The most influential journals and authors in digital business research

Abstract

In the last few decades, the number of academic articles focused on digital business has grown exponentially. The aim of this study is to present the evolution of academic research in digital business between 1990 and 2015. The analysis concentrates on identifying the most productive and influential journals in this field of research, as well as the leading authors. The results show a strong increase in digital business research during that period due to the development of an important number of specialized information systems journals, but also with publications in several disciplines of the management field. The latter reflects the multidisciplinary nature of this field of research, including not only studies with a focus on management information systems, but also on strategy, marketing, operations and more.

Keywords

Digital Business information systems and technologies bibliometrics web of science

1 Introduction

The digital economy is an economic system based on digital technologies that can promote the economic development of a territory [1]. Digital business encompasses an interlocking set of sectors (industries and firms), outputs (products and services), and a set of production inputs used at varying intensities by firms and workers across all sectors [2, 3]. The rise of digital businesses has fuelled an active research area in the information systems discipline [4].

The digital economy now permeates countless aspects of the world economy, impacting sectors as varied as banking, retail, energy, transportation, education, publishing, media or health. Information and Communication Technologies are transforming the way social interactions and personal relationships are conducted, with fixed and mobile convergence, and broadcast networks in addition to devices and objects increasingly connected to form the Internet of things [5].

From an academic point of view, the increase in the number of articles, especially those published in high quality journals (for instance, those present in the Web of Science, WoS), unveils efforts from authors and journals to significantly promote the development of new knowledge and new applications in digital business research. Bibliometric studies are very common in several disciplines such as engineering [6], innovation [7 –12], management [13] and also fuzzy systems [14, 15], among others. In particular, the aim of this paper is to develop a journal and author analysis, identifying the most influential studies in digital business research considering several bibliometric indicators, and providing an overview of the relations among studies through citations. We believe that mapping this research field requires a multidisciplinary approach uniting scientific research from different types of journals, including both those with a focus on information systems or intelligent and fuzzy systems, and those with a focus on business, marketing and other disciplines.

For this purpose, we rely on bibliometric analysis to analyse a selection of articles on digital business from the Web of Science (WoS) database, coming from different subject areas such as management, business, economics, and sociology, among others.

The structure of citations by journals and authors is reported using the VOS software.

The results indicate that the most influential authors over the last 26 years, according to their h-index, are Izak Benbasat, Paul Pavlou, Robert Kauffman, Nicholas Yannelis, Kevin Zhu, Varun Grover, David Gefen, Kenneth Kraemer, Detmar Straub, Andrew Whinston, Ritu Agarwal, Nitish Singh, Alok Gupta and Chao-Ton Su. This group of authors does not necessarily include those who publish the most on digital business research, but rather those who have greater influence in this field of research. A relevant result is the fact that the greatest number of publications is obtained by the appearance of specialized journals in digital business research. In contrast with other fields of business research, publications by authors from the USA do not dominate these journals; in fact, authors from five continents are represented amongst the most influential.

The rest of the article is organized as follows. The Conceptual framework section presents some applications and studies in digital business research. The Methods section presents the bibliometric methods used in the analysis. The Results section presents the results of the journal and author analyses. Finally, the Conclusions section summarizes the main findings of the study.

2 Overview of digital business research

More than a decade ago, digital business research was mostly linked to e-commerce studies, specially discussing trust and security issues related with transactions, costumer experience and loyalty. But other concerns quickly appeared as it became more evident that Information Technologies were changing firms beyond their relations with customers. This opened new research agendas capturing the multidimensionality of the relation between business models, digital transformation of industries and the innovative uses of information systems and technologies. This is the case of studies in the field of operations research and information systems, and the development of concepts such as digital agenda and digital business strategy.

Currently, even without a unique definition, digital business is associated with using the Internet to deploy or support business activities along the value chain. For instance, using the Internet to enhance operational activities (logistics, production, marketing and sales) or using the Internet to manage procurement, infrastructures, human resources and finance [16]. In this sense, it has become evident that the study of digital business offers a wide range of applications.

The interactive nature of the Internet offers many opportunities to increase the efficiency of online shopping behaviour by improving the availability of product information, enabling direct multi-attribute comparisons, and reducing buyer search costs [17]. Similarly, a study of businesses conducted over the Internet [18] argues that their dynamic, rapidly growing, and highly competitive characteristics promise new avenues for the creation of wealth.

Digital technologies have spread rapidly in much of the world. Digital dividends—that is, the broader development benefits from using these technologies—have lagged behind. In many instances, digital technologies have boosted growth, expanded opportunities, and improved service delivery. Yet their aggregate impact has fallen short and is unevenly distributed [19] due to the uncertainty and risks associated to digitization and transformation of business models with IST projects. In sum, digital applications have completely transformed business-to-consumer and business-to-business interactions.

It has also been argued that entrepreneurship and agility are becoming more important, and that the digital transformation will depend more on strategy than technology. In the future, it will not be the big fish that eats the small fish, it will be the fast fish that eats the slow fish [20]. Consider Google, which has created Alphabet as a platform for several smaller and more focused businesses. In banking, the “fintech” or financial technology revolution will cause rapid disintermediation. In the end, the business models of each and every industry are being restructured [20].

In recent years, business infrastructure has become more “digital”, increasing the interconnections among agents and processes [21]. Although managers initially limited themselves just to apply technology to parts of the current enterprise model, now it is clear that the use of such technology is creating a new mindset giving rise to innovative digital business models [22]. The literature has also stressed that digital technologies have enabled “open innovation” strategies in firms, through recent developments such as open software, open access, technology platforms, and online communities [23 –26]. Looking into the future, digital technologies are expected to continue reshaping business and, more broadly, social trends through new developments in prominent fields such as the Internet of Things, Industry 4.0, big data analytics or artificial intelligence [27].

Digital technology has led to a rapid decline in the cost of storage, computation, and transmission of data. The transformative nature of digital technology has implications for understanding economic activity, for consumer behaviour, for competitive strategy, for new firm formation, and for determining policy [28]. While the digital transformation is often associated with new business opportunities, it also brings along substantial challenges to society, including the risk of increasing concentration of market power, rent extraction and associated income inequalities [29].

Although these developments were initially clearly related to the areas of business and management, the impact of digital business on every aspect of modern society suggests that the boundaries of such research agenda go far beyond the scope of these two areas. Indeed, as we shall discuss later, our bibliometric analysis suggests that there are other interrelated fields using alternative approaches to the same topic. Studying the research areas of the 40 most influential journals in digital business, we found a wide variety of fields ranging from Engineering to Psychology or Ethics. Management and Business are the main subject areas of this group of journals, followed by Information science and library science, Computer science and information systems, Economics, Operations research and management science, and Planning and development. Among the remaining areas we found disciplines such as Environmental studies, Communication, Geography, Sociology and Urban studies. These facts are consistent with the idea that digital transformation is changing every aspect of human society.

The growth of all these disciplines and journals that pay attention to the development of digital business have led to the definition of a series of scientific articles as the most influential in digital business. Table 1 shows the most cited papers in this research field published between 1990 and 2015.

Table 1
Most cited papers in digital business research, 1990–2015

R Authors Ref Journal Title

1 DeLone and McLean (2003) [30] J. of Man. Inf. Systems The DeLone and McLean model of information ... .

2 Amit and Zott (2001) [18] Strategic Management J. Value creation in e-business

3 Wenger and Snyder (2000) [31] Harvard Business Rev. Communities of practice: The organizational fro ... .

4 Dellarocas (2003) [32] Management Science The digitization of word of mouth: Promise and ... .

5 Gefen (2000) [33] Omega-Inter. J. Man. Sc. E-commerce: the role of familiarity and trust

6 Pavlou (2003) [34] Inter. J. of Ele. Commerce Consumer acceptance of electronic commerce: ... .

7 Childers et al. (2001) [17] Journal of Retailing Hedonic and utilitarian motivations for online re...

8 Reichheld and Schefte (2000) [35] Harvard Business Rev. E-loyalty - Your secret weapon on the Web

9 Pavlou and Gefen (2004) [36] Infor. Systems Research Building effective online marketplaces with insti ...

10 Okoli and Pawlowski (2004) [37] Infor. &Management The Delphi method as a research tool: an examp ... .

11 Pavlou and Fygenson (2006) [38] MIS Quarterly Understanding and predicting electronic comme ... .

12 Srinivasan et al. (2002) [39] Journal of Retailing Customer loyalty in e-commerce: an exploratio ... ..

13 Hsu and Lu (2004) [40] Infor. &Management Why do people play on-line games? An extend ... ..

14 Elmaghraby and Keskinocak (2003) [41] Management Science Dynamic pricing in the presence of inventory c ... .

15 Devaraj et al. (2002) [42] Infor. Systems Research Antecedents of B2 C channel satisfaction and pr ... .

16 Amabile (1998) [43] Harvard Business Rev. How to kill creativity

17 Lee and Turban (2001) [44] Inter. J. of Ele. Commerce A trust model for consumer Internet shopping

18 Zhu and Kraemer (2005) [26] Infor. Systems Research Post-adoption variations in usage and value of ... .

19 Goldenberg et al. (2001) [45] Marketing Letters Talk of the network: A complex systems look ... ..

20 Malhotra et al. (2004) [46] Infor. Systems Research Internet users’ information privacy concerns ... ..

R	Authors	Ref	Journal	Title
1	DeLone and McLean (2003)	[30]	J. of Man. Inf. Systems	The DeLone and McLean model of information ... .
2	Amit and Zott (2001)	[18]	Strategic Management J.	Value creation in e-business
3	Wenger and Snyder (2000)	[31]	Harvard Business Rev.	Communities of practice: The organizational fro ... .
4	Dellarocas (2003)	[32]	Management Science	The digitization of word of mouth: Promise and ... .
5	Gefen (2000)	[33]	Omega-Inter. J. Man. Sc.	E-commerce: the role of familiarity and trust
6	Pavlou (2003)	[34]	Inter. J. of Ele. Commerce	Consumer acceptance of electronic commerce: ... .
7	Childers et al. (2001)	[17]	Journal of Retailing	Hedonic and utilitarian motivations for online re...
8	Reichheld and Schefte (2000)	[35]	Harvard Business Rev.	E-loyalty - Your secret weapon on the Web
9	Pavlou and Gefen (2004)	[36]	Infor. Systems Research	Building effective online marketplaces with insti ...
10	Okoli and Pawlowski (2004)	[37]	Infor. &Management	The Delphi method as a research tool: an examp ... .
11	Pavlou and Fygenson (2006)	[38]	MIS Quarterly	Understanding and predicting electronic comme ... .
12	Srinivasan et al. (2002)	[39]	Journal of Retailing	Customer loyalty in e-commerce: an exploratio ... ..
13	Hsu and Lu (2004)	[40]	Infor. &Management	Why do people play on-line games? An extend ... ..
14	Elmaghraby and Keskinocak (2003)	[41]	Management Science	Dynamic pricing in the presence of inventory c ... .
15	Devaraj et al. (2002)	[42]	Infor. Systems Research	Antecedents of B2 C channel satisfaction and pr ... .
16	Amabile (1998)	[43]	Harvard Business Rev.	How to kill creativity
17	Lee and Turban (2001)	[44]	Inter. J. of Ele. Commerce	A trust model for consumer Internet shopping
18	Zhu and Kraemer (2005)	[26]	Infor. Systems Research	Post-adoption variations in usage and value of ... .
19	Goldenberg et al. (2001)	[45]	Marketing Letters	Talk of the network: A complex systems look ... ..
20	Malhotra et al. (2004)	[46]	Infor. Systems Research	Internet users’ information privacy concerns ... ..

Source: own elaboration.

Among the group of the most influential papers in digital business, a series of topics and discussions of interest may be identified, which are the most analysed by the scientific community. These include: evaluation of information systems; impact of information technology; information quality; information systems success; service quality; systems quality; use of information systems; user satisfaction; value creation; e-business; e-commerce; business model; reputation mechanisms; online feedback; electronic markets; trust; Internet; game theory; consumer behavior; perceived ease of use; perceived risk; perceived usefulness; technology acceptance; transaction intentions; online auction marketplaces; institutional structures; feedback mechanisms; escrows; third-party guarantees; reputation systems, among others.

3 Methods

Bibliometrics is a research method to quantitatively study bibliographic material [47] providing a general overview of a research field according to a wide range of indicators. There are different ways of ranking material in a bibliometric analysis. The most common approaches use the total number of articles or the total number of citations. Another useful indicator is the h-index [12, 48], that combines articles with citations indicating the number of X studies that have received X or more citations. The general assumption is that the number of articles shows the “productivity” while the total citations reflect the “influence” of a set of authors.

Web of Science (WoS) is one of the most popular databases of scientific research worldwide. The assumption is that it only includes those journals that are evaluated with the highest quality. Currently, WoS includes more than 15.000 journals and 50.000.000 articles that encompass all fields of science. The material is classified by research categories and research areas. Today, there are approximately 250 categories that are grouped into 150 areas [12].

In order to search for articles that have focused on digital business research, the study uses the keywords “digital economy”, “digital business”, “digital technolog* “, “digital agenda”, “information econom*”, “knowledge econom*”, “digital organization”, “digital firm”, “e-commerce”, “e-business”, “digitization” and “internet of things” in the title, abstract and keywords of any work available in WoS between 1990 and 2015.

These keywords are used in order to capture as many possible combinations of terms related to digital business. This particular selection of keywords was determined following an internal discussion of the research team and consultations with a set of experts in digital business from the corporate and public policy worlds. As an additional filter, with the aim to focus on a managerial perspective, the following research areas are considered: Management, Business, Public Administration, Economics, Political Science, Social Issues, Planning and Development, Business Finance, Sociology, Social Sciences Interdisciplinary.

Our search, conducted in April 2016, found 3.005 publications, considering articles, reviews, notes and letters. Figure 1 presents the evolution of the number of papers published annually in digital business. It can be observed that, since 1999, following the burst of the dot-com bubble, there has been a steady growth in the number of scientific publications in digital business. This growth trend has not been constant over time, but it is clear that the interest for digital business by the scientific community continues to grow. In fact, we observed that only in one year, 2015, five times more articles were published than over the 1990s.

Fig. 1

Annual number of studies in digital business. Source: own elaboration.

Table 2 presents a citation structure in digital business research, showing the number of articles that reaches a certain citation threshold. The analysis considers the citation thresholds of 200, 100, 50, 20, 10, 5 and 1, over the period 1990–2015. The total number of citations obtained by papers published in each year is also included.

Table 2

Citation structure in digital business research

Year	≥200	≥100	≥50	≥20	≥10	≥5	≥1	TCDB	TPDB
1990	0	0	0	0	0	0	3	9	3
1991	0	0	1	1	1	2	5	85	5
1992	0	0	0	1	1	2	6	38	6
1993	0	1	1	1	3	3	7	167	7
1994	0	0	1	5	5	6	7	214	9
1995	0	0	0	1	3	4	10	97	10
1996	0	0	0	2	4	7	9	95	10
1997	0	0	2	3	3	7	12	223	14
1998	2	5	5	8	11	13	20	1,133	10
1999	1	2	5	13	20	24	27	945	16
2000	3	6	12	26	41	48	63	3,267	80
2001	7	14	30	64	83	104	127	6,118	138
2002	7	17	28	66	84	97	127	5,605	134
2003	9	18	28	77	108	131	149	8,451	154
2004	7	11	39	80	109	130	150	6,605	162
2005	1	7	20	76	114	145	174	4,405	180
2006	1	10	23	62	97	124	150	4,569	159
2007	0	3	13	61	89	126	164	3,238	174
2008	0	6	25	63	124	175	223	4,668	36
2009	0	4	19	57	118	174	252	4,100	273
2010	1	2	12	56	109	172	242	3,605	271
2011	0	0	7	41	101	148	236	2,770	283
2012	0	0	2	18	62	108	199	1,658	19
2013	0	0	1	6	35	94	206	1,261	247
2014	0	0	0	2	15	50	198	748	272
2015	0	0	0	0	1	9	113	214	333
Total	39	106	274	790	1,341	1,903	2,879	64,288	3,005
%	1%	4%	9%	26%	45%	63%	96%

TPDB = Number of publications in digital business research; TCDB = Number of citations in digital business research.

Interestingly, the first articles published in the nineties in digital business do not have a great influence on the scientific community. The papers published between 1998 and 2006 are those which have reached the greatest number of citations, surpassing 4,500 citations (on average), considering all papers published within those years. The latest papers of that period, i.e. those published in 2005 and 2006, have also reached an important number of citations, which highlights their remarkable influence, although more years of analysis are required to see if they will be as influential as those published after the dot-com bubble burst. As shown in Table 1, the most cited scientific papers in digital business research were all published between 1998 and 2006, and 90% of them were published between 2000 and 2005.

The following section provides a deeper analysis of the main characteristics of the articles in terms of their influence in the academic community, measured by the number of citations by journal and by authors.

4 Results

This section presents the main findings of the study. First, we analysed the most influential journals in digital business research according to WoS. Second, we analysed publications and citations according to the most influential authors. Our rankings are organized by h-index criteria.

4.1 Leading journals in digital business research

There are many scientific journals that publish material related to digital business research. Table 3 presents a list of the forty journals with the highest h-index in digital business research that publish articles under a managerial perspective.

Table 3
Most influential journals in digital business

R Journal TPDB TCDB HDB TC/TP % P TPG

1 Information &Management 98 3,228 32 32.9 6.6% 1,493

2 Journal of Management Information Systems 86 4,299 29 50.0 11.7% 734

3 International Journal of Electronic Commerce 124 3,606 28 29.1 30.5% 407

4 Information Systems Research 56 3,339 27 59.6 7.3% 766

5 MIS Quarterly 52 2,293 24 44.1 5.4% 966

6 Management Science 33 3,047 22 92.3 0.9% 3,498

7 Industrial Marketing Management 49 1,009 20 20.6 2.3% 2,124

8 Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 129 1,251 19 9.7 26.2% 492

9 Harvard Business Review 32 2,115 17 66.1 0.4% 7,465

10 Technovation 36 790 17 21.9 2.1% 1,687

11 European Journal of Operational Research 59 951 16 16.1 0.5% 12,860

12 Internet Research Electronic Netw. App. &Policy 45 670 16 14.,9 9.4% 477

13 Journal of Business Research 42 847 15 20.2 1.1% 3,737

14 International Journal of Operations Prod. Manag. 32 624 15 19.5 2.0% 1,591

15 Decision Sciences 26 534 15 20.5 2.5% 1,055

16 Research Policy 26 771 14 29.7 1.0% 2,515

17 Journal of Operations Management 25 660 14 26.4 3.5% 715

18 Internet Research 52 513 14 9.9 13.6% 383

19 Tourism Management 22 439 12 20 0.8% 2,850

20 Journal of Business Ethics 26 384 12 14.8 0.5% 5,775

21 Marketing Science 18 384 12 21.3 1.5% 1,181

22 Journal of Strategic Information Systems 24 715 11 29.8 5.2% 463

23 IEEE Transactions On Engineering Management 28 506 11 18.1 2.1% 1,327

24 Psychology Marketing 23 440 11 19.1 1.9% 1,243

25 European Planning Studies 28 410 11 14.6 1.8% 1,558

26 Supply Chain Management An Intern. Journal 23 373 11 16.2 3.8% 610

27 Journal of Electronic Commerce Research 59 337 11 5.7 32.8% 180

28 Economic Theory 30 276 11 9.2 1.6% 1,865

29 International Marketing Review 19 261 11 13.7 2.9% 657

30 Omega-International Journal of Management Sc. 16 1,294 10 80.9 0.9% 1,763

31 Electronic Commerce Research 47 265 10 5.6 27.0% 174

32 Information Technology &Management 27 198 10 7.3 12.7% 212

33 Journal of Retailing 17 1,240 9 72.9 2.2% 762

34 Technological Forecasting and Social Change 39 330 9 8.5 1.5% 2,651

35 International Journal of Technology Management 43 258 9 6 2.2% 1,970

36 Journal of Information Technology 27 226 8 8.4 4.0% 674

37 Service Industries Journal 31 196 8 6.3 1.7% 1,783

38 Management Decision 18 159 8 8.8 1.9% 965

39 Total Quality Management Business Excellence 17 169 7 9.9 1.5% 1,116

40 Inzinerine Ekonomika Engineering Economics 17 124 7 7.3 3.4% 500

R	Journal	TPDB	TCDB	HDB	TC/TP	% P	TPG
1	Information &Management	98	3,228	32	32.9	6.6%	1,493
2	Journal of Management Information Systems	86	4,299	29	50.0	11.7%	734
3	International Journal of Electronic Commerce	124	3,606	28	29.1	30.5%	407
4	Information Systems Research	56	3,339	27	59.6	7.3%	766
5	MIS Quarterly	52	2,293	24	44.1	5.4%	966
6	Management Science	33	3,047	22	92.3	0.9%	3,498
7	Industrial Marketing Management	49	1,009	20	20.6	2.3%	2,124
8	Electronic Commerce Research and Applications	129	1,251	19	9.7	26.2%	492
9	Harvard Business Review	32	2,115	17	66.1	0.4%	7,465
10	Technovation	36	790	17	21.9	2.1%	1,687
11	European Journal of Operational Research	59	951	16	16.1	0.5%	12,860
12	Internet Research Electronic Netw. App. &Policy	45	670	16	14.,9	9.4%	477
13	Journal of Business Research	42	847	15	20.2	1.1%	3,737
14	International Journal of Operations Prod. Manag.	32	624	15	19.5	2.0%	1,591
15	Decision Sciences	26	534	15	20.5	2.5%	1,055
16	Research Policy	26	771	14	29.7	1.0%	2,515
17	Journal of Operations Management	25	660	14	26.4	3.5%	715
18	Internet Research	52	513	14	9.9	13.6%	383
19	Tourism Management	22	439	12	20	0.8%	2,850
20	Journal of Business Ethics	26	384	12	14.8	0.5%	5,775
21	Marketing Science	18	384	12	21.3	1.5%	1,181
22	Journal of Strategic Information Systems	24	715	11	29.8	5.2%	463
23	IEEE Transactions On Engineering Management	28	506	11	18.1	2.1%	1,327
24	Psychology Marketing	23	440	11	19.1	1.9%	1,243
25	European Planning Studies	28	410	11	14.6	1.8%	1,558
26	Supply Chain Management An Intern. Journal	23	373	11	16.2	3.8%	610
27	Journal of Electronic Commerce Research	59	337	11	5.7	32.8%	180
28	Economic Theory	30	276	11	9.2	1.6%	1,865
29	International Marketing Review	19	261	11	13.7	2.9%	657
30	Omega-International Journal of Management Sc.	16	1,294	10	80.9	0.9%	1,763
31	Electronic Commerce Research	47	265	10	5.6	27.0%	174
32	Information Technology &Management	27	198	10	7.3	12.7%	212
33	Journal of Retailing	17	1,240	9	72.9	2.2%	762
34	Technological Forecasting and Social Change	39	330	9	8.5	1.5%	2,651
35	International Journal of Technology Management	43	258	9	6	2.2%	1,970
36	Journal of Information Technology	27	226	8	8.4	4.0%	674
37	Service Industries Journal	31	196	8	6.3	1.7%	1,783
38	Management Decision	18	159	8	8.8	1.9%	965
39	Total Quality Management Business Excellence	17	169	7	9.9	1.5%	1,116
40	Inzinerine Ekonomika Engineering Economics	17	124	7	7.3	3.4%	500

R = Ranking; TPDB = Number of publications in digital business research; TCDB = Number of citations to publications in digital business research; HDB = h-index in digital business research; TC/TP = TCDB over TPDB; % P = TPDB over TPG; TPG = Number of publications in all areas. Source: own elaboration.

According to Table 3, the most influential scientific journals in digital business research are Information Management, Information Systems Research and MIS Quarterly, Journal of Management Information Systems, and International Journal of Electronic Commerce. All of them are at the core of the IS area, and with the highest h-index in the discipline, not necessarily because they have published the most on digital business, but because they have more citations in relation to what has been published. It is worth highlighting two journals from Table 3. On the one hand, Electronic Commerce Research and Applications presents the greatest number of publications in digital business, although it does not have as many citations as the first five of the ranking. On the other hand, Harvard Business Review has the fewest publications within the top ten journals, but it presents one of greatest number of citations. This implies that the most productive journals are not necessarily the most influential in the discipline, and that more generalist management journals are also highly influential in the field.

When analysing the number of publications in digital business for each journal based on the total of number of publications of the journal in any area (% P in Table 3) we see that only four journals are considered specialized in the discipline. The four journals stand out because at least one quarter of their publications are in digital business: International Journal of Electronic Commerce, Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, and Electronic Commerce Research.

To complement this analysis, we mapped our sample of bibliographic material graphically by using the VOS viewer software [49]. This allowed us to develop different maps with co-citation and bibliographic coupling analysis of journal keywords.

Figure 2 presents co-citation analysis in the most published journals in digital business research for the period 1990–2015. Co-citation identifies the documents that receive citations from the same third documents, mapping the most cited sources and the connection between those cited by the same sources. Note that the size of the circle measures the number of citations received by other journals and the colour of the circle measure the relation with a particular cluster where journals share the reception of citations from third papers. It is worth noting that co-citation is defined as the frequency with which two documents are cited together by other documents (third paper).

Fig. 2

Co-citation journals in digital business research. Source: own elaboration.

As we can see in Figure 2, Journal of Management Information, International Journal of Electronic Commerce, MIS Quarterly, and Information and Management are the leading journals in the main networks or clusters of digital business research. The colours of Figure 2 clearly identify at least three groups of journals, which cite each other; hence, they show their influence in the scientific community.

Figure 3 presents a bibliographic coupling analysis of the journals for the period 1990–2015.

Fig. 3

Bibliographic Coupling journals in digital business research. Source: own elaboration.

Bibliographic coupling measures the number of times two documents cite the same third document, visualizing productivity and similarity in the reference profile. Note that the size of the circle measures the number of citations by the group of papers of a journal. Also, the colour of the circle indicates the relation with a particular cluster where journals share the same citations for a third paper.

This analysis shows that the main academic networks or clusters studying and publishing papers (productivity) in digital business research are organized around the following journals: Information Management, MIS Quarterly, International Journal of Electronic Commerce and Journal of Management Information. It is interesting to note that the connections show those journals that tend to cite the same bibliographic material.

4.2 Leading authors in digital business research

In this section we analyse the authors who have the most influence in digital business research for the period 1990–2015. Given the information presented, we will also be able to know which countries lead scientific research in digital business.

According to Table 4, the majority of the most influential authors in digital business research come from the USA, representing 80% within the top 10 authors in the ranking, and over 50% of all authors in our ranking. Interestingly, in this discipline authors from Asia (Singapore, Taiwan, China and South Korea) are also very relevant, representing at least one quarter of the authors in the ranking. Authors from Europe and Oceania are the most influential authors, while Latin America and Africa do not appear in the ranking of leading authors.

Table 4
Leading authors in digital business research

R Author Country TPDB TCDB HDB TC/TP % P TPG

1 Izak Benbasat Canada 20 697 14 34.85 37.74% 53

2 Paul A. Pavlou USA 11 1,893 11 172.09 29.73% 37

3 Robert J. Kauffman Singapore 16 383 9 23.94 45.71% 35

4 Nicholas C. Yannelis USA 19 227 9 11.95 43.18% 44

5 Kevin Zhu USA 8 1,359 8 169.88 16.67% 48

6 Varun Grover USA 10 369 7 36.90 18.18% 55

7 David Gefen USA 7 1,579 6 225.57 35.00% 20

8 Kenneth L. Kraemer USA 6 1,039 6 173.17 26.09% 23

9 Detmar W. Straub USA 6 731 6 121.83 25.00% 24

10 Andrew B. Whinston USA 9 384 6 42.67 16.67% 54

11 Ritu Agarwal USA 6 175 6 29.17 8.22% 73

12 Nitish Singh USA 8 148 6 18.50 23.53% 34

13 Alok Gupta USA 7 130 6 18.57 5.69% 123

14 Chao-Ton Su Taiwan 6 125 6 20.83 13.04% 46

15 Elaine Ramsey UK 8 112 6 14.00 88.89% 9

16 Leo Huang Taiwan 6 106 6 17.67 60.00% 10

17 Wendy W Moe USA 5 424 5 84.80 62.50% 8

18 T.C. Edwin Cheng China 5 245 5 49.00 8.20% 61

19 Hsueh-Hsien Chang Taiwan 6 177 5 29.50 75.00% 8

20 Raffaella Cagliano Italy 5 177 5 35.40 71.43% 7

21 Federico Caniato Italy 5 177 5 35.40 20.83% 24

22 Hsiu-Fen Lin Taiwan 8 161 5 20.13 10.13% 79

23 Suresh Kotha USA 5 159 5 31.80 50.00% 10

24 Andrea Ordanini Italy 6 150 5 25.00 27.27% 22

25 Ramayya Krishnan USA 6 141 5 23.50 22.22% 27

26 Patrick Mc Cole UK 6 100 5 16.67 85.71% 7

27 Yueh H. Chen Taiwan 6 95 5 15.83 28.57% 21

28 Vallabh Sambamurthy USA 7 351 4 50.14 46.67% 15

29 Anthony D Miyasaki USA 5 300 4 60.00 45.45% 11

30 Luis Garicano USA 5 242 4 48.40 27.78% 18

31 Sumeet Gupta India 5 129 4 25.80 6.17% 81

32 Paul Benjamin Lowry China 8 123 4 15.38 17.78% 45

33 Daekwan Kim USA 5 116 4 23.20 35.71% 14

34 Shyam Sunder USA 6 97 4 16.17 14.29% 42

35 Stefan Krasa USA 5 91 4 18.20 50.00% 10

36 Borisas Melnikas Lithuania 8 82 4 10.25 66.67% 12

37 Sangjae Lee South Korea 6 80 4 13.33 14.29% 42

38 Norm Archer Canada 5 65 4 13.00 27.78% 18

39 Jeffrey J. Reuer USA 7 64 4 9.14 20.00% 35

40 Jessica Lee Australia 7 51 4 7.29 25.93% 27

R	Author	Country	TPDB	TCDB	HDB	TC/TP	% P	TPG
1	Izak Benbasat	Canada	20	697	14	34.85	37.74%	53
2	Paul A. Pavlou	USA	11	1,893	11	172.09	29.73%	37
3	Robert J. Kauffman	Singapore	16	383	9	23.94	45.71%	35
4	Nicholas C. Yannelis	USA	19	227	9	11.95	43.18%	44
5	Kevin Zhu	USA	8	1,359	8	169.88	16.67%	48
6	Varun Grover	USA	10	369	7	36.90	18.18%	55
7	David Gefen	USA	7	1,579	6	225.57	35.00%	20
8	Kenneth L. Kraemer	USA	6	1,039	6	173.17	26.09%	23
9	Detmar W. Straub	USA	6	731	6	121.83	25.00%	24
10	Andrew B. Whinston	USA	9	384	6	42.67	16.67%	54
11	Ritu Agarwal	USA	6	175	6	29.17	8.22%	73
12	Nitish Singh	USA	8	148	6	18.50	23.53%	34
13	Alok Gupta	USA	7	130	6	18.57	5.69%	123
14	Chao-Ton Su	Taiwan	6	125	6	20.83	13.04%	46
15	Elaine Ramsey	UK	8	112	6	14.00	88.89%	9
16	Leo Huang	Taiwan	6	106	6	17.67	60.00%	10
17	Wendy W Moe	USA	5	424	5	84.80	62.50%	8
18	T.C. Edwin Cheng	China	5	245	5	49.00	8.20%	61
19	Hsueh-Hsien Chang	Taiwan	6	177	5	29.50	75.00%	8
20	Raffaella Cagliano	Italy	5	177	5	35.40	71.43%	7
21	Federico Caniato	Italy	5	177	5	35.40	20.83%	24
22	Hsiu-Fen Lin	Taiwan	8	161	5	20.13	10.13%	79
23	Suresh Kotha	USA	5	159	5	31.80	50.00%	10
24	Andrea Ordanini	Italy	6	150	5	25.00	27.27%	22
25	Ramayya Krishnan	USA	6	141	5	23.50	22.22%	27
26	Patrick Mc Cole	UK	6	100	5	16.67	85.71%	7
27	Yueh H. Chen	Taiwan	6	95	5	15.83	28.57%	21
28	Vallabh Sambamurthy	USA	7	351	4	50.14	46.67%	15
29	Anthony D Miyasaki	USA	5	300	4	60.00	45.45%	11
30	Luis Garicano	USA	5	242	4	48.40	27.78%	18
31	Sumeet Gupta	India	5	129	4	25.80	6.17%	81
32	Paul Benjamin Lowry	China	8	123	4	15.38	17.78%	45
33	Daekwan Kim	USA	5	116	4	23.20	35.71%	14
34	Shyam Sunder	USA	6	97	4	16.17	14.29%	42
35	Stefan Krasa	USA	5	91	4	18.20	50.00%	10
36	Borisas Melnikas	Lithuania	8	82	4	10.25	66.67%	12
37	Sangjae Lee	South Korea	6	80	4	13.33	14.29%	42
38	Norm Archer	Canada	5	65	4	13.00	27.78%	18
39	Jeffrey J. Reuer	USA	7	64	4	9.14	20.00%	35
40	Jessica Lee	Australia	7	51	4	7.29	25.93%	27

TPDB = Number of publications in digital business research; TCDB = Number of citations regarding publications in digital business research; HDB = h-index in digital business research; TC/TP = TCDB over TPDB; % P = TP over TPG; TPG = Number of publications in all areas.

The results indicate that the most influential researchers over the last 26 years, according to their h-index, are Izak Benbasat, Paul Pavlou, Robert Kauffman, Nicholas Yannelis, Kevin Zhu, Varun Grover, David Gefen, Kenneth Kraemer, Detmar Straub, Andrew Whinston, Ritu Agarwal, Nitish Singh, Alok Gupta, Chao-Ton Su, Elaine Ramsey and Leo Huang. In this select group, there are authors who are particularly relevant and have specialized in digital business (see % P, that represents the total publications in digital business of an author over the total publications of the same author). In fact, Elaine Ramsey, Leo Huang and Wendy Moe wrote more than 50% of their papers focusing on digital business research.

Figure 4 presents co-citation analysis for the most published authors in digital business research.

Paul A. Pavlou, David Gefen, Claes Fornell and Michael Porter are the leading authors in the main clusters of digital business research (This means that digital business articles frequently cite them). The colours of Figure 4 clearly identify at least three groups of journals, which cite each other; hence, they show their influence in the scientific community. In the case of Pavlou and Gefen, they are the most influential authors in the cluster that represents an “information systems focus”. In the case of Fornell, he is the most influential author in the cluster of “marketing or customer intimacy focus”. Finally, Porter is the most influential author in the cluster of “Business Strategy focus”.

Fig. 4

Co-citation authors in digital business research. Source: own elaboration.

5 Conclusions

To the best of our knowledge, this study presents the first effort within bibliometric analysis to offer a panoramic view of scientific research in the multidisciplinary field of digital business. First, the analysis focuses on studying the increase in the number of scientific publications in the Web of Science (WoS) on digital business between 1990 and 2015. Subsequently, the most influential journals in the discipline are analysed. The analysis of journals highlights the existence of generalist journals (i.e., not specialized in a narrow topic) that were the first to begin publishing scientific articles on digital business, particularly in the 1990s. After the year 2000, a series of journals specialized in digital business emerged, covering academic topics within the field of information systems and technologies, which began to publish a large number of scientific items on the discipline, and consequently led to their immense growth in terms of number of publications and citations.

Digital business research is becoming a discipline of great interest worldwide, reflecting the wide-ranging socioeconomic implications of the digital transformation. The topics being studied are varied, including e-commerce applications, digital technologies, Internet supply and demand, economic frictions and new markets, or government policy to promote a digital economy, going far beyond IT but encompassing the topics included in Management Information Systems.

It is interesting to understand the way in which information systems and technologies are approached in the academic literature. Firstly, with studies from the specialized journals in Management Information Systems that present new technologies or new systems that support decision making processes or knowledge generation from data. Secondly, with studies from the marketing area, that look into how information is channelled to users and customers through social networks and media. Third, through the area of operations, which analyses how different information systems can help to optimize working times and financial results in companies. Fourth, from innovation research, attempting to demonstrate how the effects of new processes, products or services improve people’s quality of life. As in other fields of research, our journals and authors rankings suggest that other complementary disciplines are also needed to investigate Digital Business to generate a robust corpus of knowledge that strengthens the research area. Among these other areas are: ethics, business, supply chain, tourism, etc. Consequently, it is important that the field of digital business research expands beyond artificial boundaries, embracing a more multidisciplinary perspective to properly assess the multidimensional nature of its economic and social impacts, to consider for example information security and privacy from the legal perspective, the development of smart cities with an architectural view, or sustainable growth in the case of environmental research.

Along with the study of the most influential journals, this work also analyses the most influential authors in the discipline. Interestingly, although U.S. authors appear in the first places of our ranking, they are not the most productive in the discipline. It is also interesting to note that a number of non-American authors, particularly Asian, hold a privileged position in digital business research because they are publishing a large number of articles in high quality scientific journals, as well as receiving increasing attention and citations from their academic peers. The latter is very different from what happens in other scientific disciplines, where authors from U.S. universities completely dominate productivity and influence rankings. This implies that, in the discipline of digital business, authors from different regions in the world, collaborate in an interdisciplinary manner to promote knowledge generation and transfer in digital business research, which has occurred in its core fundamental areas such as business, commerce, and information systems.

The present study has some limitations. On the one hand, even though the WoS is recognized as the most important database of scientific papers by the scientific community, it is not fully exhaustive. Our analysis, in this sense, might be complemented with other relevant databases such as Scopus. On the other hand, our study does not analyse in depth the topics addressed in the field of digital business. To that end, more systematic and qualitative analyses of the knowledge base of these contributions would be required. This is the course that future work should undertake.

References

Nathan

and Rosso

, Mapping digital businesses with big data: Some early findings from the UK, Research Policy44(9) (2015), 1714–1733.

OECD, Guide to Measuring the Information Society, OECD 2011, Paris.

OECD, Measuring the internet economy: A contribution to the research agenda, In OECD Digital Economy Papers 226 2013, OECD Publishing.

Yoo

, Boland

R.J.

, Lyytinen

and Majchrzak

, Organizing for innovation in the digitized world, Organization Science23 (2012), 1398–1408.

OECD, Digital Economy Outlook 2015, OECD Publishing 2015, Paris.

Cancino

C.A.

, Merigó

J.M.

, Coronado

, Dessouky

and Dessouky

, Forty years of Computers & Industrial Engineering: A bibliometric analysis, Computers & Industrial Engineering113(11) (2017), 614–629.

Cancino

C.A.

, La Paz

, Ramaprasad

and Thant

, Technological Innovation for Sustainable Growth: An ontological perspective, Journal of Cleaner Production179 (2018), 31–41.

Cancino

C.A.

, Merigó

J.M.

and Coronado

, A Bibliometric Analysis of Leading Universities in Innovation Research, Journal of Innovation & Knowledge2(3) (2017), 106–124.

Cancino

, Merigó

J.M.

and Coronado

, Big names in innovation research: A bibliometric overview, Current Science13(8) (2017), 1507–1518.

10.

Fagerberg

and Verspagen

, Innovation studies: The emerging structure of a new scientific field, Research Policy38 (2009), 218–233.

11.

Fagerberg

, Fosaas

and Sapprasert

, Innovation: Exploring the knowledge base, Research Policy41 (2012), 1132–1153.

12.

Merigó

J.M.

, Cancino

C.A.

, Coronado

F.C.

and Urbano

, Academic research in innovation: A country analysis, Scientometrics108(2) (2016), 559–593.

13.

Podsakoff

P.M.

, MacKenzie

S.B.

, Podsakoff

N.P.

and Bachrach

D.G.

, 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 Management34 (2008), 641–720.

14.

Blanco-Mesa

, Merigó

J.M.

and Gil-Lafuente

A.M.

, Fuzzy decision making: A bibliometric-based review, Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems32(3) (2017), 2033–2050.

15.

Merigó

J. M.

, Blanco-Mesa

, Gil-Lafuente

A. M.

and Yager

R.R.

, Thirty years of the International Journal of Intelligent Systems: A bibliometric review, International Journal of Intelligent Systems32(5) (2017), 526–554.

16.

Lerner

, Brynjolfsson

, Kahin

, Small Business, Innovation and Public Policy in the Information Technology Industry. Understanding the Digital Economy, Data, Tools and Research, MIT Press (2000), Cambridge.

17.

Childers

T.L.

, Carr

C.L.

, Peck

and Carson

, Hedonic and utilitarian motivations for online retail shopping behavior, Journal of Retailing77 (2001), 511–535.

18.

Amit

, Zott

, Value Creation in E-Business. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6/7), Special Issue: Strategic Entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial Strategies for Wealth Creation (2001), 493–520.

19.

Word Bank, World Development Report 2016: Digital Dividends, World Bank, 2016, Washington DC.

20.

Schwab

, Will the Fourth Industrial Revolution have a human heart? World Economic Forum Bog, 2016.

21.

Bharadwaj

, El Sawy

O.A.

, Pavlou

P.A.

and Venkatraman

, Digital business strategy: Toward a next generation of insights, MIS Quarterly37(2) (2013), 471–482.

22.

Wall

, Jagdev

and Browne

, A review of e-Business and digital business-applications, models and trends, Production Planning & Control18(3) (2007), 239–260.

23.

Corrocher

, The adoption of Web 2.0 services: An empirical investigation, Technological Forecasting and Social Change78 (2011), 547–558.

24.

Dodgson

, Gann

and Salter

, The role of technology in the shift towards open innovation: The case of Procter & Gamble, R&D Management36 (2006), 333–346.

25.

West

and Lakhani

K.R.

, Getting clear about communities in open innovation, Industry and Innovation15 (2008), 223–231.

26.

Zhu

and Kraemer

K.L.

, Post-adoption variations in usage and value of e-business by organizations: Cross-country evidence from the retail industry, Information systems research16(1) (2005), 61–84.

27.

OECD, Science, Technology and Innovation Outlook. Paris: OECD 2016 Publishing.

28.

Goldfarb

, Greenstein

S.M.

, Tucker

C.E.

, Introduction to Economic Analysis of the Digital Economy. In: Avi Goldfarb, Shane M. Greenstein, and Catherine E. Tucker (Eds), Economic Analysis of the Digital Economy, National Bureau of Economic Research 2015, University of Chicago Press.

29.

Guellec

, Paunov

, Digital Innovation and the Distribution of Income, National Bureau of Economic Research. No. w23987 2017.

30.

DeLone

W.H.

and McLean

E.R.

, The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: A ten-year update, Journal of Management Information Systems19(4) (2003), 9–30.

31.

Wenger

E.C.

and Snyder

W.M.

, Communities of practice: The organizational frontier, Harvard Business Review78(1) (2000), 139.

32.

Dellarocas

, The digitization of word of mouth: Promise and challenges of online feedback mechanisms, Management Science49(10) (2003), 1407–1424.

33.

Gefen

, E-commerce: The role of familiarity and trust, OMEGA28(6) (2000), 725–737.

34.

Pavlou

P.A.

, Consumer Acceptance of Electronic Commerce: Integrating Trust and Risk with the Technology Acceptance Model, International Journal of Electronic Commerce7(3) (2003), 101–134.

35.

Reichheld

F.F.

and Schefter

, E-Loyalty: Your Secret Weapon on the Web, Harvard Business Review78(4) (2000), 105–113.

36.

Pavlou

P.A.

and Gefen

, Building Effective Online Marketplaces with Institution-Based Trust, Information Systems Research15(1) (2004), 37–59.

37.

Okoli1

and Pawlowski

S.D.

, The Delphi Method as a Research Tool: An Example, Design Considerations and Applications, Information & Management42(1) (2004), 15–29.

38.

Pavlou

P.A.

and Fygenson

, Understanding and Predicting Electronic Commerce Adoption: An Extension of the Theory of Planned Behavior, MIS Quarterly30(1) (2006), 115–143.

39.

Srinivasan

S.S.

, Andersona

and Ponnavolu

, Customer loyalty in e-commerce: An exploration of its antecedents and consequences, Journal of Retailing78 (2002), 41–50.

40.

Hsu

C.L.

and Lu

H.P.

, Why do people play on-line games? An extended TAM with social influences and flow experience, Information & Management41 (2004), 853–868.

41.

Elmaghraby

and Keskinocak

, Dynamic Pricing in the Presence of Inventory Considerations: Research Overview, Current. Practices, and Future Directions, Management Science49(10) (2003), 1287–1309.

42.

Devaraj

, Fan

and Kohli

, Antecedents of B2C Channel Satisfaction and Preference: Validating e-Commerce Metrics, Information Systems Research13(3) (2002), 316–333.

43.

Amabile

T.M.

, How to kill creativity, Harvard Business Review, Sept-Oct (1998), 77–87.

44.

Lee

M.K.

and Turban

, A Trust Model for Consumer Internet Shopping, International Journal of Electronic Commerce6(1) (2001), 75–91.

45.

Goldenberg

, Libai

and Muller

, Talk of the Network: A Complex Systems Look at the Underlying Process of Word-of-Mouth, Marketing Letters12(3) (2001), 211–223.

46.

Malhotra

N.K.

, Kim

S.S.

and Agarwal

, Internet Users’ Information Privacy Concerns (IUIPC): The Construct, the Scale, and a Causal Model, Information Systems Research15(4) (2004), 336–355.

47.

Broadus

R.N.

, Toward a definition of “Bibliometrics”, Scientometrics12 (1987), 373–379.

48.

Hirsch

J.E.

, An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America102 (2005), 16569–16572.

49.

Van Eck

N.J.

and Waltman

, Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping, Scientometrics84 (2010), 523–538.