The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A scientometric analysis of knowledge management and intellectual capital academic literature (1994‐2008)
Abstract
Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this study is to conduct a scientometric analysis of the body of literature contained in 11 major knowledge management and intellectual capital (KM/IC) peer‐reviewed journals. Design/methodology/approach – A total of 2,175 articles published in 11 major KM/IC peer‐reviewed journals were carefully reviewed and subjected to scientometric data analysis techniques. Findings – A number of research questions pertaining to country, institutional and individual productivity, co‐operation patterns, publication frequency, and favourite inquiry methods were proposed and answered. Based on the findings, many implications emerged that improve one's understanding of the identity of KM/IC as a distinct scientific field. Research limitations/implications – The pool of KM/IC journals examined did not represent all available publication outlets, given that at least 20 peer‐reviewed journals exist in the KM/IC field. There are also KM/IC papers published in other non‐KM/IC specific journals. However, the 11 journals that were selected for the study have been evaluated by Bontis and Serenko as the top publications in the KM/IC area. Practical implications – Practitioners have played a significant role in developing the KM/IC field. However, their contributions have been decreasing. There is still very much a need for qualitative descriptions and case studies. It is critically important that practitioners consider collaborating with academics for richer research projects. Originality/value – This is the most comprehensive scientometric analysis of the KM/IC field ever conducted.
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
The Matthew Effect in Science: The reward and communication systems of science are considered.
Merton, R. K. (1968) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.159.3810.56 · Cited by 6,720
Garfield, E. (1972) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.178.4060.471 · Cited by 2,788 · cited 2×
“Scientometrics developed out of work by prominent researchers including Robert King Merton, Derek J. de Solla Price and Eugene Garfield (Price, 1963; Garfield, 1972; Merton, 1973, 1976; Garfield, 1979).”
BackgroundThe Matthew Effect in Science, II: Cumulative Advantage and the Symbolism of Intellectual Property
Merton, R. K. (1988) · Isis · doi:10.1086/354848 · Cited by 1,397
A Critical Perspective on Action Research as a Method for Information Systems Research
Baskerville, R. L., & Wood-Harper, A. T. (1996) · Journal of Information Technology · doi:10.1177/026839629601100305 · Cited by 390
Cited by
Knowledge management in higher education: A literature review and further research avenues
Quarchioni, S., Paternostro, S., & Trovarelli, F. (2022) · Knowledge Management Research & Practice · doi:10.1080/14778238.2020.1730717 · Cited by 131
Metadata
- Authors
- Serenko, A., Bontis, N., Booker, L., Sadeddin, K., & Hardie, T.
- Venue
- Journal of Knowledge Management
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2010-02-23
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 3-23
- ISSN
- 1367-3270 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2103765116
- Cited by
- 331
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 19.85
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: A scientometric analysis of knowledge management and intellectual capital academic literature (1994‐2008). https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1108/13673271011015534
- The paper
- Serenko, A., Bontis, N., Booker, L., Sadeddin, K., & Hardie, T. (2010). A scientometric analysis of knowledge management and intellectual capital academic literature (1994‐2008). Journal of Knowledge Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673271011015534
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.