A document co-citation analysis method for investigating emerging trends and new developments_ a case of twenty-four leading business journals

9/2/21, 10:12 AM A document co-citation analysis method for investigating emerging trends and new developments: a case of twenty-four
nty-four leading b…
published quarterly by the university of borås, sweden
vol. 25 no. 1, March, 2020
Contents |
Author index |
Subject index |
Search |
Home
A document co-citation analysis method for investigating emerging trends and

new developments: a case of twenty-four leading business journals
Fangfang Wei and Guijie Zhang
Introduction. Research on intellectual structure has received increasing attention from a broad range of scientific
communities. Taking twenty-four business journals chosen by the University of Texas at Dallas as leading
journals as an example, this study aims to provide a systematic research method for investigating emerging trends
and new developments in a specific field.
Method. We collected paper published in the University of Texas at Dallas collection between 1991 and 2018,
giving a total of 33,045 papers. Document co-citation networks, landmark articles and domain-level citation
trends were then identified.
Analysis. We employed CiteSpace to conduct document co-citation analysis. We also used a dual-map overlay
technique to investigate the knowledge base of the domain.
Results. We found that certain core topics in the early period, namely, strategic alliance, organisational mortality
and organisational adaptation, have been replaced by social media, price informativeness and network
communities in the most recent period. Dual-map overlays show that the literature in psychology, education,
social, economics. And political science journals form an important basis for psychology, education, and health.
Conclusions. This paper reveals a systematic and holistic picture of the developmental landscape of the business
domain, which might provide a potential guide for future research.
Introduction
Co-citation analysis of the bibliographic elements contained within the scientific literature can be applied to explore the
knowledge structure and dynamic evolution of a specific research area. In 1973 Henry Small and Irina Marshakova
independently introduced the notion of co-citation (Marshakova, 1973; Small, 1973). This type of analysis has subsequently
attracted considerable attention from scholars in a variety of fields and has become a commonly used method (Ahlgren et al.,
2003; Braam et al., 1991; Guan et al., 2017; Kim et al., 2016; White and Griffith, 1981). For example, White and Griffith
confirmed that co-citation analysis of authors offered a new technique that could contribute to understanding the intellectual
structure of the sciences. Culnan (1987) documented the intellectual structure of management information systems research
based on author co-citation analysis. Braam et al. (1991) claimed that co-citation analysis was a useful method for mapping
subject-matter specialties of scientific research and for studying the differences in research topics between sets of publications.
Furthermore, Ahlgren et al. (2003) criticised the use of Pearson's r in author co-citation analysis and analysed the requirements
that a similarity measure applied in author co-citation analysis should satisfy. Kim et al. (2016) characterized content-based
author co-citation analysis using citation sentences. Additionally, Guan et al. (2017) discussed the impact of collaboration and
knowledge networks on citations. Taken together, these efforts have suggested that co-citation analysis is a valid and reliable
www.informationr.net/ir/25-1/paper842.html 1/13
9/2/21, 10:12 AM A document co-citation analysis method for investigating emerging trends and new developments: a case of twenty-four leading b…
method for investigating intellectual structure due to the objectivity of the measurement and therefore plays an irreplaceable
role in scientometric analysis.
In recent years, new trends and topics in the business domain have continuously emerged, and the status of this domain is of
interest to many researchers in business schools (Amit and Zott, 2001; Kumar and Jan, 2013; Narver and Slater, 1990;
Rossetto et al., 2018; Wei et al., 2017). For instance, Narver and Slater proposed a valid measure of market orientation and a
systematic analysis of its effect on business performance. In addition, Amit and Zott (2001) explored the theoretical
foundations of value creation in e-business by examining how e-businesses that have recently become publicly traded
corporations create value. Kumar and Jan (2013) examined the distribution of research collaborations in the business domain
in Malaysia, providing suggestions for an effective co-authorship strategy. Furthermore, Rossetto et al. (2018) examined the
structure and evolution of innovation research in the business domain through a scientometric analysis.
Although bibliometric researchers have centred their attention on the business domain and mapped fruitful knowledge
networks, to the best of our knowledge, few have attempted to visualise the results of the citation analysis of the knowledge
domain of the twenty-four business journals chosen by the University of Texas at Dallas as leading journals (hereafter referred
to as the Dallas collection). The Dallas collection is universally recognised throughout the business research community as top
journals that represent the essential content and the research frontier of the business domain. The collection is recognised in
North America and China as representative of the top business journals, but it is not the only such list. Future research will
compare the Dallas collection with the lists of top business journals as determined by the Australian Business Deans Council,
Google Scholar Metrics, InCites, and Scimago. The Dallas collection has been popularly used to rank the top higher education
academic institutions based on the contributions of their faculty and to evaluate the academic status of scholars in the business
field (Mudambi et al., 2008; Wu et al., 2017). Consequently, it is meaningful to conduct a multi-perspective co-citation
analysis of the emerging trends and newest developments in the Dallas collection, especially for individuals who are not well-
informed about the thematic patterns, landmark papers and knowledge structure of the business domain.
Based on the articles published in the journals contained in the Dallas collection from 1991 to 2018, the purpose of this study
is to visually illustrate worldwide research subjects and thematic trends within business domain research and identify and
analyse the changes occurring across this time period. Specifically, analytical methods entailing co-cited references (Chen,
2017), burst detection (Kleinberg, 2003) and dual-map overlays (Gandia et al., 2019) are applied to depict the intellectual
structure and topic developments of the Dallas collection. Detailed explanations are included under the Results section. This
paper contributes to the business literature by providing insights into the temporal changes in the research frontier and the
evolution of the emerging research topics and knowledge base of the business domain.
The remainder of this paper is organised as follows. The Methods section describes the data collection procedure and provides
a brief description of CiteSpace. The Results section discusses the results of the empirical studies we conducted. Finally, the
Conclusions section summarises our contributions.
Methods
Data collection
Following the earlier literature (Lowry et al., 2013; Mudambi et al., 2008), we collected data on the Dallas collection. The
Dallas collection is a collection of internationally recognised flagship journals that represent the mainstream and most
important emerging research areas in the business domain (Lowry et al., 2013; Mingers and Harzing, 2007; Wu et al., 2017).
Therefore, these journals are ideal for studying research evolution in the business domain. The details of the Dallas collection
according to the Web of Science are shown in Appendix Table 1.
We extracted the meta-data of publications contained in the Dallas collection from the Web of Science database. Following the
previous literature (Chen et al., 2014; Kim et al., 2016; Zhang et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2019), during this process, among all
publication types available, only those classified as articles or reviews were selected; others, such as letters, notes and
corrections, were excluded. We made this decision primarily to guarantee the quality of the indexed publications and because
articles and reviews are the most important representatives of academic achievement (Chen et al., 2014; Liu and Gui, 2016).
Specifically, articles and reviews usually have a great deal of well-structured indexing information, which is essential for
tracking scientific activity (Porter and Cunningham, 2005). A total of 33,216 bibliographic records of original research articles
and reviews was retrieved and downloaded on June 2, 2018; the most recent update time of the database was June 1, 2018.
Figure 1 depicts the yearly number of published papers from 1991 to 2018 retrieved from the Web of Science. As shown in
Figure 1, the Dallas collection has received increasing attention from the community over time.
Figure 1: Annual publication counts of the Dallas collection from 1991 to 2018 in Web of Science
The quality of the dataset is crucial for our analysis and the meaningfulness of the generated results. After a series of data pre-
processing steps, such as removing duplicates or misspellings, 33,045 original research articles and reviews ultimately
remained, with 698,690 references. To better observe the emerging trends and new developments of the twenty-four leading
business journals, in this article, we divide the whole period into three parts. Table 1 describes the brief statistics of the
datasets.
Table 1: The brief statistics of the datasets collected

Period Duration Papers References Avg. no. of references per paper
Period I 1991-2000 8,462 167,536 19.80
Period II 2001-2010 12,400 246,666 19.89
Period III 2011-2018 12,183 284,488 23.35
Total 1991-2018 33,045 698,690 21.14
Methods of analysis
In this article, we employ CiteSpace, a Java-based scientometric software package developed by Chaomei Chen, to generate
and visualise the bibliographic record networks of the Dallas collection. CiteSpace is designed to generate a systematic review
of scientific literature and has been widely applied in scientometric studies (Hou et al., 2018; Kim et al.,2016; Chen, 2018).
Based on the Web of Science bibliographic databases, CiteSpace supports the complete analytic process of visualising and
analysing research trends and patterns within scientific literature (Chen, 2014, 2017; Kim and Chen, 2015).
The structure and dynamics of the literature of the business domain can be analysed in terms of the co-citation network
derived from the citations generated by citing papers (Liu and Gui, 2016). The co-citation network can be decomposed into
diverse clusters of tightly coupled references to represent a common topic of research. Then, these clusters can be labelled
using terms extracted from the titles of the most representative citing papers for each cluster (Chen et al., 2014). A burst of an
entity describes a surge in the frequency of the entity, for instance, the citation of a paper or the appearance of a term. Based
on the burst detection algorithm, CiteSpace can identify papers that have attracted increased attention from scholars (Kim et
al., 2016; Kleinberg, 2003).
Through journal co-citation analysis, dual-map overlays can display relationships between the distributions of the cited and
citing journals and facilitate the analysis of literature at a disciplinary level (Chen and Leydesdorff, 2014; Hou et al., 2018).
Dual-map overlays are superimposed on a global base map of publication portfolios that consist of two component maps. Each
map represents a network containing over 10,000 journals in terms of their similarities as citing or cited journals,
corresponding to the left and right parts of the map, respectively (Chen and Leydesdorff, 2014). Dual-map overlays provide
another visual analytic method for analysing the characteristics of scientific literature.
Results
A landscape view of the co-citation network
To compare the changes in the business domain research topics in Periods I-III, we conducted cluster analysis on datasets in
these three periods based on the document co-citation network through a landscape view, as shown in Figures 3-5. We use the
method of Pathfinder network scaling pruning to reduce the links during this process. The co-citation network shows a
network of references that have been co-cited by a series of publications (Chen et al., 2014). The topologies consist of the top
300 most cited articles, with one year per slice in each dataset. Each node depicts a cited reference, and the edges denote the
co-cited relationships among papers (Zhu and Hua, 2017). The co-cited duration is represented by nodal colours ranging from
cooler colours to warmer colours indicating temporal variations (Chen, 2017). Changes in colour allow us to follow the
thematic trends over time in the business domain. The overall structure consists of three major areas of activity: the network
with links predominantly in green, corresponding to co-citations made in the first four years (three years in Period III) of these
three periods; the network with links in green, which are co-citations mostly made in the second four years (three years in
Period III) of each period between 1991 and 2000, between 2001 and 2010, and between 2011 and 2018; and the network with
co-citation links mostly in orange and red, indicating that these co-citations were made in the most recent years in each period.
To more clearly distinguish the clusters, we unify the cluster label colours. In addition, LRF refers to link retaining factor,
which adjusts the number of edges being analysed. Furthermore, LBY refers to look-back years, which adjust the time span of
the edges in the network. 'e' is the lowest frequency of nodes in a network.
Figure 2: A landscape view of the co-citation network generated by the top 300 articles per year between 1991
and 2000 (LRF = 2, LBY = 8, and e = 2.0)
and 2010 (LRF = 2, LBY = 8, and e = 2.0)
and 2018 (LRF = 2, LBY = 8, and e = 2.0)
The document co-citation network in Period I forms a total of 280 clusters, including 2,099 nodes and 3,641 lines. The
document co-citation network in Period II forms 237 clusters, including 1998 nodes and 3312 lines. The document co-citation
network in Period III forms 236 clusters, including 1,949 nodes and 3,017 lines. Modularity denotes the quality of the overall
network breakdown into clusters (Newman, 2006). The modularity of the networks in Periods I, II and III is 0.8176, 0.8141
and 0.8347, respectively, which is considered very high, suggesting that the specialties in the business domain are clearly
defined in terms of co-citation clusters (Chen, 2017). The silhouette value indicates clustering validity, in which a perfect
network subdivision is 1, while the worst possible network subdivision is -1 (Rousseeuw, 1987). The average silhouette score
of the networks in Periods I, II and III is 0.2385, 0.2231 and 0.2212, respectively, which is relatively low, mainly because of
the numerous small clusters (Chen, 2017).
Employing the CiteSpace program, we can obtain a few of the details of the largest clusters in each period. The log-likelihood
ratio refers to the probability of a term appearing in a cluster. In CiteSpace, the terms in a cluster are sorted by this ratio, and
then the term with the highest value is used to name the cluster. According to Table 2, the strategic alliance, organizational
mortality, organizational adaptation, firm performance, and strategic decision-making groups are among the leading topics
during Period I. Table 2 indicates that the scientific community has paid high attention to strategic research (e.g., cluster 0,
strategic alliance and cluster 4, strategic decision-making) and organizational research (e.g., cluster 1, organizational
mortality and cluster 2, organizational adaptation) in this period. The average years of publication of these eight clusters are
between 1988 and 1993, making cluster 7, stock selection the most recent cluster in this period. The homogeneity values of
these eight clusters, measured by the silhouette score, all exceed 0.7, suggesting high homogeneity within these clusters
(Chen, 2018).
Table 2: Summary of the eight largest clusters of co-cited references of the network in Period I
Cluster Size Silhouette Label (log-likelihood ratio) Mean cited year
0 156 0.803 strategic alliance (17398.25, 1.0E-4) 1992
1 143 0.769 organizational mortality (18233.89, 1.0E-4) 1991
2 116 0.739 organizational adaptation (5942.35, 1.0E-4) 1989
3 115 0.808 firm performance (7786.44, 1.0E-4) 1990
4 113 0.837 strategic decision-making group (5938.34, 1.0E-4) 1990
5 89 0.868 marketing relationship (8054.04, 1.0E-4) 1990
6 88 0.862 information systems development (5330.72, 1.0E-4) 1988
7 84 0.878 stock selection (13572.96, 1.0E-4) 1993
According to the cluster labels of the research topics during 2001-2010, cluster 0, understanding earnings quality ranks first
according to the size of the cluster, followed by architectural innovation, Japanese multinational corporation, investor
psychology, of-ties perspective, accounting anomalies, knowledge management, strategic change and equity market. Cluster 0,
understanding earnings quality and cluster 3, investor psychology both concern investment. Additionally, Cluster 8, equity
market indicates that stock research, which had already become a notable research topic in Period I, remains a research
hotspot. Notably, Japanese multinational corporation becomes the focus of people's attention. Furthermore, cluster 4 indicates
that knowledge management is one of the most fundamental themes in the business domain. Combining the information in
Tables 2-4, we find that traditional research topics in the business domain, including strategy research and stock research, have
clearly always been a research focus.
Table 3: Summary of the eight largest clusters of co-cited references of the network in Period II
0 161 0.840 understanding earnings quality (30210.74, 1.0E-4) 2000
1 158 0.819 architectural innovation (7348.85, 1.0E-4) 2000
2 146 0.821 Japanese multinational corporation (14835.34, 1.0E-4) 1999
3 145 0.839 investor psychology (23236.5, 1.0E-4) 1999
4 120 0.844 of-ties perspective (6190.3, 1.0E-4) 1999
5 109 0.879 accounting anomalies (14187.57, 1.0E-4) 2001
6 97 0.845 knowledge management (4843.28, 1.0E-4) 1999
7 84 0.857 strategic change (4911.64, 1.0E-4) 1997
8 83 0.873 equity market (10002.86, 1.0E-4) 2001
As shown in Table 4, clusters 0, social media, 1, price informativeness and 2, network communities are largest in size and are
doubtless emerging research frontiers and hotspots in the current business domain. The largest cluster, social media, contains
127 references, and the mean year of publication is 2009. With the growing popularity of social media, user-generated content
has become an indispensable part of people's everyday lives (de Melo Maricato and Vilan Filho, 2018). Due to the explosion
of social network communities and online review websites, such has quickly become a highly dynamic media form (Aaltonen
and Seiler, 2015). Because of its irreplaceable role, user-generated content has received extensive attention since it first
appeared, and current investigations are particularly focused on its effects on product sales, social networks and the diffusion
of the content, management and guidelines for its conceptual modelling (Lukyanenko et al., 2017).
Table 4: Summary of the eight largest clusters of co-cited references of the network
in Period III
0 127 0.953 social media (9436.33, 1.0E-4) 2009
1 118 0.799 price informativeness (9437.28, 1.0E-4) 2008
2 111 0.781 network communities (10827.05, 1.0E-4) 2009
3 105 0.818 behavioural view (4923.5, 1.0E-4) 2009
4 98 0.849 strategy processes (16994.51, 1.0E-4) 2011
5 92 0.934 investment friction (7050.21, 1.0E-4) 2009
6 89 0.817 organizational learning (9884.17, 1.0E-4) 2006
7 86 0.817 combining logics (4733.56, 1.0E-4) 2010
8 83 0.863 earnings management (8662.46, 1.0E-4) 2008
Emerging trends in the business domain

The emerging trends and new developments in a specific field can be assessed by studying publications receiving surging
citations in a certain period of time, namely, burst detection. Burst detection is a computational technique that has been widely
adopted to identify abrupt changes in events (Kleinberg, 2003). A citation burst indicates that the research community has paid
an intensive degree of attention to the underlying work (Chen et al., 2014). If a cluster contains numerous publications with
strong citation bursts, then the cluster as a whole is considered to capture an active area of research, that is, an emerging trend
(Chen, 2014).
Tables 2 and 3 in the Appendix list the top twenty references with the strongest bursts and the most recent citation bursts
during 1991-2018, respectively (see appendix). This time interval is depicted as a blue line, whereas the time period of a
reference’s citation burst is shown as a red line segment, indicating the beginning and ending year of the duration of a citation
burst (Hou et al., 2018). Based on the beginning years of bursts in Appendix Table 2, the research trends in the business
domain can be grouped into three phases: 1992-1999 (papers 3, 4, 9, 12, 14, 18, 19 and 20), 2000-2008 (papers 2, 6, 7, 10, 12,
13 and 16) and 2010-2012 (papers 1, 5, 8, 15 and 17). In Appendix Table 3, all papers are published between 2010 and 2015
and have a burst time from 2016 to 2018, which is relatively concentrated.
In terms of the time period, the distribution of high-burst papers is relatively scattered, while the papers with the most recent
bursts were published predominantly in 2010 (6 papers), 2011 (3 papers), 2012 (3 papers), 2013 (4 papers) and 2014 (3
papers). In terms of the literature source, these papers with strong citation bursts were published primarily by Administrative
Science Quarterly (2 papers), Journal of Political Economy (2 papers), Strategic Management Journal (2 papers) and The
Review of Financial Studies (2 papers). The papers with the most recent bursts were published by Academy of Management
Journal (4 papers), Journal of Financial Economics (3 papers), Strategic Management (3 papers) and The Review of Financial
Studies (3 papers). Administrative Science Quarterly, Journal of Accounting and Economics, Journal of Financial Economics,
Strategic Management and The Review of Financial Studies appear in these two categories, which means that many of the
most cited articles come from these journals. Consequently, these journals should attract the attention of scholars in the
business domain. The number of authors of these papers is between 1 and 4. Specifically, there are 8 (20%), 17 (42.5%), 13
(32.5%), and 2 (5%) articles with 1, 2, 3 and 4 authors, respectively. The main authors of these papers include Andrew F.
Hayes (2 papers), Eugene F. Fama (2 papers), Kenneth R. French (2 papers) and Morten T. Hansen (2 papers); the other
authors all have one paper.
According to the information of the papers, such as title, abstract and keywords, in Appendix Table 2, an intensive degree of
attention has been paid to stock price and returns (papers 6, 9 and 11), competitive advantage (papers 3, 10 and 14), and
strategic management and cooperative strategy (papers 4 and 10). In Appendix Table 2, to discover novel knowledge in the
business domain, the current research frontiers focus on firm performance and profitability (papers 6, 9 and 15), financial
reporting (papers 2 and 18) and enterprise strategy and management strategy (papers 4 and 7). In addition, there is a literature
review article in these two tables, indicating that review articles are more likely to receive burst citations, similar to the
conclusions of previous articles (Chen et al., 2014; Zhu and Hua, 2017). Stock returns, financial reporting, firm performance
and competitive advantage are shared topics in Appendix Tables 2 and 3, indicating that these topics have received
considerable attention from the business community over time.
Changes in the knowledge base revealed by dual-map overlays
Journal dual-map overlay analysis reveals a global visualising map of citation patterns at a domain level and reveals the
evolution of the citation distribution over time (Chen and Leydesdorff, 2014). The dual-map overlay indicates the disciplinary
concentrations of given papers through their citation relations. The global base map describes the interconnections of more
than 10,000 scientific journals, which are further grouped into regions that represent publication and citation activities at a
domain level (Chen et al., 2014). Through a dual-map overlay, we can identify the interrelationships among different domains.
The thickness of a line is proportional to the z-score-scaled frequency of citation (Kim et al., 2016).
In this paper, we use dual-map representations to explore the knowledge diffusion patterns in the business domain for the three
periods from a global perspective, as shown in Figures 5 to 7. These figures depict the evolution of the knowledge base of the
business domain by comparing the changes in the citation structure of the Dallas collection in each period. Coloured curves
reveal paths of references, which originate from the citing component maps on the left and point to the cited component maps
on the right. The positions of these curves visualise how research is built on previous studies because both citing and cited
articles are divided into numerous thematic areas and each position belongs to one of them. Each area is determined by a
cluster of journals belonging to the area, and each area is marked by the most common terms in the titles of the underlying
journals.
Table 5 briefly summarises these paths with citing and cited region names. The relationships are sorted by z-score in
descending order. According to Figures 5, 6 and 7 and Table 5, the literature of the business domain primarily appears in two
broad areas on the citing map: the area in red near the top with the label mathematics/systems/mathematical and the area in
green in the lower position with the label psychology/education/health. The citation curves of the two regions point to regions
in the cited map on the right. The citation links in green are split into two major streams, indicating that the literature in
psychology/education/social economics/political science journals is an important basis for psychology/education/health. The
sources of references are basically consistent in these three periods, indicating that the knowledge base of the business domain
is stable.
Figure 5: Dual-map overlays of the most cited articles published between 1991 and 2000 on top of the Dallas
collection overlay
collection overlay
collection overlay
Table 5: Citation trends in the business domain

Period Citing domain Cited domain z-score
psychology, education, health psychology, education, social 5.378
1991-2000
economics, political science 3.036
2001-2010
2011-2018
Conclusion
In conclusion, we selected the Dallas collection as a guide to leading journals to define the business domain and detected the
emerging trends and newest developments of the business domain from 1991 to 2018 by employing the newest version of
CiteSpace. Through a multi-perspective co-citation analysis, we identified and compared the document co-citation networks,
major clusters, references with the strongest bursts, and citation trends. The conclusions of this research are as follows.
By comparing the research topics from 1991 to 2000, from 2001 to 2010, and from 2011 to 2018, we find substantial changes
in the research topics in the business domain. The positions of certain core topics found in the early period, 1991-2000,
namely, strategic alliance, organisational mortality and organisational adaptation, have been replaced by social media, price
informativeness and network communities in the most recent period, 2011-2018. Social media, represented by research on
social networks such as Facebook, Twitter and micro blogs, has become the most promising research frontier at present.
Traditional business research topics, including strategy research and stock research, currently remain research focuses.
Through burst detection, we find that many of the most cited articles come from journals such as Administrative Science
Quarterly, Journal of Accounting and Economics, Journal of Financial Economics, Strategic Management and The Review of
Financial Studies; thus, these journals should attract the attention of scholars in the business domain. In addition, according to
the journal dual-map overlays, there is no obvious difference in the knowledge base of business domain research over time,
indicating that the knowledge base is largely unchanged.
Acknowledgements
The authors appreciate the regional editor and the anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and constructive
suggestions. This study was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 71701078 and 71804091);
Humanities and Social Science Foundation of the Ministry of Education of China (No. 18YJC630237); Natural Science
Foundation of Shandong Province (No. ZR2019QG007); a Project of Shandong Province Higher Educational Science and
Technology Program (No. J18KA342); a Project of Shandong Province Higher Educational Humanities and Social Sciences
Program (No. J18RA049); the Social Science Foundation of the University of Jinan (Nos. 18YY02 and 17YB06) and a
teaching and research project of the University of Jinan (No. J1808). The authors would like to thank Cyril Bernard Lucas
from the United Kingdom, author of the book Atomic and molecular beams: production and collimation, for his assistance in
editing and polishing the language of this paper.
About the authors

Fangfang Wei is an assistant professor in Business School, University of Jinan, 336, West Road of Nan Xinzhuang, Jinan
250022, Shangdong Province, P.R. China. She received her PhD degree from Tianjin University, China, and her research
interests include information science and transportation research. Fangfang Wei is the corresponding author. She can be
contacted at weifftju@163.com
Guijie Zhang works as an Associate Professor in the School of Management Science and Engineering, Shandong University
of Finance and Economics, 7366 Erhuan Eastern Rd., Jinan 250014, Shandong Province, P.R. China. He received his PhD
degree from Harbin Institute of Technology, China. His research interests include knowledge diffusion, citation analysis and
co-authorship network. Guijie Zhang is also the corresponding author. His contact address is zgjzxmtx@163.com
References
Aaltonen, A. & Seiler, S. (2015). Cumulative growth in user-generated content production: evidence from Wikipedia.
Management Science, 62(7), 2054-2069. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2015.2253
Ahlgren P., Jarneving B., & Rousseau, R. (2003). Requirement for a cocitation similarity measure, with special
reference to Pearson's correlation coefficient. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology,
54(6), 550-560. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.10242
Amit, R., & Zott, C. (2001). Value creation in e‐business. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6), 493-520.
https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.187
Braam, R. R., Moed, H. F., & Van Raan, A. F. (1991). Mapping of science by combined co‐citation and word analysis.
II: dynamical aspects. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 42(4), 252-266.
https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199105)42:4<252::AID-ASI2>3.0.CO;2-G
Chen, C. (2014). CiteSpace II: detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature.
Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 57(3), 359-377. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20317
Chen, C. (2017). Science mapping: a systematic review of the literature. Journal of Data and Information Science, 2(2),
1-40. https://doi.org/10.1515/jdis-2017-0006
Chen, C. (2018). Eugene Garfield’s scholarly impact: a scientometric review. Scientometrics, 114(2), 489-516.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2594-5
Chen, C., & Leydesdorff, L. (2014). Patterns of connections and movements in dual-map overlays: a new method of
publication portfolio analysis. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(2), 334-351.
https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22968
Chen, C., Dubin, R., & Kim, M. C. (2014). Emerging trends and new developments in regenerative medicine: a
scientometric update (2000-2014). Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy, 14(9), 1295-1317.
https://doi.org/10.1517/14712598.2014.920813
Culnan, M. J. (1987). Mapping the intellectual structure of MIS, 1980-1985: a co-citation analysis. MIS Quarterly,
11(3), 341-353. https://www.jstor.org/stable/248680
de Melo Maricato, J., & Vilan Filho, J. L. (2018). The potential for altmetrics to measure other types of impact in
scientific production: academic and social impact dynamics in social media and networks. Information Research, 23(1)
papesr 780. http://InformationR.net/ir/23-1/paper780.html (Archived byWebCite® at
http://www.webcitation.org/6xmqq4Nvh)
Gandia R. M., Antonialli, F. & Cavazza, B. H. (2019). Autonomous vehicles: scientometric and bibliometric review.
Transport Reviews, 39(1), 9-28. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2018.1518937
Guan, J., Yan, Y., & Zhang, J. (2017). The impact of collaboration and knowledge networks on citations. Journal of
Informetrics, 11(2), 407-422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.02.007
Hou, J., Yang, X. & Chen, C. (2018). Emerging trends and new developments in information science: a document co-
citation analysis (2009-2016). Scientometrics, 115(2), 869-892. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2695-9
Kim, H. J., Jeong, Y. K. & Song, M. (2016). Content- and proximity-based author co-citation analysis using citation
sentences. Journal of Informetrics, 10(4), 954-966. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2016.07.007
Kim, M. C. & Chen, C., (2015). A scientometric review of emerging trends and new developments in recommendation
systems. Scientometrics, 104(1), 239-263. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1595-5
Kleinberg, J. (2003). Bursty and hierarchical structure in streams. Data Mining & Knowledge Discovery, 7(4), 373-397.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024940629314
Kumar, S. & Jan, J. M. (2013). Mapping research collaborations in the business and management field in Malaysia,
1980-2010. Scientometrics, 97(3), 491-517. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-0994-8
Liu, C. & Gui, Q. (2016). Mapping intellectual structures and dynamics of transport geography research: a scientometric
overview from 1982 to 2014. Scientometrics, 109(1), 159-184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2045-8
Lowry, P. B., Moody, G. D. & Gaskin, J. (2013). Evaluating journal quality and the association for information systems
senior scholars' journal basket via bibliometric measures: do expert journal assessments add value? MIS Quarterly,
37(4), 993–1012. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2013/37.4.01
Lukyanenko, R., Wiersma, Y., Huber, B., Parsons, J., Wachinger, G., & Meldt, R. (2017). Representing crowd
knowledge: guidelines for conceptual modeling of user-generated content. Journal of the Association for Information
Systems, 18(4), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00456
Marshakova, I.V. (1973). System of document connection based on references (in Russian). Nauchno-Teknicheskaya
Informatsiya Seriya 2-Informatsionnye Protsessy i Sistemy, (6), 3-8.
Mingers, J. & Harzing, A. W. (2007). Ranking journals in business and management: a statistical analysis of the Harzing
data set. European Journal of Information Systems, 16(4), 303-316. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000696
Mudambi, R., Peng, M. W., & Weng, D. (2008). Research rankings of Asia Pacific business schools: global versus local
knowledge strategies. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 25(2), 171-188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-008-9086-3
Narver J. C., & Slater, S. F. (1990). The effect of a market orientation on business profitability. Journal of Marketing,
54(4), 20-35. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299005400403
Newman, M. E. J. (2006). Modularity and community structure in networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, 103(23), 8577-8582. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0601602103
Porter, A. L., & Cunningham, S. W. (2005). Tech mining: exploiting new technologies for competitive advantage.
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1002/0471698466
Rossetto, D. E., Bernardes, R. C., & Borini, F. M. (2018). Structure and evolution of innovation research in the last 60
years: review and future trends in the field of business through the citations and co-citations analysis. Scientometrics,
115(3), 1329-1363. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2709-7
Rousseeuw, P. J. (1987). Silhouettes: a graphical aid to the interpretation and validation of cluster analysis. Journal of
Computational & Applied Mathematics, 20(20), 53-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-0427(87)90125-7
Small, H. (1973). Co‐citation in the scientific literature: a new measure of the relationship between two documents.
Journal of the American Society for information Science, 24(4), 265-269. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.4630240406
Wei F., Zhang, G., Feng, Y., Liu, L., & Shao, Z. (2017). A co-authorship network-based method for understanding the
evolution of a research area: a case of information systems research. Malaysian Journal of Library & Information
Science, 22(2), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.22452/mjlis.vol22no2.1
White, H. D., & Griffith, B. C. (1981). Author co-citation: a literature measure of intellectual structure. Journal of the
American Society for information Science, 32(3), 163-171. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.4630320302
Wu, C., Hill, C., & Yan, E. (2017). Disciplinary knowledge diffusion in business research. Journal of Informetrics,
11(2), 655-668. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.04.005
Zhang, G., Feng, Y., Yu, G., Liu, L. & Hao, Y. (2017). Analyzing the time delay between scientific research and
technology patents based on the citation distribution model. Scientometrics, 111(3), 1287-1306.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2357-3
Zhang, G., Liu, L., & Wei, F. (2019). Key nodes mining in the inventor–author knowledge diffusion network.
Scientometrics, 118(3), 721-735. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03005-2
Zhu, J. & Hua, W. (2017). Visualizing the knowledge domain of sustainable development research between 1987 and
2015: a bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics, 110(2), 893-914. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2187-8
How to cite this paper
Wei, F. & Zhang, G. (2020). A document co-citation analysis method for investigating emerging trends and new
developments: a case of twenty-four leading business journals. Information Research, 25(1), paper 842. Retrieved from
http://InformationR.net/ir/25-1/paper842.html (Archived by the Internet Archive at
https://web.archive.org/web/20200224192810/http://informationr.net/ir/25-1/paper842.html)
Appendix
Table 1 Details of the Dallas collection leading business journals (impact factors for 2017)
Impact
Categories Journal ISSN Publisher
factor
0001- Academy of
Business; Management Academy of Management Journal 6.700
4273 Management
0363- Academy of
Business, Management Academy of Management Review 8.855
7425 Management
American
0001-
Business, Finance Accounting Review 2.245 Accounting
4826
Association
0001-
Business; Management Administrative Science Quarterly 5.878 Sage Publications
8392
Management; Information science 1047-
Information Systems Research 2.301 Informs
& library science 7047
Journal of Accounting and 0165-
Business, Finance; Economics 3.282 Elsevier Science
Economics 4101
0021-
Business, Finance Journal of Accounting Research 4.542 Wiley
8456
0093- Oxford University
Business Journal of Consumer Research 3.535
5301 Press
0022-
Business, Finance; Economics Journal of Finance 5.397 Wiley
1082
0304-
Business, Finance; Economics Journal of Financial Economics 5.162 Elsevier Science
405X
Journal of International Business 0047- Palgrave Macmillan
Business; Management 6.198
Studies 2506 Ltd
0022- American Marketing
Business Journal of Marketing 7.338
2429 Association
0022- American Marketing
Business Journal of Marketing Research 3.854
2437 Association
Operations research & Journal of Operations 0272-
4.899 Elsevier Science
management science Management 6963
Operations research & 1091-
Journal on Computing 1.392 Informs
management science 9856
Operations research & 0025-
Management Science 3.544 Informs
management science 1909
Operations research & Manufacturing & Service 1.795 1523- Informs

management science Operations Management 4614
0732-
Business Marketing science 2.794 Informs
2399
Carlson School of
Information systems, Computer 0276- Management,
MIS Quarterly 5.430
science 7783 University of
Minnesota
Operations Research & 0030-
Operations Research 2.263 Informs
Management Science 364X
1047-
Management Organization Science 3.027 Informs
7039
Operations research & Production and Operations 1059-
1.772 Wiley
management science Management 1478
0893- Oxford University
Business, Finance; Economics Review of Financial Studies 4.270
9454 Press
0143-
Business; Management Strategic Management Journal 5.482 Wiley
2095
[Click for pdf file]
Table 2: Top 20 references with the strongest citation bursts during 1991-2018 (one year per slice, selecting the top
100 levels of the most cited items from each slice
[Click for pdf file]
Table 3: Top 20 references with the most recent bursts until 2018 (one year per slice, selecting the top 100 levels of the
most cited items from each slice)
Find other papers on this subject
Scholar Search Google Search Bing
Check for citations, using Google Scholar
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn More
© the authors, 2020.

Last updated: 15 February, 2020
Contents |
Author index |
Subject index |
Search |
Home

A document co-citation analysis method for investigating emerging trends and new developments_ a case of twenty-four leading business journals

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

A document co-citation analysis method for investigating emerging trends and new developments_ a case of twenty-four leading business journals

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

9/2/21, 10:12 AM A document co-citation analysis method for investigating emerging trends and new developments: a case of twenty-four

published quarterly by the university of borås, sweden

vol. 25 no. 1, March, 2020

A document co-citation analysis method for investigating emerging trends and

Fangfang Wei and Guijie Zhang

Table 1: The brief statistics of the datasets collected

Emerging trends in the business domain

Changes in the knowledge base revealed by dual-map overlays

Table 5: Citation trends in the business domain

About the authors

How to cite this paper

Operations research & Manufacturing & Service 1.795 1523- Informs

[Click for pdf file]

[Click for pdf file]

Find other papers on this subject

Scholar Search Google Search Bing

Check for citations, using Google Scholar

Facebook Twitter LinkedIn More

© the authors, 2020.

You might also like