Editorial board interlocking in knowledge management and intellectual capital research field

Teixeira, Eduardo Künzel; Oliveira, Mírian

doi:10.1007/s11192-018-2937-x

Cited by 20 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…, 2018). They concluded that it is the most productive (Breznik, 2018), highly influential (Teixeira and Oliveira, 2018), balanced (Handzic, 2015) and geographically inclusive (Handzic and Durmic, 2013) journal that publishes positivist empirical papers (Ngulube, 2015) and emphasizes knowledge sharing and transfer topics (Raza and Malik, 2018) do not generally publish in top KM-centric journals (Handzic and Durmic, 2013).…”

Section: Major Insights Of Scientometric Knowledge Management Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nevertheless, there is room for improvement. Presently, KM exhibits an insufficient level of intradisciplinary consensus, cohesion and communication (Teixeira and Oliveira, 2018). It lacks a common vocabulary, definitions and terminology (Fteimi and Lehner, 2013;Gavrilova and Kubelskiy, 2018): more than 100 definitions of KM exist which vary depending on the application context (Girard and Girard, 2015).…”

Section: 84mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A structured literature review of scientometric research of the knowledge management discipline: a 2021 update

Serenko

2021

JKM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this study is to conduct a structured literature review of scientometric research of the knowledge management (KM) discipline for the 2012–2019 time period. Design/methodology/approach A total of 175 scientometric studies of the KM discipline were identified and analyzed. Findings Scientometric KM research has entered the maturity stage: its volume has been growing, reaching six publications per month in 2019. Scientometric KM research has become highly specialized, which explains many inconsistent findings, and the interests of scientometric KM researchers and their preferred inquiry methods have changed over time. There is a dangerous trend toward a monopoly of the scholarly publishing market which affects researchers’ behavior. To create a list of keywords for database searches, scientometric KM scholars should rely on the formal KM keyword classification schemes, and KM-centric peer-reviewed journals should continue welcoming manuscripts on scientometric topics. Practical implications Stakeholders should realize that the KM discipline may successfully exist as a cluster of divergent schools of thought under an overarching KM umbrella and that the notion of intradisciplinary cohesion and consistency should be abandoned. Journal of Knowledge Management is unanimously recognized as a leading KM journal, but KM researchers should not limit their focus to the body of knowledge documented in the KM-centric publication forums. The top six most productive countries are the USA, the UK, Taiwan, Canada, Australia and China. There is a need for knowledge brokers that may deliver the KM academic body of knowledge to practitioners. Originality/value This is the most comprehensive, up-to-date analysis of the KM discipline.

show abstract

Section: Major Insights Of Scientometric Knowledge Management Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: 84mentioning

confidence: 99%

A structured literature review of scientometric research of the knowledge management discipline: a 2021 update

Serenko

2021

JKM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This journal expressed the views of an engaged network of specialists situated partly in teacher education institutions and partly in teacher organizations before the academic field of "education" had become established. Saether (2011), who has written extensively about the evolution of Norwegian educational sciences, suggests the following "regimes" are applicable to the Norwegian discourse on education: the technocratic regime versus the critical humanist regime. It is evident that he is describing five different lines of thinking: 1) the liberal progressive tradition, 2) the socialist tradition, 3) the political instrumental tradition, 4) the Christian conservative tradition and 5) the anti-authoritarian tradition (Saether, 2011, pp.…”

Section: Previous Research On Morphologies Expressed In Norwegian Journalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…How does it relate to the division between technocratic or humanist values? Can it be related to the liberal progressive tradition, a socialist tradition, the political instrumental tradition, the Christian conservative tradition or an anti-authoritarian tradition (Saether, 2011) all of which are specific to the Norwegian (and Nordic) tradition? How is it possible to establish theoretical positions, purposes and intentions, or traits that suggest that the weaknesses described above -namely, the lack of historical and political contextualisation, positivist claims and lack of constructive attempts -foster theoretical coherence?…”

Section: Researching Journals Of Educational Technology: Morphongenic Investigationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the expression of hegemony in the field of educational technology

Haugsbakk¹,

Nordkvelle²

2020

seminar

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article has emerged from a project aiming at gaining an overview of actors and key figures, their perspectives and results after more than 30 years of ambitious governmental efforts to introduce computer technology in school. The main focus of the article is on what we consider to be dominant arguments, discourses and issues related to the hegemonization of meaning formation. Our line of reasoning is based primarily on a case study of the leading journal in the field of educational technology in Norway over the last fifteen years, the Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy. This is a mainstream research journal, which publishes peer-reviewed articles. However, being subject to the Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research, it represents a rather interesting case for interrogating the issue of hegemony. Placing the journal’s policy at the forefront, the focus of our analysis will be on the editorials. The main findings, based on issues of the journal over the first ten years are that the editorials are in keeping with what can be regarded as the political priorities and the prevailing political discourses in the field. They contain relatively few, if any, critical perspectives and scant reference is made to the research articles and research area it claims to serve. The method used is document analysis, inspired by discourse-analytic approaches.

show abstract

“…Анализ науки и смежных областей изложенными в статье методами теории графов применялся исследователями и ранее [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]. Например, в [1] приводится анализ работы рецензента в редколлегии нескольких научных журналов и его связь с научной деятельностью в вузе.…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

On relations in science: the case of the scientific journal editorial board

Bolshakov

2021

Nauka i nauchnaya informatsiya

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article analyses the connections between members of the editorial board of a scientific journal which are formed based on their reviews of scientific articles. It is shown that the connections can be represented as a graph. The research uses the data for six years of article reviewing in the scientific and technical Journal of "Almaz — Antey" Air and Space Defence Corporation.The methods of analysis are combinatorics and graph theory, as well as the relevant graph characteristics: adjacency matrix, incidence matrix, reachability matrix, graph fullness and connectivity, nearest neighbours graph and graph spanning tree.It is shown that cooperation of the reviewers of the Journal helps plot a connected graph with links between any two vertices, i.e. between any reviewers.The graph is analysed and the methods of its application to calculate the Journal’s scientometric indicators are demonstrated. As the research reveals, a journal that publishes articles in numerous disciplines forms connections between all reviewers and this parameter can be indicative of interchangeability within the scientific fields or, conversely, of a joint work in this scientific field when reviewing manuscripts. Based on the research results, it is possible to search for new reviewers in the areas where competencies are underdeveloped. And by the areas where competencies are strong, we can determine the core competence of the reviewers of a scientific journal, reflecting the main focus of the evaluated scientific research.The work resulted in the formulated scientometric indicators of the journal, which can be used to search for and involve new reviewers or to represent data on a strong team of reviewers on a specific topic, as well as on a new scientific field just emerging for research.

show abstract

Editorial board interlocking in knowledge management and intellectual capital research field

Cited by 20 publications

References 37 publications

A structured literature review of scientometric research of the knowledge management discipline: a 2021 update

A structured literature review of scientometric research of the knowledge management discipline: a 2021 update

On the expression of hegemony in the field of educational technology

On relations in science: the case of the scientific journal editorial board

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About