Advertisement

Research in Production and Operations Management: A University-Based Bibliometric Analysis

  • José M. Merigó
  • Claudio Muller
  • Nikunja Mohan ModakEmail author
  • Sigifredo Laengle
Original Research
  • 187 Downloads

Abstract

Universities across the world are contributing greatly to production and operations management (POM) research and playing significant roles in social and economic development. This article analyzes the performance of universities in POM research and development between 1990 and 2014. The Web of Science core collection database is used to collect all the necessary data. The results show a wide diversity among the countries of origin of the top universities, with some of them being in Asia, Europe, and North America. These results are quite different from many other management areas where English-speaking countries, especially the USA, tend to be dominant. Hong Kong Polytechnic University is the most productive university, while Michigan State University is the most influential one. Time-based evolution reveals that the USA previously had a more dominant position, while now there is more distribution of top universities around the world. The analysis of selected journals indicates that many journals tend to be more influenced by their respective countries of origin. However, other journals show a more general profile by publishing papers from most of the countries around the world.

Keywords

Bibliometrics Production and operations management University analysis Web of science 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors are thankful to the editor-in-chief Prof. Sushil and the anonymous reviewers for their extremely useful suggestions to improve the quality of the paper. The second author is always grateful to Shri Bibhas Chandra Das for giving enormous support and care.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

References

  1. Barman, S., Hanna, M. D., & LaForge, R. L. (2001). Perceived relevance and quality of POM journals: A decade later. Journal of Operations Management, 19, 367–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barman, S., Tersine, R. J., & Buckley, M. R. (1991). An empirical assessment of the perceived relevance and quality of POM-related journals by academicians. Journal of Operations Management, 10, 194–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blanco-Mesa, F., Merigó, J. M., & Gil-Lafuente, A. M. (2017). Fuzzy decision making: A bibliometric-based review. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 32, 2033–2050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boehmke, B. C., & Hazen, B. T. (2017). The future of supply chain information systems: The open source ecosystem. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 18(2), 163–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bonilla, C. A., Merigó, J. M., & Torres-Abad, C. (2015). Economics in Latin America: A bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics, 105(2), 1239–1252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Broadus, R. N. (1987). Toward a definition of “Bibliometrics”. Scientometrics, 12, 373–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cancino, C., Merigó, J. M., Coronado, F., Dessouky, Y., & Dessouky, M. (2017). Forty years of computers & industrial engineering: A bibliometric analysis. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 113, 614–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Franceschini, S., Faria, L. G., & Jurowetzki, R. (2016). Unveiling scientific communities about sustainability and innovation. A bibliometric journey around sustainable terms. Journal of Cleaner Production, 127, 72–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Garg, R. K., & Singh, T. P. (2006). Management of change-a comprehensive review. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 7(1/2), 45–60.Google Scholar
  10. Goh, C. H., Holsapple, C. W., Johnson, L. E., & Tanner, J. R. (1997). Evaluating and classifying POM journals. Journal of Operations Management, 15, 123–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. González-Benito, J., Lannelongue, G., & Alfaro-Tanco, J. A. (2013). Study of supply-chain management in the automotive industry: A bibliometric analysis. International Journal of Production Research, 51(13), 3849–3863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S2), 109–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Grover, P., & Kar, A. K. (2017). Big data analytics: A review on theoretical contributions and tools used in literature. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 18(3), 203–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Haleem, A., Kumar, S., & Luthra, S. (2018). Flexible system approach for understanding requisites of product innovation management. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 19(1), 19–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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, 16569–16572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Holsapple, C. W., & Lee-Post, A. (2010). Behavior-based analysis of knowledge dissemination channels in operations management. Omega, 38, 167–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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, 540–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kazemi, N., Modak, N. M., & Govindan, K. (2018). A review of reverse logistics and closed loop supply chain management studies published in IJPR: A bibliometric and content analysis. International Journal of Production Research.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2018.1471244.Google Scholar
  19. Kessler, M. M. (1963). Bibliographic coupling between scientific papers. American Documentation, 14, 10–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ketchen, D. J., Jr., & Hult, G. T. M. (2007). Toward greater integration of insights from organization theory and supply chain management. Journal of Operations Management, 25(2), 455–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kulkarni, S., Verma, P., & Mukundan, R. (2016). Extending canvas of manufacturing strategy: 8Ps model. International Journal of Global Business and Competitiveness, 11(1), 7–21.Google Scholar
  22. Laengle, S., Merigó, J. M., Miranda, J., Slowinski, R., Bomze, I., Borgonovo, E., et al. (2017). Forty years of the European Journal of Operational Research: A bibliometric overview. European Journal of Operational Research, 262, 803–816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Laengle, S., Merigó, J. M., Modak, N. M., & Yang, J. B. (2018a). Bibliometrics in operations research and management science: A university analysis. Annals of Operations Research.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-018-3017-6.Google Scholar
  24. Laengle, S., Modak, N. M., Merigó, J. M., & De La Sotta, C. (2018b). Thirty years of the International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing: A bibliometric analysis. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 31(12), 1247–1268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Laengle, S., Modak, N. M., Merigo, J. M., & Zurita, G. (2018c). Twenty-five years of group decision and negotiation: A bibliometric overview. Group Decision and Negotiation, 27(4), 505–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Landström, H., Harirchi, G., & Aström, F. (2012). Entrepreneurship: Exploring the knowledge base. Research Policy, 41(7), 1154–1181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Malaviya, P., & Wadhwa, S. (2005). Innovation management in organizational context: an empirical study. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 6(2), 1–14.Google Scholar
  28. Martínez-López, F. J., Merigó, J. M., Valenzuela, L., & Nicolás, C. (2018). Fifty years of the European Journal of Marketing: A bibliometric analysis. European Journal of Marketing, 52, 439–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Martyn, J. (1964). Bibliographic coupling. Journal of Documentation, 20(4), 236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mas-Tur, A., Modak, N. M., Merigó, J. M., Roig-Tierno, N., Geraci, M., & Capecchi, V. (2018). Half a century of Quality & Quantity: A bibliometric review. Quality & Quantity.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-018-0799-1.Google Scholar
  31. Merigó, J. M., Cancino, C., Coronado, F., & Urbano, D. (2016). Academic research in innovation: A country analysis. Scientometrics, 108(2), 559–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Merigó, J. M., Gil-Lafuente, A. M., & Yager, R. R. (2015a). An overview of fuzzy research with bibliometric indicators. Applied Soft Computing, 27, 420–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Merigó, J. M., Mas-Tur, A., Roig-Tierno, N., & Ribeiro-Soriano, D. (2015b). A bibliometric overview of the Journal of Business Research between 1973 and 2014. Journal of Business Research, 68(12), 2645–2653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Merigó, J. M., & Yang, J. B. (2017). A bibliometric analysis of operations research and management science. Omega, 73, 37–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Musa, A., & Dabo, A. A. A. (2016). A review of RFID in supply chain management: 2000–2015. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 17(2), 189–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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, 185–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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, 641–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Shang, G., Saladin, B., Fry, T., & Donohue, J. (2015). Twenty-six years of operations management research (1985–2010): Authorship patterns and research constituents in eleven top rated journals. International Journal of Production Research, 53(20), 6161–6197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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, 265–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Stonebraker, J. S., Gil, E., Kirkwood, C. W., & Handfield, R. B. (2012). Impact factor as a metric to assess journals where OM research is published. Journal of Operations Management, 30, 24–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Valenzuela, L., Merigó, J. M., Johnston, W., Nicolás, C., & Jaramillo, J. F. (2017). Thirty years of the Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing: A bibliometric analysis. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 32, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84, 523–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Veugelers, R., Del Rey, E. (2014). The contribution of universities to innovation (regional) growth and employment. EENEE Analytical Report No. 18.Google Scholar
  44. 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
  45. Wong, B. K., & Lai, V. S. (2011). A survey of the application of fuzzy set theory in production and operations management: 1998–2009. International Journal of Production Economics, 129(1), 157–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Zhong, S., Geng, Y., Liu, W., Gao, C., & Chen, W. (2016). A bibliometric review on natural resource accounting during 1995–2014. Journal of Cleaner Production, 139, 122–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Global Institute of Flexible Systems Management 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • José M. Merigó
    • 1
    • 2
  • Claudio Muller
    • 1
  • Nikunja Mohan Modak
    • 3
    Email author
  • Sigifredo Laengle
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Management Control and Information Systems, School of Economics and BusinessUniversity of ChileSantiagoChile
  2. 2.School of Information, Systems and Modelling, Faculty of Engineering and Information TechnologyUniversity of Technology SydneyUltimoAustralia
  3. 3.Palpara VidyamandirChakdahaIndia

Personalised recommendations