Advertisement

Scientometrics

, Volume 116, Issue 2, pp 1039–1053 | Cite as

A bibliometric analysis of highly cited papers in the field of Economics and Business based on the Essential Science Indicators database

  • Nan Zhang
  • Shanshan Wan
  • Peiling Wang
  • Peng Zhang
  • Qiang Wu
Article

Abstract

Based on the Essential Science Indicators database, this study analyzed 2140 highly cited papers (HCPs) in the field of Economics and Business from 4499 authors, 914 universities, and 64 countries/territories. From this data, three lists were created: the top 76 scientists, 50 most influential universities, and 33 most influential countries/territories. The results show that the USA is the global leader in Business and Economics with 1517 HCPs, ranking number 1. Also, 46 of the top scientists (60.5%), and 37 of the most influential universities (74%) are from the USA. This study also found: (1) the collaboration network among the top 76 scientists is not very close but a relatively tight sub-network with 13 top scientists has formed; (2) all 50 most influential universities are interconnected, and the cooperation between Harvard University and MIT was the strongest, producing 23 HCPs together; (3) the collaboration network among the most influential countries is quite close with a large network of 60 nodes and only four isolated nodes. In addition, this study demonstrates that significant positive correlations exist between authors’ HCP and h-index, between universities’ HCP and h-index, and between countries’ HCP and h-index. Since h-index is known to be a reliable indicator, these correlations indicate that when evaluating the academic impact of scholars, universities, and countries, the HCP approach is also considerably useful.

Keywords

Highly cited papers Economics and Business Essential Science Indicators Bibliometric analysis Collaboration network h-Index Top scientists 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The present study is an extended version of an article presented at the 16th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics, Wuhan (China), 16–20 October 2017 (Wan et al. 2017). This research was supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grants 71273250). We would like to thank the editors and anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments and suggestions, which helped us to improve the paper.

References

  1. Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Caprasecca, A. (2009). Allocative efficiency in public research funding: Can bibliometrics help? Research Policy, 38(1), 206–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Batagelj, V., & Mrvar, A. (1998). Pajek: A program for large network analysis. Connections, 21(2), 47–57.Google Scholar
  3. Bonilla, C. A., Merigó, J. M., & Torres-Abad, C. (2015). Economics in Latin America: a bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics, 105(2), 1239–1252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Borgman, C. L., & Furner, J. (2002). Scholarly communication and bibliometrics. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 36(1), 3–72.Google Scholar
  5. Braun, T., Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2005). A Hirsch-type index for journals. The Scientist, 19(22), 8–10.Google Scholar
  6. Chan, K. C., Chang, C. H., & Chen, C. R. (2011). Financial research in the European region: a long-term assessment (1990–2008). European Financial Management, 17(2), 391–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chen, C. (2006). CiteSpace II: Detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(3), 359–377.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chiu, W. T., & Ho, Y. S. (2007). Bibliometric analysis of tsunami research. Scientometrics, 73(1), 3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chuang, K. Y., Wang, M. H., & Ho, Y. S. (2011). High-impact papers presented in the subject category of water resources in the essential science indicators database of the institute for scientific information. Scientometrics, 87(3), 551–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clarivate Analytics. (2017). Highly cited researchers. Retrieved March 3, 2018 from https://clarivate.com/hcr/2017-researchers-list/.
  11. Csajbók, E., Berhidi, A., Vasas, L., & Schubert, A. (2007). Hirsch-index for countries based on Essential Science Indicators data. Scientometrics, 73(1), 91–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cuccurullo, C., Aria, M., & Sarto, F. (2016). Foundations and trends in performance management. A twenty-five years bibliometric analysis in business and public administration domains. Scientometrics, 108(2), 595–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Davarpanah, M. R., & Aslekia, S. (2008). A scientometric analysis of international LIS journals: Productivity and characteristics. Scientometrics, 77(1), 21–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. De Bakker, F. G., Groenewegen, P., & Den Hond, F. (2005). A bibliometric analysis of 30 years of research and theory on corporate social responsibility and corporate social performance. Business and Society, 44(3), 283–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fu, H. Z., Chuang, K. Y., Wang, M. H., & Ho, Y. S. (2011). Characteristics of research in China assessed with Essential Science Indicators. Scientometrics, 88(3), 841–862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Glänzel, W. (2002). Coauthorship patterns and trends in the sciences (1980–1998): A bibliometric study with implications for database indexing and search strategies. Library Trends, 50(3), 461–475.Google Scholar
  17. Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(46), 16569–16572.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. Hoepner, A. G., Kant, B., Scholtens, B., & Yu, P. S. (2012). Environmental and ecological economics in the 21st century: An age adjusted citation analysis of the influential articles, journals, authors and institutions. Ecological Economics, 77, 193–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hsieh, P. N., & Chang, P. L. (2009). An assessment of world-wide research productivity in production and operations management. International Journal of Production Economics, 120(2), 540–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hsu, C. L., & Chiang, C. H. (2015). The financial crisis research: a bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics, 105(1), 161–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jacsó, P. (2009). The h-index for countries in web of science and scopus. Online Information Review, 33(4), 831–837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Karpagam, R., Gopalakrishnan, S., Natarajan, M., & Babu, B. R. (2011). Mapping of nanoscience and nanotechnology research in India: a scientometric analysis, 1990–2009. Scientometrics, 89(2), 501–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kharabaf, S., & Abdollahi, M. (2012). Science growth in Iran over the past 35 years. Journal of Research in Medical Sciences, 17(3), 275–279.Google Scholar
  24. Kumar, L., Sripada, S., & Sureka, A. (2016). A bibliometric study of Asia Pacific software engineering conference from 2010 to 2015. arXiv:1610.09635 [cs.SE]. https://arxiv.org/abs/1610.09635. Accessed November 1, 2016.
  25. Li, L. L., Ding, G., Feng, N., Wang, M. H., & Ho, Y. S. (2009). Global stem cell research trend: Bibliometric analysis as a tool for mapping of trends from 1991 to 2006. Scientometrics, 80(1), 39–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Merigó, J. M., Gil-Lafuente, A. M., & Yager, R. R. (2015). An overview of fuzzy research with bibliometric indicators. Applied Soft Computing, 27, 420–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Merigó, J. M., Rocafort, A., & Aznar-Alarcón, J. P. (2016). Bibliometric overview of business and economics research. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 17(3), 397–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Molinari, A., & Molinari, J. F. (2008). Mathematical aspects of a new criterion for ranking scientific institutions based on the h-index. Scientometrics, 75(2), 339–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mugnaini, R., Packer, A. L., & Meneghini, R. (2008). Comparison of scientists of the Brazilian Academy of Sciences and of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA on the basis of the h-index. Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research, 41(4), 258–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Olden, J. D. (2007). How do ecological journals stack-up? Ranking of scientific quality according to the h index. Ecoscience, 14(3), 370–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pardo, C., Reolid, M., Delicado, M. V., Mallebrera, E., & García-Meseguer, M. J. (2001). Nursing research in Spain: Bibliometrics of references of research papers in the decade 1985–1994. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 35(6), 933–943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pilkington, A., & Meredith, J. (2009). The evolution of the intellectual structure of operations management—1980–2006: A citation/co-citation analysis. Journal of Operations Management, 27(3), 185–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, N. P., & Bachrach, D. G. (2008). Scholarly influence in the field of management: A bibliometric analysis of the determinants of university and author impact in the management literature in the past quarter century. Journal of Management, 34(4), 641–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pouris, A. (2007). The international performance of the South African academic institutions: A citation assessment. Higher Education, 54(4), 501–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rey-Martí, A., Ribeiro-Soriano, D., & Palacios-Marqués, D. (2016). A bibliometric analysis of social entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Research, 69(5), 1651–1655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schubert, A. (2007). Successive h-indices. Scientometrics, 70(1), 201–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sci2 Team. (2009). Science of Science (Sci2) Tool. Indiana University and SciTech Strategies. Retrieved November 24, 2016 from https://Sci2.cns.iu.edu.
  38. Sooryamoorthy, R. (2010). Medical research in South Africa: A scientometric analysis of trends, patterns, productivity and partnership. Scientometrics, 84(3), 863–885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tabatabaei, N., & Beheshti, J. (2008). Interdisciplinary outreach of library and information science research as reflected in ‘‘Essential Science Indicators’’. In Proceedings of the 36th Conference of the Canadian Association for Information Science (CAIS) (pp. 5–7). University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
  40. van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wagstaff, A., & Culyer, A. J. (2012). Four decades of health economics through a bibliometric lens. Journal of Health Economics, 31(2), 406–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wan, S., Zhang, N., Wang, P., Zhang, P., & Wu, Q. (2017). A brief analysis of top scientists in the field of Economics and Business based on the Essential Science Indicators database. In: Proceedings of ISSI 2017: The 16th international conference on scientometrics and informetrics (pp. 896–901). China: Wuhan University.Google Scholar
  43. Zhang, X., Chen, H., Wang, W., & Ordóñez de Pablos, P. (2016). What is the role of IT in innovation? A bibliometric analysis of research development in IT innovation. Behaviour and Information Technology, 35(12), 1130–1143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of ManagementUniversity of Science and Technology of ChinaHefeiChina
  2. 2.School of Information SciencesUniversity of Tennessee at KnoxvilleKnoxvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations