A long and winding road: 40

years of R&D Management

John Rigby
The University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK. John.Rigby@manchester.ac.uk

Established in 1970, R&D Management is today one of the leading journals of the technol-
ogy and innovation management (TIM) field that spans the business and management
subject areas. It publishes innovative research with high academic interest. This paper
reviews the journal’s history and the major contributions of its first 40 years, examines its
present position in the context of TIM literature, and then looks at the factors which might
affect the journal in the future. Descriptive and nonparametric bibliometric methods are
used to examine the historic performance of the journal and the field, its current position,
and the factors shaping future development.

1. Introduction – the beginning ence the future of R&D Management, particularly in

terms of factors that affect how research is conducted,

‘E fficient and purposeful management of our R

& D, whether in government, industry or uni-
versities, is a vital element in the effective deployment
of our research and industrial resources. The evolution
of management techniques, especially for research
and development, and the availability of courses in
this field, is very necessary. Equally there is a need for
a forum in which ideas and thoughts can be expressed
and exchanged. This journal has therefore a valuable
role to play, and I am sure it will command wide-
spread support. This is a key activity; there is probably
no other which has so much potential for good or ill in
shaping our future lives.’ (Davies, 1970).
The R&D Management journal, first published in
1970 and now its 45th year, has played a central role
in the development of the fields of business and man-
agement and in particular within the specialism of
technology and innovation management (TIM). This
paper examines the history and evolution of R&D
Management, addressing three questions: What major
contributions has the journal made to the field of
TIM? What is the current position of the journal
among its peers in the field of TIM? What might influ-
utilized, or consumed, and how it is rewarded?
The current TIM field is a wide interdisciplinary
area. One of the most recent papers to review the TIM
field considers the field to comprise fifteen base
journals (Thongpapanl, 2012) and this paper uses
these fifteen in preference to the smaller set of man-
agement of technology (MOT) journals set used by
Ball and Rigby (2006) as the larger set reflects wider
connections of R&D Management to the innovation
literature in which R&D Management has made
important contributions. The table below identifies
the journals of the field used by Thongpapanl (2012),
shows the short code by which the journals are
referenced in various places in the paper, mainly at
Figure 1 and Table 10, and also indicates which of
these 15 journals were earlier considered by Ball and
Rigby (2006) (Table 1).
2. Literature
Bibliometric research has three main approaches:
characterization, comparison; and studies that

1062 C 2016 RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd

V
 A long and winding road

Figure 1. Uncited papers as a proportion of published output over period 1975–2009.

contextualize, often relating exogenous factors to sci-
entific publication. This study of R&D Management
draws on these various approaches and broadly maps
them to the examination of three time periods, past,
present, and future: first, the past involves characteri-
zation to understand the position which the journal
has in the entirety of knowledge but especially within
its field or subfield: the present involves comparison
through benchmarking approaches how R&D Man-
agement stands in relation to the other journals; and
for the future contextualization is employed to exam-
ine exogenous change in the technologies and prac-
tices of scientific and research publication and
possible consequences for the journal’s development.
2.1. Characterization studies
Characterization approaches are increasingly diverse,
reflecting a growth of bibliometric scholarship largely
dependent on the proliferation of computing power
(de Bellis, 2009). A central approach is to use citation
(co-citation) co-authorship or keyword analysis Small
(1973), to delineate the field in which journal is
located, to reveal the field’s characteristics and the

Table 1. Journal name and code

Journal Code Covered by Ball and Rigby (2006)

Engineering Management Journal EMJ

IEEE Transaction on Engineering Management IEEE Y
Industrial and Corporate Change ICC
Industry and Innovation I&I
International Journal of Technology Management IJTM Y
Journal of Engineering and Technology Management JETM Y
Journal of Product Innovation Management JPIM Y
Journal of Technology Transfer JTT
R&D Management R&DM Y
Research Policy RP Y
Research Technology Management RTM Y
Science and Public Policy SPP
Technological Forecasting and Social Change TFSC
Technology Analysis and Strategic Management TASM Y
Technovation T Y

C 2016 RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd

V R&D Management 46, S3, 2016 1063
John Rigby
role which the journal plays within it. Management
studies has many examples of this kind of characteri-
zation, recent ones include the emergence of design
management (Erichsen and Christensen, 2013;
Johansson-Sk€oldberg et al., 2013), and on origins of
particular disciplines, see for example Teixeira and
Silva (2013). Studies outside the technology and inno-
vation management of this kind include Jensen and
Kristensen (2013) on European Union studies,
Kosm€ utzky and Kr€ucken (2014) on higher education
research and Agarwal and Lucas (2005) on the field of
information systems. Studies may identify key actors
in scientific fields using social network analysis of the
affiliation networks of authors and journals, for exam-
ple Rigby and Ball (2004) with the MOT journals,
Minguillo (2010) on the Spanish contributors to the
Library and Information Science field and particle
physics (Bellotti, 2011).
Field level studies also analyse texts to determine
key concepts (Harmancioglu et al., 2009), and draw
lessons for future work as Dwivedi et al. (2011) have
done for knowledge management. Studies also
include focus on use, including ownership of and
application of, concepts by specific groups, e.g. for
developing countries (Beyhan and Cetindamar,
2011). This overall approach is similar to writing
review papers (and also editorials) that reflect self-
critically upon fields and their achievements (Gass-
mann, 2006; Enkel et al., 2009; Hsuan and Mahnke,
2011; Stanko and Calantone, 2011; Jelinek et al.,
2012; Linton, 2012; Schiederig et al., 2012).
Some characterization studies focus more nar-
rowly, putting journals in context, e.g. the journal
level study by Durisin et al. (2010) on the Journal of
Product Innovation Research. Other journal level
studies include Ball (1998) who categorized journal
outputs by their applicability to genuine practical
problems of management. Ball examined use by those
in industry of the knowledge generated and dissemi-
nated by a journal (i.e. not a field). In this case, it is
the R&D Management Journal itself.
2.2. Comparison studies
Many comparison studies incorporate some character-
ization but aim ultimately to benchmark or compare
journals with each other within a particular context,
usually a field. Good examples are in nursing
(Gagliardi et al., 2014) and information systems
(Serenko and Jiao, 2012). Within the MOT area there
has been strong interest in comparative studies, the
following being some of the best known: (Linton and
Thongpapanl, 2004; Linton, 2006; McMillan, 2008;
Linton, 2011; Thongpapanl, 2012). Quasi regulatory
bodies also make comparisons, e.g. the Association of
1064 R&D Management 46, S3, 2016
Business Schools (Harvey et al., 2010; Association of
Business Schools, 2015) which creates a rank order-
ing of publications by field. However, ordering of
journals into lists and the creation of hierarchies is
challenging, with confusion over what comparisons
are relevant, see for example Theussl et al. (2014) on
marketing journals; and there is concern that compari-
sons change behavior e.g. (Mingers and Willmott,
2013), on the UK’s Research Assessment Exercise.
New approaches to the process of ranking journals
(and papers) go beyond simple citation counts (e.g.
PageRank algorithm (Cheang et al., 2014)) or use
other bibliometric measures such as the h-index of the
authors of a journal to rank the journals themselves
(Mingers et al., 2012).
2.3. Changing contexts of knowledge
production, diffusion, and use
A debate beginning in science policy and leading to
the influential Mode 2 claims of Gibbons et al. (1994)
gives greater emphasis to knowledge production, dif-
fusion, and use with some parallels to the open inno-
vation concept. While the Mode 2 authors emphasize
changes to knowledge production, they avoid
expressly bibliometric approaches and instead employ
studies of knowledge production use and dissemina-
tion in particular cases. This work includes the work
on the triple helix framework (Shinn and Lamy,
2006), and the engagement with users (Hojem, 2012).
Knowledge generation is closely connected to issues
of dissemination and use and here, a number of
researchers observe that information technologies
hardly foreseen in 1970 such as data mining and auto-
matic rating of research (Priem, 2013) have led to
new forms of awareness of research. Relatedly, the
movement for open access (Gargouri et al., 2010) –
perhaps anticipated in papers in R&D Management
itself (Butler et al., 1976) – is another factor that is
changing knowledge generation and dissemination.
Discussion of the relationship between citations and
downloads from the publishers web site is not a new
departure however; Moed (2005) and also Schloegl
and Gorraiz (2011) examined the issue some years
ago and the decision by journals to make download
figures public for every paper they publish on line
(Watson, 2009) has led to interesting comparisons
between citation and download data with a consensus
emerging that download data reflects the use of
articles by research students and post-docs and antici-
pates citation counts (Maflahi and Thelwall, 2016).
The prospects for using new web technologies to
improve knowledge generation and dissemination
(Breivik et al., 2009) have also been discussed in the
literature. A good recent survey of how tools for
C 2016 RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
V

understanding knowledge generation and information
are changing is Cronin and Sugimoto (2014).
3. Methods
3.1. Methodological approach
The approach of this paper draws on these three per-
spectives and has presents three main forms of empiri-
cal work. First, the paper identifies and reviews the
landmark publications of the journal. This retrospec-
tive focuses upon the most highly cited papers of the
journal’s history. The second part of the paper while
partly historical seeks to put R&D Management in its
context as an important contributor in the TIM litera-
ture rather than the narrower context of MOT. The
reason for this scoping is that R&D Management
increasingly connects to the innovation field and the
modern data analysis tools can be applied to this
larger body of work without proportionately greater
effort. The third main section paper is prospective,
looking forward with two approaches: an investiga-
tion of the citing behaviour of R&D Management and
a small number of comparator journals; and a review
of some of developments in the technology of schol-
arly publication and dissemination with an analysis of
altmetric data.
3.2. Bibliometric data preparation
The bibliometric data provided by indexers is gener-
ally increasingly available in greater quantities, is eas-
ier to use but is often of poor quality. Two main
difficulties face the researcher: a) omission; and b)
variation or ambiguity. The approach adopted here
was to use data from the two main citation indexing
services, Thomson Reuters, which produces the Web
of Knowledge, and Elsevier’s Scopus. Various data
sets were prepared for analysis depending upon the
quality of the original data contained, and on the
period of time of the analysis. The R&D Management
data for the whole of the period of publication of the
journal was obtained from the Web of Knowledge
and used for a number of specific analyses of the
R&D Management performance. Data relating to a
core fifteen TIM journals were obtained from Scopus
as not all 15 journals are indexed by Thomson Reuters
Web of Knowledge (although they are now included
in the ABS list). Data were downloaded in April 2013
and in analyses which involve the year 2013, the num-
ber of records is proportionately lower.
Data were downloaded to the VantagePoint pro-
gramme to analyse the relationships between fields on
the basis of their content. Using co-occurrence, link-
C 2016 RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
V R&D Management 46, S3, 2016
A long and winding road
ages between fields can be identified allowing, for
example, co-word analysis of jointly cited papers.
Journal to journal citation was also carried out to
examine the pre-eminence of journals within the
group and field.
The altmetric data was obtained using Altmetric
Explorer during 2015 and comprised records of alt-
metric data from four key journals including R&D
Management. Altmetric data was obtained across a
range of measures. Two of these measures were cho-
sen, Mendeley Readership data for which there were
1,903 records for the four journals and Twitter
(Tweeter data) where there were 1,457 data points for
the four journals. Mendeley Readership data gives the
number of times those using the Mendeley biblio-
graphic programme have stored a particular paper in
their personal reference list. The Twitter data analysis
shows the number of different Twitter users that have
tweeted about a paper.
4. Results
4.1. The past – a retrospective: the journal
since 1970
The papers identified in this section are those which in
2013 had the highest count of citations of all of the
R&D Management papers and in all cases this was
over 49 citations in the Web of Knowledge. These
papers and their main themes are discussed. A small
number of the papers in this highly cited set had over
100 citations while three had over 200.
The first of these set of the most influential papers
was Allen’s (1970) research teams and facilities
paper. It inaugurates a focus in the journal on contexts
and transfer of knowledge, although contains no men-
tion of the word ‘innovation’. However, by 1976 inno-
vation was a major topic of interest to authors and
readers of the journal and papers began to include the
term. In 1977, Rothwell (1977) was one of the first
authors to consider innovative firms. His aim was to
interest those working in firms – in the text of the
article – ‘it is of interest to the busy manager’ – as
well as academics. From a review of nine studies
including the well-known project SAPPHO, he identi-
fied a large number of factors associated with success
and also with the failure of the innovation activities of
firms. Among the factors and groups of factors, he
noted the need for good communications, innovation
as a corporate-wide task; more significantly, his fac-
tors numbered 6–10 identify the need to look outside
the firm, an early emphasis on what would become
the concept of ‘open innovation’. Shortly afterwards,
in 1979, Rubenstein and Ettlie (1979) presented their
1065
John Rigby

Table 2. Highly cited papers 1970–1989

Authors Year Title Citations Citations
per year

Allen, T.; Sloan, A. 1970 Communication networks in R&D laboratories 116 2.7
Rothwell, R. 1977 Characteristics of successful innovators and technically 111 3.08
progressive firms (with some comments on innovation
research)
Katz, R.; Tushman, M. 1981 An investigation into the managerial roles and career 97 3.03
paths of gatekeepers and project supervisors in a major
R&D facility
Allen, T.; Katz, R. 1982 Investigating the not invented here (NIH) syndrome – a 268 8.65
look at the performance, tenure, and communication
patterns of 50 R&D project groups
Shaw, B. 1985 The role of the interaction between the user and the 69 2.46
manufacturer in medical equipment innovation
Allen, T.J.; Katz, R. 1986 The dual ladder – motivational solution or managerial 54 2
delusion
Cooper, R.G.; 1987 What makes a new product a winner – success factors at 53 2.04
Kleinschmidt, E.J. the project level
Bae, Z.T.; Choi, D.K.; 1988 Technology development processes – a model for a 58 2.32
Lee, J.J. developing-country with a global perspective
Demeyer, A.; 1989 Global R&D management 62 2.58
Mizushima, A.

study on factors affecting innovation in supply chains,
with implications for firms and policy.
By 1981, Katz and Tushman (1981) were building
on the work of Allen (1977), while in 1982, Katz
(1982) and Allen renewed a focus on communication
noting the phenomenon of a decline in the effective-
ness of staff in R&D units over time. Later work also
looked at the human resource aspect in the R&D part
of the company, see also Fischer and Rosen (1982),
and (Greig, 1982) (Table 2).
The year 1982 also saw Parkinson’s publication of
his work on users (Parkinson, 1982), building on von
Hippel’s (1976). Cooper’s paper (1983) is one of the
first to deconstruct innovation processes, moving the
focus from linear models toward iteration and interac-
tion [see Kline and Rosenberg (1986)] on this
approach. Nevertheless, he noted regularities in
behavior that might inform company strategy, an
issue he addressed again the following year (Cooper,
1984). In 1985, Shaw (1985) provided an insight into
a particular industry – medical devices – that provided
good evidence of the importance of user/producer
interactions in innovation.
In 1986, R&D Management published further work
on human resources that would in time become highly
cited – Allen and Katz’s (1986) work on the dual lad-
der. Another influential paper from this year – a
collaboration between the Manchester Business
School and ICI Alderley Park (Lockett et al., 1986) –
explored R&D project selection by analytical hierar-
chy processes.
In 1987, Cooper and Kleinschmidt (1987) exam-
ined new product success factors while in the follow-
ing 2 years the papers examining research and
development within a global system were to receive
great interest, the first being by Lee et al. (1988) and
later in Demeyer and Mizushima (1989). The year
1988 also saw work on globalization of R&D in
developing countries Hakanson and Zander (1988)
(Table 3).
The next of the very highly cited papers was Roth-
well and Dodgson’s exploration of firm linkages
(Rothwell and Dodgson, 1991). It subsequently had
major policy implications, one of only a small number
of R&D Management papers to have such impact.
Rothwell’s (1992) paper on innovating firms and
factors that might influence it has become very highly
cited but quickly the internationalization theme
becomes more important (Granstrand et al., 1992). It
is though only later in the decade that ‘internationali-
zation’ appears within article keywords. Their work
on internationalization was the first to examine the
openness of innovation and has been cited in that liter-
ature. It could also be seen as putting evidence in
place for the ‘sourcing side’ of the open innovation
framework. The paper by Gemunden et al. (1992) of
this year again looked at the innovation performance
of the firm and the need for links to key actors: cus-
tomers, universities, and research institutes and R&D
collaboration with other firms, a theme further exam-
ined by Forrest and Martin (1992) and Demeyer
(1993).

1066 R&D Management 46, S3, 2016 C 2016 RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
V
 A long and winding road

Table 3. Highly cited papers 1990–1998

Authors Year Title Citations Cites
per year

Dodgson, M.; Rothwell, R. 1991 External linkages and innovation in small and 108 4.91
medium-sized enterprises
Rothwell, R. 1992 Successful industrial-innovation – critical factors 283 13.48
for the 1990s
Bohlin, E.; Granstrand, O.; 1992 External technology acquisition in large 81 3.86
Oskarsson, C.; Sjoberg, N. multi-technology corporations
Gemunden, H.G.; Herden, R.; 1992 Technological interweavement – a means of 67 3.19
Heydebreck, P. achieving innovation success
Forrest, J.E.; 1992 Strategic alliances between large and small 60 2.86
Martin, M.J.C. research intensive organizations – experiences in
the biotechnology industry
Demeyer, A. 1993 Management of an international network of 54 2.7
industrial research-and-development laboratories
Bonaccorsi, A.; 1994 A theoretical framework for the evaluation of 80 4.21
Piccaluga, A. university-industry relationships
Newton, D. & 1994 Application of option pricing theory to R&D. 34 1.79
Pearson, A.
Malone, D.E.; 1996 Policies and structures for spinning off new 90 5.29
Roberts, E. companies from research and development
organizations
Tidd, J.; 1997 Organizational and technological antecedents for 61 3.81
Trewhella, M. knowledge acquisition and learning
Westhead, P. 1997 R&D ’inputs’ and ’outputs’ of technology-based 51 3.19
firms located on and off science parks
Boutellier, R.; Gassmann, O.; 1998 Management of dispersed product development 70 4.67
Macho, H.; Roux, M. teams: the role of information technologies
Gassmann, O.; Von Zedtwitz, M. 1998 Organization of industrial R&D on a global scale 55 3.67
Chiesa, V.; Manzini, R. 1998 Organizing for technological collaborations: a 51 3.4
managerial perspective

By 1994 interest had grown in links between com-
panies and universities. Bonaccorsi and Piccaluga
(1994) offered a typology to model and evaluate per-
formance of linkages. Westhead would later examine
this (1997) using counter-factual methods. Newton
and Pearson’s paper of 1994 was the first of a number
considering options theory in the management of
research and development (Newton and Pearson,
1994). This work, while highly cited, did not generate
further interest in the topic in the pages of R&D Man-
agement but it was widely discussed among other
management journals.
The theme of external engagement was again taken
up in the journal with Tidd and Trewhella (1997)
looking at how organizations engage externally. This
was taken up later by Chiesa and Manzini (Chiesa and
Manzini, 1998). Roberts and Malone’s work (Roberts
and Malone, 1996) followed the same discussion,
looking at spin-off creation from government labora-
tories and universities, as well as firms.
The internationalization theme continued to be
explored in Boutellier et al. (1998), with attention was
given to the particular role of information technology
by Klein et al. (1998). This was some of the earliest
work to appear on ‘distributed innovation’, and con-
tinues to draw interest across innovation studies.
Gassmann and von Zedtwitz (Gassmann and Von
Zedtwitz, 1998) also focused on this issue, their work
based on a case study of ABB. Kessler et al. (2000)
followed this theme by reporting empirical research
on technology development, distinguishing between
what can be done within, and what can be done out-
side the firm.
The industry science links issue again rose to prom-
inence with Chiesa and Piccaluga’s (2000) compari-
son of Italian and Anglo-Saxon worlds, one of a very
small number of papers with a policy focus appearing
during the decade from 2001 to 2010. In the following
year, Cooper et al. (2001) published on the issue of
portfolio management. This was neither the first nor
the last paper on this topic but it remains one of the
most highly cited on the subject. Their work sought to
demonstrate the importance of portfolio methods to
firm profitability. They showed that where portfolio

C 2016 RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd

V R&D Management 46, S3, 2016 1067
John Rigby

Table 4. Highly cited papers 2000–2004

Authors Year Title Citations Cites
per year

Bierly, P.; Gopalakrishnan, S.; 2000 Internal vs. External learning in new product 82 6.31
Kessler, E.H. development: effects on speed, costs, and
competitive advantage
Chiesa, V.; Piccaluga, A. 2000 Exploitation and diffusion of public research: the 60 4.62
case of academic spin-off companies in Italy
Cooper, R; Edgett, S.; 2001 Portfolio management for new product development: 66 5.5
Kleinschmidt, E. results of an industry practices study
Kim, J.; Wilemon, D. 2002 Focusing the fuzzy front-end in new product 70 6.36
development
Linton, J.D.; Morabito, J.; 2002 Analysis, ranking, and selection of R&D projects in 56 5.09
Walsh, S.T. a portfolio
Howells, J.; James, A.; 2003 The sourcing of technological knowledge: distributed 55 5.5
Malik, K. innovation processes and dynamic change
Thamhain, H.J. 2003 Managing innovative R&D teams 53 5.3
Gassmann, O.; 2003 Trends and determinants of managing virtual R&D 51 5.1
Von Zedtwitz, M. teams
Meyer, M. 2003 Academic entrepreneurs or entrepreneurial 49 4.9
academics? Research-based ventures and public
support mechanism
Von Zedtwitz, M. 2004 Managing foreign R&D laboratories in china 53 5.89

methods were taken seriously and used extensively,
company performance along a wide range of metrics
was improved. The work was significant because of
some surprising discoveries: prioritization of financial
methods for assessing portfolio value was in fact asso-
ciated with poorer performance. Further discussion of
the methodology of choosing between alternatives led
to Linton, Walsh et al.’s influential paper (Linton
et al., 2002) (Table 4).
In 2002, Kim and Wilemon presented their fuzzy
front end of innovation debate (Kim and Wilemon,
2002). The topic has since grown in importance, only
now in 2013 showing signs of declining interest. The
distributed character of innovation was again an
important topic in 2003 with Howells et al. (2003)
examining firms’ sourcing of external technological
information. The paper draws lessons for firms in an
era when R&D laboratory closures were increasing.
Thamhain’s paper (Thamhain, 2003) reports the
results of work done over a long period to attempt to
define conditions likely to lead to improvement in the
innovation performance of R&D teams. International-
ization again comes to the fore with Gassmann and
von Zedtwitz (2003) taking up the theme of R&D
management and innovation across international
boundaries. They identified five important trends
from their case studies, concluding that growing
expertise and the use of information technology
would make virtual teams both more likely and more
cost-effective. Von Zedtwitz returned to the issue of
internationalization with his paper of 2004 (Von
Zedtwitz, 2004) in which he examined the R&D
laboratories of large multinational companies in
China.
In 2003, Meyer’s paper Meyer (2003) on the policy
implications of academic industry interactions
appeared. This was a highly cited work and, unusually
for R&D management, it dealt with the topic of public
policy to support spin-off companies. The paper was,
as has been indicated, only one of a very small num-
ber concerned with policy for knowledge production
within the journal. At around the same period two
other papers of note on the public policy aspects of
research and development were published, Etzkowitz
and Klofsten (2005) being more highly cited than
Simpson (2004) which has had far less influence
(Table 5).
From 2006, the journal’s most highly cited papers
have been mostly on open innovation, beginning with
Gassmann’s agenda (Gassmann, 2006) for research into
the topic in the first special issue on this subject, an
exploration of the phenomenon of open innovation in
industries outside the high technology ones that had tra-
ditionally provided much of the focus of research pub-
lished in R&D Management (Chesbrough and
Crowther, 2006). Various aspects were then researched:

1068 R&D Management 46, S3, 2016 C 2016 RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
V
 A long and winding road

Table 5. Highly cited papers 2005–2009

Authors Year Title Citations Cites
per year

Etzkowitz, H.; 2005 The innovating region: toward a theory of 58 7.25

Klofsten, M. knowledge-based regional development
Chesbrough, H; 2006 Beyond high tech: early adopters of open innovation 115 16.43
Crowther, A.K. in other industries
Gassmann, O. 2006 Opening up the innovation process: toward an agenda 100 14.29
Piller, F.T.; 2006 Toolkits for idea competitions: a novel method to 79 11.29
Walcher, D. integrate users in new product development
Dodgson, M.; 2006 The role of technology in the shift toward open inno- 76 10.86
Gann, D.; Salter, A. vation: the case of Procter & Gamble
Gallagher, S.; West, J. 2006 Challenges of open innovation: the paradox of firm 66 9.43
investment in open-source software
Gemuenden, H.G.; 2006 Users’ contributions to radical innovation: evidence 53 7.57
Herstatt, C.; Lettl, C. from four cases in the field of medical equipment
technology
Chesbrough, H.; Enkel, E.; 2009 Open R&D and open innovation: exploring the 60 15
Gassmann, O. phenomenon

Dodgson et al. (2006) reported on information manage-
ment methods at Proctor and Gamble. The year 2006
saw other work examining the various dimensions of
innovation: by exploiting the ideas of users through the
use of ideas toolkits and competitions, (Piller and
Walcher, 2006); how entrepreneurial users contribute to
innovation and product development in the context of
medical technology innovation (Lettl et al., 2006);
while West and Gallagher examined innovation in the
context of open-source software (2006).
In 2009, the journal published a special issue on
open innovation in which Enkel et al. (2009) outlined
various ways of classifying the contributions made
and the fundamental concepts involved, particularly
the notions of inward outward and coupled open inno-
vation. Ebner et al. (2009) also published in this year
a highly cited paper (64 cites currently) with a focus
on crowdsourcing approaches. A further special issue
on open innovation in 2010 (Gassmann et al., 2010)
provided more opportunity for papers to examine the
current state of the field.
4.1.1. Some key themes emerging
Within this set of highly cited papers from the journal
three main themes can be discerned. First, there is
long-standing attempt to review and understand the
place and context of innovation. This focus begins
with the firm as R&D unit but moves steadily outward
to consider innovation more broadly as a distributed
phenomenon, which occurs often in a global context
in the larger firms which R&D management authors
often write about. Currently, attempts to describe,
control and manage innovation see it as the two way
street of ‘open innovation’. The early focus on this
theme included considerable attention to the manage-
ment of human resources and the design of the work-
place environment. A second major theme which
accounts for a substantial proportion of the journals
most highly cited papers during that last 40 plus years
is the narrower and more specialist topic of decision
making. Papers that discuss this topic include studies
of such methods as multicriteria decision analysis,
options approaches, and portfolio analysis. A third
group of papers examines the characteristics of inno-
vative firms, a check-list approach that has something
in common with benchmarking. Papers of this kind
generally identify features and factors – behaviors
that support innovation and or firm profitability.
A fourth theme of industry science relations is closely
related to the first theme in that the concern of such
papers is to focus on the sources of innovation and
flows of knowledge.
4.2. The present – the journal in its context
4.2.1. Approach
This part of the paper now examines aspects of the
journal’s recent development and present position,
beginning with an investigation of the citedness of the
journal’s papers and how this has changed over time.
The paper then examines the journal’s engagement,
with industry and with the world of scholarship
through the internationalization of the journal. The
paper then looks at the journal in the context of its
field, examining citing behavior across the field, and
then at the rate at which the different journals have

C 2016 RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd

V R&D Management 46, S3, 2016 1069
John Rigby
expanded to accommodate more articles. Finally, the
paper examines the current topic focus of journal and
field.
4.2.2. The search for impact
A major area of interest for those looking at the per-
formance of a journal over its lifetime is the citation
impact of the journal’s papers. Citation impact is
measured here over time as the proportion of papers
published in any year which is not subsequently cited
(/uncited). This measure provides a historical dimen-
sion to the attractiveness of the papers to readers
whose engagement with the papers is at the level of
citing them. A journal’s declining rate of uncited
papers suggests that such a journal’s papers are
increasingly the subject of scrutiny and engagement
by a readership which includes those whose interest in
the papers is to cite them. By contrast, a rising rate of
uncited publication suggests that a journal’s papers
are increasingly unable to attract a publishing and,
therefore, (in part) an academic readership. The analy-
sis conducted here compares the extent of citation
R&D Management with three publications, two of
which have become leading publications in the field
of TIM for academics wishing to publish, these being
Technovation, published since 1982 and aiming, like
R&D Management claiming to engage theory and
practice, and Research Policy, a journal established in
1972, which has become one of the most academi-
cally focused journals in the field. The third compara-
tor is, by contrast, a journal whose readership is less
academic and more practically focused and is
Research Technology Management (RTM), the jour-
nal of the Industrial Research Institute.
It is clear from the analysis that three of the journals
(including R&D Management) have strongly declin-
ing proportions of uncited papers over the period for
which data is available. However, interestingly,
RTM’s proportion of uncited papers remains the same
throughout the period. It is possible that this is in part
attributable to the pressure on academic authors, who
form the majority of authors in these three journals, to
publish their work, and also the desire of journal edi-
tors who run academic journals to find and publish
what they believe is the most citable material.
The following figure (Figure 1) gives the uncited
rate for R&D Management and Research Policy. This
falls over the period but the rate of decline has been
sharper for R&D Management. As can be seen, for all
years but two (1999 and 2002), the journal Research
Policy has a higher rate of citation (a lower rate of
uncitedness) than R&D Management. The figure
shows regression lines for each of the journals. Reduc-
ing uncitedness has a number of possible explana-
1070 R&D Management 46, S3, 2016
Table 6. Cited and uncited papers and UK and non-UK
status of authorship (all years)
R&D management Cited Uncited
(all years) papers papers
UK 189 145
Non-UK 536 183
Research Policy Cited Uncited
(All Years) Papers Papers
UK 364 38
Non-UK 1423 166
tions. First, the quality of the peer review system may
have improved. This may have attracted more, higher
quality papers to the journal over time. Subject
choice, led perhaps by special issues but also pro-
moted by journal editors at other times may also be
responsible. The policy of other journals is also a
potential driver of citation in other journals. The
wrong topic choice in one journal may lead authors to
move from one journal to another as they seek maxi-
mum exposure of their work. Subsequent citations
might change the picture, although not greatly.
The data on citedness for R&D Management and
Research Policy was subject to further analysis,
shown in Table 6, to determine whether non-UK
authorship was a factor in citedness. Papers were
grouped on two axes: cited status (cited or uncited)
and UK or outside only (UK or non-UK) authorship.
In both sets of papers, non-UK authorship was more
common, although among Research Policy the multi-
ple of non-UK papers to UK papers was twice that of
R&D Management. Among the Research Policy
papers, UK authorship had no statistically significant
effect on the occurrence of cited and uncited papers.
However, among the R&D Management, a substan-
tially higher number of uncited papers was found than
was expected (df 1, chi-square 34.3052, P 5 <0.001),
suggesting that the UK authors in the R&D Manage-
ment journal produce work that has less impact. The
explanation of these differences is difficult to ascer-
tain. One possible explanation is that UK authors’ col-
laboration and citation networks may differ.
4.2.3. Engaging with industry: author involvement
One of the journal’s original purposes was to engage
with industry and commerce. To investigate this, the
involvement of industrially based authors was exam-
ined. As has been noted above, the concept of engage-
ment is difficult to define, as topics that concern
business may be discussed in such a way that they are
of little interest to or do not constitute engagement
with actors who will take account of the findings of
C 2016 RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
V

the publication directly. Conversely, topics that might
have no apparent immediate practical application
might ultimately be useful to practitioners.
The approach chosen here followed Ball and Rigby
(2006) which noted variations across the MOT field in
the relative proportion of academic and nonacademic
authors. The method adopted here was to investigate
how close the involvement with industry has been
over the lifetime of the journal, data permitting,
through a review of the addresses of authors. This
analysis included a broader range of types of paper
(correspondence/letters) ensuring interests of practi-
tioners were represented. R&D Management,
Research Policy, Technovation, and RTM were com-
pared for the period 1970–2012.
The results of the analysis conducted for this paper
are consistent with those produced by this previous
methodology and are shown in Table 7. They show
the four journals in the same rank order in terms of the
number of industrial addresses listed for authors by
year over the whole of the period.
However, while the overall picture for the journals
suggests similarity with the findings of Ball and Rigby
(Ball and Rigby, 2006), a trend is observable that com-
mercial/industrial participation in the writing of the lit-
erature rises in Technovation, while in R&D
Management it is static. Comparing Research Policy
and R&D Management, it is difficult to determine a
difference. Using a chi-square test that compares the
count of papers with commercial and industrial authors
for R&D Management and Research Policy, there is
no significant difference. Comparing either R&D
Management or Research Policy with Technovation or
R&D Management and Research Policy together with
Technovation using a chi-square test of significance
suggests a difference. Technovation would appear to
have an increasing level of commercial and industrial
participation. RTM reflects a much greater involve-
ment of industrial organizations in the writing of
papers, a finding that is not surprising. The count of
industrial and commercial organizations is, however,
rising for RTM in spite of the fact that the number of
papers each year remains relatively constant.
Table 7. Count of papers with commercial and industrial address
Count of papers with commercial and industrial address by period
Journal 1970–1979
R&D Management 28
Research Policy 11
Technovation 0 12
Research Technology Management NA
[Correction added on 20 October 2016, after first online publication: Table citations on this page were previously refer-
ring to the wrong tables and have been corrected.]
C 2016 RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
V R&D Management 46, S3, 2016
A long and winding road
The evidence provided shows R&D Management
has no more engagement with industry than Research
Policy, a journal which is avowedly academic in its
focus. On the basis of the evidence, R&D Manage-
ment appears to be staying still, neither increasing or
losing industrial participation.
4.2.4. International involvement in articles and
conference papers published in R&D
management
Internationalization and collaboration are often
regarded as leading to work that will be more highly
cited (Narin, 1991; Persson et al., 2004). To investi-
gate internationalization, examination was made of the
count of countries across all papers (articles, article:
proceedings paper, review, editorial material, and cor-
rection), for each year for the period 2004–April 2013.
A country was counted if it appeared in the address of
the author. If two authors from one country publish in
1 year, the country is counted twice. The data is shown
in the following table (Table 8). The country whose
authors appear most commonly in R&D Management
is the UK, followed closely by the US, then Germany.
A number of countries (Taiwan, Canada, Switzerland,
Sweden, and the Netherlands) form a group which
occur just over 20 times during the period. China
appears only 12 times in the decade. There is no strong
trend of growth of any country over the last decade.
4.2.4.1. Count of countries per paper
An analysis was also made of how many countries
were involved in a paper. A comparison was made
between R&D Management and one of the leading
journals of the field, Research Policy, which, in the
year in which this analysis was conducted had the
highest impact factor. In R&D Management, multi-
country papers (i.e. papers where authors come from
more than one country) appear to be less common than
in Research Policy, (Table 9). A Mann–Whitney test
of ranks was used to compare these two sets of papers.
The count of countries was statistically significantly
higher for Research Policy than R&D Management.
1980–1989 1990–1999 2000–2009 2010–2012
23 23 24 0
16 23 26 0
16 56 10
NA 149 348 49
1071
John Rigby

Table 8. Country involvement in R&D management papers

Papers in year 45 39 36 34 37 34 38 32 33 5

Publication year 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

UK 7 8 9 6 7 4 9 7 6 1
USA 6 10 10 5 5 7 3 6 10
Germany 1 4 6 1 5 10 8 8 4
Taiwan 4 2 2 7 5 1 2 3
Canada 2 2 2 2 5 5 3 2
Switzerland 8 3 2 4 4 1 1
Netherlands 1 2 5 2 1 2 5 2 2
Sweden 3 5 3 2 2 3 2 1 1
Italy 3 1 1 5 2 3 1
Spain 2 1 2 3 1 2 2 1
China 4 1 1 1 3 2
Australia 3 1 2 2 1
Belgium 2 2 3 1 1
France 2 1 1 2 2 1
Japan 1 1 2 1 2 1
South Korea 1 3 1 2 1
Finland 1 2 1 1 1 1
Austria 1 2 1 2
Denmark 3 3

In the figure shown below (Figure 2), the cumula-
tive proportion of internationally collaborative papers
published (defined as papers where there is more than
one country involved) is shown against time.
This comparison is shown over the period 1998–
2013 although starting values are based on the entire
preceding set of data for each journal (R&D Manage-
ment since 1970, Research Policy since 1972). Since
publication, 15% of R&D Management papers result
from international collaboration, while 25% of
Research Policy’s output has. When the rates of inter-
nationalization of the two journals are compared, it
can be seen that the rate of international collaboration
of published articles is lower in the case of R&D

Figure 2. Cumulative proportion of papers internationally co-authored in R&D management (R&DM) and research policy (RP)
(1998–2013).

1072 R&D Management 46, S3, 2016 C 2016 RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
V
 A long and winding road

Table 9. Countries per paper: R&D management and research policy comparison: (all years)
Journal Count papers with this number of countries in the list of author addresses

1 2 3 4 5 6 9
R&D Management 715 119 10
No Countries 715 238 30
Share % 85 14 1
No. of Papers 844
No. of countries 983
Countries per Paper 1.1
Research Policy 1357 352 86 14 3 1 1
No Countries 1357 704 258 56 15 6 9
Share % 75 19 5 1
No. of Papers 1814
No. of countries 2405
Countries per Paper 1.3

Management for the first 400 papers but then rises.
Internationalization occurs faster for Research Policy
than R&D Management.
4.2.5. The journals in context
A number of indicators were used to assess the posi-
tion of a journal within a field (Table 10). In the
TIM field, over 5 years, Research Policy has the
highest impact factor, while for the present year,
Technovation has the highest impact factor. R&D
Management is ranked eighth in the list for the
immediate impact factor (the impact factor) and
fourth for the 5 year impact factor. The immediacy
index shows R&D management is ranked 5th, sug-
gesting its research is discussed and cited fairly
quickly, more so than Research Policy. The cited
half-life indicates the median age of a journal’s
articles cited by other journals in that year, giving a
measure of the longevity of papers published in a
particular journal. R&D Management’s cited half-
life is the middle ranking value in the TIM journals.
Research Policy, which is an academically focused
journal has a higher cited half-life, suggesting that
the topics discussed in its pages may be of more
long-standing interest. Overall, across all these
indicators, R&D Management stands in the middle
of field, never occupying a position closer to the
extreme rank than three places away.
4.2.6. Journals citing behavior
A commonly used approach to understanding journals
and their field which provides both context and com-
parison is the analysis of journal citing behavior. Cita-
tions from journal A to journal B indicate dependence
of the former on the latter. Such a directional link or
dependence can be used to assess the prestige of the
journal. The table below (Table 11) was prepared to
examine the relationships between journals in the
TIM field (Table 10).
Journal 9, whose entries are underlined, is R&D
Management. Journal 10, which has the largest count
of citations to itself, and the largest number of cita-
tions overall, is Research Policy. The diagonal values
of Table 11 are the journal citations to itself, i.e. the
count of citations to articles published within the jour-
nal in the period to other articles in the journal some
of which may be within the period and some outside
it. As can be noted, some journals do not cite other
journals, for example journal 12 does not cite journal
1, while journal 11 does not cite journal 4 or journal
12. R&D Management cites itself most (which is nor-
mal practice within this set and more generally) and
then cites other journals in the following order:
Research Policy, Journal of Product Innovation Man-
agement, and then RTM. R&D Management is cited
most by itself followed by Technovation, Research
Policy, and then the International Journal of Technol-
ogy Management. The findings are consistent with the
observations of Thongpapanl (2012, p. 263) who
recently conducted a similar but more extensive citing
analysis between the journals in the set and a number
of journals outside.
Each journal has a rank ordering of the other jour-
nals in terms of citations to the other journals or
received by it from the other journals. Journals could
be assessed as similar if the rank ordering of the other
journals they cite are similar. Using the data from the
table of citation counts in Table 11, a ranking of the

C 2016 RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd

V R&D Management 46, S3, 2016 1073
1074
John Rigby

Table 10. Current main citation-based measures for the 15 TIM journals, 2013 data (source: Thomson Reuters)
Current citation-based measures for 14 TIM journals
Journal title Total Total IF IF IF-5 IF-5 Immed. Immed. Articles Rank Cited Rank
Cites Cites Rank Rank Index Index Rank Articles Half-Life Cited

R&D Management 46, S3, 2016

Rank 2011 Half Life

Engineering Management Journal 204 15 0.33 15 0.546 N/A 0 N/A 24 N/A 7.9 9
IEEE Transaction on Engineering Management 1761 6 0.938 11 1.557 9 0.136 11 59 6 10 1
Industrial and Corporate Change 2206 5 1.33 6 2.071 7 0.731 2 52 7 10 1
Industry and Innovation 546 13 1.116 9 1.442 NA 0.079 14 38 10 6.6 14
International Journal of Technology Management 827 11 0.492 14 0.659 13 0.125 13 40 9 8.4 7
Journal of Engineering and Technology 645 12 2.106 3 2.155 6 0.381 6 21 14 9.2 5
Management
Journal of Product Innovation Management 2886 3 1.379 5 2.77 3 0.217 9 92 3 9.1 6
Journal of Technology Transfer 920 9 1.305 7 1.884 N/A 0.136 11 44 8 7.5 10
R&D Management 1500 7 1.266 8 2.635 4 0.441 5 34 12 8.2 8
Research Policy 9518 1 2.598 2 3.989 1 0.358 7 134 2 9.5 4

V
Research Technology Management 491 14 0.745 13 0.76 12 0.75 1 4 15 9.7 3
Science and Public Policy 846 10 0.985 10 N/A N/A 0.584 4 62 5 6.9 13
Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 934 8 0.841 12 1.285 11 0.213 10 75 4 7.1 12
Technovation 2663 4 2.704 1 3.251 2 0.222 8 36 11 7.3 11
Technological Forecasting and Social Change 2966 2 1.959 4 2.405 5 0.71 3 138 1 6.1 15

C 2016 RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd

V
Table 11. Journal citing in and out – citation counts for period (2008–2013)
Journal cited (No. of cites) Column Total
Journal Code EMJ IEEE ICC I&I IJTM JETM JPIM JTT R&DM RP RTM SPP TFSC TASM T

C 2016 RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Journal Citing EMJ 150 38 2 4 1 44 1 6 14 11 3 2 4 280
(No. of Cites) IEEE 19 571 30 4 2 48 250 12 73 250 8 2 26 14 60 1,369
ICC 28 612 20 15 4 59 60 31 686 4 7 17 5 18 1,566
I&I 13 129 227 13 4 77 38 28 559 3 9 14 16 44 1,174
IJTM 3 96 93 28 256 33 239 38 206 579 82 9 55 48 159 1,924
JETM 2 76 22 3 16 422 219 3 50 140 37 23 16 85 1,114
JPIM 11 164 45 8 29 63 2,215 5 149 337 133 2 18 16 78 3,273
JTT 1 17 77 15 34 12 136 360 52 788 11 32 23 25 83 1,666
R&DM 5 77 55 14 58 36 398 32 494 440 95 8 65 26 92 1,895
RP 2 93 391 92 81 39 412 310 209 3,847 29 141 134 161 213 6,154
RTM 2 18 3 13 4 51 4 46 32 184 6 3 7 373
SPP 5 41 14 19 1 22 78 22 532 4 503 55 37 51 1,384
TFSC 10 94 117 15 14 49 132 31 120 916 9 38 1,963 222 315 4,045
TASM 7 70 67 13 54 26 177 81 115 626 51 30 198 380 141 2,036
T 10 103 135 37 108 42 527 169 284 1,257 90 23 163 72 1,434 4,454
Row Total 222 1,463 1,819 490 716 784 4,958 1,222 1,885 11,003 751 804 2,763 1,043 2,784
Bold diagonal values are journal self-citation; underlined values are those of R&D Management.

R&D Management 46, S3, 2016

1075
A long and winding road
John Rigby
Figure 3. Journal position based on count of citing and cited papers within the 15 journals.
journals using citing (in/out) behavior was carried out.
Those journals that were most similar on this basis
were Journal of Product Innovation Management,
Technovation, Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, and the International Journal of Technology
Management. Those most unlike R&D Management
were Journal of Technology Transfer, Research Pol-
icy, Science and Public Policy, Industrial and Corpo-
rate Change, and Industry and Innovation. Research
Policy appears to be different from R&D Manage-
ment on this ranking approach as the journal’s balance
of citation to a certain number of journals is very dif-
ferent, these journals being Industrial and Corporate
Change, Industry and Innovation, the Journal of Tech-
nology Transfer and Technological Forecasting and
Social Change. So while there are close links in terms
of citing from R&D Management to Research Policy
(441 cites to RP from R&D Management out of a total
of 1,895 citations), Research Policy does not cite
R&D Management to the same extent citing it only
209 times out of a total of 6,152 citations.
A final figure shown below (Figure 3) indicates
how the journals differ in terms of their overall tend-
ency to be cited by the other journals within the set of
15 and to cite the other journals within the set of 15.
For each journal the number of citations out of the
journal is shown on the vertical axis, while on the hor-
izontal axis, the number of citations into (i.e. of) the
journal is shown. The counts are net of journal self-
citation. Generally, the measure of all citations to a
journal/all citations from a journal is a form of impact
factor, although not a time limited one and, therefore,
1076 R&D Management 46, S3, 2016
potentially misleading. Nevertheless, some interpreta-
tion of journal behaviour is possible although care
should be taken as the volumes of citation can depend
on journal practices regarding the count of permitted
references (citations).
Table 10 suggests that R&D Management is, within
this field, in balance making as many cites to the other
journals as it receives from them. Technovation
receives fewer.
4.2.7. Current topic focus
This section focuses upon the most recent 5 year
period from 2008 to 2013 on the topics which the
journals have covered in that time. The 14 journals
were considered first and then R&D Management
separately. The reason for this was that R&D Manage-
ment indexing does not include author keywords, and
only in the Web of Knowledge rather than in Scopus
can publisher generated keywords be found.
4.2.7.1 Overall technology management topic focus
For the technology management journals as a whole,
the most common keywords provided by Scopus as
Index Keywords in the period 2009–2013 are shown
in the table below (Table 12). The second column
shows the count of keywords, the third column shows
the year of maximum count.
The most common keywords in the period 2009–
2013 across the whole field excluding R&D Manage-
ment are ‘innovation’, then ‘industry’, then ‘research’
C 2016 RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
V
 A long and winding road

Table 12. The 14 technology and innovation Table 13. R&D management journal common keywords
management journals, common index keywords 2009–2012
2009–2012
Keyword Count of Year of
Keyword Count of Year of keywords maximum
keywords maximum count
count (2009–2012)
(2009–2012)
Performance 41 2010
Innovation 1087 2012 Innovation 30 2009
Industry 525 2012 Product Development 30 2011
Research 364 2012 Knowledge 29 2011
Technology 327 2009 Research-and- 27 2011
Product Development 295 2011 Development
Research And Development 293 2010 Management 23 2011
Technological Development 256 2011 Technology 21 2011
Competition 243 2010 Model 16 2010
Patents And Inventions 228 2012 Firms 15 2009
Commerce 185 2012 Capabilities 13 2012
New Product Development 185 2012 Industry 12 2009
Economics 178 2009 Firm 11 2011
Investments 177 2010 Perspective 11 2010
Technology Transfer 176 2009 Organizations 11 2009
Decision Making 174 2011 Networks 10 2010
New Product 171 2010 Strategy 9 2009
Technological Forecasting 167 2009 Competitive 9 2011
Knowledge Management 164 2009 Advantage
Strategic Approach 161 2009 Absorptive-capacity 9 2011
Management 158 2012 Integration 6 2012
Project Management 153 2009 Success 5 2011
Organization 5 2011

followed by ‘technology’ and ‘product development’.

Innovation as a key topic is undisputedly the leader
with over twice as many occurrences as the next most
common topic.
4.2.8. R&D management journal topic focus
A view of the topics that are of central importance in
the R&D Management journal itself was obtained
through a different procedure since the R&D Manage-
ment journal articles do not publish author keywords
systematically, and citation indexes do not provide
these for the journal. The approach used Thomson
Reuters own Keywords PlusTM keywords for the last
23 years. Keywords were reviewed and collated using
VantagePoint with frequency counts made for each of
the years and a selection of topics was then made by
identifying the keyword counts that reached a maxi-
mum in the last 4 years were identified. These were
filtered to remove those topics which had only one
occurrence. This procedure produced 40 keywords of
which the top 21 are shown in the following table
(Table 13). These keywords define a set of author
topics where there is more current than historical
interest and where, therefore, there might be greater
interest in the future.
As can be seen from the list, the following key-
words (Keywords PlusTM) have seven or more occur-
rences overall and have their highest annual count of
use within the last period (2009–2013). These topics
are performance, innovation, product development,
knowledge, research and development, management
technology, and model.
A small contrast can be seen between the two sets
of keywords, although many similarities can also be
observed. The set of journals excluding R&D Man-
agement confirm the vital importance of innovation as
a topic across TIM, and this is not only a major con-
cern but is very current, with its year of maximum
count being 2012. R&D Management also empha-
sizes this topic, innovation is the second most com-
mon keyword, but performance is the most common
R&D Management keyword, reflecting the historic
focus of the journal on firms and the contribution
which R&D Management makes to the performance

C 2016 RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd

V R&D Management 46, S3, 2016 1077
John Rigby
Table 14. Four main journals and count of citing journals and citations
Journal 2009 articles (A) Count of citing
publications (P)
R&D Management 34 211
Journal of Product 50 291
Innovation
Management
Research Policy 137 590
Technovation 79 816
of many firms. The long-standing interest in absorp-
tive capacity is also evident in R&D management
even now. Common areas are strategy, technology,
product development and research and development,
all of which are at similar ranks in the respective key-
word lists.
4.3. The future – not a revolution?
4.3.1. Approach
The paper now reports on the analysis of a variety of
Bibliographic and Altmetric data to give insight into
what trends may affect R&D Management and the field
of TIM in the future. First, following the approach sug-
gested by Erichsen and Christensen (2013), a review of
the citing of four journals including R&D Management
was carried out. Second, a number of technological
changes are then briefly reviewed that influence knowl-
edge creation, dissemination and use and some Altmet-
ric data is then presented measuring the wider impacts
of papers in R&D Management and comparing them
with four other journals.
4.3.2. Citing range of journals
An approach to how well a journal or a field is open to
future developments is to explore the range of its cit-
ing journals (i.e. the number of and character of the
journals which cite the journal being examined), as
well as the range of subject categories used (or the
Web of Knowledge Journal Categories). Scopus pro-
vides this data for innovation management journals.
In this analysis conducted here, the focus has been on
the count of citing journals to our target journals’ pub-
lications. Publications from 2009 are used as a basis
and the count of citing journals and the count of cita-
tions of this target set of publications are examined.
The target set of journals whose citing count of jour-
nals are examined are those four journals which are
closest to R&D Management in terms of citing to it
and from it. This information is given in Table 10.
Journal Citing in and Out – Citation Counts for Period
(2008–2013) where the four journals whose citation
1078 R&D Management 46, S3, 2016
Citations (C) Count of citing Count of citations
publications per per article (C/A)
article (P/A)
430 6.2 12.6
620 5.8 12.4
1,650 4.3 12.0
1,001 10.3 12.7
of R&D Management papers is highest in absolute
terms are the Journal of Product Innovation Manage-
ment (398 citations to R&D Management papers),
Research Policy (404 citations to R&D Management
papers), and Technovation (97 citations to R&D Man-
agement papers). R&D Management papers are cited
by other papers in R&D Management 494 times in the
same period. The information from our analysis of
these four journals citing patterns is shown below in
Table 14. In the table, we show the number of articles
published in the year and then for each target journal
the count of citing publications, the count of citations
from those publications, and then some descriptive
statistics: the count of citing publications per article
and the count of citations per article.
The data shown indicate very similar levels of cita-
tions per article for all four of the journals, (the range
is from 12.0 citations per article in Research Policy to
12.7 citations per article for Technovation). However,
the range of the journal, noted by the citing publica-
tions per journal publication column, suggests that
while three of the journals are very similar in terms of
their reach, one journal, Technovation, has a substan-
tially higher reach than the others. Technovation has
on average 10 citing publications per article rather
than 4.3 for Research Policy. The implication of this
may be that Technovation engages with a more
diverse community of researchers than the others.
R&D Management engages more broadly than either
Research Policy of the Journal of Product Innovation
Management.
4.3.4. Altmetric measures
These new forms of data concerning the use of publi-
cations are termed altmetrics. Altmetric data take
many forms. As Haustein argues has argued: ‘the
audience for scientific research is not confined to
those who cite.’ (Haustein, 2014). A consensus is
growing that production of knowledge and use need
different measures and that the multidimensional
form of use is highly relevant to authors, funders, and
to journals and those who run them.
C 2016 RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
V
 A long and winding road

Table 15. Altmetric data comparison by journal: Mendeley readers and tweeters
Mean ranks of readers Journal
by category and tweeters
R&D Research Technovation Journal of product
management policy innovation management

Readers 709 1,095 967 847

Other Professional 838 1,092 922 827
Readers Professor 806 994 1,009 917
Lecturer 866 1,006 979 896
Associate Professor 637 1,199 774 862
Post-Doctoral 788 1,063 1,012 827
Doctoral Student 732 1,276 811 690
Tweeters (data from 321 391 369 376
Altmetric Explorer)

The review of altmetric measures used Altmetric
Explorer to obtain all the available information from a
variety of Altmetric sources for the publication of the
four journals reviewed above in Table 14 for Twitter,
and the programme Webometric Analysers was used
to download the Mendeley readership data from Men-
deley. This table shows the mean rank of readers by
journal and reader category (Table 15).
The table shows that overall readership of TIM
papers amongst these four journals as measured by
Mendeley is highest among Research Policy and low-
est among R&D Management. A test of ranks was
conducted on all readers (Readers) each type of reader
(e.g. Readers – Other Professional) by journal. Each
test showed statistically significant differences
(P < 0.00) between journals by reader type. Notewor-
thy in this analysis is the high number of readers of
Research Policy papers, and the lower number of
readers of R&D Management papers. Also of note is
the high rank number of readers of Technovation
papers among professorial staff. What is also of inter-
est is the difference between the doctoral student read-
ers and postdoctoral readers of Research Policy and
Technovation. The ranks data suggests that while
Research Policy has higher numbers of readers among
doctoral students than Technovation, that difference
has disappeared among postdoctoral students.
5. Discussion
5.1. Past performance
R&D Management has evolved to be a main contribu-
tor to the field of TIM, standing within the centre of
the field in terms of citation measures. It has consis-
tently published highly cited articles within the field
of TIM. The journal continues to publish research
articles that are highly cited, although it should be
noted that the authors of such articles may develop
their ideas across a range of other publications, mainly
within the field but also beyond it.
The journal’s main contribution has been to under-
standing of the place and context of innovation. In this
area, papers published in the journal have considered,
from comparatively early on, distributed and open
innovation, and much of this work has prepared the
way for the reception of the ‘open innovation’ para-
digm, now an orthodoxy of innovation studies.
Throughout the last 40 plus years, R&D Management
has remained a home to another and important line of
work on decision making in organizations. This
closely reflects the original aims of the journal to con-
tribute ‘techniques’ to the ‘purposeful management of
our R&D’ (Davies, 1970). Contrastingly, this topic
area is narrower in focus and could be said to repre-
sent the attempt to support the manager rather than
the broader attempt to theorize innovation processes
across the firm and across whole industries.
Closely related to the search for techniques is a third
major contribution of a group of papers that have used
both exploratory methods and also more theoretical
lenses to infer from the behavior of firms certain fea-
tures and factors that support innovation by firms and
their profitability. The journal’s fourth major theme has
been, since the beginning of the 1990s, an investigation
of the links between the science base and firms.
5.2. The present
The current position of the journal in TIM is very
much at the center in terms of its citing in and citing
out, and one of the most influential measured by
impact factor. There appears to be little change in its
overall position since the last major comparative bib-
liometric study in 2012.

C 2016 RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd

V R&D Management 46, S3, 2016 1079
John Rigby
Falling levels of uncited publications in R&D Man-
agement – a development also visible in the other
journals that seek to target the work of aspiring aca-
demic researchers looking for promotion and tenure
(such as Technovation and Research Policy) – has
been achieved, in the case of R&D Management, by
the publication of more internationally co-authored
publications and indeed more non-UK work. Con-
trastingly, Research Policy’s improvement in reduc-
ing the incidence of uncited work has not been
brought about by reducing the number of UK authors.
Journal size measured by the number of articles car-
ried has been reviewed and shows the present and
recent strategy of the journal is to reduce the number
of articles published but the decline is small. Other
journals have very different behavior but those with
whom R&D Management might consider itself in
competition for the most academically rigorous
research (Technovation, Research Policy and Technol-
ogy Analysis and Strategic Management) have all cho-
sen to remain of a similar size over the last 5 years.
Industrial participation in the research published by
R&D Management appears to be static. It is lower
than in those journals that have connections to a very
active industrial research organization, such as RTM,
and, surprisingly, R&D Management has fewer indus-
try based authors publishing than Technovation, now
the most highly cited journal in the field.
5.3. The future – let it be?
R&D Management was established as a journal to pro-
mote a dialogue between theory and practice and over
the last 40 years it has supported this conversation suc-
cessfully within the field of TIM. The contemporary
fashion, brought on by austerity, is to re-emphasize
this link between world of theory formation, certainly
valuable as an activity in itself, and theory use, theory
refinement and impact. In the United Kingdom, in the
newly adopted research assessment framework (i.e.
the Research Excellence Framework or REF) (Dance,
2013), impact is now a significant yardstick for
research activity. In this context, the field of TIM
should benefit especially. And the mission of R&D
Management appears just as relevant now as in 1970.
To support this engagement of theory with practice
requires use of the new media of openness and commu-
nication technologies. But set against the other leading
TIM journals, R&D Management’s level of engage-
ment with theory measured by journal reach is lower,
while altmetric measures that indicate engagement
with the world of practice is also less than the other top
TIM journals. Moving ahead in this environment
requires invigoration of the dynamic between theory
1080 R&D Management 46, S3, 2016
and practice. It may not be the equivalent of squaring
the circle, but it will be another long and winding road.
Acknowledgments
A number of people have been very helpful in the
preparation of this article. The author would like to
thank the associate editor for his very constructive
suggestions, two anonymous reviewers, Professor
Mike Thelwall of the University of Wolverhampton,
Scott Taylor of the University of Manchester Library,
and RADMA Ltd. for financial assistance.
References
Agarwal, R. and Lucas, H. C., Jr. (2005) The information
systems identity crisis: focusing on high-visibility and
high-impact research. MIS Quarterly: Management
Information Systems, 29, 3, 381–398.
Allen, T.J. (1970) Communication networks in R and D
laboratories. R & D Management, 1, 1, 14–21.
Allen, T.J. (1977) Managing the Flow of Technology. Cam-
bridge, MA: MIT Press.
Allen, T.J. and Katz, R. (1986) The dual ladder: motiva-
tional solution or managerial delusion? R&D Manage-
ment, 16, 2, 185–197.
Association of Business Schools. (2015) Academic Journal
Guide 2015. London: Chartered Association of Business
Schools.
Ball, D.F. (1998) The needs of R&D professionals in their
first and second managerial appointments: are they being
met? R&D Management, 28, 3, 139–145.
Ball, D.F. and Rigby, J. (2006) Disseminating research in
management of technology: journals and authors. R&D
Management, 36, 2, 205–215.
Bellotti, E. (2011) The social processes of production and
validation of knowledge in particle physics: preliminary
theoretical and methodological observations. Procedia –
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 10, 148–159.
Beyhan, B. and Cetindamar, D. (2011) No escape from the
dominant theories: the analysis of intellectual pillars of
technology management in developing countries. Techno-
logical Forecasting and Social Change, 78, 1, 103–115.
Bonaccorsi, A. and Piccaluga, A. (1994) A theoretical
framework for the evaluation of university-industry rela-
tionships. R&D Management, 24, 3, 229–247.
Boutellier, R., Gassmann, O., Macho, H., and Roux, M.
(1998) Management of dispersed product development
teams: the role of information technologies. R&D Man-
agement, 28, 1, 13–25.
Breivik, M., Hovland, G., and From, P.J. (2009) Trends in
research and publication: science 2.0 and open access.
Modeling Identification and Control, 30, 3, 181–190.
Butler, J., Ball, D.F., and Pearson, A.W. (1976) The analy-
sis of technological activity using abstracting services.
R&D Management, 7, 1, 33–40.
C 2016 RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
V

Cheang, B., Chu, S.K.W., Li, C.S., and Lim, A. (2014) OR/
MS journals evaluation based on a refined PageRank
method: an updated and more comprehensive review.
Scientometrics 100, 2, 339–361.
Chesbrough, H. and Crowther, A.K. (2006) Beyond high
tech: early adopters of open innovation in other indus-
tries. R&D Management, 36, 3, 229–236.
Chiesa, V. and Manzini, R. (1998) Organizing for techno-
logical collaborations: a managerial perspective. R&D
Management, 28, 3, 199–212.
Chiesa, V. and Piccaluga, A. (2000) Exploitation and diffu-
sion of public research: the case of academic spin-off
companies in Italy. R&D Management, 30, 4, 329–339.
Cooper, R., Edgett, S., and Kleinschmidt, E. (2001) Portfo-
lio management for new product development: results of
an industry practices study. R&D Management, 31, 4,
361–380.
Cooper, R.G. (1983) The new product process – an
empirically-based classification scheme. R&D Manage-
ment, 13, 1, 1–13.
Cooper, R.G. (1984) The strategy-performance link in
product innovation. R&D Management, 14, 4, 247–259.
Cooper, R.G. and Kleinschmidt, E.J. (1987) What makes a
new product a winner – success factors at the project
level. R&D Management, 17, 3, 175–189.
Cronin, B. and Sugimoto, C.R. (eds) (2014) Beyond Biblio-
metrics: Harnessing Multidimensional Inidcators of
Scholarly Impact. Cambridge, Massachussets: MIT
Press.
Dance, A. (2013) Impact: pack a punch. Nature, 502, 7471,
397–398.
Davies, E.A. (1970) Foreword by Dr. E. A. Davies for R &
D Management. R&D Management, 1, 1, 1–1.
de Bellis, N. (2009) Bibliometrics and Citation Analysis:
From the Science Citation Index to Cybermetrics. Scare-
crow Press Inc., Lanham, Maryland, USA.
Demeyer, A. (1993) Management of an international net-
work of industrial research-and-development laborato-
ries. R&D Management, 23, 2, 109–120.
Demeyer, A. and Mizushima, A. (1989) Global R&D man-
agement. R&D Management, 19, 2, 135–146.
Dodgson, M., Gann, D., and Salter, A. (2006) The role of
technology in the shift towards open innovation: the case
of Procter & Gamble. R&D Management, 36, 3, 333–
346.
Durisin, B., Calabretta, G., and Parmeggiani, V. (2010)
The intellectual structure of product innovation research:
a bibliometric study of the journal of product innovation
management, 1984-2004. Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 27, 3, 437–451.
Dwivedi, Y.K., Venkitachalam, K., Sharif, A.M., Al-
Karaghouli, W., and Weerakkody, V. (2011) Research
trends in knowledge management: analyzing the past
and predicting the future. Information Systems Manage-
ment, 28, 1, 43–56.
Ebner, W., Leimeister, J.M., and Krcmar, H. (2009) Com-
munity engineering for innovations: the ideas competi-
tion as a method to nurture a virtual community for
innovations. R&D Management, 39, 4, 342–356.
C 2016 RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
V R&D Management 46, S3, 2016
A long and winding road
Enkel, E., Gassmann, O., and Chesbrough, H. (2009) Open
R&D and open innovation: exploring the phenomenon.
R&D Management, 39, 4, 311–316.
Erichsen, P.G. and Christensen, P.R. (2013) The evolu-
tion of the design management field: a journal per-
spective. Creativity and Innovation Management, 22,
2, 107–120.
Etzkowitz, H. and Klofsten, M. (2005) The innovating
region: toward a theory of knowledge-based regional
development. R&D Management, 35, 3, 243–255.
Fischer, W.A. and Rosen, B. (1982) The search for the
latent information star. R&D Management, 12, 2, 61–66.
Forrest, J.E. and Martin, M.J.C. (1992) Strategic alliances
between large and small research intensive organizations
– experiences in the biotechnology industry. R&D Man-
agement, 22, 1, 41–53.
Gagliardi, A.R., Umoquit, M., Webster, F., and Dobrow,
M. (2014) Qualitative research publication rates in top-
ranked nursing journals 2002-2011. Nursing Research,
63, 3, 221–227.
Gargouri, Y., Hajjem, C., Larivière, V., Gingras, Y., Carr,
L., Brody, T., and Harnad, S. (2010) Self-selected or
mandated, open access increases citation impact for
higher quality research. PLoS One, 5, 10, e13636.
Gassmann, O. (2006) Opening up the innovation process:
towards an agenda. R&D Management, 36, 3, 223–228.
Gassmann, O., Enkel, E., and Chesbrough, H. (2010) The
future of open innovation. R&D Management, 40, 3,
213–221.
Gassmann, O. and Von Zedtwitz, M. (1998) Organization
of industrial R&D on a global scale. R&D Management,
28, 3, 147–161.
Gassmann, O. and Von Zedtwitz, M. (2003) Trends and
determinants of managing virtual R&D teams. R&D
Management, 33, 3, 243–262.
Gemunden, H.G., Heydebreck, P., and Herden, R. (1992)
Technological interweavement – a means of achieving
innovation success. R&D Management, 22, 4, 359–376.
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman,
S., Scott, P., and Trow, M. (1994) The New Produc-
tion of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and
Research in Contemporary Societies. London: Sage
Publications Ltd.
Granstrand, O., Bohlin, E., Oskarsson, C., and Sjoberg, N.
(1992) External technology acquisition in large multi-
technology corporations. R&D Management, 22, 2, 111–
133.
Greig, I.D. (1982) Basic motivation and personality in R &
D management. R&D Management, 12, 3, 113–122.
Hakanson, L. and Zander, U. (1988) International manage-
ment of R-and-D – the swedish experience. R&D Man-
agement, 18, 3, 217–226.
Harmancioglu, N., Droge, C. and Calantone, R.J. (2009)
Theoretical lenses and domain definitions in innovation
research. European Journal of Marketing, 43, 1–2,
229–263.
Harvey, C., Kelly, A., Morris, H., and Rowlinson, M.
(2010) Academic Journal Quality Guide. London: The
Association of Business Schools.
1081
John Rigby
Haustein, S. (2014) Readership Metrics. In: Cronin, B. and
Sugimoto, C.R. (eds), Beyond Bibliometrics. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
von Hippel, E. (1976). The dominant role of users in the
scientific instrument innovation process. Research Pol-
icy, 5, 3, 212–239.
Hojem, T.S.M. (2012) Bridging two worlds? The troubled
transfer of new environmental knowledge from science
to consulting engineers. Acta Sociologica, 55, 4,
321–334.
Howells, J., James, A,. and Malik, K. (2003) The sourcing
of technological knowledge: distributed innovation proc-
esses and dynamic change. R&D Management, 33, 4,
395–409.
Hsuan, J. and Mahnke, V. (2011) Outsourcing R&D: a
review, model, and research agenda. R&D Management,
41, 1, 1–7.
Jelinek, M., Bean, A.S., Antcliff, R., Whalen-Pedersen, E.,
and Cantwell, A. (2012) 21st-century R&D. Research
Technology Management, 55, 1, 16–26.
Jensen, M.D. and Kristensen, P.M. (2013) The elephant in
the room: mapping the latent communication pattern in
European Union studies. Journal of European Public
Policy, 20, 1, 1–20.
Johansson-Sk€oldberg, U., Woodilla, J., and Çetinkaya, M.
(2013) Design thinking: past, present and possible
futures. Creativity and Innovation Management, 22, 2,
121–146.
Katz, R. and Allen, T.J. (1982) Investigating the not
invented here (NIH) syndrome: a look at the perform-
ance, tenure, and communication patterns of 50 R & D
Project Groups. R&D Management, 12, 1, 7–20.
Katz, R. and Tushman, M. (1981) An investigation into the
managerial roles and career paths of gatekeepers and
project supervisors in a major r-and-d facility. R&D
Management, 11, 3, 103–110.
Kessler, E.H., Bierly, P.E., and Gopalakrishnan, S. (2000)
Internal vs. external learning in new product develop-
ment: effects on speed, costs and competitive advantage.
R&D Management, 30, 3, 213–223.
Kim, J. and Wilemon, D. (2002) Focusing the fuzzy front-
end in new product development. R&D Management,
32, 4, 269–279.
Klein, J., Gee, D., and Jones, H. (1998) Analysing clusters of
skills in R&D – core competencies, metaphors, visualiza-
tion, and the role of IT. R&D Management, 28, 1, 37–42.
Kline, S.J. and Rosenberg, N. (1986) An overview of inno-
vation. In: Landau, R. and Rosenberg, N. (eds), The Pos-
itive Sum Strategy: Harnessing Technology for
Economic Growth. Washington, DC, National Academy
Press. pp. 275–305.
Kosm€utzky, A. and Kr€ucken, G. (2014) Growth or steady
state? A bibliometric focus on international comparative
higher education research. Higher Education, 67, 4,
457–472.
Lee, J.J., Bae, Z.T., and Choi, D.K. (1988) Technology
development processes – a model for a developing-
country with a global perspective. R&D Management,
18, 3, 235–250.
1082 R&D Management 46, S3, 2016
Lettl, C., Herstatt, C., and Gemuenden, H.G. (2006) Users’
contributions to radical innovation: evidence from four
cases in the field of medical equipment technology.
R&D Management, 36, 3, 251–272.
Linton, J.D. (2006) Ranking of technology and innovation
management journals. Technovation, 26, 3, 285–287.
Linton, J.D. (2011) How influential are technology innova-
tion management journals-technology innovation man-
agement journal 2010 impact factors in comparison with
financial times 45. Technovation, 31, 9, 425–426.
Linton, J.D. (2012) What’s hot and what’s not: a summary
of topics and papers in technology innovation manage-
ment that are getting attention. Technovation, 32, 12,
653–655.
Linton, J.D. and Thongpapanl, N. (2004) PERSPECTIVE:
ranking the technology innovation management journals.
Journal of Product Innovation Management, 21, 2,
123–139.
Linton, J.D., Walsh, S.T., and Morabito, J. (2002) Analysis,
ranking and selection of R&D projects in a portfolio.
R&D Management, 32, 2, 139–148.
Lockett, G., Hetherington, B., Yallup, P., Stratford, M., and
Cox, B. (1986) Modelling a research portfolio using
AHP: a group decision process. R&D Management, 16,
2, 151–160.
Maflahi, N. and Thelwall, M. (2016) When are reader-
ship counts as useful as citation counts? Scopus ver-
sus Mendeley for LIS journals. Journal of the
Association for Information Science and Technology,
67, 1, 191–199.
McMillan, G.S. (2008) Mapping the invisible colleges of
R&D Management. R&D Management, 38, 1, 69–83.
Meyer, M. (2003) Academic entrepreneurs or entrepre-
neurial academics? research-based ventures and pub-
lic support mechanisms. R&D Management, 33, 2,
107–115.
Mingers, J., Macri, F., and Petrovici, D. (2012) Using the
h-index to measure the quality of journals in the field of
business and management. Information Processing &
Management, 48, 2, 234–241.
Mingers, J. and Willmott, H. (2013) Taylorizing business
school research: on the ’one best way’ performative
effects of journal ranking lists. Human Relations, 66, 8,
1051–1073.
Minguillo, D. (2010) Toward a new way of mapping scien-
tific fields: authors’ competence for publishing in schol-
arly journals. Journal of the American Society for
Information Science and Technology, 61, 4, 772–786.
Moed, H.F. (2005) Statistical relationships between down-
loads and citations at the level of individual documents
within a single journal. Journal of the American Society
for Information Science and Technology, 56, 10, 1088–
1097.
Narin, F. (1991). Globalization of research, scholarly infor-
mation, and patents – 10 year trends. Serials Librarian,
21, 2–3, 33–44.
Newton, D.P. and Pearson, A.W. (1994) Application of
option pricing theory to research-and-development.
R&D Management, 24, 1, 83–89.
C 2016 RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
V

Parkinson, S.T. (1982) The role of the user in successful
new product development. R&D Management, 12, 3,
123–131.
Persson, O., Glanzel, W., and Danell, R. (2004) Inflationary
bibliometric values: the role of scientific collaboration
and the need for relative indicators in evaluative studies.
Scientometrics, 60, 3, 421–432.
Piller, F.T. and Walcher, D. (2006) Toolkits for idea com-
petitions: a novel method to integrate users in new prod-
uct development. R&D Management, 36, 3, 307–318.
Priem, J. (2013) Scholarship: beyond the paper. Nature,
495, 7442, 437–440.
Rigby, J. and Ball, D. (2004) Spreading the word – examin-
ing the development of R&D management knowledge
through analysis of journal linkages. R&D management
conference, managing people and managing r&d 6-9
july 2004 (co-organisation ispa & radma), Sesimbra,
Portugal.
Roberts, E.B. and Malone, D.E. (1996) Policies and struc-
tures for spinning off new companies from research and
development organizations. R&D Management, 26, 1,
17–48.
Rothwell, R. (1977) Characteristics of successful innova-
tors and technically progressive firms (with some com-
ments on innovation research). R&D Management, 7, 3,
191–206.
Rothwell, R. (1992) Successful industrial-innovation – crit-
ical factors for the 1990s. R&D Management, 22, 3,
221–239.
Rothwell, R. and Dodgson, M. (1991) External linkages
and innovation in small and medium-sized enterprises.
R&D Management, 21, 2, 125–137.
Rubenstein, A.H. and Ettlie, J.E. (1979) Innovation among
suppliers to automobile manufacturers – exploratory-
study of barriers and facilitators. R&D Management, 9,
2, 65–76.
Schiederig, T., Tietze, F., and Herstatt, C. (2012) Green
innovation in technology and innovation management –
an exploratory literature review. R&D Management, 42,
2, 180–192.
Schloegl, C. and Gorraiz, J. (2011) Global usage versus
global citation metrics: the case of pharmacology jour-
nals. Journal of the American Society for Information
Science and Technology, 62, 1, 161–170.
Serenko, A. and Jiao, C.Q. (2012) Investigating informa-
tion systems research in canada. Canadian Journal of
Administrative Sciences-Revue Canadienne Des Scien-
ces De L Administration, 29, 1, 3–24.
Shaw, B. (1985) The role of the interaction between the
user and the manufacturer in medical equipment innova-
tion. R&D Management, 15, 4, 283–292.
Shinn, T. and Lamy, E. (2006) Paths of commercial knowl-
edge: forms and consequences of university-enterprise
synergy in scientist-sponsored firms. Research Policy,
35, 10, 1465–1476.
C 2016 RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
V R&D Management 46, S3, 2016
A long and winding road
Simpson, B. (2004) After the reforms: how have public sci-
ence research organisations changed? R&D Manage-
ment, 34, 3, 253–266.
Small, H. (1973) Cocitation in scientific literature - new
measure of relationship between 2 documents. Journal
of the American Society for Information Science, 24, 4,
265–269.
Stanko, M.A. and Calantone, R.J. (2011) Controversy in
innovation outsourcing research: review, synthesis and
future directions. R&D Management, 41, 1, 8–20.
Teixeira, A.A.C. and Silva, J.M. (2013) The intellectual
and scientific basis of science, technology and innova-
tion research. Innovation-the European Journal of Social
Science Research, 26, 4, 472–490.
Thamhain, H.J. (2003) Managing innovative R&D teams.
R&D Management, 33, 3, 297–311.
Theussl, S., Reutterer, T., and Hornik, K. (2014) How to
derive consensus among various marketing journal
rankings? Journal of Business Research, 67, 5, 998–
1006.
Thongpapanl, N. (2012) The changing landscape of
technology and innovation management: an updated
ranking of journals in the field. Technovation, 32, 5,
257–271.
Tidd, J. and Trewhella, M.J. (1997) Organizational and
technological antecedents for knowledge acquisition and
learning. R&D Management, 27, 4, 359–375.
Von Zedtwitz, M. (2004) Managing foreign R&D laborato-
ries in China. R&D Management, 34, 4, 439–452.
Watson, A.B. (2009) Comparing citations and downloads
for individual articles. Journal of Vision, 9, 4, 1–4.
West, J. and Gallagher, S. (2006) Challenges of open inno-
vation: the paradox of firm investment in open-source
software. R&D Management, 36, 3, 319–331.
Westhead, P. (1997) R&D ’inputs’ and ’outputs’ of
technology-based firms located on and off science parks.
R&D Management, 27, 1, 45–62.
Dr John Rigby is senior research fellow at the Insti-
tute of Innovation Management at the University of
Manchester. John read history at Cambridge and then
worked as an IT manager before completing his PhD
at the University of Manchester, studying under Pro-
fessor Luke Georghiou and Dr Mark Boden of
PREST, and Dr Sue Tindal of the Building Research
Establishment, and writing his thesis on the rationale,
rhetoric, and impact of an information and advice
dissemination programme for energy efficiency. John
works in the Manchester Institute of Innovation
Research (of which PREST is now a part), the Uni-
versity’s main research center in science and technol-
ogy policy. John is President of Manchester
Statistical Society, and is a Fellow of the Royal Sta-
tistical Society.
1083