Abstract
Due to the importance of academic journals, it is critical to understand how they can create influence on research fields. An alternative way to understand how scholarly journals create influence in academic fields is to analyze the editorial board interlockings (EBI) and how they may generate networks within academic fields. EBI is the term used to describe the general circumstance where the same scholar is a member of multiple editorial boards, which creates a social network dimension within and between academic journals. The aim of this paper is to examine EBI phenomenon within knowledge management and intellectual capital fields (KM–IC). Assuming that EBI creates a social structure within scholarly journals, this paper investigates how KM–IC journals are connected through EBI, which journals are the most influential within KM–IC field and identify if KM–IC scholarly journal network breaks into subgroups. Social network analysis was the method applied using data from KM–IC ranking. Results identified the scholarly journal network, the high influence journals, and the cohesive subgroups within KM–IC field.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Andrikopoulos, A., & Economou, L. (2015). Editorial board interlocks in financial economics. International Review of Financial Analysis, 37, 51–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2014.11.015.
Baccini, A. (2009). Italian economic journals. A network-based ranking and an exploratory analysis of their influence on setting international professional standards. Rivista italiana degli economisti, 14(3), 491–512. https://doi.org/10.1427/31429.
Baccini, A., & Barabesi, L. (2010). Interlocking editorship. A network analysis of the links between economic journals. Scientometrics, 82(2), 365–389. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0053-7.
Baccini, A., & Barabesi, L. (2011). Seats at the table: The network of the editorial boards in information and library science. Journal of Informetrics, 5(3), 382–391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2011.01.012.
Baccini, A., Barabesi, L., & Marcheselli, M. (2009). How are statistical journals linked? A Network Analysis. CHANCE, 22(3), 35–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/09332480.2009.10722969.
Bedeian, A. G., Van Fleet, D. D., & Hyman, H. H. (2009). Scientific achievement and editorial board membership. Organizational Research Methods, 12(2), 211–238. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428107309312.
Borgatti, S. P., & Foster, P. C. (2003). The network paradigm in organizational research: A review and typology. Journal of Management, 29(6), 991–1013. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0149-2063_03_00087-4.
Bošnjak, L., Puljak, L., Vukojević, K., & Marušić, A. (2010). Analysis of a number and type of publications that editors publish in their own journals: Case study of scholarly journals in Croatia. Scientometrics, 86(1), 227–233. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0207-7.
Braun, T. (2005). Keeping the gates of science journals. In H. F. Moed, W. Glänzel, & U. Schmoch (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative science and technology research (pp. 95–114). Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-2755-9.
Braun, T., & Dióspatonyi, I. (2005a). Counting the gatekeepers of international science journals a worthwhile science indicator. Current Science, 89(9), 1548–1551.
Braun, T., & Dióspatonyi, I. (2005b). World Flash on Basic Research: The counting of core journal gatekeepers as science indicators really counts. The scientific scope of action and strength of nations. Scientometrics, 62(3), 297–319. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-005-0023-7.
Braun, T., Dióspatonyi, I., Zádor, E., & Zsindely, S. (2007a). Journal gatekeepers indicator-based top universities of the world, of Europe and of 29 countries—A pilot study. Scientometrics, 71(2), 155–178. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-1843-4.
Braun, T., Zsindely, S., Dióspatonyi, I., & Zádor, E. (2007b). Gatekeeping patterns in nano-titled journals. Scientometrics, 70(3), 651–667. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-0306-2.
Cabanac, G. (2012). Shaping the landscape of research in information systems from the perspective of editorial boards: A scientometric study of 77 leading journals. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(5), 977–996. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22609.
Clarivate Analytics. (2017). 2016 Journal Citation Reports® Social Science Edition. https://jcr.incites.thomsonreuters.com. Accessed 3 March 2018.
Crane, D. (1967). The gatekeepers of science: Some factors affecting the selection of articles for scientific journals. The American Sociologist, 2(4), 195–201.
Csardi, G., & Nepusz, T. (2006). The igraph software package for complex network research. InterJournal, Complex Systems, 1695(5), 1–9.
Frandsen, T. F., & Nicolaisen, J. (2011). Praise the bridge that carries you over: Testing the flattery citation hypothesis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(5), 807–818. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21503.
Friedkin, N. E. (1984). Structural cohesion and equivalence explanations of social homogeneity. Sociological Methods & Research, 12(3), 235–261. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124184012003001.
García-Carpintero, E., Granadino, B., & Plaza, L. M. (2010). The representation of nationalities on the editorial boards of international journals and the promotion of the scientific output of the same countries. Scientometrics, 84(3), 799–811. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0199-3.
Granadino, B., García-Carpintero, E., & Plaza, L. M. (2006). Spanish memberships in advisory committees and editorial boards of international scientific journals: A tool for improving our science. Revista española de Documentación Científica, 29(3), 398–408. https://doi.org/10.3989/redc.2006.v29.i3.296.
Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380.
Hames, I. (2001). Editorial boards: Realizing their potential. Learned Publishing, 14(4), 247–256. https://doi.org/10.1087/095315101753141347.
Hames, I. (2007). Peer review and manuscript management in scientific journals: Guidelines for good practice. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub.
Hansen, M. T. (1999). The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1), 82. https://doi.org/10.2307/2667032.
Kadushin, C. (2012). Understanding social networks: Theories, concepts, and findings. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kolaczyk, E., & Csárdi, G. (2014). Statistical analysis of network data with R. Use R. New York: Springer.
Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). London: The University of Chicago Press.
Liwei, Z., & Chunlin, J. (2015). Social network analysis and academic performance of the editorial board members for Journals of Library and Information Science. Collnet Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management, 9(2), 131–143. https://doi.org/10.1080/09737766.2015.1069947.
Mizruchi, M. S. (1996). What do interlocks do? An analysis, critique, and assessment of research on interlocking directorates. Annual Review of Sociology, 22(1), 271–298. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.22.1.271.
Newman, M. E. J. (2010). Networks: An introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ni, C., & Ding, Y. (2010). Journal clustering through interlocking editorship information. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 47(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1002/meet.14504701202.
Powell, K. (2010). Gatekeeper’s burden. Nature, 464(7289), 800–801. https://doi.org/10.1038/nj7289-800a.
R Core Team. (2016). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/. Accessed 3 March 2018.
RStudio Team. (2015). RStudio: Integrated development environment for R. Boston, MA: RStudio, Inc. http://www.rstudio.com/. Accessed 3 March 2018.
SCImago. (n.d.). SJR - SCImago Journal & Country Rank [Portal]. http://www.scimagojr.com. Accessed 3 March 2018.
Scott, J. (2000). Social network analysis (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
Serenko, A., & Bontis, N. (2009). Global ranking of knowledge management and intellectual capital academic journals. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(1), 4–15. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270910931125.
Serenko, A., & Bontis, N. (2013). Global ranking of knowledge management and intellectual capital academic journals: 2013 update. Journal of Knowledge Management, 17(2), 307–326. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673271311315231.
Serenko, A., & Bontis, N. (2017). Global ranking of knowledge management and intellectual capital academic journals: 2017 update. Journal of Knowledge Management, 21(3), 675–692. https://doi.org/10.1108/jkm-11-2016-0490.
Serenko, A., Cox, R. A. K., Bontis, N., & Booker, L. D. (2011). The superstar phenomenon in the knowledge management and intellectual capital academic discipline. Journal of Informetrics, 5(3), 333–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2011.01.005.
Shaw, J. D., & Ertug, G. (2017). The suitability of simulations and meta-analyses for submissions to academy of management journal. Academy of Management Journal, 60(6), 2045–2049. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2017.4006.
Sugimoto, C. R., & Cronin, B. (2013). Citation gamesmanship: Testing for evidence of ego bias in peer review. Scientometrics, 95(3), 851–862. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0845-z.
Wang, X. (2018). The relationship between SCI editorial board representation and university research output in the field of computer science: A quantile regression approach. Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science, 23(1), 67–84. https://doi.org/10.22452/mjlis.vol23no1.5.
Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications (Vol. 8). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zuccala, A. (2006). Modeling the invisible college. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(2), 152–168. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20256.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Teixeira, E.K., Oliveira, M. Editorial board interlocking in knowledge management and intellectual capital research field. Scientometrics 117, 1853–1869 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2937-x
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2937-x