. top-ranked) relevant journals for the purpose
of ranking authors and institutions not only adds weight to the
rankings so derived but also in keeping with such well-accepted
practice in the extant literature. For example, a study by Malhotra
and Kher (1996) ranked institutions in the field of production and
operations management based on publications appearing in five
high-quality journals over a 15-year period. An inquiry by Young
et al. (1996) ranked the top 100 authors and institutions in the field
of production and operations management based on publications
appearing in a select set of high-quality journals over a five-year
period. Similarly, Hsieh and Chang (2009) ranked the top 20
authors in the field of production and operations management
based on publications in a set of five leading production and
operations management journals. Studies in other business
disciplines (Claver et al., 2000; Grover et al., 1992; Trieschmann
et al., 2000) have also ranked authors and institutions based on
select sets of high-quality journals within their respective discipline.
2.2 Data collection
With SCMIJ, JSCM and JBL being dedicated SCM journals,
every paper published in these journals over the 15-year period of
2001 through 2015 was considered as being an SCM-related
paper and included in the data set of this study. The fields of the
data entered for each paper (including those identified as SCM
papers from the other four OM journals, JOM, IJOPM, POM and
MSOM) included the title of the journal, the year of publication,
volume number, issue number, the keywords, name of each of the
authors of the paper, institutional affiliation of each author as it
appeared on the paper and the country or region of location of each
author’s affiliated institution as noted on the paper. All of the data
for each and every paper included in the data set was painstakingly
entered to ensure accuracy and completeness. Because the regions
of Hong Kong and Taiwan have education systems and academic
823
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Volume 24 · Number 6 · 2019 · 821–854
traditions quite distinct from those of China, we maintained their
identity as distinct from China for the purposes of this study.
When entering the keywords for papers, we had to address an
anomaly in that the papers that were published in JBL during
the 10-year period of 2001-2010 did not list any keywords. As
such, for these papers, we created a set of keywords for each
paper by reviewing the paper’s title, abstract, introduction
section and, in some cases, further content. We then entered
the keywords for each of these papers in our data set.
For JOM, IJOPM, POM and MSOM, the papers deemed
SCM-related were identified as follows. We began by first
entering for all papers (not only SCM papers) published in these
four journals over the 15-year period of 2001-2015 a unique
identifier for each paper along with all of the corresponding
keywords of that paper. In so doing, we were able to create a
comprehensive keywords’ file by which we could now sort and
chart the frequency of every keyword of this keywords’ data set.
Two raters independently reviewed all of the keywords and
marked every keyword that the particular rater viewed as being
SCM-related. Following this, the raters then crosschecked their
individual lists of SCM-related keywords. With the inter-rater
reliability being 94.6 per cent, where there was difference, the
particular keyword was either retained as being SCM-related or
else excluded from the SCM keywords set based upon
consensus reached between the two raters following the careful
discussion. From this emerged a set of 497 SCM keywords,
such as supply chain management, supply chains, value chain,
suppliers, buyer–supplier relations, procurement, logistics,
transportation, distribution, green supply chain, supply chain
innovation, supply disruptions, etc., which were then deployed
to identify SCM specific papers from these journals. The list of
SCM keywords that emerged was relatively large due to the
multiple variations along certain keyword terms such as buyer-
seller relationships, buy-sell relationships, buyer–supplier
relational strength, channel relationships or terms such as
logistics, reverse logistics, logistics and transportation, logistics
distribution, logistics fulfillment, logistics improvement,
logistics, management, humanitarian logistics, etc.
No Editorials, Rejoinders, Replies, Dialogues or Erratum were
included. Accordingly, the data set of SCM papers used in this
study comprised of 639 from SCMIJ, 296 papers from JSCM,
318 from JBL, 280 from JOM, 309 from IJOPM, 340 from POM
and 154 from MSOM, for a total of 2,336 papers from across all
seven journals. In addition to the authors being given credit for
each paper, the data, as entered, also gave credit to institutions
and countries/regions based on how these appeared in the author
affiliations as were listed on the paper itself.
2.3 Data standardization
To ensure the accuracy and reliability of our data, we carefully
checked and standardized all fields of the data. As an example,
in some cases, we found inconsistency in how the name of a
particular author appeared across different papers published in
these journals. On some paper(s), the author’s first name
appeared as a nickname rather than the formal first name. In
other cases, while the author’s full name was listed on a
particular paper, the author’s middle initial did not appear on
some other(s). Prior to undertaking analysis for the purpose of
rankings, we carefully checked and standardized every author’s
name in our database so that it read exactly the same across
 SCM research leadership
Sunil Babbar et al.
every record containing that author’s name. We also similarly
checked and standardized the names of each of the affiliated
institution and the countries/regions listed across papers to
ensure that they read exactly the same across the entire data set.
Our standardization of the records in our data set served to
ensure not only the accuracy of counts but also the accuracy of
the network analysis we conducted in this study.
In constituting our data set, we assigned every paper a unique
identification, such as SCMIJ200101, comprising the journal
name (SCMIJ), year of publication (2001) and a sequential
number (01) assigned to the paper in keeping with the order of
its inclusion from that particular journal. We used this same
nomenclature for assigning a unique identification marker to
every paper that was included in our data set from across all
seven journals.
2.4 The network centrality measures used for rankings
As noted earlier, in this study we rank authors and institutions
not only based on a “publication score” (i.e. number of papers
published, adjusted for the quality of the particular journals
their papers appear in) but also based on network measures of
centrality that are indicative of the nature and extent of
relationships the authors and institutions have developed and
the potential they possess to stimulate research and the quality
of research outcomes by serving as hubs of connectivity and
informational bridges between entities engaged in SCM
research.
Network measures used for identifying important or
prominent agents in the network include total degree (also
referred to as degree) and Bonacich power, which are differing
measures of centrality in dichotomous (i.e. non-directional)
relationships such as those in our study. Research demonstrates
network centrality as affecting the agent’s influence and
opportunism (Brass, 1984; Dong et al., 2015; Fombrun, 1983;
Ronchetto et al., 1989). As such, measures of centrality have
been extensively used in assessing the prominence of agents in
networks (Acedo et al., 2006; Burgess et al., 2017; Carter et al.,
2007b; Faust, 1997; Freeman, 1979; Martins et al., 2012).
Total degree centrality of an agent is a measure based on the
relative number of direct connections that the particular agent
(such as author or institution in our case) has with other agents
in the network and is calculated based on the agent  agent
matrices. Agents who score higher on this metric have more
connections to others in the same network, are considered as
being “in the know,” and are likely to receive from and pass
important information on to more others in the network
because of being linked to so many others. As a result of their
important position in the network, these agents have access to
the ideas, perspectives, knowledge, expertise and resources of
the many others (Wasserman and Faust, 1994).
An important characteristic that adds further to the
leadership role of agents (for example, in our context, authors
or institutions) lies in the fact that while these agents are
connected to many others, those who they are connected with
are also, in turn, highly connected with many others. In this
sense, the prominence of a central agent in a network is
enhanced based on the extent to which its neighbors are also
central. Such a measure of centrality of an agent is the Bonacich
power centrality, which computes the centrality of an agent-
based on the centrality of its neighbors (Bonacich, 1972). This
824
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Volume 24 · Number 6 · 2019 · 821–854
measure of centrality captures the weightiness of connections
and is also calculated based on the agent  agent matrices. And
so, in addition to ranking authors and institutions based on
publication score, we also rank them based on total degree
centrality and Bonacich power centrality.
When the entire network is the unit of modeling, the measure
of network density describes the level of linkages (i.e.
connections) that exist among the agents (such as authors) in
the network. Network density is defined as the ratio of the
number of links between the agents relative to all (maximum)
links that are possible for a network. When considering co-
authorships from across the world within any academic area
(such as in the area of SCM), one can expect the actual level of
collaboration (i.e. the actual number of linkages) among
individuals to be very limited relative to the entirety of all links
that may be theoretically possible.
3. Results and discussion
3.1 The top-ranked authors
In this section, we ranked the authors first based on the
measure of publication score and then used network centrality
measures.
3.1.1 The top-ranked authors based on publication score
To rank authors, for each of the authors, we first computed a
composite “publication score” that accounts for the number of
papers on which the individual is included as an author across
all seven journals over the 15-year period of 2001-2015 and the
quality of the journals (based on each journal’s ABS Academic
Journal Guide rating score) that the papers of the author appear
in. The publication score is, thus, constituted as being the sum
of credits (i.e. points) the author receives for each paper
authored across the seven journals over the 15-year period of
2001-2015 in accordance with the ABS (2018) Academic
Journal Guide rating score of the journal that it is published in,
such that the credit received for a paper appearing in JOM =
4.5, IJOPM = 4, POM = 4, MSOM = 3, SCMIJ = 3, JSCM = 3
and JBL = 2. We used the ABS journal ratings as they seem to
be more global and gaining in acceptance in recent years.
In Table I, we identify the top 50 SCM authors world-wide
based on the above-mentioned measure of publication score.
For these top authors, in complement to their publication
score, we also report in Table I for each author the author’s
simple count of a total number of papers authored and the
distributed count of papers authored. The simple count of a
number of papers of each author includes the papers on which
the author is either the sole-author of the paper or a co-author.
Thus, in the simple count of “number of papers authored,”
single authors are accounted for in the same way as other
authors who have co-authored papers with others. On the other
hand, the distributed count of papers for the author takes into
consideration the number of authors on a given paper and is
computed in a manner such that an author receives a credit of
1.0 toward his or her distributed count for a sole-authored
paper, a credit of 0.5 for a paper on which the individual is one
of two authors on that paper, a credit of 0.33 for a paper on
which the individual is one of three authors on that paper, etc.,
depending on the number of authors on the paper.
As shown in Table I, the top ten authors based on
publication score are Thomas Y. Choi, Craig R. Carter, Ram
 Table I Top 50 authors by publication score

Distributed
No. of no. of Average citations per Most recent
Publication papers papers paper and average institutional Country/
Rank Author scorea authoredb authoredc age of the papersd Years in which the papers were publishede affiliationf regiong
1 Choi, Thomas Y. 79.0 21 8.33 259 (8.8 years) 2001(2), 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009(2), ASU USA
2010, 2011(3), 2013(3) and 2015(4)
2 Carter, Craig R. 66.5 23 10.33 149 (10.7 years) 2001(2), 2002(2), 2003, 2004(3), 2005, 2006, 2007(4), 2008, ASU USA
2009(2), 2011, 2013, 2014(2) and 2015(2)
3 Narasimhan, Ram 61.5 16 5.62 160 (9.3 years) 2001(3), 2002, 2005, 2006, 2009, 2010, 2012(3), 2013(3) MSU USA
and 2015(2)
4 Wassenhove, Luk N. Van 60.5 15 4.90 222 (6.9 years) 2001, 2005, 2006, 2008, 2011, 2012, 2013(3) and 2014(6) INSEAD France
Sunil Babbar et al.

5 Rungtusanatham, Manus J. 60.0 15 4.75 208 (10.9 years) 2001(2), 2002, 2003, 2005(2), 2006, 2007(2), 2008, 2010, The Ohio State USA
SCM research leadership

2011, 2013(2) and 2014 University

6 Schoenherr, Tobias 58.0 18 8.58 75 (5.9 years) 2005, 2007, 2008(2), 2009, 2011(2), 2012, 2013, 2014(2) MSU USA
and 2015(7)
7 Mentzer, John T. 54.0 24 9.89 369 (11.5 years) 2001, 2002, 2003(2), 2004(2), 2005(3), 2006(4), 2007, 2008 University of USA
(5), 2010(3) and 2012(2) Tennessee
8 Cousins, Paul D. 51.5 13 4.83 244 (11.4 years) 2001(2), 2004, 2005, 2006(3), 2008(3), 2009(2) and 2015 University of UK
Manchester
9 Ellram, Lisa M. 51.5 18 7.50 211 (9.2 years) 2002, 2003(3), 2004, 2006, 2007(2), 2008, 2010, 2011, Miami University USA
2012, 2013(2), 2014(3) and 2015

825
10 Rabinovich, Elliot 51.5 15 7.33 57 (10.5 years) 2003(3), 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007(3), 2008(2), 2011, 2013(2) ASU USA
and 2014
11 Boyer, Kenneth K. 49.5 13 4.87 72 (8.9 years) 2002, 2003, 2006(2), 2007(2), 2009(2), 2013(2), 2014(2) The Ohio State USA
and 2015 University
Handfield, Robert B. 49.5 14 5.78 252 (10.1 years) 2004(2), 2005, 2006(3), 2007(2), 2008(2), 2009, 2011 and North Carolina State USA
2015(2) University
13 Autry, Chad W. 49.0 20 6.87 95 (9 years) 2001(2), 2003, 2004, 2005, 2007, 2008(3), 2010(2)2011, University of USA
2012(3), 2013 and 2014(4) Tennessee
14 Klassen, Robert D. 48.5 12 4.58 388 (11.1 years) 2002, 2003, 2006(2), 2007(4), 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 Western University Canada
15 Pagell, Mark 47.5 13 5.42 262 (9.2 years) 2001, 2003, 2004(2), 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011(2), 2013(2) University College Ireland
and 2014(2) Dublin
16 Kouvelis, Panos 46.0 13 5.67 57 (7.2 years) 2002, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2011, 2012(2), 2013(3), 2014 and Washington USA
2015(2) University
17 Koster, René B. M. D. 45.0 11 4.17 47 (7.2 years) 2005, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2013(3) and 2015(2) Erasmus University The
Netherlands
18 Wagner, Stephan M. 43.5 15 8.08 126 (7.5 years) 2003, 2005, 2008(2), 2010(2), 2011(3), 2012(2), 2014(3) Swiss Federal Switzerland
and 2015 Institute of
Volume 24 · Number 6 · 2019 · 821–854

Technology Zurich
19 Sarkis, Joseph 41.0 12 5.08 421 (10.3 years) 2002(2), 2004(2), 2005(2), 2008, 2010, 2012(2) and 2014(2) Worcester Polytechnic USA
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal

Institute
(continued)
 Table I

Distributed
No. of no. of Average citations per Most recent
Publication papers papers paper and average institutional Country/
Rank Author scorea authoredb authoredc age of the papersd Years in which the papers were publishede affiliationf regiong
20 Petersen, Kenneth J. 40.5 12 3.58 238 (8.8 years) 2005(3), 2006(2), 2008, 2009, 2010, 2013, 2014(2) and University of USA
2015 Tennessee
Power, Damien 40.5 12 6.33 168 (9.5 years) 2004, 2005(3), 2007(2), 2009, 2010(2), 2011, 2014 and University of Australia
2015 Melbourne
22 Lawson, Benn 39.5 10 3.08 170 (8.8 years) 2006(2), 2008(3), 2009(2), 2011, 2012 and 2015 University of UK
Cambridge
Paulraj, Anthony 39.5 12 5.07 402 (9.3 years) 2004(2), 2005, 2007(2), 2008(2), 2010, 2011, 2012, 2014 University of Denmark
Sunil Babbar et al.

and 2015 Southern Denmark

SCM research leadership

24 Knemeyer, A. M. 39.0 16 5.42 108 (8.6 years) 2003, 2004(2), 2007, 2008, 2009(2), 2010(2), 2011(2), 2012 The Ohio State USA
(2), 2013(2) and 2015 University
Sethi, Suresh P. 39.0 10 3.00 72 (7.6 years) 2004, 2005, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014(2) and The University of USA
2015 Texas at Dallas
26 Daugherty, Patricia 38.0 18 5.75 173 (11.2 years) 2001(3), 2002(2), 2003, 2004(2), 2007, 2009(3), 2010(2), MSU USA
2011, 2012, 2013 and 2015
Goldsby, Thomas J. 38.0 16 4.75 114 (9.1 years) 2003(2)2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011(4), 2012, The Ohio State USA
2013 and 2014(2) University
Krause, Daniel R. 38.0 11 4.25 288 (9.8 years) 2001, 2002, 2006(2), 2007, 2008, 2009, 2011(2), 2014 and ASU USA

826
2015
Lamming, Richard C. 38.0 10 2.74 243 (11.6 years) 2001(3), 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2013 and 2015(2) University of UK
Manchester
Sriskandarajah, Chelliah 38.0 10 2.87 25 (7.6 years) 2006(2), 2007, 2010, 2011(2), 2012(2), 2014(1) and 2015 Texas A&M University USA
31 Benton, W.C. Jr 37.5 9 4.25 300 (9.4 years) 2004(2), 2005, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2012(2) and 2013 The Ohio State USA
University
Dooley, Kevin J. 37.5 11 4.58 192 (8.5 years) 2001, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010(2), 2011(3), 2013 and 2014 ASU USA
33 Dawande, Milind 37.0 10 2.78 22 (6.7 years) 2006, 2007, 2010, 2011(2), 2012, 2013, 2014(2) and 2015 The University of USA
Texas at Dallas
34 Zsidisin, George A. 36.5 13 6.25 197 (10.8 years) 2002(2), 2003(3), 2005, 2007, 2008(2), 2010, 2013, 2014 Virginia USA
and 2015 Commonwealth
University
35 Fearne, Andrew P. 36.0 12 4.70 76 (11.7 years) 2002, 2003(2), 2005(2), 2006(3), 2007, 2009 and 2012(2) University of Kent UK
Tang, Christopher 36.0 10 3.83 86 (6.9 years) 2001, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012(2), 2013, 2014(2) and 2015 University of USA
California, Los
Angeles
37 Van Hoek, Remko 35.5 11 6.17 180 (12.3 years) 2001(4), 2002, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2014 Cranfield University UK
Volume 24 · Number 6 · 2019 · 821–854

38 Zhao, Xiande 35.0 10 2.83 307 (8 years) 2002, 2008(4), 2010, 2013, 2014(2) and 2015 China Europe China
International
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal

Business School
(continued)
 Table I

Distributed
No. of no. of Average citations per Most recent
Publication papers papers paper and average institutional Country/
Rank Author scorea authoredb authoredc age of the papersd Years in which the papers were publishede affiliationf regiong
39 Wu, Zhaohui 34.5 9 3.83 278 (7.2 years) 2005, 2009(2), 2010(2), 2011, 2014(2) and 2015 Oregon State USA
University
Sunil Babbar et al.

40 Fynes, Brian 34.0 10 2.98 107 (7.9 years) 2002, 2005, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013(3) and 2014 University College Ireland
SCM research leadership

Dublin
Hult, Tomas G. M. 34.0 9 3.50 209 (10.2 years) 2003. 2006(2), 2007(3), 2009, 2011 and 2014 MSU USA
Katok, Elena 34.0 9 3.75 120 (7.4 years) 2006, 2007, 2008(2), 2012, 2013(2) and 2014(2) The University of USA
Texas at Dallas
43 Harland, Christine M. 33.5 9 3.46 159 (11 years) 2001(2), 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008(2), 2013, 2014 Cardiff University UK
Hartley, Janet L. 33.5 9 3.50 94 (10.2 years) 2001, 2002, 2006(2), 2008(2), 2011, 2013 and 2015 Bowling Green State USA
University
Ketchen, David J. Jr 33.5 9 3.33 207 (9.9 years) 2003, 2006, 2007(3), 2009(2), 2011 and 2014 Auburn University USA
Stank, Theodore P. 33.5 15 4.87 214 (11.3 years) 2001(3), 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2008(2), 2009, 2010(2), University of USA

827
2012, 2013 and 2014 Tennessee
47 Handley, Sean M. 33.0 8 4.33 73 (6.3 years) 2008, 2009, 2012(3), 2013(2), 2015 University of Notre USA
Dame
Holström, Jan 33.0 11 4.25 78 (9.7 years) 2002(2), 2004, 2006, 2007, 2009(2), 2010, 2013, 2014 and Aalton University Finland
2015
Humphreys, Paul 33.0 10 3.07 90 (11.4 years) 2001, 2003(2), 2004, 2006(2), 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2013 University of Ulster UK
Kaufmann, Lutz 33.0 11 5.17 56 (10.2 years) 2002, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011(2), 2013(2) and 2015 WHU-Otto Beisheim Germany
(2) School of
Management
Sanders, Nada R. 33.0 12 7.92 163 (10.5 years) 2002, 2004, 2005(2), 2007(3), 2008, 2009, 2011(2) and Lehigh University USA
2014
Notes: aThis cumulative publication score is the sum of credits (points) the author receives for each paper authored across the seven journals over the 15-year period of 2001-2015 in accordance with the
ABS (2018) rating score of the journal it is published in, such that the credit received for a paper appearing in JOM = 4.5, POM = 4, IJOPM = 4, MSOM = 3, SCMIJ = 3, JSCM = 3 and JBL = 2. bThe simple
count of number of papers on which the individual is included in the authorship of the paper. cThis count of distributed number of papers is determined by crediting the author based on number of authors on
each paper such that the author receives a credit of 1.0 toward this count for a paper, that is, sole-authored, a credit of 0.5 for a paper having two authors, a credit of 0.25 for a paper having four authors,
etc. dThese are the average and a total number of citations (drawn from Google Scholar) to date (May 2018) the author has received for the author’s papers published in this study’s data set. The number in
parentheses is the average age of the papers of the author (i.e. the number of years it has been on average since the time of publication through the present time of 2018). eThe number in parentheses
Volume 24 · Number 6 · 2019 · 821–854

represents the number of papers published during that year (for years during which more than one paper was published). f,g The author’s institutional and country/region affiliation, as noted in this and all
other tables, is based on the institution and the country/region listed by the author in the author’s most recent paper appearing in the data set of 2001-2015 publications used for this research
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
 SCM research leadership
Sunil Babbar et al.
Narasimhan, Luk N. Van Wassenhove, Manus J.
Rungtusanatham, Tobias Schoenherr, John T. Mentzer, with
three authors: Paul D. Cousins, Lisa M. Ellram and Elliot
Rabinovich, respectively, tied at the 8th spot. Geographically,
of these top 10 authors, eight are based in the USA, one is
based in France and one is based in the UK. In looking at the
top 50 authors in Table I (51 authors in all, including ties),
these individuals span across 12 different countries including
the USA (33 authors), UK (7), Ireland (2), Australia (1),
Canada (1), China (1), Denmark (1), Finland (1), France (1),
Germany (1), Switzerland (1) and The Netherlands (1).
In further profiling these top 50 authors, in addition to their
publication score, number of papers authored and distributed
number of papers authored, we also provide in Table I the
average number of citations per paper each of these top authors
has received to date. As the number of citations a paper has
received to date depends, in part, on how long it has been since
the time of the paper’s publication (i.e. the “age” of the paper),
as a complement to the average citations per paper, and to put
that number in context of time, we also list the particular years
in which their papers were published and the average age of
those papers.
When considering the average citations per paper in concert
with the average “age” of those papers, as reported in Table I,
Joseph Sarkis, Anthony Paulraj, Robert D. Klassen, John T.
Mentzer, Xiande Zhao, W.C. Benton Jr, Zhaohui Wu, Daniel
R. Krause, Mark Pagell, Thomas Y. Choi, Robert B. Handfield
and Luk N. Van Wassenhove seem to stand out in particular.
Some additional insights may also be gleaning from looking at
the number of papers that an individual has authored in concert
with the length of time (i.e. the span of years) over which those
papers are published. Further, the individual’s distributed
count of papers authored can also be informative in that this
measure credits the author in proportion with the number of
authors on each paper.
3.1.2 Ranking authors based on network measures of centrality
While measures such as publication score, the number of
papers published and the distributed number of papers
published are informative, they do not provide insights into the
prominence of authors based on their location within the
network and the potential they possess to stimulate research
and the quality of research outcomes by serving as hubs of
connectivity and informational bridges between entities
engaged in SCM research.
As such, in this section, we rank authors based on network
measures of total degree centrality and Bonacich power centrality
and identify the authors who rank among the top world-wide
based on these measures.
3.1.2.1 The top-ranked authors based on total degree centrality.
The total degree centrality of an agent (in this case, the author) is
a measure based on the relative number of direct connections
that the particular agent has with other agents in the network.
For the author  author network (3,337 authors, network
density 0.0014976), the authors that rank among the top 50
(including ties, 51 authors in all) world-wide based on the
measure of total degree centrality are presented in Table II.
These top authors have the most direct connections with other
authors and so have access to the knowledge, expertise,
828
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Volume 24 · Number 6 · 2019 · 821–854
thoughts, perspectives and resources of these many authors that
they are connected to in working relationships.
As seen in Table II, John T. Mentzer, Chad W. Autry, Craig
R. Carter and Patricia Daugherty are the top four authors,
respectively, on this measure, followed by Thomas Y. Choi and
Thomas J. Goldsby, who are both tied for 5th.
Only two of the authors (Thomas Y. Choi and Craig R.
Carter) who ranked among the top five authors by publication
score (in Table I) also placed among the top 5 authors (in
Table II) by total degree centrality (ranking 3rd and 5th,
respectively, on this measure). Not all authors who ranked
among the top 50 by publication score, placed among the top
50 by total degree centrality. In fact, while 37 of the top 50
authors by publication score also placed among the top 50
authors (though at differing ranks across the two sets) by total
degree centrality, 13 authors (Alexander E. Ellinger, Stanley E.
Griffis, Stanley E. Fawcett, Terry L. Esper, Robert G. Richey
Jr, David J. Closs, Roger J. Calantone, Brian S. Fugate, Frank
Wiengarten, Beth Davis-Sramek, Scott B. Keller, Srinivas
Talluri and Daniel F. Lynch) were unique to the set of top 50
authors by total degree centrality.
Authors from 11 different countries place among the top 50
authors by total degree centrality, with authors from the USA
(34 in all) figuring most prominently, followed by the UK (6),
Canada (2), Ireland (2), China (1), Denmark (1), Finland (1),
France (1), The Netherlands (1), Spain (1) and Switzerland
(1). Interestingly, only one author from Asia (Xiande Zhao)
placed among the top 50 in the world based on this network
measure of total degree centrality.
3.1.2.2 The top-ranked authors based on Bonacich power
centrality. An important network characteristic enhancing the
leadership role of an author in networks lies in the author being
connected to other authors who, in turn, are also highly
connected with others. In this sense, the prominence of an
author in a network is enhanced by the extent to which the
author’s co-authors are also central. The measure of such
centrality, Bonacich power centrality, serves to capture the
“weightiness” of connections of the others that the author is
connected to. In an organizational context, this measure of
centrality reveals who is connected to the most powerful (e.g.
other highly-connected) people and, as a result, is more
influential. For the author  author network (3,337 authors,
network density 0.0014976), the top 50 authors world-wide
(including ties) based on the measure of Bonacich power
centrality are presented in Table III.
As illustrated in Table III, John T. Mentzer, Chad W. Autry,
Thomas J. Goldsby, Patricia Daugherty and Craig R. Carter
lead all others on this measure. Interestingly, all but three
authors (Wendy Tate, Zach G. Zacharia and Judith M.
Whipple) who placed among the top 50 by Bonacich power
centrality (in Table III) also placed among the top 50 authors
either by publication score (Table I) or total degree centrality
(Table II).
Authors from ten different countries place among the top 50
authors by the Bonacich power centrality, with the USA placing
35, followed by the UK (5), Canada (2), Ireland (2), China (1),
Denmark (1), France (1), Germany (1), Spain (1) and
Switzerland (1). The top 15 authors in Table III are all based in
the USA, with the only other countries placing author(s)
among the top 25 being the UK (with 3) and France (with 1).
 Table II Top 50 authors by total degree centrality

Average citations per

Total degree paper and average Most recent Country/
Rank Author centrality age of the papers Years in which the papers were published institutional affiliation region
1 Mentzer, John T. 0.08491 369 (11.5 years) 2001, 2002, 2003(2), 2004(2), 2005(3), 2006(4), 2007, 2008(5), 2010(3) and University of Tennessee USA
2012(2)
2 Autry, Chad W. 0.07991 95 (9.0 years) 2001(2), 2003, 2004, 2005, 2007, 2008(3), 2010(2)2011, 2012(3), 2013 and University of Tennessee USA
2014(4)
3 Carter, Craig R. 0.07367 149 (10.7 years) 2001(2), 2002(2), 2003, 2004(3), 2005, 2006, 2007(4), 2008, 2009(2), 2011, ASU USA
2013, 2014(2) and 2015(2)
4 Daugherty, Patricia 0.07242 173 (11.2 years) 2001(3), 2002(2), 2003, 2004(2), 2007, 2009(3), 2010(2), 2011, 2012, 2013 MSU USA
and 2015
Sunil Babbar et al.

5 Choi, Thomas Y. 0.07117 259 (8.8 years) 2001(2), 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009(2), 2010, 2011(3), 2013(3) ASU USA
SCM research leadership

and 2015(4)
Goldsby, Thomas J. 0.07117 114 (9.1 years) 2003(2)2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011(4), 2012, 2013 and 2014(2) The Ohio State University USA
7 Knemeyer, A. M. 0.06243 108 (8.6 years) 2003, 2004(2), 2007, 2008, 2009(2), 2010(2), 2011(2), 2012(2), 2013(2) and The Ohio State University USA
2015
8 Rungtusanatham, Manus 0.06118 208 (10.9 years) 2001(2), 2002, 2003, 2005(2), 2006, 2007(2), 2008, 2010, 2011, 2013(2) and The Ohio State University USA
J. 2014
9 Wassenhove, Luk N. Van 0.06118 222 (6.9 years) 2001, 2005, 2006, 2008, 2011, 2012, 2013(3) and 2014(6) INSEAD France
10 Ellram, Lisa M. 0.05993 211 (9.2 years) 2002, 2003(3), 2004, 2006, 2007(2), 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013(2), 2014(3) Miami University USA
and 2015

829
Narasimhan, Ram 0.05993 160 (9.3 years) 2001(3), 2002, 2005, 2006, 2009, 2010, 2012(3), 2013(3) and 2015(2) MSU USA
Stank, Theodore P. 0.05993 214 (11.3 years) 2001(3), 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2008(2), 2009, 2010(2), 2012, 2013 and University of Tennessee USA
2014
13 Ellinger, Alexander E. 0.05744 86 (12.3 years) 2001, 2002(3), 2004, 2005, 2006(2), 2010(2), 2011 and 2012 University of Alabama USA
Griffis, Stanley E. 0.05744 106 (9.2 years) 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011(2), 2012(3) and 2013 MSU USA
15 Handfield, Robert B. 0.05369 252 (10.1 years) 2004(2), 2005, 2006(3), 2007(2), 2008(2), 2009, 2011 and 2015(2) North Carolina State USA
University
Schoenherr, Tobias 0.05369 75 (5.9 years) 2005, 2007, 2008(2), 2009, 2011(2), 2012, 2013, 2014(2) and 2015(7) MSU USA
17 Petersen, Kenneth J. 0.05244 238 (8.8 years) 2005(3), 2006(2), 2008, 2009, 2010, 2013, 2014(2) and 2015 University of Tennessee USA
18 Cousins, Paul D. 0.05119 244 (11.4 years) 2001(2), 2004, 2005, 2006(3), 2008(3), 2009(2) and 2015 University of Manchester UK
Lamming, Richard C. 0.05119 243 (11.6 years) 2001(3), 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2013 and 2015(2) University of Manchester UK
20 Fawcett, Stanley E. 0.04995 163 (8.6 years) 2001, 2004, 2007, 2008(2), 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015 Weber State University USA
21 Esper, Terry L. 0.04745 75 (7.0 years) 2003, 2007, 2008, 2009(2), 2012, 2014(2) and 2015(3) University of Arkansas USA
Rabinovich, Elliot 0.04745 57 (10.5 years) 2003(3), 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007(3), 2008(2), 2011, 2013(2) and 2014 ASU USA
23 Boyer, Kenneth K. 0.04620 72 (8.9 years) 2002, 2003, 2006(2), 2007(2), 2009(2), 2013(2), 2014(2) and 2015 The Ohio State University USA
Dawande, Milind 0.04620 22 (6.7 years) 2006, 2007, 2010, 2011(2), 2012, 2013, 2014(2) and 2015 The University of Texas at USA
Dallas
Volume 24 · Number 6 · 2019 · 821–854

25 Fynes, Brian 0.04495 107 (7.9 years) 2002, 2005, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013(3) and 2014 University College Dublin Ireland
Pagell, Mark 0.04495 262 (9.2 years) 2001, 2003, 2004(2), 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011(2), 2013(2) and 2014(2) University College Dublin Ireland
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal

Richey, Robert G. Jr 0.04495 97 (9.6 years) 2002, 2004, 2006, 2007(2), 2010(2), 2012(2) and 2014 University of Alabama USA
(continued)
 Table II

Average citations per

Total degree paper and average Most recent Country/
Rank Author centrality age of the papers Years in which the papers were published institutional affiliation region
Sriskandarajah, Chelliah 0.04495 25 (7.6 years) 2006(2), 2007, 2010, 2011(2), 2012(2), 2014(1) and 2015 Texas A&M University USA
Zhao, Xiande 0.04495 307 (8.0 years) 2002, 2008(4), 2010, 2013, 2014(2) and 2015 China Europe China
International Business
School
30 Closs, David J. 0.04370 65 (9.7 years) 2004, 2005(2), 2007(2), 2009, 2011, 2012 and 2015 MSU USA
Sunil Babbar et al.

Humphreys, Paul 0.04370 90 (11.4 years) 2001, 2003(2), 2004, 2006(2), 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2013 University of Ulster UK
SCM research leadership

32 Calantone, Roger J. 0.04245 215 (11.4 years) 2003(2), 2005, 2006(2), 2007(2), 2009 and 2013 MSU USA
Fearne, Andrew P. 0.04245 76 (11.7 years) 2002, 2003(2), 2005(2), 2006(3), 2007, 2009 and 2012(2) University of Kent UK
Fugate, Brian S. 0.04245 97 (8.4 years) 2005, 2006, 2007(2), 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012(2) and 2014(2) Colorado State University USA
Klassen, Robert D. 0.04245 388 (11.1 years) 2002, 2003, 2006(2), 2007(4), 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 Western University Canada
Lawson, Benn 0.04245 170 (8.8 years) 2006(2), 2008(3), 2009(2), 2011, 2012 and 2015 University of Cambridge UK
Paulraj, Anthony 0.04245 402 (9.3 years) 2004(2), 2005, 2007(2), 2008(2), 2010, 2011, 2012, 2014 and 2015 University of Southern Denmark
Denmark
Sethi, Suresh P. 0.04245 72 (7.6 years) 2004, 2005, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014(2) and 2015 The University of Texas at USA
Dallas

830
Wiengarten, Frank 0.04245 53 (5.2 years) 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013(3), 2014(2) and 2015 Ramon Llull University Spain
40 Sarkis, Joseph 0.04120 421 (10.3 years) 2002(2), 2004(2), 2005(2), 2008, 2010, 2012(2) and 2014(2) Worcester Polytechnic USA
Institute
Wagner, Stephan M. 0.04120 126 (7.5 years) 2003, 2005, 2008(2), 2010(2), 2011(3), 2012(2), 2014(3) and 2015 Swiss Federal Institute of Switzerland
Technology Zurich
42 Davis-Sramek, Beth 0.03996 80 (8.8 years) 2005, 2006, 2007(2), 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012(2) and 2014 University of Louisville USA
Harland, Christine M. 0.03996 159 (11.0 years) 2001(2), 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008(2), 2013 and 2014 Cardiff University UK
Keller, Scott B. 0.03996 156 (12.3 years) 2001, 2002(3), 2005, 2006(2), 2010(2) and 2013 University of West Florida USA
Talluri, Srinivas 0.03996 175 (10.9 years) 2001, 2002(2), 2004(2), 2005, 2006, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 MSU USA
Zsidisin, George A. 0.03996 197 (10.8 years) 2002(2), 2003(3), 2005, 2007, 2008(2), 2010, 2013, 2014 and 2015 Virginia Commonwealth USA
University
47 Dooley, Kevin J. 0.03871 192 (8.5 years) 2001, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010(2), 2011(3), 2013 and 2014 ASU USA
Holström, Jan 0.03871 78 (9.7 years) 2002(2), 2004, 2006, 2007, 2009(2), 2010, 2013, 2014 and 2015 Aalton University Finland
Koster, René B. M. D. 0.03871 47 (7.2 years) 2005, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2013(3) and 2015(2) Erasmus University The
Netherlands
Kouvelis, Panos 0.03871 57 (7.2 years) 2002, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2011, 2012(2), 2013(3), 2014 and 2015(2) Washington University USA
Lynch, Daniel F. 0.03871 186 (11.0 years) 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2010(2) and 2013 Dalhousie University Canada
Volume 24 · Number 6 · 2019 · 821–854
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
 Table III Top 50 authors by Bonacich power centrality

Bonacich power Average citations per paper and Most recent institutional Country/
Rank Author centrality average age of the papers Years in which the papers were published affiliation region
1 Mentzer, John T. 0.72254 369 (11.5 years) 2001, 2002, 2003(2), 2004(2), 2005(3), 2006(4), 2007, 2008(5), University of Tennessee USA
2010(3) and 2012(2)
2 Autry, Chad W. 0.70376 95 (9.0 years) 2001(2), 2003, 2004, 2005, 2007, 2008(3), 2010(2)2011, 2012(3), University of Tennessee USA
2013 and 2014(4)
3 Goldsby, Thomas 0.62149 114 (9.1 years) 2003(2)2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011(4), 2012, 2013 The Ohio State University USA
J. and 2014(2)
Sunil Babbar et al.

4 Daugherty, 0.61686 173 (11.2 years) 2001(3), 2002(2), 2003, 2004(2), 2007, 2009(3), 2010(2), 2011, MSU USA
SCM research leadership

Patricia 2012, 2013 and 2015

5 Carter, Craig R. 0.60509 149 (10.7 years) 2001(2), 2002(2), 2003, 2004(3), 2005, 2006, 2007(4), 2008, 2009 ASU USA
(2), 2011, 2013, 2014(2) and 2015(2)
6 Choi, Thomas Y. 0.56145 259 (8.8 years) 2001(2), 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009(2), 2010, 2011 ASU USA
(3), 2013(3) and 2015(4)
7 Stank, Theodore 0.50243 214 (11.3 years) 2001(3), 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2008(2), 2009, 2010(2), 2012, University of Tennessee USA
P. 2013 and 2014
8 Griffis, Stanley E. 0.49736 106 (9.2 years) 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011(2), 2012(3) and MSU USA
2013

831
9 Ellram, Lisa M. 0.47378 211 (9.2 years) 2002, 2003(3), 2004, 2006, 2007(2), 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 Miami University USA
(2), 2014(3) and 2015
10 Rungtusanatham, 0.45243 208 (10.9 years) 2001(2), 2002, 2003, 2005(2), 2006, 2007(2), 2008, 2010, 2011, The Ohio State University USA
Manus J. 2013(2) and 2014
11 Knemeyer, A. M. 0.45043 108 (8.6 years) 2003, 2004(2), 2007, 2008, 2009(2), 2010(2), 2011(2), 2012(2), The Ohio State University USA
2013(2) and 2015
12 Petersen, 0.41185 238 (8.8 years) 2005(3), 2006(2), 2008, 2009, 2010, 2013, 2014(2) and 2015 University of Tennessee USA
Kenneth J.
13 Narasimhan, Ram 0.40480 160 (9.3 years) 2001(3), 2002, 2005, 2006, 2009, 2010, 2012(3), 2013(3) and 2015 MSU USA
(2)
14 Ellinger, 0.40469 86 (12.3 years) 2001, 2002(3), 2004, 2005, 2006(2), 2010(2), 2011 and 2012 University of Alabama USA
Alexander E.
15 Handfield, Robert 0.40118 252 (10.1 years) 2004(2), 2005, 2006(3), 2007(2), 2008(2), 2009, 2011 and 2015(2) North Carolina State USA
B. University
16 Cousins, Paul D. 0.39616 244 (11.4 years) 2001(2), 2004, 2005, 2006(3), 2008(3), 2009(2) and 2015 University of Manchester UK
17 Schoenherr, 0.37949 75 (5.9 years) 2005, 2007, 2008(2), 2009, 2011(2), 2012, 2013, 2014(2) and 2015 MSU USA
Tobias (7)
Volume 24 · Number 6 · 2019 · 821–854

18 Wassenhove, Luk 0.35918 222 (6.9 years) 2001, 2005, 2006, 2008, 2011, 2012, 2013(3) and 2014(6) INSEAD France
N. Van
(continued)
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
 Table III

Bonacich power Average citations per paper and Most recent institutional Country/
Rank Author centrality average age of the papers Years in which the papers were published affiliation region
19 Richey, Robert 0.33718 97 (9.6 years) 2002, 2004, 2006, 2007(2), 2010(2), 2012(2) and 2014 University of Alabama USA
G. Jr
20 Esper, Terry L. 0.33393 75 (7.0 years) 2003, 2007, 2008, 2009(2), 2012, 2014(2) and 2015(3) University of Arkansas USA
21 Lawson, Benn 0.33245 170 (8.8 years) 2006(2), 2008(3), 2009(2), 2011, 2012 and 2015 University of Cambridge UK
22 Fugate, Brian S. 0.33065 97 (8.4 years) 2005, 2006, 2007(2), 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012(2) and 2014(2) Colorado State University USA
Sunil Babbar et al.

23 Lamming, Richard 0.32175 243 (11.6 years) 2001(3), 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2013 and 2015(2) University of Manchester UK
SCM research leadership

C.
24 Fawcett, Stanley 0.31972 163 (8.6 years) 2001, 2004, 2007, 2008(2), 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015 Weber State University USA
E.
25 Davis-Sramek, 0.31923 80 (8.8 years) 2005, 2006, 2007(2), 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012(2) and 2014 University of Louisville USA
Beth
26 Rabinovich, Elliot 0.31719 57 (10.5 years) 2003(3), 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007(3), 2008(2), 2011, 2013(2) and ASU USA
2014
27 Tate, Wendy 0.30311 215 (7.3 years) 2004, 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013(2), 2014 and 2015 University of Tennessee USA
28 Closs, David J. 0.30203 65 (9.7 years) 2004, 2005(2), 2007(2), 2009, 2011, 2012 and 2015 MSU USA

832
29 Fynes, Brian 0.29683 107 (7.9 years) 2002, 2005, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013(3) and 2014 University College Dublin Ireland
30 Boyer, Kenneth K. 0.29131 72 (8.9 years) 2002, 2003, 2006(2), 2007(2), 2009(2), 2013(2), 2014(2) and 2015 The Ohio State University USA
31 Keller, Scott B. 0.28598 156 (12.3 years) 2001, 2002(3), 2005, 2006(2), 2010(2) and 2013 University of West Florida USA
32 Dawande, Milind 0.28414 22 (6.7 years) 2006, 2007, 2010, 2011(2), 2012, 2013, 2014(2) and 2015 The University of Texas at USA
Dallas
33 Wiengarten, 0.28069 53 (5.2 years) 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013(3), 2014(2) and 2015 Ramon Llull University Spain
Frank
34 Pagell, Mark 0.27909 262 (9.2 years) 2001, 2003, 2004(2), 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011(2), 2013(2) and 2014 University College Dublin Ireland
(2)
35 Humphreys, Paul 0.27651 90 (11.4 years) 2001, 2003(2), 2004, 2006(2), 2009, 2010, 2011and 2013 University of Ulster UK
36 Sriskandarajah, 0.27631 25 (7.6 years) 2006(2), 2007, 2010, 2011(2), 2012(2), 2014(1) and 2015 Texas A&M University USA
Chelliah
37 Lynch, Daniel F. 0.26698 186 (11.0 years) 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2010(2) and 2013 Dalhousie University Canada
38 Dooley, Kevin J. 0.26633 192 (8.5 years) 2001, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010(2), 2011(3), 2013 and 2014 ASU USA
39 Calantone, Roger 0.26607 215 (11.4 years) 2003(2), 2005, 2006(2), 2007(2), 2009 and 2013 MSU USA
J.
40 Talluri, Srinivas 0.26448 175 (10.9 years) 2001, 2002(2), 2004(2), 2005, 2006, 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015 MSU USA
Volume 24 · Number 6 · 2019 · 821–854

(continued)
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
 Table III
Sunil Babbar et al.

Bonacich power Average citations per paper and Most recent institutional Country/
SCM research leadership

Rank Author centrality average age of the papers Years in which the papers were published affiliation region
41 Zhao, Xiande 0.26395 307 (8.0 years) 2002, 2008(4), 2010, 2013, 2014(2) and 2015 China Europe International China
Business School
42 Paulraj, Anthony 0.25451 402 (9.3 years) 2004(2), 2005, 2007(2), 2008(2), 2010, 2011, 2012, 2014 and 2015 University of Southern Denmark
Denmark
43 Zacharia, Zach G. 0.25341 594 (9.7 years) 2001, 2004, 2007, 2008, 2009. 2010, 2011(2) and 2014 Lehigh University USA
44 Zsidisin, George 0.24982 197 (10.8 years) 2002(2), 2003(3), 2005, 2007, 2008(2), 2010, 2013, 2014 and 2015 Virginia Commonwealth USA
A. University
45 Harland, Christine 0.24953 159 (11.0 years) 2001(2), 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008(2), 2013 and 2014 Cardiff University UK

833
M.
46 Klassen, Robert D. 0.24812 388 (11.1 years) 2002, 2003, 2006(2), 2007(4), 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 Western University Canada
47 Wagner, Stephan 0.24782 126 (7.5 years) 2003, 2005, 2008(2), 2010(2), 2011(3), 2012(2), 2014(3) and 2015 Swiss Federal Institute of Switzerland
M. Technology Zurich
48 Kaufmann, Lutz 0.24652 56 (10.2 years) 2002, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011(2), 2013(2) and 2015(2) WHU-Otto Beisheim School Germany
of Management
49 Sarkis, Joseph 0.24480 421 (10.3 years) 2002(2), 2004(2), 2005(2), 2008, 2010, 2012(2) and 2014(2) Worcester Polytechnic USA
Institute
50 Whipple, Judith 0.23583 157 (8.1 years) 2002, 2004, 2010(2), 2011(2), 2013(2) and 2015 MSU USA
M.
Volume 24 · Number 6 · 2019 · 821–854
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
 SCM research leadership
Sunil Babbar et al.
Only one author from Asia (Xiande Zhao, from China) figures
among the top 50 authors on this measure.
3.1.2.3 Profiling the networks of the very top authors. It seems
useful to examine the nature and extent of geographic
dispersion that the networks of the very top agents (i.e. the very
top authors, institutions and countries) exhibit. Accordingly, in
Figure 1, we present the networks of each of the top two
authors, namely, Thomas Y. Choi and Craig R. Carter, who
have the highest publication scores of 79 and 66.5, respectively.
In these networks, the lines are in weighted density in
accordance with the simple count of number of papers on
which the authors are connected with one another.
The networks of each of these two authors are quite
expansive and similar in the aspect that each of them has 23
others (who they have coauthored papers with) in their
respective networks.
Thomas Y. Choi has coauthored more than one paper with 6
of the 23 coauthors in his network, with the most shared papers
being with Yasoon Kim (i.e. five papers), followed by Zhaohui
Wu with three and Kevin J. Dooley, Cipriano Forza, Fabrizio
Salvador and Tingting Yan each with two. In terms of the
geographic span, Choi’s network spans authors from across 5
countries, with 14 of the 23 coauthors being from the USA, 4
from the UK, 2 from Italy, 2 from Spain and 1 from Australia
based on country of affiliation as listed on the papers. The nine
Figure 1 Networks of the top two authors: Thomas Y. Choi and Craig
R. Carter
834
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Volume 24 · Number 6 · 2019 · 821–854
coauthors from outside of the USA come from five non-US
institutions, with three from Cranfield University in the UK,
two from University of Padova in Italy, two from IE University
in Spain, one from the University of Melbourne in Australia
and one from SCCI Ltd. in the UK.
Craig R. Carter has coauthored more than one paper with 8
of his 23 coauthors, with the most shared papers being with
Lutz Kaufmann (seven papers), followed by seven others each
of who Carter has two shared papers with Martin E. Dresner,
Lisa M. Ellram, Marianne M. Jennings, Rudolf Leuschner,
Dale S. Rogers, Cynthia K. Stevens and Wendy L. Tate. In
terms of the geographic span, Carter’s network is narrower than
that of Choi’s and spans authors from across only three
countries, with 17 coauthors based in the USA, 5 based in
Germany and 1 based in Canada resting on the country of
affiliation as listed on the papers. The six coauthors from
outside of the USA come from only two non-US institutions,
with five being from WHU-Otto Beisheim School of
Management in Germany and one from the University of
Manitoba in Canada. Carter’s network, which includes
coauthors from 13 different institutions, includes only 2 of
which are non-US institutions and is in a sense more inward-
looking (US-centric) than outward-looking (globally
dispersed).
3.1.2.4 Primary areas of supply chain management research of
the top-ranked authors and their journal-publication profiles. To
provide stakeholders some further information relating to the
ranked authors, we present in Table IV the primary areas of
SCM research of each of the authors ranked among the top 50
either by publication score, total degree centrality or Bonacich
power centrality. In addition to providing their areas of
research, we also provide their respective publication profile
(i.e. breakdown of their number of papers by the journal). This
information can be useful to stakeholders for gauging the
potential for collaboration with these leading authors and
tapping their networks. The primary areas of SCM research of
each of these authors are identified based on the titles,
keywords and abstracts of all of the respective papers published
across the journal set over the 15-year period of this study.
Of the journals in our set, POM and MSOM differ from the
other journals in that they tend to attract and publish research
using more of quantitative modeling and optimization-type
techniques. And so, the publication profiles we present in
Table IV can be helpful in informing stakeholders about the
propensity any of these top authors has for publishing in any
particular journal in the journal set.
3.2 The top-ranked institutions
In this section, we ranked the institutions from across the
world, first based on the measure of publication score, and then
used measures of network centrality.
3.2.1 The top-ranked institutions based on publication score
As we did for authors, we computed a composite publication
score for each institution by crediting the institution a score for
each paper that equaled the ABS (2018) Academic Journal
Guide rating score of the journal that it was published in. We
present in Table V the top 50 institutions by publication score.
As a complement to the publication score, for each of these
top institutions, we also report in Table V the institution’s
 SCM research leadership Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Sunil Babbar et al. Volume 24 · Number 6 · 2019 · 821–854

Table IV Primary areas of SCM research of all authors ranked among the top 50 by publication score, total degree centrality or Bonacich power centrality and
each author’s profile of journals the author has published in
Publication profile: breakdown
Author Author’s primary areas of SCM researcha of number of papers by journalb
Choi, Thomas Y. SC interactions and linkages; time-related performance; relationship management; innovation; JSCM(9), JOM(8), IJOPM(3) and
supply networks; automotive industry; transaction costs; SC risks and responsiveness; social POM(1)
networks; social capital; healthcare SCs; RFID; supplier management; power; multi-tier SCM;
nexus supplier; theory building; services outsourcing
Carter, Craig R. JIT purchasing; international supply management and relationships; electronic reverse JSCM(13), JBL(7), JOM(3)
auctions; purchasing; environmental management; social responsibility; sustainability;
negotiation; relationship marketing; logistics; knowledge management; third-party logistics;
theory building; social networks; debiasing strategies
Narasimhan, Ram SC integration; buyer–supplier relations; relational networking; food safety; sourcing; JOM(9), JSCM(3), JBL(2), IJOPM(1)
postponement strategy; service location; supplier management initiatives; supplier evaluation and POM(1)
and rationalization; supplier integration; justice; SC collaboration; agility; purchasing
competence; information system strategy; inventory management; supply network; innovation
Wassenhove, Luk N. Humanitarian operations; vehicle fleet management; logistics; logistics network design; POM(11), JOM(3) and MSOM (1)
Van product recovery; sustainability; remanufacturing; transportation; collection cost structure;
crisis management; school feeding programs; infrastructural investment; sourcing; supplier
networks
Rungtusanatham, SC interactions and linkages; relationship management; inventory management; supplier JOM(8), IJOPM(4), JSCM(2) and
Manus J. failure; supply networks; SC coordination; retailing; internet retailing; distribution; product JBL(1)
variety; SCM research; role-playing; reshoring
Schoenherr, Tobias Knowledge management; ERP systems; online reverse auctions; relational networking; food JBL(6), JOM(4), IJOPM(3), JSCM(3),
safety; SC integration; SC collaboration; buyer–supplier relations; service triads; procurement POM(1) and SCMIJ(1)
strategies; bidding; logistics; environmental sourcing; data science; risk management; survey
research; ambidextrous governance
Mentzer, John T. Relationship management; knowledge creation and learning; retailing; order fulfillment; JBL(21), JOM(2) and JSCM(1)
inventory management; it investment in retail SCs; logistics; innovation; loyalty; SC
coordination; SC flexibility; demand collaboration; new product development; SCM’s
relationship with other functional areas; risk management; forecasting; organizational
change; research rigor vs relevance
Cousins, Paul D. Relationship management; environmental management; risk; supply strategies; purchasing IJOPM(7), JOM(3),
function configuration; buyer–supplier relations; quality; SC integration; SC responsiveness; JSCM(2) and POM(1)
capabilities; socialization and social capital; green supply; SC alignment
Ellram, Lisa M. Product offering mix; offshore outsourcing; reshoring; purchasing; risk management; JSCM(11), JBL(5), JOM(1) and
managing the services SC; target costing; corporate social responsibility; factor market rivalry; IJOPM(1)
energy efficiency; supplier cost management; social networks; environmental practices;
buyer–supplier relationships; survey research firms and data collection
Rabinovich, Elliot Inventory management; internet retailing; internet commerce; multi-channel retailing; e- JOM(7), JBL(6), IJOPM(1) and POM
service quality; logistics; distribution service; information systems assimilation; product (1)
returns; product fulfillment; use of secondary data sources
Boyer, Kenneth K. SC efficiency; information flow strategies; internet purchasing; order fulfillment; repeat JOM(5), POM(3), IJOPM(2), JBL(2)
purchasing; SC integration; SC collaboration; social capital; buyer–supplier relations; SCM and JSCM(1)
research; research methodology; quality; logistics strategy; customer density and delivery
Handfield, Robert B. SC integration: relationship management; relational capital; socialization; supplier JSCM(6), JOM(3), IJOPM(3), POM
management; supplier integration; ERP; product development; industry cluster theory; (1) and JBL(1)
sourcing strategy; conflict of interest issues; supply management alignment; research
methods; skills for supply managers
Autry, Chad W. Buyer–supplier relations; SC technology management; SC communications; outsourcing; social JBL(14), JSCM(4) and JOM(2)
responsibility; supplier selection; cultures; organizational structure; automatic replenishment
programs; reverse logistics; warehouse operations; SC capital; innovation; logistics strategy;
citizenship behavior; SCM theory and concepts; vertical SC triads; SC collaboration and
integration; SC resilience
(continued)

835
 SCM research leadership Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Sunil Babbar et al. Volume 24 · Number 6 · 2019 · 821–854

Table IV

Publication profile: breakdown

Author Author’s primary areas of SCM researcha of number of papers by journalb
Klassen, Robert D. Environmental management; selection of planned supply initiatives; corporate social JOM(5), IJOPM(3), POM(2), JSCM
responsibility; sustainability; purchasing; SC investment; using e-business technologies in the (1) and MSOM (1)
SC; SC collaboration; SC evaluation
Pagell, Mark Sustainable SCM; sustainable sourcing; environmental management; purchasing; competitive IJOPM(1), JOM(5), JSCM(5) and
priorities for purchasing; integration of operations, purchasing and logistics; safety; quality; SCMIJ(2)
logistics capabilities; strategies of supply communities; outsourcing; risk; SCM research
Kouvelis, Panos SCM research; management of lead-times; flexible backup supply; contingency strategies; POM(7) and MSOM(6)
offshore outsourcing; yield uncertainty; global networks; SC coordination; contracts; demand
information and production; supplier flexibility; inventory management; sourcing strategies;
supplier diversification strategies; risk management; pharmaceutical SCS
Koster, René B. M. D. Third-party international warehousing; warehouse management; benchmarking; data POM(6), IJOPM(3) and JOM(2)
envelopment analysis; sustainability; transformational leadership; safety; order picking
systems; facility design; distribution management; cross-docking
Wagner, Stephan M. SC fit; buyer–supplier relations; supplier innovation; SC complexity; disruptions; supplier JSCM(6), JBL(6) and JOM(3)
integration; knowledge sharing in networks; fairness and trust; managing financially
distressed suppliers; knowledge of SC parameters; risk management; innovation management;
SC resilience; logistics research; delivery personnel; purchase behavior; research methods; SC
challenges
Sarkis, Joseph Sustainability; environmental management; Chinese manufacturing; service location; supplier SCMIJ(7), JOM(2), IJOPM(2) and
selection; strategy; third-party reverse logistics; e-logistics; green supplier management JSCM(1)
Petersen, Kenneth J. SC integration; SC relational capital; relationship management; new product development; JSCM(7), JOM(3), IJOPM(1) and
collaborative planning; SC strategies; negotiations; supply management alignment; offshoring JBL(1)
and reshoring; location decisions; risk management
Power, Damien Quality and innovation in the SC; competencies of SC professionals; environmental SCMIJ(8), IJOPM(3) and JOM(1)
management; ISO 9000 implementation; strategic relationships with SC partners
Lawson, Benn Purchasing; buyer–supplier relations; performance measurement; SC integration; SC IJOPM(5), JOM(3) and JSCM(2)
responsiveness; knowledge transfer; new product development; socialization; relational
capital
Paulraj, Anthony Sustainability; SC collaboration; SC coordination; productivity; SCM constructs; strategic JSCM(4), JOM(3), JBL(3) and
purchasing; inter-organizational communication; buyer–supplier relations; quality IJOPM(2)
performance; information technology; logistics integration; strategy; SCM research; SCM
practices
Knemeyer, A. M. Internet commerce; logistics; distribution; SC disruptions; third-party logistics; outsourcing; JBL(12), JOM(2) and JSCM(2)
relationship management; SC partnerships; forecasting; loyalty; logistics and SC decision-
making; justice; sustainability; SC research; implementation of SC technologies
Sethi, Suresh P. SC coordination; SC risk management; ordering decisions; market signals; cooperative POM(9) and MSOM(1)
advertising; pricing; contracting; supply diversification; inventory management; backlogging;
transshipment; demand shapes and signals; learning
Daugherty, Patricia SC collaboration; SC integration; logistics; SC technology management; technological JBL(17) and JOM(1)
turbulence; reverse logistics; relationship commitment; alliances; warehousing; human capital;
marketing/logistics relationships; outsourcing; knowledge synthesis; innovation; trust
Goldsby, Thomas J. Online retailing; order fulfillment; product returns; logistics; third-party logistics; internet; mail JBL(13), JOM(2) and JSCM(1)
surveys; performance measurement; warehouse management; SC strategies; information
needs management; outsourcing; commitment and trust; e-logistics service quality; SCM
research; research replication
Krause, Daniel R. Management of the supply base; purchasing; purchasing strategy; supplier development; JSCM(6), JOM(4) and JBL(1)
buyer–supplier relations; social capital; bargaining; negotiations; sustainability
Lamming, Richard C. Learning in the SC; risk management; environmental initiatives; outsourcing; risk IJOPM(7), JSCM(2) and POM(1)
management; cultural adaptation; SC partnerships; political and rational dynamics;
international purchasing; green supply; relationship management; supply networks
Sriskandarajah, SC scheduling; distribution; cash SCs; cash reuse; zero-inventory systems; sales forecasting; POM(8) and MSOM(2)
Chelliah pricing and logistics decisions; transportation networks; security; new federal reserve
guidelines; depository institutions
(continued)

836
 SCM research leadership Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Sunil Babbar et al. Volume 24 · Number 6 · 2019 · 821–854

Table IV

Publication profile: breakdown

Author Author’s primary areas of SCM researcha of number of papers by journalb
Benton, W.C. Jr Supplier evaluation; buyer–supplier relations; power; SC practices; information sharing; JOM(7), POM(1) and JBL(1)
outsourcing; SC coordination; SC integration; inventory management; quantity discounts
Dooley, Kevin J. Supplier failure and recovery; supply networks; buyer–supplier relations; new product JSCM(6), JOM(3), IJOPM(1) and
development; supplier innovativeness; learning; purchasing; SC collaboration; environmental JBL(1)
practices; inventory management; bullwhip effect; jobs in SCM
Dawande, Milind Scheduling; distribution; currency supply network; new federal reserve guidelines; zero- POM(7) and MSOM(3)
inventory systems; pricing and logistics decisions; transportation networks; developing
countries; procurement; cash reuse; distribution of water in farms
Zsidisin, George A. SC risk management; purchasing; chief purchasing officer compensation; SC integration; JSCM(6), JBL(4), SCMIJ(2) and JOM
supplier involvement; new product development; supplier cost management; product life cycle (1)
extension; market scanning; evaluation of SCM journals
Fearne, Andrew P. Commodity marketing and category management; procurement; food industry; collaboration; SCMIJ(12)
SC software implementation; buyer-seller relationships; lean thinking; demand management;
food industry; co-innovation; sustainability; value chain analysis
Tang, Christopher Rebate strategies; pricing; product returns; SC risk management; humanitarian relief; POM(6) and MSOM(4)
developing countries; ocean freight service; category assortment planning; project
management contracts; selling strategies
Van Hoek, Remko Value-creation; e-supply chains; SC managers; new product development; fudging practices in SCMIJ(7), IJOPM(2), JOM(1) and
SCs; SC configuration and business alignment; guest lectures; SCM education programs; third- JBL(1)
party logistics; performance measurement; agility; postponement
Zhao, Xiande Third-party logistics; relationship management; SC integration; information sharing and SCMIJ(5), JOM(2),
ordering coordination; information technology; risk management; competitive strategy; IJOPM(1), POM(1) and JSCM(1)
organizational culture; China
Wu, Zhaohui Relationship management; sustainability; supply networks; cooperation; culture; sourcing; JOM(5) and JSCM(4)
energy efficiency
Fynes, Brian Buyer–supplier relations; quality practices; information quality; SC relationship dynamics; SCMIJ(6) and IJOPM(4)
manufacturing performance measurement; communication; e-business applications; SC
collaboration; value creation process; industry clock speed; lean practices; environmental
management; outsourcing contracts; SC resilience
Hult, Tomas G. M. Knowledge management; organizational learning; e-commerce; order fulfillment; best value JOM(6), JBL(2) and JSCM(1)
SCs; innovation; cost strategy; purchasing; quality; logistics strategy; environmental sourcing;
theory building
Katok, Elena Learning; bullwhip effect; fairness; bidding; procurement auctions; coordination risk; POM(4), MSOM(3) and JOM(2)
wholesale pricing; newsvendor problem; inventory service-level agreements
Harland, Christine M. Supply networks; network strategy; outsourcing; risk management; supplier relations; IJOPM(5), SCMIJ(2), JOM(1) and
e-commerce adoption; e-procurement; SC information integration; the impact of SCM JSCM(1)
research; sustainability
Hartley, Janet L. E-auctions; sourcing; supplier participation; quality management; supplier management; JOM(3), IJOPM(2), SCMIJ(2) and
supplier evaluation; JIT purchasing; product development; technology; student projects; JSCM(2)
commodity price risk; SC integration; market scanning
Ketchen, David J. Jr Organizational learning; knowledge management; best value SCs; cost strategy; innovation; JOM(5), JSCM(2), SCMIJ(1) and JBL
strategic sourcing; product recalls; theory building (1)
Stank, Theodore P. Service operations; order fulfillment; SC collaboration; use of multi-item scales in research; JBL(13), JOM(1) and SCMIJ(1)
logistics; integrated logistics; SCM’s relationship with other functional areas; the role of
followers in SCs; retailer merchandising decisions; demand-supply integration; SC agility; risk
management; logistics partnership
Handley, Sean M. Outsourcing; outsourcing relationships; power; SC coordination; quality management; JOM(6), POM(1) and JBL(1)
contractual incentives; cross-docking
Holström, Jan Inventory management; logistics innovation; mass collaboration; wireless product SCMIJ(9), IJOPM(1) and JBL(1)
identification; new product introductions; product planning; SC design; service delivery; digital
manufacturing-driven transformations
(continued)

837
 SCM research leadership Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Sunil Babbar et al. Volume 24 · Number 6 · 2019 · 821–854

Table IV

Publication profile: breakdown

Author Author’s primary areas of SCM researcha of number of papers by journalb
Humphreys, Paul Buyer–supplier interface; buyer–supplier relations; b2b commerce; e-commerce; outsourcing; SCMIJ(6), IJOPM(3) and JSCM(1)
performance management; SC collaboration; organizational health; project partnering; service
quality; information quality; value creation
Kaufmann, Lutz Relationship management; supplier selection; supplier performance; international supply JSCM(6), JBL(3) and JOM(2)
management; negotiation; electronic reverse auctions; research methods; green SC
management; debiasing strategies; emerging economies; social networks
Sanders, Nada R. E-business technologies; it applications in the SC; organizational collaboration; SC JBL(6), JSCM(4) and JOM(2)
coordination; SC relationships; outsourcing; functional perspectives within SCM; warehouse
workforce flexibility; forecasting; third-party logistics; SC challenges; research methodologies
Ellinger, Alexander E. Logistics; reverse logistics; learning; use of multi-item scales in research; b2b commerce; JBL(9) and SCMIJ(3)
distribution; internal marketing; SC collaboration; empowerment; third-party logistics;
outsourcing relationships; SCM competency; online logistics service systems
Griffis, Stanley E. SC strategies; online retailing; order fulfillment; product returns; internet; mail surveys; JBL(11) and JOM(2)
performance measurement; warehouse management; logistics; information needs
management; SC capital; relational linkages; innovation; swarm intelligence; e-logistics
service quality; trust
Fawcett, Stanley E. SC collaboration; relational strategies; information technology; information sharing; retailing; JBL(6), SCMIJ(3) and JSCM(2)
customer service levels; governance theory; obsolescence
Esper, Terry L. Online retail delivery strategies; logistics; learning; the role of followers in SCs; demand and JBL(10) and SCMIJ(1)
supply integration; retail SC relationships; SC risk management; online retailing; SC citizenship
behavior; environmental sustainability
Richey, Robert G. Jr SC technology management; logistics; reverse logistics; service competency; SC manager JBL(9) and JOM(1)
selection; SC portfolio strategy; governance theory; technology and flexibility; customer
loyalty; SC collaboration
Closs, David J. SC design; product safety; risk management; performance measurement; reusable packaging; JBL(7), JOM(1) and SCMIJ(1)
logistics performance; information needs management; demand uncertainty; configuration
capacity; food safety; supplier selection; regional logistics hubs; inter-organizational
governance; railcar utilization
Calantone, Roger SC efficiency; SC strategy; knowledge management; logistics; distribution service operations; JBL(6), JOM(2) and IJOPM(1)
demand uncertainty; configuration capacity; food safety; supplier selection
Fugate, Brian S. Functional perspectives within SCM; knowledge sharing; learning; logistics; logistics JBL(9) and JSCM(2)
performance; strategy; SC coordination; organizational change; resource-advantage theory;
logistics information system evaluation
Weingarten, Frank E-business; SC integration; SC collaboration; logistics; information quality; value creation; SCMIJ(7), JOM(1) and IJOPM(1)
industry clock speed; environmental management; green SCs; sustainability; quality/lean
practices; outsourcing; risk management
Davis-Sramek, Beth Retailing; order fulfillment; logistics; logistics strategy; learning; SC coordination and JBL(9) and JOM(1)
flexibility; relational exchange; organizational change; SC relationships; attribution effects of
time pressure
Keller, Scott B. Logistics; SC collaboration; learning; driver relationships and performance; distribution; use of JBL(9) and SCMIJ(1)
multi-item scales in research; empowerment; third-party logistics; management of logistics
personnel; railcar utilization
Talluri, Srinivas Supplier integration; strategic supplier selection; supplier evaluation and rationalization; JSCM(4), JBL(4), JOM(2) and SCMIJ
supply decision-making; service location; reverse auctions; newsvendor decision model; risk (1)
mitigation strategies; strategic environmental sourcing; SC disruptions; E-logistics;
environment
Lynch, Daniel F. Buyer–supplier relations; communication media selection; power asymmetry; B2B commerce; JBL(4), IJOPM(2), JOM(1) and
logistics; strategy; distribution service; use of multi-item scales in research JSCM(1)
Tate, Wendy Outsourcing; reshoring; services SCs; corporate social responsibility; logistics; social networks; JSCM(5), JBL(4) and JOM(1)
factor markets; sustainable SC management; environmental practices; survey research;
location decisions
(continued)

838
 SCM research leadership
Sunil Babbar et al.
Table IV
Author Author’s primary areas of SCM researcha
Zacharia, Zach G. SC concentration; SC collaboration; functional perspectives within SCM; logistics; logistics
strategy; new product development; third-party logistics
Whipple, Judith M. Relationship management; buyer–supplier relations; SC collaboration; SC design; research
methodology; social capital; alliances; information support; governance theory; trust
Notes: aThese primary research areas best describing an author’s body of SCM-related research appearing across the journals of this study are identified by
drawing from the titles, keywords and abstracts of the papers; bThe number in parentheses is the number of papers published in the particular journal on
which the individual’s name is included in authorship. The journals listed are ordered in keeping with the number of papers appearing in each journal and
where there is a tie, by the level of ABS rating score of the journal
simple count of a total number of papers and its distributed
count of papers. The simple count of a number of papers is the
total number of papers that carry that particular institution’s
affiliation in authorship. The distributed number of papers of
an institution is determined by crediting the institution based
on the number of times that particular institution’s affiliation
appears within the authorship of the paper. Hence, the
institution receives a credit of 1.0 toward its count of
distributed number of papers for a paper, that is, sole-authored
with the institution’s affiliation, a credit of 0.50 for a paper on
which there are a total of two authors with one of those being
affiliated with the particular institution, a credit of 0.66 for a
paper, which has a total of three authors with two of who are
affiliated with the particular institution, and a credit of 0.25 for
a paper having a total of four authors with one of who is
affiliated with the particular institution, etc.
As shown in Table V, the top ten institutions by publication
score are Michigan State University (MSU) (with a score of
389.5), AZ State University (329.5), The Ohio State
University (253), University of Tennessee (164), Cranfield
University (155.5), University of Maryland (152), University of
Texas at Dallas (151), PA State University (142), GA Institute
of Technology (138.5) and University of Bath (123),
respectively. MSU and Arizona State University (ASU) led all
others by a fairly substantial margin, even vis-à-vis the
institution placing 3rd, on each of the measures of publication
score, number of papers and distributed number of papers.
Examining institutions by country, 8 of the top 10
institutions and 17 of the top 25 institutions are from the USA.
The two non-US institutions among the top 10, Cranfield
University (ranked 5th) and the University of Bath (ranked
10th), are both located in the UK. The only institution from
Asia that ranks among the top 25 institutions is The Hong
Kong Polytechnic University (at number 13). USA leads all
countries in placing 33 institutions among the top 50
institutions, followed by the UK (6), Hong Kong (3), Canada
(2), The Netherlands (2), Australia (1), France (1), Germany
(1) and Ireland (1).
3.2.2 Ranking institutions based on network measures of centrality
We now present the rankings of institutions based on network
measures of total degree centrality and Bonacich power centrality.
3.2.2.1 The top-ranked institutions based on total degree
centrality. Institutions that are high in total degree centrality are
considered as being “in the know” (Wasserman and Faust,
839
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Volume 24 · Number 6 · 2019 · 821–854
Publication profile: breakdown
of number of papers by journalb
JBL(6), JOM(2) and JSCM(1)
JBL(5), JOM(2), JSCM(1) and POM
(1)
1994) because of the many connections they have with other
institutions in the same network. Total degree centrality is
calculated on the institution  institution matrices. For the
institution  institution network with shared papers (1,131
institutions, network density 0.0053582) the top 50 institutions
(including ties) with the highest total degree centrality are
presented in Table VI.
The top five institutions, respectively, based on the measure
of total degree centrality, are MSU, AZ State University, The
Ohio State University, University of Tennessee and University
of Maryland.
Four of the top five institutions by total degree centrality
(Table VI) are the same as the top four institutions by
publication score (Table VI). Cranfield University, which
ranked 5th by publication score, dropped to 9th when total
degree centrality is considered. As shown in Table VI, MI State
University stands out and leads all others, including the
institution ranked 2nd, by a considerable margin based on this
measure of centrality. Though with differing ranks across the
two top 50 sets, most of the institutions that ranked among the
top 50 by publication score also ranked among the top 50 by
total degree centrality – except for five institutions (University
of Oklahoma, EBS Universität, Brigham Young University,
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and New York
University) that placed among the top 50 by total degree
centrality but not among the top 50 by publication score.
The USA leads all other countries in placing 9 institutions
among the top 10 and 20 among the top 25 based on this
measure of centrality. Institutions from 8 different countries
place among the top 50 institutions by total degree centrality,
with the USA placing 35 institutions, followed by the UK (6),
Hong Kong (3), Germany (2), The Netherlands (2), Canada
(1), France (1) and Ireland (1).
3.2.2.2 The top-ranked institutions based on Bonacich power
centrality. An institution that scores high on Bonacich power
centrality is connected with institutions that are, in turn, highly
connected with other institutions. This measure of centrality
adds to the prominence of the institution because of the
weightiness of the centrality of the other institutions that it is
connected within the network. For the institution  institution
network with shared papers (1,131 institutions, network
density 0.0053582), the top 50 institutions with the highest
Bonacich power centrality are presented in Table VII. The top
five institutions on this measure are MSU, AZ State University,
The Ohio State University, University of Tennessee and
 SCM research leadership Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Sunil Babbar et al. Volume 24 · Number 6 · 2019 · 821–854

Table V Top 50 institutions by publication score

Distributed
Publication No. of no. of Publication profile: breakdown of number of
Rank Institution scorea papers papersb papers by journalc Country/region
1 MSU 389.5 123 66.31 JBL(48), JOM(37), JSCM(21), POM(8), IJOPM(5) and USA
SCMIJ(4)
2 ASU 329.5 97 57.66 JSCM(35), JOM(29), JBL(18), IJOPM(7), POM(6), USA
SCMIJ(1) and MSOM(1)
3 The Ohio State University 253.0 85 44.39 JBL(42), JOM(18), POM(10), JSCM(10), IJOPM(3) USA
and SCMIJ(2)
4 University of Tennessee 164.0 68 35.62 JBL(50), JSCM(8), JOM(6), SCMIJ(3) and POM(1) USA
5 Cranfield University 155.5 48 33.02 SCMIJ(26), IJOPM(12), JBL(5), JOM(3) and JSCM(2) UK
6 University of Maryland 152.0 46 25.46 POM(12), JBL(11), JOM(8), JSCM(8), MSOM(6) and USA
IJOPM(1)
7 The University of Texas 151.0 39 21.70 POM(31), MSOM(5), JOM(2) and JSCM(1) USA
at Dallas
8 Pennsylvania State 142.0 42 22.75 POM(12), JOM(8), JBL(8), JSCM(6), MSOM(6) and USA
University SCMIJ(2)
9 Georgia Institute of 138.5 36 17.78 POM(16), MSOM(10), JOM(9) and IJOPM(1) USA
Technology
10 University of Bath 123.0 34 23.12 IJOPM(18), SCMIJ(9), JSCM(3), JOM(2), POM(1) and UK
JBL(1)
11 University of Minnesota 121.5 32 14.11 JOM(11), POM(10), JSCM(5), MSOM(3),JBL(2) and USA
IJOPM(1)
12 Indiana University 116.5 29 15.33 JOM(11), POM(10), IJOPM(3), JSCM(3) and MSOM USA
Bloomington (2)
13 The Hong Kong 107.0 30 17.87 SCMIJ(9), POM(8), IJOPM(5), JOM(4), JBL(2), JSCM Hong Kong
Polytechnic University (1) and MSOM(1)
14 Texas A&M University 105.5 29 12.45 POM(13), JOM(5), SCMIJ(3), JSCM(3), JBL(3), IJOPM USA
(1) and MSOM(1)
15 Western University 104.5 27 15.66 JOM(11), JSCM(8), POM(4), IJOPM(3) and MSOM(1) Canada
16 Erasmus University 98.0 25 13.00 POM(10), IJOPM(7), JOM(4), JSCM(2), SCMIJ(1) and The Netherlands
MSOM(1)
17 Auburn University 93.0 30 14.33 JBL(11), JOM(8), JSCM(5), SCMIJ(4) and POM(2) USA
Stanford University 93.0 26 15.08 POM(12), MSOM(11), JOM(2) and JSCM(1) USA
19 University of Arkansas 92.5 36 15.07 JBL(25), JOM(5), JSCM(3), POM(2) and SCMIJ(1) USA
University of Manchester 92.5 26 11.62 IJOPM(11), SCMIJ(8), JOM(3), JSCM(3) and JBL(1) UK
21 Washington University 92.0 27 14.42 MSOM(14), POM(11), SCMIJ(1) and JSCM(1) USA
22 University of Michigan 90.0 24 10.00 POM(11), MSOM(6), JOM(4), IJOPM(1), SCMIJ(1) USA
and JSCM(1)
23 Cardiff University 86.0 27 16.16 SCMIJ(21), IJOPM(3), JOM(2), JBL(1) UK
24 University of North 85.5 23 13.87 POM(12), MSOM(7), JOM(3) and JSCM(1) USA
Carolina at Chapel Hill
25 INSEAD (France) 83.5 21 9.07 POM(16), JOM(3) and MSOM(2) France
26 The Chinese University of 82.0 23 10.00 POM(10), MSOM(5), JOM(2), SCMIJ(2), JSCM(2), Hong Kong
Hong Kong IJOPM(1) and JBL(1)
27 North Carolina State 81.0 22 11.53 JSCM(7), JOM(6), POM(4), IJOPM(3), SCMIJ(1) and USA
University JBL(1)
28 WHU-Otto Beisheim 80.0 28 18.17 JSCM(12), JBL(10), POM(3), JOM(2) and MSOM(1) Germany
School of Management
29 Colorado State University 77.5 25 8.83 JBL(9), JSCM(7), JOM(5), IJOPM(2) and POM(2) USA
University of California, 77.5 22 10.83 POM(11), MSOM(9), JOM(1) and JBL(1) USA
Los Angeles
University of Cambridge 77.5 20 11.86 IJOPM(11), JOM(3), POM(2), SCMIJ(2) and JSCM(2) UK
32 University of Melbourne 76.5 22 16.08 SCMIJ(13), IJOPM(5), JOM(3) and POM(1) Australia
33 Iowa State University 75.5 27 13.92 JBL(13), JSCM(5), JOM(3), POM(3) and SCMIJ(3) USA
(continued)

840
 SCM research leadership Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Sunil Babbar et al. Volume 24 · Number 6 · 2019 · 821–854

Table V

Distributed
Publication No. of no. of Publication profile: breakdown of number of
Rank Institution scorea papers papersb papers by journalc Country/region
34 Miami University 74.0 26 10.95 JSCM(13), JBL(9), JOM(2), IJOPM(1) and POM(1) USA
The University of Texas 74.0 20 9.58 POM(13), SCMIJ(3), MSOM(2), IJOPM(1) and JSCM USA
at Austin (1)
36 Eindhoven University of 72.5 21 10.25 POM(5), JSCM(5), IJOPM(4), MSOM(3), SCMIJ(2), The Netherlands
Technology JOM(1) and JBL(1)
University of California, 72.5 20 11.17 POM(11), MSOM(7), JOM(1) and JSCM(1) USA
Berkeley
38 Texas Christian 72.0 25 13.70 JBL(13), JOM(6), JSCM(4), POM(1), SCMIJ(1) USA
University
University of Warwick 72.0 21 11.09 SCMIJ(10), IJOPM(9) and JSCM(2) UK
40 Massachusetts Institute 70.5 21 11.39 POM(7), JBL(5), MSOM(4), JOM(3), IJOPM(1) and USA
of Technology JSCM(1)
Rutgers University 70.5 20 10.45 JSCM(8), JOM(5), POM(5) and JBL(2) USA
42 Lehigh University 70.0 23 11.08 JBL(8), JSCM(5), JOM(4), POM(3) and SCMIJ(3) USA
City University of Hong 70.0 20 9.58 SCMIJ(5), POM(4), IJOPM(3), JSCM(3), MSOM(3) Hong Kong
Kong and JOM(2)
44 Georgia Southern 62.5 20 9.18 JBL(7), JSCM(6), JOM(5) and POM(2) USA
University
45 University of Miami 62.0 17 7.92 POM(7), JOM(4), JBL(3), MSOM(2) and IJOPM(1) USA
University of Notre Dame 62.0 15 6.78 JOM(8), POM(5) and JSCM(2) USA
47 University College Dublin 61.5 18 8.23 SCMIJ(8), IJOPM(6), JSCM(3) and JOM(1) Ireland
48 Oregon State University 61.0 16 6.58 JOM(8), JSCM(6), IJOPM(1) and SCMIJ(1) USA
49 York University 59.5 16 8.25 JOM(7), JSCM(6), IJOPM(2) and JBL(1) Canada
50 University of Alabama 59.0 24 10.47 JBL(16), SCMIJ(5), JOM(2) and JSCM(1) USA
Notes: aThis cumulative publication score is the sum of credits (i.e. points in constitution of the publication score) the author receives for each paper
authored across the seven journals over the 15-year period of 2001-2015 in accordance with the ABS (2018) rating score of the journal it is published in, such
that the credit received for a paper appearing in JOM = 4.5, POM = 4, IJOPM = 4, MSOM = 3, SCMIJ = 3, JSCM = 3 and JBL = 2. bThis count of distributed
number of papers is determined by crediting the institution based on number of times the institution’s affiliation appears on the paper itself in the authorship
of each paper such that the institution receives a credit of 1.0 toward the count for a paper, that is, sole-authored with the institution’s affiliation, a credit of
0.67 for a paper, which has three authors two of who are affiliated with the particular institution, etc. cThe number in parentheses is the number of papers in
the particular journal that carries the institution’s affiliation within the authorship of the paper. The journals listed are ordered in keeping with the number of
papers appearing in each journal and where there is a tie, by the level of ABS rating score of the journal

University of Maryland, respectively. Once again, MI State
University stands out by a considerable margin over other
institutions.
All of the institutions that rank among the top 50 by the
Bonacich power centrality also rank among the top 50 either by
publication score or total degree centrality, with the sole
exception being the University of Kentucky, which while
ranking 44th by the Bonacich power centrality, does not rank
among the top 50 by any of the other measures.
Eight different countries are represented by institutions that
rank among the top 50 by the Bonacich power centrality, with
the USA placing 35 institutions among the top 50, followed by
the UK (5), Hong Kong (3), Germany (2), The Netherlands
(2), Canada (1), France (1) and Ireland (1). Nine of the top 10
and 21 of the top 25 institutions by this measure are located in
the USA.
3.2.2.3 Profiling the networks of the very top institutions. With
MSU and ASU being dominant across the institutional
rankings, it would be informative to examine the networks of
these top two institutions. Accordingly, we present their
respective networks in Figure 2. In these networks, the lines are
in weighted density in accordance with the count of papers on
which the institutions are connected (i.e. jointly included in the
authorship of the paper). Because the number of institutions
from across the world that each of MSU and ASU have
collaborated with on papers is quite large (for example, MSU
having joint papers with 91 other institutions), it is difficult to
legibly fit all of them in a diagram. Hence, in Figure 2, we apply
a filter of three for paper counts and show only the institutions
that each of MSU and ASU has more prevalently networked
with (i.e. those institutions with which they have  3 joint
papers).
As Figure 2 demonstrates, the institutions MSU has
collaborated most with are ASU and Auburn University (with
MSU having collaborated on nine papers with each), followed
by The Ohio State University (with which MSU has
collaborated on eight papers). Interestingly, when one
examines all of the institutions in MSU’s network in Figure 2,
they are all US-based institutions, with the lone exception
being Western University from Canada. As is evident, MSU’s
network is US-centric, with no institution from either Europe
or Asia appearing in its filtered network of prominent linkages.

841
 SCM research leadership Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Sunil Babbar et al. Volume 24 · Number 6 · 2019 · 821–854

Table VI Top 50 institutions by total degree centrality

Total Degree
Rank Institution Centrality Publication profile: breakdown of no. of papers by journal Country/region
1 MSU 0.20051 JBL(48), JOM(37), JSCM(21), POM(8), IJOPM(5) and SCMIJ(4) USA
2 ASU 0.13994 JSCM(35), JOM(29), JBL(18), IJOPM(7), POM(6), SCMIJ(1) and MSOM(1) USA
3 The Ohio State University 0.13367 JBL(42), JOM(18), POM(10), JSCM(10), IJOPM(3) and SCMIJ(2) USA
4 University of Tennessee 0.11348 JBL(50), JSCM(8), JOM(6), SCMIJ(3), POM(1) USA
5 University of Maryland 0.07171 POM(12),JBL(11),JOM(8), JSCM(8), MSOM(6) and IJOPM(1) USA
6 Pennsylvania State 0.06475 POM(12), JOM(8), JBL(8), JSCM(6), MSOM(6) and SCMIJ(2) USA
University
7 The University of Texas at 0.06405 POM(31), MSOM(5), JOM(2) and JSCM(1) USA
Dallas
University of Arkansas 0.06405 JBL(25), JOM(5), JSCM(3), POM(2) and SCMIJ(1) USA
9 Cranfield University 0.06196 SCMIJ(26), IJOPM(12), JBL(5),JOM(3) and JSCM(2) UK
10 Georgia Institute of 0.06057 POM(16), MSOM(10), JOM(9) and IJOPM(1) USA
Technology
11 University of Minnesota 0.05500 JOM(11), POM(10), JSCM(5), MSOM(3),JBL(2) and IJOPM(1) USA
12 Auburn University 0.05082 JBL(11), JOM(8), JSCM(5), SCMIJ(4) and POM(2) USA
Texas A&M University 0.05082 POM(13), JOM(5), SCMIJ(3), JSCM(3), JBL(3), IJOPM(1) and MSOM(1) USA
14 Colorado State University 0.04734 JBL(9), JSCM(7), JOM(5), IJOPM(2) and POM(2) USA
University of Manchester 0.04734 IJOPM(11), SCMIJ(8), JOM(3), JSCM(3) and JBL(1) UK
16 Miami University 0.04595 JSCM(13), JBL(9), JOM(2), IJOPM(1), POM(1) USA
University of Alabama 0.04595 JBL(16), SCMIJ(5), JOM(2) and JSCM(1) USA
18 University of Oklahoma 0.04525 JBL(20), JOM(3) and POM(1) USA
19 Indiana University 0.04456 JOM(11), POM(10), IJOPM(3), JSCM(3) and MSOM(2) USA
Bloomington
The Hong Kong 0.04456 SCMIJ(9), POM(8), IJOPM(5), JOM(4), JBL(2), JSCM(1) and MSOM(1) Hong Kong
Polytechnic University
21 Erasmus University 0.04316 POM(10), IJOPM(7), JOM(4), JSCM(2), SCMIJ(1) and MSOM(1) The Netherlands
University of Bath 0.04316 IJOPM(18), SCMIJ(9), JSCM(3), JOM(2), POM(1) and JBL(1) UK
23 University of Michigan 0.04177 POM(11), MSOM(6), JOM(4) and IJOPM(1), SCMIJ(1) and JSCM(1) USA
24 Iowa State University 0.04108 JBL(13), JSCM(5), JOM(3), POM(3) and SCMIJ(3) USA
Texas Christian University 0.04108 JBL(13), JOM(6), JSCM(4), POM(1) and SCMIJ(1) USA
26 The Chinese University of 0.04038 POM(10), MSOM(5), JOM(2), SCMIJ(2), JSCM(2), IJOPM(1) and JBL(1) Hong Kong
Hong Kong
27 North Carolina State 0.03899 JSCM(7), JOM(6), POM(4), IJOPM(3), SCMIJ(1) and JBL(1) USA
University
28 Cardiff University 0.03829 SCMIJ(21), IJOPM(3), JOM(2) and JBL(1) UK
Washington University 0.03829 MSOM(14), POM(11), SCMIJ(1) and JSCM(1) USA
30 Georgia Southern 0.03690 JBL(7), JSCM(6), JOM(5) and POM(2) USA
University
Lehigh University 0.03690 JBL(8), JSCM(5), JOM(4), POM(3) and SCMIJ(3) USA
Western University 0.03690 JOM(11), JSCM(8), POM(4), IJOPM(3) and MSOM(1) Canada
33 Stanford University 0.03620 POM(12), MSOM(11), JOM(2) and JSCM(1) USA
34 INSEAD (France) 0.03551 POM(16), JOM(3) and MSOM(2) France
35 City University of Hong 0.03481 SCMIJ(5), POM(4), IJOPM(3), JSCM(3), MSOM(3) and JOM(2) Hong Kong
Kong
University of North 0.03481 POM(12), MSOM(7), JOM(3) and JSCM(1) USA
Carolina at Chapel Hill
WHU-Otto Beisheim 0.03481 JSCM(12), JBL(10), POM(3), JOM(2) and MSOM(1) Germany
School of Management
38 EBS Universität 0.03411 JSCM(8), JBL(5), JOM(2), IJOPM(2), POM(1) and SCMIJ(1) Germany
Eindhoven University of 0.03411 POM(5), JSCM(5), IJOPM(4), MSOM(3), SCMIJ(2), JOM(1) and JBL(1) The Netherlands
Technology
The University of Texas at 0.03411 POM(13), SCMIJ(3), MSOM(2), IJOPM(1) and JSCM(1) USA
Austin
0.03411 POM(11), MSOM(9), JOM(1) and JBL(1) USA
(continued)

842
 SCM research leadership Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Sunil Babbar et al. Volume 24 · Number 6 · 2019 · 821–854

Table VI

Total Degree
Rank Institution Centrality Publication profile: breakdown of no. of papers by journal Country/region
University of California,
Los Angeles
42 Rutgers University 0.03342 JSCM(8), JOM(5), POM(5) and JBL(2) USA
43 University of Warwick 0.03272 SCMIJ(10), IJOPM(9) and JSCM(2) UK
44 Brigham Young University 0.03203 JBL(7), JSCM(4), SCMIJ(3) and JOM(1) USA
University College Dublin 0.03203 SCMIJ(8), IJOPM(6), JSCM(3) and JOM(1) Ireland
46 Massachusetts Institute of 0.03133 POM(7), JBL(5), MSOM(4), JOM(3), IJOPM(1) and JSCM(1) USA
Technology
47 University of Illinois at 0.03063 MSOM(6), POM(4), JOM(2), SCMIJ(2), IJOPM(1), JSCM(1) and JBL(1) USA
Urbana-Champaign
48 University of Cambridge 0.02994 IJOPM(11), JOM(3), POM(2), SCMIJ(2) and JSCM(2) UK
49 New York University 0.02924 POM(8), MSOM(5) and JOM(2) USA
Oregon State University 0.02924 JOM(8), JSCM(6), IJOPM(1) and SCMIJ(1) USA
University of Miami 0.02924 POM(7), JOM(4), JBL(3), MSOM(2) and IJOPM(1) USA

While the network of ASU is not as expansive as that of
MSU, its network is also for the most part US-centric with the
only non-US institutions figuring prominently in ASU’s
network being University of Padova (Italy), Università di
Modena e Reggio Emilia (Italy) and the WHU-Otto Beisheim
School of Management (Germany). The institution, which
ASU has the most direct linkages with is MSU, followed by
Oregon State University and the University of Maryland.
Interestingly, in a manner similar to that of MSU, no institution
from Asia appears in ASU’s filtered network.
3.3 Ranking authors and institutions in specific areas of
supply chain management research
In examining the entire set of keywords of papers from across
all journals included in this study over the 15-year period, we
identified four areas of SCM research that are drawing
considerable attention from researchers (Table VIII) in
recognition of their importance to supply chain management.
These areas included relationships and relationship
management, risk and disruption management, sustainability
and environmental management and emerging markets and
economies. As such, in this section, we identify and rank the
top authors and institutions in each of these four prominent
areas of SCM research. To rank authors and institutions in
each of these areas, we first identified all papers published in
that particular area within the journal set and then, from those
papers, identified the top-ranked authors and institutions for
that area based on a simple count of the number of papers
authored by them.
For each of these four areas, to identify the papers published
in that particular area, we reviewed the entire set of keywords
from across all papers and journals and demarcated a set of
keywords to be used for apportioning papers to that particular
area. Two raters were involved in this process. As a first step,
for each of these four areas, each rater independently reviewed
all of the keywords exactly as were listed across the entire data
set of all published papers, and marked those keywords that the
rater viewed as being related to that particular area. The raters
then crosschecked their individual lists of keywords for each of
the areas and where there was a difference with regard to any
particular keyword, that keyword was either excluded from or
included in the keyword set demarcated for that particular area
upon the reaching of the agreement following discussion
between the raters. The inter-rater reliability was quite high:
91.6, 87.8, 92.2 and 93.4 per cent, respectively, for the areas of
relationships and relationship management, risk and disruption
management, sustainability and environmental management
and emerging markets and economies.
In Table VIII, we present the number and percentage of
papers published in each of these areas from across the journal
set over the 15-year period of this study.
3.3.1 The top-ranked authors and institutions in the area of rela-
tionships and relationship management
We identify and rank top authors and institutions in this area of
SCM research as leading scholars have underscored the
importance of building and managing relationships between
supply-chain constituents in the context of SCM (Autry and
Golicic, 2010; Nyaga et al., 2010; Wu and Choi, 2005) because
of the many potential benefits that firms can derive from such
engagement, such as with regard to efficiency, innovation,
quality, flexibility and end-customer satisfaction. As such,
relationships and the management of relationships from a
supply chain perspective has been an important area of research
for quite some time (Ahmed et al., 2017; Schoenherr et al.,
2015; Whipple et al., 2015) and has accounted for a substantial
portion of the body of SCM research since the turn of the
century. According to our data, of all papers published across
our set of seven journals during the five-year period of 2001-
2005, 18.3 per cent were in the area of relationships and
relationship management. In short, nearly one out of every five
papers was focused on this area of SCM research. The level of
attention the area of relationships and relationship
management has received since then continued to remain high,
with 15.6 per cent of all papers being in this area during the
next five-year period of 2006-2010 and 18.1 per cent during the
following five-year period of 2011-2015. With relationship
management being important and garnering such high

843
 SCM research leadership Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Sunil Babbar et al. Volume 24 · Number 6 · 2019 · 821–854

Table VII Top 50 institutions by Bonacich power centrality

Bonacich Power
Rank Institution Centrality Breakdown of no. of papers by journal Country/region
1 MSU 0.16667 JBL(48), JOM(37), JSCM(21), POM(8), IJOPM(5) and SCMIJ(4) USA
2 ASU 0.10094 JSCM(35), JOM(29), JBL(18), IJOPM(7), POM(6), SCMIJ(1) and MSOM(1) USA
3 The Ohio State University 0.09149 JBL(42), JOM(18), POM(10), JSCM(10), IJOPM(3) and SCMIJ(2) USA
4 University of Tennessee 0.07225 JBL(50), JSCM(8), JOM(6), SCMIJ(3) and POM(1) USA
5 University of Maryland 0.04132 POM(12),JBL(11),JOM(8), JSCM(8), MSOM(6) and IJOPM(1) USA
6 University of Arkansas 0.03529 JBL(25), JOM(5), JSCM(3), POM(2) and SCMIJ(1) USA
7 Pennsylvania State University 0.03422 POM(12), JOM(8), JBL(8), JSCM(6), MSOM(6) and SCMIJ(2) USA
8 The University of Texas at 0.03216 POM(31), MSOM(5), JOM(2) and JSCM(1) USA
Dallas
9 Auburn University 0.03181 JBL(11), JOM(8), JSCM(5), SCMIJ(4) and POM(2) USA
10 Cranfield University 0.03124 SCMIJ(26), IJOPM(12), JBL(5),JOM(3) and JSCM(2) UK
11 University of Minnesota 0.03106 JOM(11), POM(10), JSCM(5), MSOM(3),JBL(2) and IJOPM(1) USA
12 Georgia Institute of 0.03092 POM(16), MSOM(10), JOM(9) and IJOPM(1) USA
Technology
13 Texas A&M University 0.02606 POM(13), JOM(5), SCMIJ(3), JSCM(3), JBL(3), IJOPM(1) and MSOM(1) USA
14 Miami University 0.02590 JSCM(13), JBL(9), JOM(2), IJOPM(1) and POM(1) USA
15 University of Oklahoma 0.02580 JBL(20), JOM(3) and POM(1) USA
16 Colorado State University 0.02540 JBL(9), JSCM(7), JOM(5), IJOPM(2) and POM(2) USA
17 University of Alabama 0.02533 JBL(16), SCMIJ(5), JOM(2) and JSCM(1) USA
18 Texas Christian University 0.02323 JBL(13), JOM(6), JSCM(4), POM(1) and SCMIJ(1) USA
19 University of Manchester 0.02277 IJOPM(11), SCMIJ(8), JOM(3), JSCM(3) and JBL(1) UK
20 Iowa State University 0.02227 JBL(13), JSCM(5), JOM(3), POM(3) and SCMIJ(3) USA
21 Indiana University 0.02182 JOM(11), POM(10), IJOPM(3), JSCM(3) and MSOM(2) USA
Bloomington
22 North Carolina State 0.02137 JSCM(7), JOM(6), POM(4), IJOPM(3), SCMIJ(1) and JBL(1) USA
University
23 The Hong Kong Polytechnic 0.02092 SCMIJ(9), POM(8), IJOPM(5), JOM(4), JBL(2), JSCM(1) and MSOM(1) Hong Kong
University
24 Erasmus University 0.02078 POM(10), IJOPM(7), JOM(4), JSCM(2), SCMIJ(1) and MSOM(1) The Netherlands
25 University of Bath 0.02073 IJOPM(18), SCMIJ(9), JSCM(3), JOM(2), POM(1) and JBL(1) UK
University of Michigan 0.02073 POM(11), MSOM(6), JOM(4), IJOPM(1), SCMIJ(1) and JSCM(1) USA
27 University of North Carolina at 0.01965 POM(12), MSOM(7), JOM(3) and JSCM(1) USA
Chapel Hill
28 Lehigh University 0.01910 JBL(8), JSCM(5), JOM(4), POM(3) and SCMIJ(3) USA
29 The Chinese University of 0.01897 POM(10), MSOM(5), JOM(2), SCMIJ(2), JSCM(2), IJOPM(1) and JBL(1) Hong Kong
Hong Kong
30 Western University 0.01891 JOM(11), JSCM(8), POM(4), IJOPM(3) and MSOM(1) Canada
31 Georgia Southern University 0.01857 JBL(7), JSCM(6), JOM(5) and POM(2) USA
32 WHU-Otto Beisheim School of 0.01793 JSCM(12), JBL(10), POM(3), JOM(2) and MSOM(1) Germany
Management
33 Washington University 0.01784 MSOM(14), POM(11), SCMIJ(1) and JSCM(1) USA
34 Cardiff University 0.01764 SCMIJ(21), IJOPM(3), JOM(2) and JBL(1) UK
35 Rutgers University 0.01695 JSCM(8), JOM(5), POM(5) and JBL(2) USA
36 INSEAD (France) 0.01689 POM(16), JOM(3) and MSOM(2) France
37 Stanford University 0.01674 POM(12), MSOM(11), JOM(2) and JSCM(1) USA
38 Brigham Young University 0.01639 JBL(7), JSCM(4), SCMIJ(3) and JOM(1) USA
39 The University of Texas at 0.01632 POM(13), SCMIJ(3), MSOM(2), IJOPM(1) and JSCM(1) USA
Austin
40 City University of Hong Kong 0.01604 SCMIJ(5), POM(4), IJOPM(3), JSCM(3), MSOM(3) and JOM(2) Hong Kong
41 University of California, Los 0.01595 POM(11), MSOM(9), JOM(1) and JBL(1) USA
Angeles
42 Eindhoven University of 0.01554 POM(5), JSCM(5), IJOPM(4), MSOM(3), SCMIJ(2), JOM(1) and JBL(1) The Netherlands
Technology
43 University of Miami 0.01553 POM(7), JOM(4), JBL(3), MSOM(2) and IJOPM(1) USA
44 University of Kentucky 0.01539 JBL(7), JSCM(3), JOM(1) and IJOPM(1) USA
(continued)

844
 SCM research leadership Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Sunil Babbar et al. Volume 24 · Number 6 · 2019 · 821–854

Table VII

Bonacich Power
Rank Institution Centrality Breakdown of no. of papers by journal Country/region
45 Oregon State University 0.01535 JOM(8), JSCM(6), IJOPM(1) and SCMIJ(1) USA
46 EBS Universität 0.01529 JSCM(8), JBL(5), JOM(2), IJOPM(2), POM(1) and SCMIJ(1) Germany
47 University College Dublin 0.01517 SCMIJ(8), IJOPM(6), JSCM(3) and JOM(1) Ireland
48 University of Warwick 0.01499 SCMIJ(10), IJOPM(9) and JSCM(2) UK
49 University of Illinois at 0.01469 MSOM(6), POM(4), JOM(2), SCMIJ(2), IJOPM(1), JSCM(1) and JBL(1) USA
Urbana-Champaign
50 Massachusetts Institute of 0.01445 POM(7), JBL(5), MSOM(4), JOM(3), IJOPM(1) and JSCM(1) USA
Technology

Figure 2 Networks of the top two institutions: MSU and ASU

845
 SCM research leadership Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Sunil Babbar et al. Volume 24 · Number 6 · 2019 · 821–854

Table VIII Number and percentage of papers published in each of these select areas of SCM research
No. of papersa
During the five-year During the five-year During the five-year Overall: over the 15-year
Research area period of 2001-2005 period of 2006-2010 period of 2011-2015 period of 2001-2015
Relationships and relationship management 105 (18.3%)b 128 (15.6%) 169 (18.1%) 402 (17.2%)
Risk and disruption management 20 (3.5%) 50 (6.1%) 122 (13.0%) 192 (8.2%)
Sustainability and environmental management 21 (3.7%) 42 (5.1%) 104 (11.1%) 167 (7.2%)
Emerging markets and economies 15 (2.6%) 50 (6.1%) 43 (4.6%) 108 (4.6%)
Notes: aThis represents the number of papers in the particular area of SCM research published across the seven journals. bThe value in parentheses shows
this number of papers as a percentage of all papers the seven journals published during the particular time period

attention, we wanted to identify the most published agents in
this area of SCM research.
To that end, we identified 160 keywords for the area of
relationships and relationship management by reviewing all of
the keywords as listed across the entire data set of all published
papers. These 160 keywords included keywords such as buyer–
supplier relationships, supplier relations, channel relationships,
collaborative relations, supply chain relationships, relationship
management, inter-organizational relationships, relationship
commitment, etc. Next, using the keywords demarcated for
this area, we identified a total of 402 papers in the area of
relationships and relationship management from across all
journals over the 15-year period of this study. Table IX
presents the top five (including ties) most published institutions
and authors in the area of relationships and relationship
management.
MSU, The Ohio State University and ASU, from the USA,
are the top three most published institutions in this area of
research with 28, 20 and 18 papers, respectively. The top
author in this area is Thomas Y. Choi (ASU, USA) with nine
papers, followed by six others who are tied with seven papers
each: Paul D. Cousins (University of Manchester, UK),
Patricia J. Daugherty (MSU, USA), A.M. Knemeyer (The
Ohio State University, USA), Benn Lawson (University of
Cambridge, UK), John T. Mentzer (University of Tennessee,
USA) and Judith M. Whipple (MSU, USA).
Table IX Top institutions and authors in the area of relationships and
relationship management
Research area Top institutionsa Top authorsb
Relationships MSU (28) Choi, Thomas Y. (9)
and Ohio State University (20) Cousins, Paul D. (7)
relationship ASU (18) Daugherty, Patricia J. (7)
management University of Tennessee (14) Knemeyer, A. M. (7)
University of Bath (12) Lawson, Benn (7)
Mentzer, John T. (7)
Whipple, Judith M. (7)
Notes: aThe top five (including ties) most published institutions in this
area of SCM research are presented here with the number in parentheses
being the number of papers that carry the institution’s affiliation in
authorship. bThe top five (including ties) most published authors in this
area of SCM research are presented here with the number in parentheses
being the number of papers that include the author in the authorship of the
paper
3.3.2 The top-ranked authors and institutions in the area of risk
and disruption management
We identify and rank the top authors and institutions in the area
of risk and disruption management because of the growing
importance of this area in SCM. With ever-intensifying
competition, the value chains of firms are not only becoming
more complex but also they are increasingly spanning across
countries and continents. In such an environment, it is
becoming imperative for businesses to evaluate and manage
aspects of supply chain risk and disruption in efforts to ensure
performance of not only their supply chains but also their
organization (Blackhurst et al., 2011; Brandon-Jones et al.,
2014; Kilubi and Rogers, 2018; Rudolf and Spinler, 2018;
Tummala and Schoenherr, 2011). It is, thus, not surprising to
see academicians and practitioners focus more on risk and
disruption management (Day et al., 2012; Kwak et al., 2018;
Speier et al., 2011). Our data finds this area to be one of the
most rapidly growing areas of research within SCM as evident
by the fact that while 3.5 per cent of all papers published across
the journal set during the five-year period of 2001-2005 were in
the area of risk and disruption management, that percentage
increased to 6.1 per cent over the next five-year period of 2006-
2010 and to 13.0 per cent during the following five-year period
of 2011-2015. Given its importance and the attention it is
receiving, we wanted to identify the most published agents in
this area of SCM research.
Based on a review of all keywords of the entire data set of all
published papers in our journal set, we identified 127 keywords
as being indicative of the area of risk and disruption
management. This set of keywords included keywords such as
disruption, supply risk, supply chain risk management, risk, risk
management, supply chain resilience, supply chain risk, supply
disruption, humanitarian operations, disruption management,
etc. Next, using these 127 keywords, we identified a total of 192
papers as fitting in this area of research. Based on these papers,
we present in Table X the top five (including ties) most
published institutions and authors in SCM research relating to
risk and disruption management.
As illustrated in Table X, the most published institution in
this area of research is MSU (USA) with 12 papers, followed by
ASU (USA) and INSEAD (France) tied for 2nd with 10 papers
each. The author who has published most in this area is Luk N.
Van Wassenhove (INSEAD, France) with 8 papers, followed
by Panos Kouvelis (Washington University, USA) and
George A. Zsidisin (Virginia Commonwealth University, USA)
who are both tied for 2nd with 6 papers each.

846
 SCM research leadership
Sunil Babbar et al.
Table X Top institutions and authors in the area of risk and disruption
management
Research area Top institutionsa Top authorsb
Risk and MSU (12) Wassenhove, Luk
disruption ASU (10) N. Van (8)
management INSEAD-France (10) Kouvelis, Panos
Cranfield University (9) (6)
University of North Carolina at Zsidisin, George
Chapel Hill (7) A. (6)
Washington University (7) Tomlin, Brian (4)
Wagner, Stephan
M. (4)
Notes: aThe top five (including ties) most published institutions in this
area of SCM research are presented here with the number in parentheses
being the number of papers that carry the institution’s affiliation in
authorship. bThe top five (including ties) most published authors in this
area of SCM research are presented here with the number in parentheses
being the number of papers that include the author in the authorship of the
paper
3.3.3 The top-ranked authors and institutions in the area of
sustainability and environmental management
As noted in the literature, increasing demands for limited
natural resources and potential negative impacts production
systems can have on the environment is forcing firms to
reconsider their business models and restructure their supply
chain operations (Schoenherr et al., 2014; Wu and Pagell,
2011). Sustainability and environmental management has not
only become more relevant but also become a pressing area of
importance in SCM research in recent times (Blome et al.,
2014; Gimenez and Tachizawa, 2012; Liu et al., 2018;
Montabon et al., 2016; Paulraj and Blome, 2017; Roy et al.,
2018; Wagner and Svensson, 2014). Researchers and
practitioners alike are paying increased attention to issues
relating to corporate social responsibility, the environment,
seeking commitment to sustainability and making supply
chains green (Lu et al., 2018; Sarkis, 2012; Soosay et al., 2012;
Svensson and Wagner, 2015; Tachizawa et al., 2015; Vachon
and Klassen, 2006; Zhu et al., 2005). This area is one of the
most significant growth areas within SCM research. While 3.7
per cent of all papers published across the journals of our set
during the first five-year period of 2001-2005 since the turn of
the century were in the area of sustainability and environmental
management, that percentage increased to 5.1 per cent of all
published papers over the next five-year period of 2006-2010,
and further doubled to a level of 11.1 per cent of all papers over
the following five-year period of 2011-2015. With it being an
area of rapidly growing significance and research engagement
(Pagell and Shevchenko, 2014), we wanted to identify the
leading agents of SCM research in this area.
Based on our review of all keywords of the entire data set of
published papers, we identified 82 keywords for the area of
sustainability and environmental management, which included
keywords such as green supply chains, sustainability,
sustainable supply chains, sustainable operations, green supply
chain management, environmental management,
corporate social responsibility, environmental performance,
environmental sustainability, environmental impact, socially
847
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Volume 24 · Number 6 · 2019 · 821–854
responsible operations, etc. Using this set of keywords, we
identified a total of 167 papers in this area of research. Table XI
presents the top five (including ties) most published institutions
and authors in SCM research relating to sustainability and
environmental management.
The top two most published institutions in this area are
Western University (Canada) and Clark University (USA) with
nine and seven papers, respectively. Joseph Sarkis (Worcester
Polytechnic Institute, USA) is the most published author in the
area with nine papers followed by Craig R. Carter (ASU, USA)
and Robert D. Klassen (Western University, Canada) both of
whom are tied for 2nd with eight papers each.
3.3.4 The top-ranked authors and institutions in the area of
emerging markets and economies
With companies increasingly turning to emerging markets for
growth and resource acquisition opportunities relative to the
saturated economies of the developed world, the area of
emerging markets and economies continues to be of significant
research interest in SCM (Craighead et al., 2017; Flynn et al.,
2015; Hsu et al., 2016; Kumar et al., 2018; Miller et al., 2018;
Reiner et al., 2008; Scavarda et al., 2010). Recognition of its
importance and the attention that this area of research has
continued to garner in SCM is evidenced by the fact that nearly
5 per cent of all papers published across the journal set over the
15-year period of this study were related to emerging markets
and economies. As such, we wanted to identify and rank the top
authors and institutions in this area of SCM research.
Upon review of all of the keywords of the entire data set of all
published papers, we identified 36 keywords as being indicative
of SCM-related research pertaining to emerging markets and
economies. These keywords included keywords such as
emerging markets, emerging economies, China, India, Mexico,
developing countries, etc. Using this set of keywords, we
identified a total of 108 papers in the area of emerging markets
and economies from across all journals of the set over the 15-
year period of this study. In Table XII, we present the top five
(including ties) most published institutions and authors in this
area of research.
Table XI Top institutions and authors in the area of sustainability and
environmental management
Research area Top institutionsa Top authorsb
Sustainability Western University (9) Sarkis, Joseph (9)
and Clark University (7) Carter, Craig R. (8)
environmental ASU (6) Klassen, Robert D. (8)
management Oregon State University (6) Pagell, Mark (5)
University of Tennessee (6) Svensson, Goran (5)
Tachizawa, Elcio M. (5)
Wu, Zhaohui (5)
Notes: aThe top five (including ties) most published institutions in this
area of SCM research are presented here with the number in parentheses
being the number of papers that carry the institution’s affiliation in
authorship. bThe top five (including ties) most published authors in this
area of SCM research are presented here with the number in parentheses
being the number of papers that include the author in the authorship of the
paper
 SCM research leadership
Sunil Babbar et al.
Table XII Top institutions and authors in the area of emerging markets
and economies
a b
Research area Top institutions Top authors
Emerging City University of Hong Kong (6) Huo, Baofeng (6)
markets and Xi’an Jiaotong University (5) Jayaraman,
economies China Europe International Vaidyanathan (5)
Business School (4) Zhao, Xiande (5)
University of Miami (4) Cai, Shaohan (3)
Cardiff University (3) Jia, Fu (3)
Royal Melbourne Institute of Luo, Yadong (3)
Technology (3) Yang, Zhilin (3)
The Chinese University of Hong
Kong (3)
The University of Texas-
Arlington (3)
University of Alabama (3)
University of Exeter (3)
Wageningen University (3)
Notes: aThe top five (including ties) most published institutions in this
area of SCM research are presented here with the number in parentheses
being the number of papers that carry the institution’s affiliation in
authorship. bThe top five (including ties) most published authors in this
area of SCM research are presented here with the number in parentheses
being the number of papers that include the author in the authorship of the
paper
As shown in Table XII, the most published institutions in this
area of research are the City University of Hong Kong in Hong
Kong and Xi’an Jiaotong University in China with six and five
papers, respectively. The most published author in this area is
Baofeng Huo (Zhejiang University, China) with six papers,
followed by Vaidyanathan Jayaraman (University of Miami,
USA) and Xiande Zhao (China Europe International Business
School, China) tied for 2nd with five papers each.
3.4 The top-ranked countries and their networks
Having examined the top authors, institutions and their
networks, it would be rather useful to identify which countries
of the world rank among the top in generating SCM research
and offer some insights into the nature and expanse of the
networks of these top countries. Papers from 59 different
countries appeared across our journal set over the 15-year
period of this study. In Table XIII, we present the top 10
countries by publication score. The “publication score”
incorporates both the frequency of papers on which the
country’s name appears as country of affiliation in the
authorship of the paper and the quality of the particular
journals that the papers from that country appear in based on
the 2018 ABS Academic Journal Guide ratings of the journals.
The USA, with a publication score of 4,596 leads all
countries by a considerable margin, followed by the UK with a
publication score of 1,225. Among European countries, the
UK leads all others by a considerable margin. From among the
top ten countries of the world, two are from North America,
five from Europe and three from Asia (including Australia, an
Australasian country). China and Hong Kong lead the way in
Asia. With the USA and UK being the dominant countries in
the world, we present the filtered networks of these leading
848
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Volume 24 · Number 6 · 2019 · 821–854
Table XIII Top countries by publication score
Rank Country/region Publication scorea
1 USA 4,596.0
2 UK 1,225.0
3 Canada 446.5
4 Germany 337.5
5 Netherlands 354.5
6 China 338.0
7 Hong Kong 319.0
8 Australia 280.5
9 Spain 239.0
10 Italy 188.0
Note: aPublication score is the sum of credits (points) the country receives
for each paper on which the country’s name appears in the authorship of
the paper across the seven journals over the 15-year period of 2001-2015
in accordance with the ABS (2018) rating score of the journal it is
published in, such that the credit received for a paper appearing in JOM =
4.5, POM = 4, IJOPM = 4, MSOM = 3, SCMIJ = 3, JSCM = 3 and JBL = 2
countries in Figure 3. Because of the very large number of
countries each of the USA and UK have collaborated with, and
thus, the vast multitude of connections, we apply a filter of five
in each of these country networks so as to highlight the more
prominent connections the USA and UK have with other
countries through joint papers.
As presented in Figure 3, the five countries that the USA has
the most linkages with are Canada (with 52 shared papers),
China (51), Hong Kong (39), UK (38) and Germany (25). In
addition to Canada, 7 countries from Asia and 11 from Europe
also figure prominently (i.e. have 5 shared papers with the
USA) in the USA’s network. The countries that the UK has the
most linkages (shared papers) with are USA (38), Germany
(14), The Netherlands (12), Australia (10), Ireland (10) and
Spain (10). Interestingly, the UK has only six shared papers
with Canada, despite Canada has the third-highest publication
score in the world.
3.5 Continental inclinations in network formations
With geography in mind and potentially some shared cultural
traits, it would be informative to examine whether European
based researchers exhibit a greater propensity for research
collaboration with European-based researchers than with
Asian-based researchers, and whether Asian-based researcher
exhibit a greater propensity for research collaboration with
respective to Asian-based researchers than colleagues based in
Europe. The USA’s dominance in the research, it is not
surprising to see researchers from both Europe and Asia
collaborating most with those from the USA. However, we
found the other questions quite intriguing: despite technology
shrinking, if not eliminating, the barrier of geographic distances
from a communications perspective, do Europeans and Asians
tend to exhibit continental inclinations in the formations of
their networks? To shed light on this, we examined, from the
body of all (2,336) papers published across our journal set over
the 15-year period of this study, the entire set of papers that
included authorship from Europe (858 such papers in all) on
the one hand and, similarly, on the other hand, the entire set of
 SCM research leadership Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Sunil Babbar et al. Volume 24 · Number 6 · 2019 · 821–854

Figure 3 Networks of the top two countries: the USA and UK
papers that included authorship from Asia (388 such papers in
all).
Figure 4 presents the country linkages (by a number of
shared papers) in the network of all papers of our data set
that includes authorship from Europe. In plotting this
network, we placed the top three European countries (UK,
The Netherlands and Germany, as they are the three
countries with the highest publication scores in Europe) in
triangular fashion with the USA in the middle of that
triangle, given that the countries of Europe have the most
linkages (i.e. shared papers) with the USA, and also serving
as gatekeeper in the network. Next, because of how
extensive and illegible the network would otherwise be, we
applied a filter of four in the network so as to have it focus on
the more significant linkages. Finally, we placed countries of
Europe appearing in the network to the right side and
countries of Asia to the left.
As depicted in Figure 4, the linkages countries of Europe have
via joint papers are skewed heavily to the right (more toward
European countries), thus, displaying a far greater propensity of
European-based researchers to collaborate with others based in
Europe than with their counterparts located in Asia.
With the three leading countries/regions of Asia (China,
Hong Kong and Australia, respectively, as they have the three
highest publication scores in Asia) placed in triangular fashion
with USA in the middle of that triangle, in Figure 5 we similarly
present the country linkages (by number of shared papers) in
the network of all papers of our data set that include authorship
from Asia.
In Figure 5, continental inclination is quite evident in the case
of Asia also in that the linkages countries/regions of Asia have via
joint papers are skewed heavily to the left (more toward Asian
countries/regions), thus, displaying a far greater propensity to
collaborate with others in Asia than with those in Europe.

Figure 4 Country linkages in the network of all papers that include authorship from Europe

849
 SCM research leadership Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Sunil Babbar et al. Volume 24 · Number 6 · 2019 · 821–854

Figure 5 Country linkages in the network of all papers that include
authorship from Asiaa
3.6 Global reach of the journals
The global nature of research engagement, we wanted to also
examine the extent of global reach that each of the journals of
our set has displayed – as reflected by the number of countries
encompassed in the authorship of the SCM papers that it has
published over the 15-year period of this study. Table XIV
presents our findings in this regard.
Interestingly, as seen in Table XIV, SCMIJ displays a
global reach far greater than not only the other dedicated
SCM journals (JSCM and JBL) but also exhibits a much
more expansive global reach than that exhibited by each of
the four core OM journals (IJOPM, POM, JOM and
MSOM). While 52 countries are encompassed in the
authorship of works published in SCMIJ, JBL and JSCM,
respectively, encompass 26 and 24 countries in authorship.
SCMIJ is twice as encompassing as JBL and JSCM. Of the
core OM journals, JOM and MSOM, respectively,
encompass 25 and 20 countries in authorship over the
15-year period. SCMIJ also exhibits a more expansive global
reach than any of the other journals during each of the three
five-year periods of 2001-2005, 2006-2010 and 2011-2015.
Clearly, the other journals have not been as globally
encompassing outlets as SCMIJ, though IJOPM and POM
do noticeably better than the other four journals.
4. Conclusion
This study has identified and ranked SCM research authors
and institutions based on how prolific they are in publishing
and also based on network measures of centrality. In addition,
it has identified and ranked top authors and institutions within
specific areas of SCM research. It has also ascertained and
ranked the top countries and, among other things, provided
insights into the networks of the top authors, institutions and
countries. In doing so, it draws attention to some interesting
issues and opportunities for future research relating to aspects
of collaboration and networking in research endeavors.
Despite advances in communications technology having
reduced barriers of geographic distances, the networks of the
leading agents still remain, for the most part, inward-looking
(i.e. country- and continent-centric) than outward-looking (i.e.
globally dispersed) in their formations. While cultural traits can
undoubtedly exert influence, it would be interesting for future
research to examine trends in this regard and investigate further
the matter of inward-looking networks and what can be done to
reshape them. Among other things, the emergence of Asia,
especially countries such as China, India, Hong Kong,
Singapore and South Korea, not only in global trade but also in
academic research, has the potential to exert greater influence
on SCM research, its leading agents, and the nature of network
formations going forward.
Based on more extensive and diverse data sets, future research
can investigate how and to what extent might factors such as
relationships arising from shared employment at the same
institution, student-professor relationships (for example, between
PhD students and their professors/dissertation committee
members), membership on editorial boards of journals,
membership in professional societies, resource support and
funding mechanisms, reward systems, shared interests, etc.,
influence research collaborations and the formation of networks.
Future research can examine leadership in different
disciplines using measures such as network centrality and
publication score. There is also an opportunity for future
research to examine the extent of practitioner involvement and
embeddedness in research networks, especially in those of the
leading agents, as practitioners have the potential to offer
unique insights and bring something quite different from
academicians to the table in research collaborations.

Table XIV Journal’s global reach: number of countries represented in the authorship of papers
No. of countries No. of countries No. of countries No. of countries
represented in authorship represented in authorship represented in authorship represented in authorship
during the five-year period: during the five-year period: during the five-year period: over the entire 15-year
Journal 2001-2005 2006-2010 2011-2015 period: 2001-2015
SCMIJ 31 34 42 52
JBL 11 18 13 26
JSCM 13 11 19 24
IJOPM 23 29 26 37
POM 13 15 28 29
JOM 12 16 20 25
MSOM 10 12 16 20

850
 SCM research leadership
Sunil Babbar et al.
In addition to identifying for the benefit of stakeholders the top-
ranked SCM authors in the world, this study also conveys the
primary areas of research of each of the ranked authors. In
addition, it identifies the top authors in each of the four specific
areas of SCM research that are drawing considerable attention.
Such information can help stakeholders map their own interests
against those of the leading authors and, by so doing, gauge the
potential for tapping them as a resource, embedding themselves
in the networks of these leading scholars, and engaging in
collaborative research endeavors with them. It will be
interesting for future research to examine how and when the
level of interest in particular areas of SCM research begins to
either grow or dwindle. The inherent dynamics of a global
business environment is bound to spur change over time and
provide fertile ground for further research to map the changes,
identify emerging trends and examine their effects on SCM
research and the management of supply chains.
While we have used a representative set of high-quality SCM
and core OM journals in this study, the study is not without
limitations as there are other journals that also publish SCM
papers and our journal set is thus not all-encompassing. It may
be interesting for future research to examine how rakings might
be altered based on publications in some narrower or broader
sets of journals. As consideration of the quality of outlet, we
used the ABS journal ratings for this study. However, we
recognize that there is no universal agreement with any
particular journal rating scheme and individual institutions may
differ in their assessment of the quality of a particular outlet.
We also note that this study makes no attempt to judge the
quality of papers based on their content. Rather, in assigning
publication scores to authors and institutions, it credits the
publications based on the quality of the outlets that they appear
in (in keeping with the ABS ratings of those journals). Also,
while we used keywords of papers to designate them as
belonging to one or more areas of research, we recognize that it
is not a comprehensive mechanism for such determination as
keywords, though meant to convey the primary aspects of the
paper’s focus, are chosen by the authors and may not
comprehensively reflect the different areas that a paper might
encompass.
Based on the rankings generated by our study, it is not
surprising to see authors and institutions from the USA and
UK place prominently among the top in SCM research as the
USA and UK have a well-established tradition of research
engagement. However, similar traditions are beginning to form
across a greater expanse of Asia and Europe. With that being
the case, it will be interesting to chart SCM research leadership
over time and see, which authors, institutions and countries will
provide leadership in the years to come.
References
ABS (2018), “The association of business schools academic
journal guide”, available at: https://charteredabs.org/
academic-journal-guide-2018/ (accessed 27 September
2018).
Acedo, F.J., Barroso, C., Casanueva, C. and Galan, J.L.
(2006), “Co-authorship in management and organizational
studies: an empirical and network analysis”, Journal of
Management Studies, Vol. 43 No. 5, pp. 957-983.
851
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Volume 24 · Number 6 · 2019 · 821–854
Ahmed, M.U., Kristal, M.M., Pagell, M. and Gattiker, T.F.
(2017), “Towards a classification of supply chain
relationships: a routine based perspective”, Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal, Vol. 22 No. 4,
pp. 341-374.
Agarwal, V.K. (2002), “Constituencies of journals in
production and operations management: implications on
reach and quality”, Production and Operations Management,
Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 101-108.
Autry, C.W. and Golicic, S.L. (2010), “Evaluating buyer-
supplier relationship–performance spirals: a longitudinal
study”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 28 No. 2,
pp. 87-100.
Barabási, A.L., Jeong, H., Néda, Z., Ravasz, E., Schubert, A.
and Vicsek, T. (2002), “Evolution of the social network of
scientific collaborations”, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and
Its Applications, Vol. 311 Nos 3/4, pp. 590-614.
Barman, S., Hanna, M.D. and LaForge, R.L. (2001),
“Perceived relevance and quality of POM journals: a decade
later”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 19 No. 3,
pp. 367-385.
Blackhurst, J., Dunn, K.S. and Craighead, C.W. (2011), “An
empirically derived framework of global supply resiliency”,
Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 374-391.
Blome, C., Paulraj, A. and Schuetz, K. (2014), “Supply chain
collaboration and sustainability: a profile deviation analysis”,
International Journal of Operations & Production Management,
Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 639-663.
Bonacich, P. (1972), “Factoring and weighing approaches to
clique identification”, The Journal of Mathematical Sociology,
Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 113-120.
Borgatti, S.P. and Li, X. (2009), “On social network analysis in
a supply-chain context”, Journal of Supply Chain
Management, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 5-22.
Brandon-Jones, E., Squire, B., Autry, C.W. and Petersen, K.J.
(2014), “A contingent resource-based perspective of supply
chain resilience and robustness”, Journal of Supply Chain
Management, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 55-73.
Brass, D.J. (1984), “Being in the right place: a structural
analysis of individual influence in an organization”,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 518-539.
Burgess, T.F., Grimshaw, P., Huatuco, L.H. and Shaw, N.E.
(2017), “Mapping the operations and supply chain
management field: a journal governance perspective”,
International Journal of Operations & Production Management,
Vol. 37 No. 7, pp. 898-926.
Burt, R.S. (1997), “The contingent value of social capital”,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 157-171.
Capo-Vicedo, J., Mula, J. and Cap o, J. (2011), “A social
network-based organizational model for improving
knowledge management in supply chains”, Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal, Vol. 16 No. 4,
pp. 284-293.
Carnovale, S. and Yeniyurt, S. (2015), “The role of ego
network structure in facilitating ego network innovations”,
Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 51 No. 2,
pp. 22-46.
Carter, C.R., Ellram, L.M. and Tate, W. (2007a), “The use of
social network analysis in logistics research”, Journal of
Business Logistics, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 137-168.
 SCM research leadership
Sunil Babbar et al.
Carter, C.R., Leuschner, R. and Rogers, D.S. (2007b), “A
social network analysis of the journal of supply chain
management: knowledge generation, knowledge diffusion
and thought leadership”, Journal of Supply Chain
Management, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 15-28.
Chakkol, M., Finne, M., Raja, J.Z. and Johnson, M. (2018),
“Social capital is not for sale: a supply network perspective on
mergers and acquisitions”, Supply Chain Management: An
International Journal, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 377-395.
Cheung, M., Myers, M.B. and Mentzer, J.T. (2010), “Does
relationship learning lead to relationship value? a cross-
national supply chain investigation”, Journal of Operations
Management, Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 472-487.
Claver, E., González, R. and Llopis, J. (2000), “An analysis of
research in information systems (1981-1997)”, Information
& Management, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 181-195.
Cousins, P.D., Handfield, R.B., Lawson, B. and Peterson, K.J.
(2006), “Creating supply chain relational capital: the impact
of formal and informal socialization processes”, Journal of
Operations Management, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 851-863.
Craighead, C.W., Ketchen, D.J., Jr, Jenkins, M.T. and
Holcomb, M.C. (2017), “A supply chain perspective on
strategic foothold moves in emerging markets”, Journal of
Supply Chain Management, Vol. 53 No. 4, pp. 3-12.
Day, J.M., Melnyk, S.A., Larson, P.D., Davis, E.W. and
Whybark, D.C. (2012), “Humanitarian and disaster relief
supply chains: a matter of life and death”, Journal of Supply
Chain Management, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 21-36.
Dong, M.C., Liu, Z., Yu, Y. and Zheng, J.H. (2015),
“Opportunism in distribution networks: the role of network
embeddedness and dependence”, Production and Operations
Management, Vol. 24 No. 10, pp. 1657-1670.
Faust, K. (1997), “Centrality in affiliation networks”, Social
Networks, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 157-191.
Financial Times (2016), available at: http://rankings.ft.com/
businessschoolrankings/global-mba-ranking-2018 (accessed
17 October 2018).
Fischer, C.S. and Shavit, Y. (1995), “National differences in
network density: Israel and the United States”, Social
Networks, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 129-145.
Flynn, B.B., Huang, X. and Zhao, X. (2015), “Supply chain
management in emerging markets: critical research issues”,
Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 51 No. 1, pp. 3-4.
Fombrun, C.J. (1982), “Strategies for network research in
organizations”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 7
No. 2, pp. 280-291.
Fombrun, C.J. (1983), “Attributions of power across a social
network”, Human Relations, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 493-508.
Freeman, L.C. (1979), “Centrality in social networks:
conceptual clarification”, Social Networks, Vol. 1 No. 3,
pp. 215-239.
Gimenez, C. and Tachizawa, E.M. (2012), “Extending
sustainability to suppliers: a systematic literature review”,
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 17
No. 5, pp. 531-543.
Grover, V., Segars, A.H. and Simon, S.J. (1992), “An
assessment of institutional research productivity in MIS”,
ACM Sigmis Database, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 5-9.
Gualandris, J., Legenvre, H. and Kalchschmidt, M. (2018),
“Exploration and exploitation within supply networks:
852
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Volume 24 · Number 6 · 2019 · 821–854
examining purchasing ambidexterity and its multiple
performance implications”, International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, Vol. 38 No. 3,
pp. 667-689.
Gulati, R. (1999), “Network location and learning: the
influence of network resources and firm capabilities on
alliance formation”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 20
No. 5, pp. 397-420.
Gulati, R., Nohria, N. and Zaheer, A. (2000), “Strategic
networks”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 21 No. 3,
pp. 203-215.
Hite, J.M. and Hesterly, W.S. (2001), “The evolution of firm
networks: from emergence to early growth of the firm”,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 275-286.
Hsieh, P. and Chang, P. (2009), “An assessment of world-wide
research productivity in production and operations
management”, International Journal of Production Economics,
Vol. 120 No. 2, pp. 540-551.
Hsu, C., Tan, K. and Zailani, S.H.M. (2016), “Strategic
orientations, sustainable supply chain initiatives, and reverse
logistics: empirical evidence from an emerging market”,
International Journal of Operations & Production Management,
Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 86-110.
Hult, G.T.M., Ketchen, D.J. and Nichols, E.L. (2003),
“Organizational learning as a strategic resource in supply
management”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 21
No. 5, pp. 541-556.
Kilubi, I. and Rogers, H. (2018), “Bridging the gap between
supply chain risk management and strategic technology
partnering capabilities: insights from social capital theory”,
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 23
No. 4, pp. 278-292.
Kim, Y., Choi, T.Y., Yan, T. and Dooley, K. (2011),
“Structural investigation of supply networks: a social
network analysis approach”, Journal of Operations
Management, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 194-211.
Kumar, V., Bak, O., Guo, R., Shaw, S.L., Colicchia, C.,
Garza-Reyes, J.A. and Kumari, A. (2018), “An empirical
analysis of supply and manufacturing risk and business
performance: a Chinese manufacturing supply chain
perspective”, Supply Chain Management: An International
Journal, Vol. 6 No. 6, pp. 461-479.
Kwak, D., Rodrigues, V.S., Mason, R., Pettit, S. and
Beresford, A. (2018), “Risk interaction identification in
international supply chain logistics: developing a holistic
model”, International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 372-389.
Laband, D.N. and Tollison, R.D. (2000), “Intellectual
collaborations”, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 108 No. 3,
pp. 632-662.
Liu, Y., Blome, C., Sanderson, J. and Paulraj, A. (2018),
“Supply chain integration capabilities, green design strategy
and performance: a comparative study in the auto industry”,
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 23
No. 5, pp. 431-443.
Lu, H.E., Potter, A., Rodrigues, V.S. and Walker, H. (2018),
“Exploring sustainable supply chain management: a social
network perspective”, Supply Chain Management: An
International Journal, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 257-277.
 SCM research leadership
Sunil Babbar et al.
Machuca, J.A.D., González-Zamora, M.D.M. and Aguilar-
Escobar, V.G. (2007), “Service operations management
research”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 25 No. 3,
pp. 585-603.
Malhotra, M.K. and Kher, H.V. (1996), “Institutional
research productivity in production and operations
management”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 14
No. 1, pp. 55-77.
Martins, M.E., Martins, G.S., Csillag, J.M. and Pereira, S.C.F.
(2012), “Service’s scientific community: a social network
analysis (1995-2010)”, Journal of Service Management,
Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 455-469.
Menachof, D.A., Gibson, B.J., Hanna, J.B. and Whiteing, A.E.
(2009), “An analysis of the value of supply chain
management periodicals”, International Journal of Physical
Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 39 No. 2,
pp. 145-166.
Miller, S., Jayaram, J. and Xu, K. (2018), “Obtaining global
certification: analysis of ownership structures and TQM
commitment in emerging markets by adapting the theory of
planned behavior”, International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 957-978.
Mitrega, M., Forkmann, S., Zaefarian, G. and Henneberg,
S.C. (2017), “Networking capability in supplier
relationships and its impact on product innovation and firm
performance”, International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, Vol. 37 No. 5, pp. 577-606.
Montabon, F., Pagell, M. and Wu, Z. (2016), “Making
sustainability sustainable”, Journal of Supply Chain
Management, Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 11-27.
Moody, J. (2004), “The structure of a social science
collaboration network: disciplinary cohesion from 1963 to
1999”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 69 No. 2,
pp. 213-238.
Morris, M., Bessant, J. and Barnes, J. (2006), “Using learning
networks to enable industrial development: case studies from
South Africa”, International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 532-557.
Nair, A., Yan, T., Ro, Y.K., Oke, A., Chiles, T.H. and Lee, S.
(2016), “How environmental innovations emerge and
proliferate in supply networks: a complex adaptive systems
perspective”, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 52
No. 2, pp. 66-86.
Narasimhan, R. and Narayanan, S. (2013), “Perspectives on
supply network-enabled innovations”, Journal of Supply
Chain Management, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 27-42.
Nyaga, G.N., Whipple, J.M. and Lynch, D.F. (2010),
“Examining supply chain relationships: do buyer and
supplier perspectives on collaborative relationships differ?”,
Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 28 No. 2,
pp. 101-114.
Pagell, M. and Shevchenko, A. (2014), “Why research in
sustainable supply chain management should have no
future”, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 50 No. 1,
pp. 44-55.
Papadopoulos, T., Radnor, Z. and Merali, Y. (2011), “The
role of actor associations in understanding the
implementation of lean thinking in healthcare”, International
Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 31
No. 2, pp. 167-191.
853
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Volume 24 · Number 6 · 2019 · 821–854
Paulraj, A. and Blome, C. (2017), “Plurality in environmental
supply chain mechanisms: differential effects on triple
bottom line outcomes”, International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, Vol. 37 No. 8, pp. 1010-1030.
Pilkington, A. and Meredith, J. (2009), “The evolution of the
intellectual structure of operations management – 1980-
2006: a citation/co-citation analysis”, Journal of Operations
Management, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 185-202.
Pilkington, A. and Meredith, J. (2018), “The diffusion network
of research knowledge in operations management”,
International Journal of Operations & Production Management,
Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 333-349.
Rajapakshe, T., Dawande, M., Gavirneni, S., Sriskandarajah,
C. and Panchalavarapu, P.R. (2014), “Dedicated
transportation subnetworks: design, analysis, and insights”,
Production and Operations Management, Vol. 23 No. 1,
pp. 138-159.
Reiner, G., Demeter, K., Poiger, M. and Jenei, I. (2008), “The
internationalization process in companies located at the
borders of emerging and developing countries”, International
Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 28
No. 10, pp. 918-940.
Ronchetto, J.R., Hutt, M.D. and Reingen, P.H. (1989),
“Embedded influence patterns in organizational buying
systems”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 53 No. 4, pp. 51-62.
Roy, V., Schoenherr, T. and Charan, P. (2018), “The thematic
landscape of literature in sustainable supply chain
management (SSCM): a review of the principal facets in
SSCM development”, International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 1091-1124.
Rudolf, C.A. and Spinler, S. (2018), “Key risks in the supply
chain of large scale engineering and construction projects”,
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 23
No. 4, pp. 336-350.
Sarkis, J. (2012), “A boundaries and flows perspective of green
supply chain management”, Supply Chain Management: An
International Journal, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 202-216.
Scavarda, L.F., Reichhart, A., Hamacher, S. and Holweg, M.
(2010), “Managing product variety in emerging markets”,
International Journal of Operations & Production Management,
Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 205-224.
Schoenherr, T., Narasimhan, R. and Bandyopadhyay, P.
(2015), “The assurance of food safety in supply chains via
relational networking: a social networking perspective”,
International Journal of Operations & Production Management,
Vol. 35 No. 12, pp. 1662-1687.
Schoenherr, T., Modi, S.B., Talluri, S. and Hult, G.T.M.
(2014), “Antecedents and performance outcomes
of strategic environmental sourcing: an investigation of
resource-based process and contingency effects”, Journal of
Business Logistics, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 172-190.
Scott, J. (2000), Social Network Analysis: A Handbook, 2nd ed.,
Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Smart, P., Bessant, J. and Gupta, A. (2007), “Towards
technological rules for designing innovation networks: a
dynamic capabilities view”, International Journal of Operations
& Production Management, Vol. 27 No. 10, pp. 1069-1092.
Soosay, C., Fearne, A. and Dent, B. (2012), “Sustainable value
chain analysis – a case study of Oxford landing from ‘vine to
 SCM research leadership
Sunil Babbar et al.
dine’”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal,
Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 68-77.
Soteriou, A.C., Hadjinicola, G.C. and Patsia, K. (1999),
“Assessing production and operations management related
journals: the European perspective”, Journal of Operations
Management, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 225-238.
Speier, C., Whipple, J.M., Closs, D.J. and Voss, M.D. (2011),
“Global supply chain design considerations: mitigating
product safety and security risks”, Journal of Operations
Management, Vol. 29 Nos 7/8, pp. 721-736.
Svensson, G. and Wagner, B. (2015), “Implementing and
managing economic, social and environmental efforts of
business sustainability: propositions for measurement and
structural models”, Management of Environmental Quality:
An International Journal, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 195-213.
Tachizawa, E.M., Gimenez, C. and Sierra, V. (2015), “Green
supply chain management approaches: drivers and
performance implications”, International Journal of Operations
& Production Management, Vol. 35 No. 11, pp. 1546-1566.
Theoharakis, V., Voss, C., Hadjinicola, G.C. and Soteriou,
A.C. (2007), “Insights into factors affecting production and
operations management (POM) journal evaluation”, Journal
of Operations Management, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 932-955.
Trieschmann, J.S., Dennis, A.R., Northcraft, G.B. and Nieme,
A.W. Jr, (2000), “Serving constituencies in business schools:
MBA program versus research performance”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 43 No. 6, pp. 1130-1141.
Tummala, R. and Schoenherr, T. (2011), “Assessing and
managing risks using the supply chain risk management
process (SCRMP)”, Supply Chain Management: An
International Journal, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 474-483.
University of Texas-Dallas (2017), available at: http://jindal.
utdallas.edu/the-utd-top-100-business-school-research-
rankings/journals (accessed 7 October 2018).
Uzzi, B. (1996), “The sources and consequences of
embeddedness for the economic performance of
organizations: the network effect”, American Sociological
Review, Vol. 61 No. 4, pp. 674-698.
Vachon, S. and Klassen, R.D. (2006), “Extending green
practices across the supply chain: the impact of upstream and
downstream integration”, International Journal of Operations
& Production Management, Vol. 26 No. 7, pp. 795-821.
Wagner, B. and Svensson, G. (2014), “A framework to
navigate sustainability in business networks: the
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
854
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Volume 24 · Number 6 · 2019 · 821–854
transformative business sustainability (TBS) model”,
European Business Review, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 340-367.
Wagner, S.M. (2012), “Tapping supplier innovation”, Journal
of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 37-52.
Wasserman, S. and Faust, K. (1994), Social Network Analysis:
Methods and Applications, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Watson, K. and Montabon, F. (2014), “A ranking of supply
chain management journals based on department lists”,
International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 52 No. 14,
pp. 4364-4377.
Whipple, J.M., Wiedmer, R. and Boyer, K.K. (2015), “A
dyadic investigation of collaborative competence, social
capital, and performance in buyer-supplier relationships”,
Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 51 No. 2, pp. 3-21.
Wu, Z. and Choi, T.Y. (2005), “Supplier–supplier
relationships in the buyer–supplier triad: building theories
from eight case studies”, Journal of Operations Management,
Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 27-52.
Wu, Z. and Pagell, M. (2011), “Balancing priorities: decision-
making in sustainable supply chain management”, Journal of
Operations Management, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 577-590.
Wu, Z. and Pullman, M.E. (2015), “Cultural embeddedness in
supply networks”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 37
No. 1, pp. 45-58.
Ye, Q., Li, T. and Law, R. (2011), “A coauthorship network
analysis of tourism and hospitality research collaboration”,
Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, Vol. 37 No. 1,
pp. 51-76.
Young, S.T., Baird, B.C. and Pullmam, M.E. (1996), “POM
research productivity in U.S. business schools”, Journal of
Operations Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 41-53.
Zhang, Y. and Gregory, M. (2011), “Managing global network
operations along the engineering value chain”, International
Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 31
No. 7, pp. 736-764.
Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J. and Geng, Y. (2005), “Green supply chain
management in China: pressures, practices and
performance”, International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 449-468.
Corresponding author
Xenophon Koufteros can be contacted at: xkoufteros@
mays.tamu.edu