The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Supply chain management: a structured literature review and implications for future research
Open accessAbstract
Purpose: The field of supply chain management (SCM) has historically been informed by knowledge from narrow functional areas. While some effort towards producing a broader organizational perspective has been made, nonetheless, SCM continues to be largely eclectic with little consensus on its conceptualization and research methodological bases. This paper seeks to clarify aspects of this emerging perspective. Design/methodology/approach: A total of 100 randomly selected refereed journal articles were systematically analyzed. Findings: A number of key findings emerged: the field is a relatively “new” one; several disciplines claim ownership of the field; consensus is lacking on the definition of the term; contextual focus is mostly on the manufacturing industry; predominantly “process” conceptual framing prevails; research methods employed are mostly analytical conceptual, empirical surveys or case studies; the positivist research paradigmatic stance is prevalent; and theories related to transaction cost economics and competitive advantage dominate. Originality/value: This review identifies various conceptual and research methodological characteristics of SCM. From a philosophy of knowledge perspective, it is suggested that SCM be framed as a Lakatosian Research Program, for this has the best potential to assist in the development of SCM body of knowledge in a sustainable way into the future.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes
Lakatos, I. (1970) · Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139171434.009 · Cited by 4,649
Purchasing's Role in Environmental Management: Cross‐Functional Development of Grounded Theory
Carter, C. R., & Dresner, M. (2001) · Journal of Supply Chain Management · doi:10.1111/j.1745-493x.2001.tb00102.x · Cited by 384
Cited by
Adams, R. J., Smart, P., & Huff, A. S. (2017) · International Journal of Management Reviews · doi:10.1111/ijmr.12102 · Cited by 995
Theories in sustainable supply chain management: A structured literature review
Touboulic, A., & Walker, H. (2015) · International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management · doi:10.1108/ijpdlm-05-2013-0106 · Cited by 688
Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., & Lai, K.-H. (2012) · International Journal of Production Research · doi:10.1080/00207543.2011.571937 · Cited by 614
The evolution and future of lean Six Sigma 4.0
Antony, J., McDermott, O., Powell, D., & Sony, M. (2023) · The TQM Journal · doi:10.1108/tqm-04-2022-0135 · Cited by 124
Bask, A., & Rajahonka, M. (2017) · International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management · doi:10.1108/ijpdlm-03-2017-0127 · Cited by 116
Metadata
- Authors
- Burgess, K., Singh, P. J., & Koroglu, R.
- Venue
- International Journal of Operations & Production Management
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2006-07-01
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 703-729
- ISSN
- 0144-3577 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1581009385
- Cited by
- 754
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 34.81
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Supply chain management: a structured literature review and implications for future research. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1108/01443570610672202
- The paper
- Burgess, K., Singh, P. J., & Koroglu, R. (2006). Supply chain management: a structured literature review and implications for future research. International Journal of Operations & Production Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570610672202
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.