Bragge Et Al. (2010)

SG387539
1177/1046878110387539Bragge et al.Simulation & Gaming

SAG41610.
Simulation & Gaming
Profiling 40 Years 41(6) 869–897

© 2010 SAGE Publications
Reprints and permission: http://www.
of Research in sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1046878110387539
Simulation & Gaming http://sg.sagepub.com
Johanna Bragge1, Precha Thavikulwat2, and Juuso Töyli3
Abstract
The authors apply the research profiling method to review all the research that has
been published in Simulation & Gaming since the journal’s inauguration in 1970. The
data include 2,096 articles, of which 1,046 are research articles. The authors identify
the prolific authors and their institutional affiliations. They tally referenced articles,
title phrases, and descriptors. They find that the most prolific authors neither engage
in more work division nor author more conventional thinking articles than less prolific
authors and that the 51 prolific authors fall into 7 to 11 clusters.
Keywords
affinity propagation, bibliometrics, clusters of authors, conventional thinking, descrip-
tors, hidden patterns, hot topics, knowledge creation, literature review, mapping,
new thinking, profiling, prolific authors, research articles, research profiling, statistical
methods, text mining, topic evolution, visualization, work division
A literature review is an essential part of every research initiative. Its purpose is to

assess and advance the current state of knowledge, identify uncovered areas and direc-
tions for future research, advance and facilitate theory development, and/or guide
policy decisions (Guzzo, Jackson, & Katzell, 1987; Webster & Watson, 2002). The
review may serve either to synthesize a mature topic or to link an emerging issue to
theoretical foundations (Webster & Watson, 2002). Methodologically, it may be in the
1
Aalto University, Helsinki, Finland
2
Towson University, Towson, MD, USA
3
Turku School of Economics, Turku, Finland
Corresponding Author:
Johanna Bragge, Department of Business Technology, Aalto University School of Economics,
P.O. Box 21220, 00076 Aalto, Finland
Email: johanna.bragge@aalto.fi
Downloaded from sag.sagepub.com at Bobst Library, New York University on April 26, 2015
870 Simulation & Gaming 41(6)
form of a narrative review at one end and a quantitative meta-analysis at the other end
(King & He, 2005). In between these extremes are descriptive reviews that combine
verbal description with quantification, a notable example of which is Faria, Hutchinson,
and Wellington’s (2009) review of business games. Besides the methods discussed by
King and He (2005), review methods using computer intensive techniques, such as
text-mining and social network analysis, have recently received increasing interest
(Börner, Chen, & Boyack, 2003; Bragge, Korhonen, Wallenius, & Wallenius, 2010;
Porter, Kongthon, & Lu, 2002; Raghuram, Tuertscher, & Garud, 2010; SciMaps, 2005;
Small, 1999). These bibliometric approaches can reveal hidden patterns in the data and
allow the analysis of large data sets beyond what is feasible with more traditional
approaches.
In this study, we employ research profiling, a bibliometric method, first, to depict
and visualize the research that has appeared in Simulation & Gaming (S&G) since its
inauguration in 1970 and, second, to compare the patterns of work division and knowl-
edge creation among top-publishing authors and other prolific authors. Our data consist
of matrices of frequency counts among authors, author affiliations, references, titles,
and descriptors taken from the database of the publisher of S&G.
Research Profiling
Methodology
Research profiling (Porter et al., 2002) is based on bibliometrics, broadly defined as the
application of mathematical and statistical methods to books and other media of com-
munication (Hood & Wilson, 2001; Pritchard, 1969). Bibliometric studies typically
enhance general activity counts by examining item occurrences or co-occurrences,
inasmuch as terms appearing together more often than expected may reflect a signifi-
cant relationship (Porter et al., 2002). The most common bibliometric items studied are
references (Boyack, Klavans, & Börner, 2005; Culnan, 1986, 1987; Meyer, Lorscheid,
& Troitzsch, 2009; Raghuram et al., 2010). Research profiling extends the scope of
bibliometric studies by examining content words with text-mining tools (Yang, Akers,
Klose, & Barcelon Yang, 2008).
Research profiling supplies answers to four type of questions, namely, who, what,
where, and when (Porter et al., 2002; Watts & Porter, 2007).
•• Who are the prolific authors publishing research in a certain field?

•• What are their specific research topics?
•• Where are the research results published?
•• When did each topic appear in the literature?
Additional questions, such as which institutions conduct research published in

the field, what are the hot topics in the area, and how have the topics evolved over
time also may be addressed. Answers are provided using simple frequency lists,
Bragge et al. 871
Phase A: Intelligence Phase B: Phase C:

Analysis & Design Choice
1. Issue identification
2. Selection of information sources 5. Basic analyses 7. Representation
3. Search refinement and data 6. Advanced analyses 8. Interpretation
retrieval 9. Utilization
4. Data cleaning
Figure 1. Phases of the research profiling process
two-dimensional tables, and graphs of trends. In addition to these basic analyses, cor-
relational and factor analytic tools may be used find clusters and produce maps.
Research profiling can be considered as an iterative problem-solving process.
Borrowing from Simon’s (1960) seminal work, Porter and Cunningham (2005) suggest
that the process includes three main phases: (A) intelligence, (B) analysis and design,
and (C) choice. Each phase includes two to four steps, as illustrated in Figure 1.
Following this process, we set out to profile all the research that has been published
in S&G during 1970-2009. S&G published four issues a year until 2008 and publishes
six issues a year since then. Although academic research on simulation/gaming has
been published in various other journals, this body of literature is fragmented. Thus,
we decided to make a journal-based study instead of a content-based study, because
S&G is one of the top journals in this field and the most focused on the topic. Moreover,
40 years is such a long time for a single journal that it alone provides data abundantly
to be profiled with bibliometric methods.
Recently, Crookall (2009) gave a thorough overview of S&G’s history. In brief,
the journal was originally named Simulation & Games: An International Journal of
Theory, Design, and Research. It has been renamed twice, in 1990 and in 2000. The
current full name is Simulation & Gaming: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Theory,
Practice and Research. Besides research articles, the journal publishes reviews, asso-
ciation news and notes, ready-to-use games and simulations, reports and communica-
tions, and biographies.
The bibliographic data for this study was acquired from S&G’s publisher, Sage
Publications. We collected data of all published items from 1970 (Volume 1, Number 1)
through 2009 (Volume 40, Number 6). In addition, we included 37 prepublished items
from Sage Publications’ OnlineFirst service, up to November 17, 2009. A complete set
of statistics was not available for the OnlineFirst articles, so we could not include them
in every analysis. Tables and figures wherein OnlineFirst articles are included show a
plus symbol in the range of years (i.e., 1970-2009+). Altogether, 2,096 published items
formed our final data set.
Regarding publication type, Sage categorizes S&G articles into 13 different classes:
research article, review, editorial, about the author, news, conference, letter, erratum,
notes, obituary, bibliography, introduction, and other. We found many miscategorizations
Figure 2. The number of published items (1970-2009)
in the data (e.g., a news item is categorized as a journal article), so we resorted the
items into three main categories: research articles (1,046 items), editorials (120 items),
and others (930 items). We present first a basic bibliometric analysis on all publica-
tions, after which we present basic and advanced bibliometric analyses on the research
articles. Because of space limitations, we depict the analyses rather briefly in these
sections and elaborate on the results primarily in the discussion section that follows.
All Publications
Excluding OnlineFirst items, the number of research articles, editorials, and others are
depicted, year by year, in Figure 2. The number of research articles rose by 63% from
1970 to 2009, and the number of editorials increased by 530% during the same interval.
The others category include reviews as the largest type. The reviews averaged around
10 per year in the first three decades, but they dropped to about two per year during
2000-2009.
Table 1 presents the top 10 authors based on the total of all types of publications.
The last column depicts the authors’ most common recurring title words. From those
we may see that several of the top authors in this all-publication-types list have regu-
larly published news items related to one of the following associations: International
Simulation and Gaming Association (ISAGA), the North American Simulation and
Gaming Association (NASAGA), the Association for Business Simulation and
Experiential Learning (ABSEL), and the Japan Association of Simulation and Gaming
(JASAG). Also, the statistics on the number of pages per article (see Figure 3),
Bragge et al. 873
Table 1. Top-10 Authors of All Types of Publications (1970-2009+)

Number of Number of
Published Research Number of Most Common Title
Rank Items Author Articles Editorials Words or Phrases
1 133 Crookall, David 4 59 Editorial, ISAGA News &
Notes
2 65 Dukes, Richard L. 6 NASAGA News & Notes
3 35 Wolfe, Joseph 23 3 Business games/gaming,
External validity, Review
4 32 Corbeil, Pierre 5 1 Review, Simulation/game
review, Game
5 25 Thavikulwat, 13 1 ABSEL News & Notes,
Precha Simulations Assessment
6 23 Nakamura, 1 JASAG News & Notes
Mieko
7 22 Bruin, Klaas 1 ISAGA News & Notes
8 20 Jones, Ken 17 Simulations
8 20 Gosenpud, Jerry 6 ABSEL News & Notes
10 19 Harris, Brenda JASAG News & Notes
Note: ISAGA = International Simulation and Gaming Association; NASAGA = North American
Simulation and Gaming Association; ABSEL = Association for Business Simulation and Experiential
Learning; JASAG = Japan Association of Simulation and Gaming.
excluding OnlineFirst articles, reflect this, as 20% of all published items are 1 to 2
pages long. The average number of pages is 9.8 for the 2,059 published items and 15.6
for the 1,010 research articles (excluding OnlineFirst items).
When analyzing the reference lists, we find that there are 11.8 references on aver-
age for 2,059 published items of all types, excluding OnlineFirst items. This statistic,
however, should be based on research articles alone, as other articles do not usually
contain references. If we take only the research articles into account, the average num-
ber of references rises to 22.6 for the 1,010 research articles.
Table 2 lists the top-10 referenced authors (including self-references), based on
the number of published articles in which they are referenced. The table also lists the
total number of instances in which those authors are referenced, because an article
may reference more than one publication by the same author. Joseph Wolfe and
David Crookall appear on both the top author list (Table 1) and top referenced list
(Table 2).
Research Articles
More than half of S&G research articles have been sole authored, and about 30% have
two authors (Table 3). Altogether, 1,388 different authors have contributed 1,046
Figure 3. Pages per article across all types of publications (1970-2009)
Table 2. Top-10 Referenced Authors of All Types of Publications (1970-2009)

Number of Referencing Number of
Rank Referenced Author Articles Referencing Instances
1 Wolfe, J. 156 471
2 Greenblat, C. S. 104 174
3 Keys, B. 103 166
4 Crookall, D. 96 149
5 Duke, R. D. 88 183
6 Faria, A. J. 70 149
7 Boocock, S. S. 67 104
8 Coleman, J. 60 88
9 Kolb, D. A. 58 98
10 Guetzkow, H. 55 96
research articles to S&G within the study period. The most prolific authors (Table 4),
having each contributed seven or more articles, represent 0.7% of all S&G article
authors but account for 12.8% of the S&G articles published. The top-3 authors
Bragge et al. 875
Table 3. Distribution of Research Articles by Number of Authors per Article (1970-2009+)

Number of Authors per Article Percentage of Articles
1 52.20
2 30.31
3 11.19
4 3.35
5 1.24
6 0.48
7 0.57
8 0.29
10 0.19
11 0.10
12 0.10
Table 4. Top-10 Authors of Research Articles (1970-2009+)

Rank Author Number of Articles Range of Publication Years
1 Wolfe, Joseph 23 1976-2009
2 Jones, Kena 17 1986-2004
3 Thavikulwat, Precha 13 1989-2009+
4 Gold, Steven C. 12 1984-2009
4 Klabbers, Jan H. G. 12 1980-2009
6 Faria, Anthony J. 11 1987-2009
7 Pray, Thomas F. 9 1984-2002
7 Shubik, Martin 9 1971-2009
9 Cannon, Hugh M. 8 2000-2009+
10 Duke, Richard D. 7 1974-2000
10 Lederman, Linda Costigan 7 1978-2001
10 Teach, Richard D. 7 1990-2007
10 Thatcher, Donald C. 7 1990
a. Eleven research articles by Ken Jones appear in the September 1998 issue, which was devoted to his
substantial contributions over many years.
(Wolfe, Jones, and Thavikulwat) in this list also appear in the top-10 author list of all
publication types (Table 1).
The average range of publication years is 22.5 for the top-10 authors (24.3, if
excluding Thatcher, whose seven publications appear in a single year, from the calcu-
lations). Martin Shubik has the longest publication year range (39 years), followed by
Joseph Wolfe (34 years) and Jan Klabbers (30 years). It is a strength for the journal to
have so many active authors with an extensive perspective to the field.
Table 5 presents the authors’ top affiliations. The rank order is based on the number
of research articles, but for comparison we also present the number of instances, which
Table 5. Top-10 Affiliations of Authors of Research Articles (1970-2009)

Number of Number of
Rank Affiliation Research Articles Instances
1 Oklahoma State University 26 29
2 University of Michigan 24 25
3 Rutgers University 20 20
3 University of Tulsa 20 20
5 Rochester Institute of Technology 16 16
6 Towson University 12 12
6 University of Windsor 12 16
6 Yale University 12 12
9 Georgia Institute of Technology 11 11
9 University of Southern California 11 11
is larger when an article is coauthored by two authors from the same institution. The
majority of research published in S&G comes from U.S. universities. The only non-
U.S. institution among the top 10 is the University of Windsor, Canada. Other non-
U.S. institutions among the top-35 affiliations are Delft University of Technology, the
Netherlands (11th with 10 research articles); the National University of Singapore
(also 11th with 10 research articles); and Tel-Aviv University, Israel (25th with 6
research articles).
Figure 4 depicts the distribution of the number of references, M = 22.6, of the 1,010
research articles (excluding OnlineFirst items). About one third of the articles have 10
or fewer references, and about half of the articles have 17 or fewer references.
Table 6 lists the 10 most referenced authors, ranked by the number of research
articles referencing each author. Nine of the top-10 referenced authors are the same as
in Table 2 for all publication types, with only Biggs replacing Guetzkow in 10th place.
The rank order of referenced authors remains practically the same when self-written
articles are excluded from the number of referencing articles—only Boocock would
change places with Kolb, with a difference of one referencing article. For comparison,
Table 6 also shows the number of referencing instances as well as the number of self-
referencing instances. As an example, Joe Wolfe has been referenced in 145 research
articles, appearing in 450 instances (i.e., around 3 of his articles have been referenced
in one referencing article). From these numbers 20 and 107 are self-referencing arti-
cles and instances, respectively.
Not surprising, most authors cite their own articles at least once in each article, a
pattern that is approximately constant with respect to the number of referencing arti-
cles. More variation exists in the number of self-referencing instances, which ranges
from 2.3% to 35.4% of total referencing instances.
Bragge et al. 877
Figure 4. Distribution of number of references for research articles (1970-2009)
Table 6. Top-10 Referenced Authors of Research Articles (1970-2009)

Number of Number of Number of
Referenced Number of Self-Referencing Referencing Self-Referencing
Rank Author Referencing Articles Articles Instances Instances
1 Wolfe, J. 145 20 (out of 23) 450 107
2 Greenblat, C. S. 99 4 (out of 5) 159 21
3 Keys, B. 96 4 (out of 5) 144 31
4 Crookall, D. 85 4 (out of 4) 130 14
5 Duke, R. D. 79 4 (out of 7) 166 58
6 Faria, A. J. 68 9 (out of 11) 147 42
7 Kolb, D. A. 57 4 (out of 4) 96 34
8 Boocock, S. S. 56 2 (out of 3) 86 2
9 Coleman, J. 53 1 (out of 1) 79 2
10 Biggs, W. D. 51 4 (out of 4) 91 26
Table 7 lists the most common journal or proceedings outlets of the references bro-
ken down by decades. Consistent with the findings of other research profiling studies
(Bragge et al., 2010), the most commonly referenced journal is almost without excep-
tion the journal itself, as in this case. What is worth noticing is the astounding rise in
Table 7. Top-10 Referenced Publications of Research Articles (1970-2009)
Number of Number of Referencing Instances

Referencing Referenced
Rank Articles Publication 1970-1979 1980-1989 1990-1999 2000-2009
1 470 S&G 142 351 519 1006
2 92 Management Science 40 54 51 30
3 86 American Behavioral 53 29 20 10
Scientist
4 74 Academy of 13 37 37 22
Management Journal
5 72 Developments in 1 61 153 453
Business Simulation
and Experiential
Learning (ABSEL
Proceedings)
6 69 Academy of 2 42 48 22
Management Review
7 65 Decision Sciences 6 47 37 12
8 62 Journal of Business 24 33 20 12
9 60 Journal of Personality 36 34 39 36
and Social Psychology
10 56 Journal of Management 0 5 43 19
the referencing for the conference proceedings of ABSEL (Developments in Business

Simulation and Experiential Learning) during the last two decades.
Figure 5 shows a graph of the cited years of the references. The earliest date back
to works such as Cournot’s (1838) Recherches sur les principes mathématiques de la
théorie des richesses. Most referenced works were published between 1966 and 2002,
peaking in 1975 and 1990, and dipping in 1983.
Table 8 presents the most common title phrases of the articles and their temporal
distribution. Natural to the scope of the journal, title phrases that include either simula-
tion or game/gaming dominate the list, appearing in 38% of the top-29 title phrases.
Among them, simulation games and computer simulation have decreased in usage
from the early decades, whereas business simulation has increased in the 1990s and
thereafter. The largest increase in the last decade has been with the word review, due
to 10 (out of more than 30) review articles already published in 2009 in the 40th
Anniversary Symposium (in which this article appears).
Table 9 presents the most common descriptors of the articles and their temporal
distribution. The descriptors are based on Sage Publications’ classification scheme.
Inasmuch as the descriptors were not available for years 1970 and 2007-2009, we
divided the time horizon into six equal-length periods, from 1971 to 2006. The top two
descriptors have kept their ranks throughout the 36 years presented in the table.
Bragge et al. 879
Figure 5. Cited years of references of research articles
Descriptors such as management, organizational learning, management methods,

health services administration, business, and health planning have increased notice-
ably in frequency, whereas community development, industrial psychology, mathemat-
ical optimization, and discriminant analysis have declined in frequency.
Table 10 is a temporal breakdown of S&G’s top authors, affiliations, referenced
authors, referenced publications, title phrases, and descriptors. It summarizes the find-
ings of this section.
Analyzing the Relationships

We now analyze the relationships among S&G authors. More specifically, we examine
patterns of work division and knowledge creation that may differentiate top-publishing
authors from other prolific authors, and we determine the extent to which the research
articles of prolific authors are clustered. Our data suffice to answer three questions:
1. Among the prolific authors, do those who author more articles in S&G
engage in more work division than those who author fewer articles? By
work division we mean authors dividing their work among themselves and
thereby raising the number of articles for which each receives publication
credit.
If the higher number of publications by those who have authored the most articles
is due to work division, then those who have authored the most articles in S&G will
have engaged in more coauthorship than those who have authored fewer articles. The
alternative hypothesis is that highly published authors do not coauthor more than less
published authors, so to the extent that they divide work among coauthors, they do not
do it more frequently than less published authors.
2. Among the prolific authors, do those who author more articles in S&G write
proportionately more articles that contribute incrementally to conventional
thinking, compared with articles that present new thinking, than those who
author fewer articles?
If those who have authored the most articles in S&G write proportionately more
articles that contribute incrementally to conventional thinking rather than articles that
present new thinking, then their articles will reference more of the widely referenced
S&G authors than those who have authored fewer articles. The alternative hypothesis
is that highly published authors do not reference widely referenced S&G authors more
frequently, so their articles should contain about as much new thinking as those of less
published authors.
3. Among the prolific authors, can clusters of authors be identified together with
each cluster’s exemplar, which is the author at the center of each cluster, so that
those seeking to understand the totality of the work that has been published
in S&G may be able to identify quickly the dominant schools of thought by
studying first the articles authored by the exemplars?
The identification of clusters depends on the measure of similarity between items

and on the algorithm used to find the clusters given the selected measure. We use the
pattern of citations as our measure of similarity and affinity propagation (Frey &
Dueck, 2007, 2008) as the algorithm for finding clusters and their exemplars.
We obtained the answers to these questions by drawing from two S&G author data-
base matrices: a matrix of coauthors and a matrix of authors by referenced authors. The
matrix of coauthors is an n-by-n matrix wherein the same n items, the authors, appear
in the rows as well as in the columns. The matrix of authors by referenced authors is
an n-by-m matrix wherein n items, the referencing authors, occupy the rows, and m
items, the referenced authors, occupy the columns. For both types of matrices, the
numbers appearing in the intersections of the rows and columns are the number of
times each row item is associated with each column item.
Matrix of Coauthors
For the matrix of coauthors, we selected authors who have authored or coauthored at
least four research articles in S&G between 1970 and 2009+ (including 8 OnlineFirst
articles). The collection amounts to 51 authors whose authored articles range from 4 to 23,
Bragge et al. 881
Table 8. Top-29 Title Phrases of Research Articles (1970-2009)

Number of
Rank Articles Title Phrases 1970-1979 1980-1989 1990-1999 2000-2009
1 139 Simulation 24 23 47 38
2 46 Game 5 10 16 10
3 35 Gaming 4 4 15 11
4 34 Simulation Games 14 7 8 4
5 25 Learning 6 3 10 5
6 24 Simulation/Gaming 1 6 10 6
6 24 Effect 11 9 0 4
8 21 Use 5 5 8 3
9 19 Business Games/-ing 5 5 6 3
9 19 Review 0 2 3 14
11 16 Computer Simulation 4 9 1 2
12 15 Business Simulation 0 0 9 6
13 13 Study 2 8 2 1
13 13 Development 3 3 2 5
15 12 Game/-ing Simulation 0 7 1 4
15 12 Role 2 1 3 6
17 11 Education 5 4 1 1
17 11 Experiential Learning 0 3 5 3
19 10 Practice 0 3 4 3
19 10 Research 3 3 1 3
21 9 Debriefing 0 1 4 2
21 9 Case Study 0 2 3 3
21 9 Theory 1 1 4 3
24 8 Simulation Model 4 1 1 1
24 8 Computerized Business 0 2 5 1
Simulations
24 8 Assessment 0 1 2 5
27 7 Play/-ing 0 2 2 3
27 7 Computer 2 4 1 0
27 7 Attitude 2 4 1 0
M = 6.16, SD = 3.69. Of this collection, we count 32 coauthor instances, each instance

being a case when one author’s name appears with another as a coauthor of an article.
To assess the extent of coauthorship, we define a coauthorship index (CAI) as the
number of coauthor instances divided by the number of articles authored. For example,
in the case of two authors both coauthoring two articles, each author’s CAI is 1
(2 coauthor instances divided by 2 articles). Figure 6 is a plot of CAI by number of
articles. The Pearson correlation between the two is .016, p = .913, ns. Thus, highly
published authors do not achieve their higher numbers by dividing work more fre-
quently than less published authors.
Table 9. Top-39 Descriptors of Research Articles (1971-2006)
Number of
882
Rank Articles Descriptors 1971-1976 1977-1982 1983-1988 1989-1994 1995-2000 2001-2006
1 387 Decision making 58 73 57 73 77 49
2 381 Management games 28 71 47 75 90 70
3 230 Programming management (Computers) 24 24 28 43 74 37
4 151 Management science 15 62 12 21 5 36
5 140 Business education 6 17 17 32 46 22
6 120 Problem solving 10 13 22 23 27 25
7 82 Management research 11 36 7 4 4 20
8 74 Educational administration software 9 12 6 17 14 16
9 57 Human resource management 8 7 7 12 11 12
10 53 Organizational behavior 4 9 11 8 11 10
11 50 Information systems 14 2 8 8 12 6
12 45 Management 1 3 7 2 13 19
12 45 Organizational learning 0 0 3 15 15 12
14 44 Organizational research 2 3 16 18 3 2
15 42 Management training 2 7 5 6 16 6
16 41 Management methods 1 10 1 0 0 29
17 39 Planning 7 3 4 10 11 4
18 38 School administration 4 13 4 2 12 3
19 37 Conflict management 6 2 6 10 9 4
20 35 Community development 9 10 5 3 6 2
21 34 Strategic planning (Business) 0 2 4 16 9 3
22 33 Business teachers 8 1 7 2 10 5
23 31 Industrial psychology 5 10 6 6 3 1
24 29 Small groups 1 2 8 10 5 3
25 27 Community relations 3 7 6 6 4 1
(continued)

Table 9. (continued)
Number of
Rank Articles Descriptors 1971-1976 1977-1982 1983-1988 1989-1994 1995-2000 2001-2006
26 26 Mathematical optimization 11 4 5 0 4 2
27 25 Health services administration 0 1 2 5 1 16
28 23 Business 0 1 2 3 4 13
28 23 Management development programs 0 1 4 9 8 1
28 23 Organizational change 1 1 3 3 9 6
28 23 Entrepreneurship 0 0 2 7 12 2
28 23 Teamwork (Workplace) 1 0 3 8 7 4
33 22 Information management 7 2 3 4 2 4
34 21 Crisis management 2 2 1 3 5 8
35 20 Discriminant analysis 8 7 3 1 1 0
36 17 Organizational structure 0 3 3 4 5 2
37 16 Health planning 0 1 2 2 1 10
38 15 Labor relations 4 5 1 3 2 0
38 15 Business negotiations 0 2 2 0 7 4
883
Table 10. Summary of S&G Research Articles Over Four Decades
1970-1979 1980-1989 1990-1999 2000-2009
884
No. of articles 187 221 304 298
Top authors Allen, L. E. [4] Wolfe, J. [6] Jones, K. [15] Cannon, H. M. [7]
Shubik M. [4] Duke, R. D. [4] Wolfe, J. [13] Klabbers, J. H. G. [7]
Brewer, G. D. [3] Lederman, L. C. [3] Thatcher, D. C. [7] Barach, P. [4]
Dukes, R. L. [3] Norris, D. R. [3] Thavikulwat, P. [7] Faria, A. J. [4]
Enzle, M. E. [3] Remus, W. E. [3] Gold, S. C. [6] Gastao Salies, T. [4]
Kidder, S. J. [3] Williams, R. H. [3] Faria, A. J. [5], Gold, S. C. [4]
Livingston, S. A. [3] Pray, T. F. [5] Halleck, G. B. [4]
Miller, L. D. [3] Yeo, G. K. [5] Hill, J. L. [4]
Naylor, T. H. [3] Mayer, I. S. [4]
Thavikulwat, P. [4]
Top Johns Hopkins University [8] Rutgers University [8] University of Tulsa [13] Oklahoma State University [22]
affiliations
University of Michigan [8] University of Michigan [7] Rochester Institute of Delft University of Technology
Technology [8] [7]
Yale University [7] University of Tulsa [7] Towson University [7] Wayne State University [7]
Ohio State University [6] University of Minnesota [5] Georgia Institute of Georgia Institute of Technology
Technology [5] [5]
Rutgers University [5] Arizona State University [3] National University of Rochester Institute of
Singapore [5] Technology [5]
Auburn University [3] Rutgers University [5] CIRAD, France [4]
International Institute for University of Michigan [5] Towson University [4]
Applied Systems Analysis [3]
Northern Illinois University [3] University of Windsor [5] University of Bergen [4]
Ohio State University [3] George Mason University [4] University of Chicago [4]
Rice University [3] Solent Simulations [4] University of Michigan [4]
(continued)

1970-1979 1980-1989 1990-1999 2000-2009
No. of articles 187 221 304 298

Rochester Institute of University of Maryland [4] University of Windsor [4]
Technology [3]
University of Haifa [3] University of West Florida [4]
University of Hawaii [3]
University of Missouri–
Columbia [3]
University of Utrecht [3]
Top Coleman, J [34] Greenblat, C. S. [37] Wolfe, J. [57] Crookall, D. [56]
referenced
authors
Boocock, S. S. [32] Wolfe, J. [32] Keys, B. [48] Wolfe, J. [52]
Cherryholmes, C. [25] Duke, R. D. [27] Faria, A. J. [31] Kolb, D. A. [33]
Guetzkow, H. [21] Cohen, K. J [17] Crookall, D. [28] Klabbers, J. H. G. [31]
Shubik, M. [21] Keys, B. [17] Greenblat, C. S. [28] Keys, B. [28]
Stoll, C. S. [19] Dill, W. R. [16] Biggs, W. D. [22] Faria, A. J. [27]
Fletcher, J. L. [16] Boocock, S. S. [15] Pray, T. F. [22] Greenblat, C. S. [27]
Raser, J. R. [16] Greenlaw, P.S [15] Teach, R. D. [22] Jones, K. [25]
Livingston, S. A. [15] Jackson, J. R. [15] Duke, R. D. [19] Cannon, H. M. [24]
Schild, E. O. [15] Norris, D. R. [15] Fritzsche, D. J. [18] Oxford, R. [24]
Gamson, W. A. [14] Remus, W. E. [15] Gold, S. C. [18] Saunders, D. [23]
Jones, K. [18] Duke, R. D. [22]
Senge, P. M. [22]
(continued)
885
886
1970-1979 1980-1989 1990-1999 2000-2009
No. of articles 187 221 304 298

Top Simulation & Gaming [57] Simulation & Gaming [99] Simulation & Gaming [138] Simulation & Gaming [176]
referenced
publications
American Behavioral Decision Sciences [27] Journal of Management [34] Development in Business
Scientist [37] Simulation and Experiential
Learning [33]
American Political Science American Behavioral Management Science [33] Harvard Business Review [21]
Review [24] Scientist [23]
Behavioral Science [19] Management Science [23] Academy of Management American Psychologist [20]
Review [29]
Management Science [18] Academy of Management Academy of Management Academy of Management
Review [22] Journal [26] Journal [19]
Journal of Conflict Journal of Business [22] Developments in Business Journal of Personality and Social
Resolution [16] Simulation and Experiential Psychology [19]
Learning [26]
Journal of Business [15] Academy of Management Decision Sciences [24] Management Science [18]
Journal [20]
American Sociological Review Psychological Bulletin [16] Harvard Business Review [21] Journal of Management [17]
[14]
Sociometry [13] Behavioral Science [15] Administrative Science Academy of Management
Quarterly [20] Review [16]
Journal of Personality and Social Simulation/Games for Educational Researcher [16]
Psychology [15] Learning [19]
System Dynamics Review [16]
(continued)

1970-1979 1980-1989 1990-1999 2000-2009
No. of articles 187 221 304 298

Top title Simulation [24] Simulation [23] Simulation [47] Simulation [38]
phrases
Simulation Game [14] Game [10] Game [16] Review [14]
Effect [11] Computer Simulation [9] Gaming [15] Gaming [11]
Learning [6] Effect [9] Learning [10] Game [10]
Business Games/-ing [5] Study [8] Simulation/Gaming [10] Business Simulation [6]
Education [5] Game/-ing Simulation [7] Business Simulation [9] Role [6]
Game [5] Simulation Games [7] Simulation Games [8] Simulation/Gaming [6]
Use [5] Use [8] Assessment [5]
Development [5]
Learning [5]
Lesson [5]
Symposium Article [5]
Top Decision making [84] Decision making [116] Management games [132] Management games [86]
descriptorsa
Management games [70] Management games [93] Decision making [126] Decision making [61]
Management science [48] Programming management Programming management Programming management
(Computers) [49] (Computers) [97] (Computers) [52]
Programming management Management science [45] Business education [66] Management science [36]
(Computers) [32]
Management research [28] Business education [36] Problem solving [44] Management methods [29]
(continued)
887
888
1970-1979 1980-1989 1990-1999 2000-2009
No. of articles 187 221 304 298

Problem solving [32] Educational administration Problem solving [29]
software [31]
Management research [26] Human resource Business education [28]
management [23]
Organizational learning [23] Management [22]
Management science [22] Management research [20]
Organizational learning [18]
Educational administration
software [16]
Health services
administration [16]
Note: Numbers in brackets are number of research articles.
a. Note that Sage has not published descriptors in 1970 and from 2007 onwards.
Bragge et al. 889
Figure 6. Relationship between coauthorship index and number of articles by each author
Matrix of Authors by Referenced Authors

For the matrix of authors by referenced authors, we selected the same 51 authors as
in the matrix of coauthors and matched them to the 75 highest referenced authors over
the same period (excluding the data from 8 OnlineFirst articles with no reference
information). The reference counts of the referenced authors range from 24 to 145,
M = 39.05, SD = 20.00.
To assess the extent of reference, we define a reference index (RI) as the number of
referencing articles divided by the number of authored articles. So the author with 5
published articles who references one widely referenced author in 4 articles and
another widely referenced author in 3 articles has an RI of 1.4 (7 referencing articles
divided by 5 authored articles). Figure 7 is a plot of RI by number of articles. The
Pearson correlation between the two is .262, p = .06, ns. Thus, to the extent that refer-
encing highly referenced authors is a measure of conventional thinking, highly pub-
lished authors do not achieve their higher numbers by writing proportionately more
conventional-thinking articles than less published authors. The alternative hypothesis
that the articles of highly published authors contain about as much new thinking as
those of less published authors is supported.
Figure 7. Relationship between reference index and number of articles by each author
To measure the similarities among authors by their pattern of references, we Pearson

correlated the frequency counts of the matrix of authors by referenced authors across
the reference authors to obtain a 51-by-51 correlation matrix of authors. We applied
the affinity propagation algorithm (see the appendix) to the matrix to derive the mini-
mum and maximum number of clusters shown in Table 10, where publication rank
refers to the rank in number of articles authored by each exemplar. The authors fall
into a minimum of 7 clusters and a maximum of 11 clusters, centered around Faria,
Mayer, Gold, Hill, Kin, Gamson, and Thatcher in the first 7 clusters and also around
Klabbers, Hornaday, Thorngate, and Lederman in the additional 4 clusters of the
11-cluster set.
Finding how a population is clustered is an endeavor that depends on the pattern of
linkages among the members of the population and the purpose to be served by the
finding. One could find, for example, that a population has one cluster or that a popula-
tion has as many clusters as the number of its members. Neither finding is ever wrong,
but neither finding is ever useful. Utility requires that the number of clusters fall within
a useful range. To meet the utility requirement, the number of clusters desired can be
specified in advance, after which an algorithm is applied to assign each member to
each cluster, but this method might not coincide with the population’s pattern of link-
ages. The dilemma is resolved by affinity propagation, which can be set to search,
through an iterative algorithm, for a small or large number of clusters. The search
might fail, or it might succeed in finding cluster numbers that are not useful. In our
case, the search found 7 clusters when the algorithm was set to search for a small num-
ber and 11 clusters when the algorithm was set to search for a large number.
Bragge et al. 891
Table 11. Clusters of Authors by Pattern of Citations

Cluster Size
Minimum Number Maximum Number
Publication Rank Exemplar of Clusters of Clusters
6 Faria, Anthony J. 9 7
23 Mayer, Igor S. 10 7
4 Gold, Steven C. 7 6
30 Hill, Jonnie Lynn 6 6
20 Kin,Yeo Gee 7 5
35 Gamson, William A. 7 5
10 Thatcher, Donald C. 5 4
5 Klabbers, Jan H. G. 3
31 Hornaday, Robert W. 3
43 Thorngate, Warren 3
11 Lederman, Linda Costigan 2
Thus, to the extent that the clusters identify schools of thought, we find between 7
and 11 schools of thought, each school centered on an exemplar, as listed in Table 11.
The articles written by the exemplars should be understood as the most typical of each
school and not necessarily the most forward thinking or the best written. Accordingly,
a researcher desiring a quick assessment of research articles in S&G could study only
the articles written by the seven exemplars of the seven-cluster set. With time to spare,
the researcher could add the articles written by the four additional exemplars of the
11-cluster set.
A map of the similarities among authors based on their pattern of citations is shown
in Figure 8. That is, authors who commonly cite the same referenced authors are similar
to each other. The map was produced with VantagePoint Version 6.1 software, which
uses cosine distance, rather than Pearson correlations, as the measure of similarity.
Cosine distance scales the measurement from 0 to 1, eliminating negative values,
which makes cosine distance more suitable for mapping than Pearson correlations.
The two measures are highly correlated, M = .976, SD = .013.
The vertical and horizontal axes of the map have no specific meaning, inasmuch as
the software simply reduces the 51-dimensional representation to two dimensions,
seeking in the process to maintain authors with a high degree of similarity in close
proximity to each other. Authors who are placed closer to each other generally are
more similar than those who are placed farther away; nonetheless, the presence or
absence of a line between authors and the thickness of the line correspond precisely to
similarity.
Two groups are evident on the map, the dense upper one and the sparse lower one.
Differences between these two groups are tabulated in Table 12. To construct the last
two columns of this table, the 97 most referenced publications of the 51 authors were
Figure 8. Cross-correlation map of authors versus referenced authors

Note: The numbers in the nodes refer to exemplar authors who belong to the 7-cluster and/or
11-cluster sets.
Bragge et al. 893
Table 12. Differences Between Dense and Sparse Group

No. of Referencing Instances of 97 Most
Referenced Publications
Group No. of Authors No. of Research Articles Business Publications Other Publications
Dense 20 145 1,154 1,045
Sparse 31 169 24 614
divided into two categories, business and others, based on the title of the publications.
Publication titles with business-related words, namely, business, decision sciences,
entrepreneurship, management, marketing, organizational behavior, and operations
management, were classified as business publications. We find that the dense group is
composed predominantly of business researchers, inasmuch as 52.48% of their refer-
encing instances are to business publications, as compared with only 3.76% of the
referencing instances of the sparse group, χ2(1, N = 2,837) = 481, p = .000.
The map of Figure 8 and the clusters of Table 11 are evidently valid. Although
derived by different algorithms, the two are consistent, considering that the dense group
contains fewer exemplars and the sparse group contains more exemplars. Three exem-
plars (Gold, Faria, and Kin) of the seven-cluster set are found in the dense group and
four exemplars (Hill, Mayer, Gamson, and Thatcher) are found in the sparse group. Of
the additional examplars from the 11-cluster set, one (Hornaday) is found in the dense
group and three (Klabbers, Lederman, and Thorngate) are found in the sparse group.
Discussion and Conclusion

We have depicted the articles appearing in S&G since its inauguration and compared
the patterns of knowledge creation and work division of top-publishing authors to
other authors. The research profiling method that we employed relies on the biblio-
metric information available from journal databases. This makes the approach differ-
ent from descriptive literature reviews that are based on reading the full texts of the
articles themselves. Accordingly, research profiling augments descriptive reviews but
does not replace them.
Applying the research profiling method, we find that the top S&G research-article
authors, each with more than 10 articles, are Joseph Wolfe, Ken Jones, Precha
Thavikulwat, Steven Gold, Jan Klabbers, and Anthony Faria, in that order. As to the
top research-article referenced author, Wolfe is by far the most referenced author, fol-
lowed by Cathy Greenblat, Bernard Keys, and David Crookall. Most of the referenced
works were published between 1966 and 2002, peaking in 1975 and 1990, and dipping
in 1983. On average, S&G research articles contain 22.6 references.
The most referenced journal has been S&G itself. The reference instances to S&G
have almost doubled in the last two decades, from 519, in 1990-1999, to 1,006, in 2000-
2009. Other popular referenced periodicals include Management Science, American
Behavioral Scientist, Academy of Management Journal, Developments in Business

Simulation and Experiential Learning (ABSEL conference proceedings), Academy
of Management Review, Decision Sciences, Journal of Business, and Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology. The ABSEL conference proceedings have increased
in popularity the most, being over three times more referenced in the last decade than
in the 1990s, 453 versus 153, indicating the growth of a very active research commu-
nity in business gaming. In the four decades of S&G publishing history, the references
to behavioral journals, such as the American Behavioral Scientist and Behavioral
Science, have clearly decreased. The majority of the research published in S&G comes
from U.S. universities. The only non-U.S. institution among the top-10 is the University
of Windsor, Canada.
The number of research articles and editorials are increasing, but the number of
reviews has dropped considerably in recent years. This decline in reviews might be
due to management issues (Barbara Steinwachs, who was in charge of S&G reviews
for many years, passed away), but it also might be due to the lowered value placed on
game/simulation reviews as compared with research articles, or with the increased dif-
ficulty in finding truly novel products that are worth of a review, or to publishers’
increasing reluctance in giving away copies of their products for review.
The article titles include often either the word simulation or game/gaming, inherent
to the journal’s scope. Business simulation has become a popular title phrase in the last
two decades, whereas simulation games and computer simulation have decreased in
usage from the early decades, depicting a change in the focus of research.
Descriptors that have increased in prominence are management, organizational
learning, management methods, health services administration, business, and health
planning. Descriptors that have declined in prominence are community development,
industrial psychology, mathematical optimization, and discriminant analysis.
By analyzing the relationships between highly published authors and their coau-
thors, and between highly published authors and the authors of the articles they refer-
ence, we found that the highly published authors have not achieved their higher numbers
by dividing work more frequently than less published authors and that their articles
contain about as much new thinking as those of less published authors. Moreover, we
find that the highly published authors fall into between 7 and 11 clusters, centered
around Faria, Mayer, Gold, Hill, Kin, Gamson, and Thatcher in the 7-cluster set and
also around Klabbers, Hornaday, Thorngate, and Lederman in the additional 4 clusters
of the 11-cluster set. These findings, together with the map of their relationships, are
thumbnail sketches of research articles in S&G since its inception 40 years ago.
We conclude by noting that our study has answered the who, what, where, and
when questions that are basic to the research profiling method. Moreover, we have
gone beyond these basic questions to examine the pattern of work division and knowl-
edge creation as evidenced through coauthorship and references. We have not, how-
ever, compared these results to those of other journals and other disciplines. We believe
such comparisons will be a fruitful extension of this study.
Bragge et al. 895
Appendix
Affinity Propagation
Affinity propagation (Frey & Dueck, 2007, 2008) is an iterative algorithm for clus-
tering a collection of items based on a measure of similarity between items. It differs
from other clustering algorithms in that it does not require the user to specify the
number of clusters a priori. Rather, it finds that number based on the data and on
the user’s indicated preference for a smaller or larger number. The algorithm is suit-
able for our application, because S&G authors are not known to fall into any number
of clusters a priori.
The algorithm applies an ingenious logic that simulates how people become clus-
tered at a large gathering. At such gatherings, people move toward those they admire
more and away from those they admire less, so that after a suitable time, everyone is
found to be clustered, each cluster formed around a person who is known as that clus-
ter’s exemplar. At one extreme, if everyone views herself as extremely admirable as
compared with everyone else, then each person will admire only herself, each alone
will be her own exemplar, and the number of clusters will equal the size of the gather-
ing. At the other extreme, if everyone views herself as extremely unadmirable, then
only a minimum number of clusters will form, each cluster composed of those admir-
ing an exemplar who, although thinking of herself as unadmirable, cannot escape the
admiration of those surrounding her.
Admiration corresponds with similarity. To obtain a range of clusters from the algo-
rithm, the user sets a self-similarity value that represents how much each item admires
itself. If the self-similarity value is set to the lowest of all the similarity values of the
items with respect to each other, then, provided the algorithm converges, the resulting
number of clusters is the minimum number.
Our measure of similarity is the correlation of authors by referenced authors, rang-
ing from −.34065 to .961561, Mdn = −.03717. To direct the algorithm to find the mini-
mum number of clusters of Table 11, we specified a self-similarity value that is the
smallest of the correlations. To direct the algorithm to find the maximum number of
clusters of that table, we specified a self-similarity value that is the median of the cor-
relations. In both cases, the algorithm converged after 11 iterations. We do not report
results for a self-similarity value higher than the median, because a larger number of
clusters does not serve the purpose of this study.
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful to Anne Sunikka and Pekka Malo for their review and critic of this
article. Special thanks are due to Joe Wolfe for the generous guidance he provided when resolv-
ing the inconsistencies in Sage Publication’s database and to David Crookall for his encouraging
and insightful comments throughout the writing process.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and/or publication
of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research and/or author-
ship of this article:
The first author received funding for authorship of this article from the Jenny and Antti
Wihuri Foundation, which is gratefully acknowledged.
References
Boyack, K., Klavans, R., & Börner, K. (2005). Mapping the backbone of science. Scientomet-
rics, 64, 351-374.
Bragge, J., Korhonen, P., Wallenius, H., & Wallenius, J. (2010). Bibliometric analysis of
multiple criteria decision making/multiattribute utility theory. In M. Ehrgott, B. Naujoks,
T. J. Stewart, & J. Wallenius (Eds.), Multiple criteria decision making for sustainable energy
and transportation systems (pp. 259-268). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
Börner, K., Chen, C., & Boyack, K. W. (2003). Visualizing knowledge domains. Annual Review
of Information Science and Technology, 37, 179-255.
Crookall, D. (2009). Evolving. Simulation & Gaming: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 40, 290-296.
Cournot, A. A. (1838). Recherches sur les principes mathématiques de la théorie des richesses.
(Researches into the Mathematical Principles of the Theory of Wealth) Paris, France: L.
Hachette.
Culnan, M. J. (1986). The intellectual development of management information systems,
1972-1982: A co-citation analysis. Management Science, 32, 156-172.
Culnan, M. J. (1987). Mapping the intellectual structure of MIS, 1980-1985: A co-citation anal-
ysis. MIS Quarterly, 11, 341-353.
Faria, A. J., Hutchinson, D., & Wellington, W. J. (2009). Developments in business gaming:
A review of the past 40 years. Simulation & Gaming: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 40,
464-487.
Frey, B. J., & Dueck, D. (2007). Clustering by passing messages between data points. Science,
315, 972-976.
Frey, B. J., & Dueck, D. (2008). Response to comment on “Clustering by passing messages
between data points.” Science, 319, 726d.
Hood, W. W., & Wilson, C. S. (2001). The literature of bibliometrics, scientometrics, and infor-
metrics. Scientometrics, 52, 291-314.
Guzzo, R. A., Jackson, S. E., & Katzell, R. A. (1987). Meta-analysis analysis. Research in Orga-
nizational Behavior, 9, 407-442.
King, W. R., & He, J. (2005). Understanding the role and methods of meta-analysis in IS research.
Communications of the AIS, 16, 665-686.
Meyer, M., Lorscheid, I., & Troitzsch, G. (2009). The development of social simulation as
reflected in the first ten years of JASSS: A citation and co-citation analysis. Journal of
Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 12(4), Article 12. Retrieved from http://jasss.soc
.surrey.ac.uk/12/4/12/12.pdf
Bragge et al. 897
Porter, A. L., & Cunningham, S. W. (2005). Tech mining: Exploiting new technologies for
competitive advantage. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Porter, A. L., Kongthon, A., & Lu, J. C. (2002). Research profiling: Improving the literature
review. Scientometrics, 53, 351-370.
Pritchard, A. (1969). Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics? Journal of Documentation, 25,
348-349.
Raghuram, S., Tuertscher, P., & Garud, R. (2010). Mapping the field of virtual work: A cocita-
tion analysis. Information Systems Research, 21, 1-17.
SciMaps (2005). Places and spaces: Mapping science. School of Library and Information
Science, Indiana University. Retrieved from http://www.scimaps.org/
Simon, H. A. (1960). The new science of management decision. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Small, H. (1999). Visualizing science by citation mapping. Journal of American Society of
Information Science, 50, 799-813.
Watts, R. J., & Porter, A. (2007). Mining conference proceedings for corporate technology
knowledge management. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management,
4, 103-119.
Webster, J., & Watson, R.T. (2002). Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a
literature review. MIS Quarterly, 26, xiii-xxiii.
Yang, Y. Y., Akers, L., Klose, T., & Barcelon Yang, C. (2008). Text mining and visualization
tools –Impressions of emerging capabilities. World Patent Information, 30, 280-293.
Bios
Johanna Bragge (PhD, Helsinki School of Economics) is an assistant professor of information
systems science at Aalto University School of Economics. Her research interests include
e-collaboration, service co-creation, digital marketing, and text-mining. Her research has been
published in IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, Journal of the AIS, Group
Decision and Negotiation, Journal of Financial Services Marketing, and the European Journal
of Operational Research. Contact: johanna.bragge@aalto.fi.
Precha Thavikulwat (PhD, University of Minnesota) is a professor of management at Towson

University and a fellow and past president of the Association for Business Simulation and
Experiential Learning. His research interest is in the design of computerized business gaming
simulations, especially for the purpose of assessing business education. He is the author of four
computerized business gaming simulations: MANAGEMENT 500, CEO, DEAL, and GEO.
Contact: pthavikulwat@towson.edu.
Juuso Töyli, (PhD, Turku School of Economics), (PhD, Helsinki University of Technology), is
acting professor at Turku School of Economics. His current research interests include business
simulation games, networking business, and logistics and financial performance. He is the
author of computerized business simulation game SIMBU and the coauthor of MOB. Contact:
juuso.toyli@gmail.com.

Bragge Et Al. (2010)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Bragge Et Al. (2010)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bragge Et Al. (2010)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SG387539

1177/1046878110387539Bragge et al.Simulation & Gaming

Simulation & Gaming

Profiling 40 Years 41(6) 869­–897

Johanna Bragge1, Precha Thavikulwat2, and Juuso Töyli3

A literature review is an essential part of every research initiative. Its purpose is to

•• Who are the prolific authors publishing research in a certain field?

Additional questions, such as which institutions conduct research published in

Phase A: Intelligence Phase B: Phase C:

Figure 1. Phases of the research profiling process

Figure 2. The number of published items (1970-2009)

Table 1. Top-10 Authors of All Types of Publications (1970-2009+)

Figure 3. Pages per article across all types of publications (1970-2009)

Table 2. Top-10 Referenced Authors of All Types of Publications (1970-2009)

Table 3. Distribution of Research Articles by Number of Authors per Article (1970-2009+)

Table 4. Top-10 Authors of Research Articles (1970-2009+)

Table 5. Top-10 Affiliations of Authors of Research Articles (1970-2009)

Figure 4. Distribution of number of references for research articles (1970-2009)

Table 6. Top-10 Referenced Authors of Research Articles (1970-2009)

Table 7. Top-10 Referenced Publications of Research Articles (1970-2009)

Number of Number of Referencing Instances

the referencing for the conference proceedings of ABSEL (Developments in Business

Figure 5. Cited years of references of research articles

Descriptors such as management, organizational learning, management methods,

Analyzing the Relationships

The identification of clusters depends on the measure of similarity between items

Table 8. Top-29 Title Phrases of Research Articles (1970-2009)

M = 6.16, SD = 3.69. Of this collection, we count 32 coauthor instances, each instance

1970-1979 1980-1989 1990-1999 2000-2009

No. of articles 187 221 304 298

No. of articles 187 221 304 298

1970-1979 1980-1989 1990-1999 2000-2009

No. of articles 187 221 304 298

1970-1979 1980-1989 1990-1999 2000-2009

No. of articles 187 221 304 298

Matrix of Authors by Referenced Authors

To measure the similarities among authors by their pattern of references, we Pearson

Table 11. Clusters of Authors by Pattern of Citations

Figure 8. Cross-correlation map of authors versus referenced authors

Table 12. Differences Between Dense and Sparse Group

Discussion and Conclusion

Behavioral Scientist, Academy of Management Journal, Developments in Business

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Precha Thavikulwat (PhD, University of Minnesota) is a professor of management at Towson

You might also like

Profiling 40 Years 41(6) 869–897