Growth and structure of authorship and co-authorship network in the strategic management realm: Evidence from the Strategic Management Journal

Köseoglu, Mehmet Ali Article Growth and structure of authorship and co-authorship network in the strategic management realm: Evidence from the Strategic Management Journal BRQ Business Research Quarterly Provided in Cooperation with: Asociación Científica de Economía y Dirección de Empresas (ACEDE), Madrid Suggested Citation: Köseoglu, Mehmet Ali (2016) : Growth and structure of authorship and coauthorship network in the strategic management realm: Evidence from the Strategic Management Journal, BRQ Business Research Quarterly, ISSN 2340-9436, Elsevier España, Barcelona, Vol. 19, Iss. 3, pp. 153-170, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brq.2016.02.001 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/206344 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ BRQ Business Research Quarterly (2016) 19, 153---170 www.elsevier.es/brq BRQ Business Research Quarterly ARTICLE Growth and structure of authorship and co-authorship network in the strategic management realm: Evidence from the Strategic Management Journal Mehmet Ali Koseoglua,b aCollage of Business Administration, American University of the Middle East, Egalia, Kuwait bBusiness School, Yildirim Beyazit Univeristy, Ankara, Turkey Received 18 May 2015; accepted 13 February 2016 Available online 19 March 2016 JEL CLASSIFICATION M10; M19; D85 KEYWORDS Co-authorship; Strategic Management Journal; Social network analysis; Small world; Bibliometrics Abstract The main objective of this study is to investigate the intellectual structure and evolution of author collaborations from articles published in the Strategic Management Journal between 1980 and 2014. This assessment includes the general view of authorship, authorship patterns, author productivity, ranking of authors, visualization of the co-authorship network, comparison of strategic management co-authorship network attributes with those of other disciplines, the evolution of main components and core authors in the networks by period, discussions on whether the strategic management network fits with the small world network theory, individual network attributes such as degree centrality, Bonacich’s power index, closeness centrality, and betweenness centrality. Finally, the authors provide an inclusive evaluation of the results, limitations, and suggestions for future research. © 2016 ACEDE. Published by Elsevier España, S.L.U. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Introduction The main purpose of this study is to explore and visualize the evolution of collaboration among researchers in the academic discipline of strategic management (SM). The authors vet the dynamics of SM authorship networks from articles published in Strategic Management Journal (SMJ) via bibliometrics analysis --- a co-authorship analysis. E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected] Collaboration has increased among researchers in studies, herein scientific research, (Cronin et al., 2003, 2004); hence, collaboration is sought by researchers to explain its meaning, boundary, costs, benefits, and measurement attributes (Katz and Martin, 1997; Laudel, 2002; Sonnenwald, 2007). On the other hand, this collaboration in various disciplines established research communities that constitute social networks. Since social networks positively help researchers to create or share knowledge (Borgman and Furner, 2002; Lin, 2001), they are used to identify the knowledge domain of disciplines. To explore the collaboration roots of disciplines, social network analysis is examined http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.brq.2016.02.001 2340-9436/© 2016 ACEDE. Published by Elsevier España, S.L.U. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). 154 M.A. Koseoglu by using co-occurrence analysis referred to as bibliometrics analysis, including author co-citation, co-authorship (employed herein), and co-word analysis (Leydesdorff and Vaughan, 2006; Otte and Rousseau, 2002; Owen-Smith et al., 2002). In recent years, a number of studies have been conducted to reveal the evolution of collaboration and networks and to identify key actors as either individuals or groups and to demonstrate the relationships among these actors, or relationships between indicators of these networks and actors’ outputs (see Fatt et al., 2010; Lu et al., 2010; Perianes-Rodríhuez et al., 2010; Said et al., 2008). Therefore, the interest in management and organization literature (Ferreira et al., 2014; Zupic and ˇ Cater, 2015) has increased. The evolution based on epistemology and the knowledge domain or collaboration roots of SM as a young academic discipline has been assessed in a number of studies via qualitative (review, or content analysis) and quantitative (bibliometric) methods. Qualitative research methods have examined the evolution of SM focus on macro and micro foundations of the field (Guerras-Martín et al., 2014; Molina- Azorín, 2014), epistemology of SM (Antonio, 2013; Powell, 2001; Boyd et al., 2012), definitions of SM or strategy (Fréry, 2006; Nag et al., 2007) and methodologies and statistical techniques employed in SM research (Armstrong and Shimizu, 2007; Bergh and Fairbank, 2002; Boyd et al., 2005b, Boyd et al., 2005c; Brahma, 2009; Hahn and Doh, 2006; Hotker, 2006; Ketchen et al., 2008; Short et al., 2002). Several quantitative studies have explored the intellectual and/or collaboration roots of SM by utilizing bibliometric methods. For example, co-citation analyses (see Nerur et al., 2015; Tan and Ding, 2015; Ramos-Rodriguez and Ruiz-Navarro, 2004; Nerur et al., 2008, Pilkington and Lawton, 2014; Di Stefano et al., 2010; Acedo et al., 2006b), bibliographic coupling analysis (Vogel and Güttel, 2013), multiple correspondence analysis (Furrer et al., 2008), coauthorship analysis (Ronda-Pupo and Guerras-Martín, 2010), and co-word analysis (Ronda-Pupo and Guerras-Martín, 2012) have been applied to identify changes in the intellectual structure of SM. Although there is an abundance of articles assessing the historical roots and evolution of SM (Kenworthy and Verbeke, 2015), the evolution of collaboration, particularly authorship and co-authorship, in the SM realm has not been previously addressed. Therefore, research focusing on the evolution of collaborations in the SM is needed. In this respect, for new and established researchers (Fernandez-Alles and Ramos-Rodríguez, 2009), the research objectives of this study are: • to explore the evolution of authorship in the SM field by sub-periods. • to visualize and identify the topologies of the overall coauthorship network of SM research to determine whether the networks in the SM field reflect the characteristics of a ‘‘small world’’ approach -reflecting the characteristics of social networks (Watts and Strogatz, 1998). • to compare attributes of SM networks with those of other disciplines. • to identify critical researchers in the co-authorship network of SM research. The study is structured as follows. The first section is a review of the literature on bibliometrics and co-authorship, and an overview of bibliometric research in SM. The second section presents the methodology to explain how the database, document types, and journal were selected, and how the data were prepared and analyzed. In the third section, the authors present and discuss the results, focusing on the authorship patterns, author productivity, and ranking of authors, followed by a presentation of co-authorship by periods, a discussion of main component and core authors by periods, and an assessment of whether SM fits with a small-world network approach. Centrality metrics, including degree centrality, Bonacich’s power index, closeness centrality, and betweenness centrality are evaluated. Finally, an inclusive evaluation of the results, limitations, and suggestions for future research is presented. Literature review Bibliometrics and co-authorship Bibliometrics is a set of statistical methods to investigate the evolution of the sciences and/or disciplines by assessing the publication performance of authors and institutions and by mapping the structure and dynamics of the fields via data (e.g. citations, author names, key words, employed methods, used statistical techniques, etc.) obtained from written publications including books, journals, proceedings, articles, etc. (Cobo et al., 2011; McBurney and Novak, 2002; Ye et al., 2012; Zupic and ˇ Cater, 2015). Hence, it helps researchers minimize potential subjective biases, validate expert inferences, highlight leading thoughts and the interrelated connections between them (Nerur et al., 2008), correct errors of perception on history of various sciences, and scrutinize traditional dogmas (Callon et al., 1993) when they analyze the evolution of sciences. Bibliometrics methods are categorized into two groups (Benckendorff and Zehrer, 2013). One group is called evaluative techniques and includes productivity measures (e.g. number of papers per academic year, number of papers per author), impact metrics (e.g. the total number of citations, number of citations per given period, number of citations per author), and hybrid metrics that both productivity and impact measures (e.g. the impact of collaboration in citations) (Benckendorff and Zehrer, 2013; Benckendorff, 2009; Hall, 2011). In the current study, several evaluative techniques (productivity measures), including number of author appearances, authors, papers per author, articles per author, multi authored articles, authors of multi-authored articles, a collaboration index, authorship pattern, Lotka’s Law to measure author productivity, and dominance factor to rank authors, were used by providing details about their meanings and representations in the methodology section. The other category of bibliometric methods is called relational techniques (Benckendorff and Zehrer, 2013) including co-citation, co-authorship (employed herein), co-word, and bibliographical coupling analysis, which are used to answer the following questions: (i) what is the intellectual structure of a discipline and how does it evolve based on co-citations and bibliographical coupling? (ii) What is the social structure of the discipline and how is it based on co-authorship considering the authors affiliations? (iii) What are the conceptual structures of the discipline based on co-word analysis (Zupic and ˇ Cater, 2015)? Growth and structure of authorship and co-authorship network in the strategic management realm 155 Co-authorship occurs when two authors co-publish a study (Lu and Wolfram, 2012). It is ‘‘. . .one of the most tangible and well documented forms of scientific collaboration. Almost every aspect of scientific collaboration networks can be reliably tracked by analyzing co-authorship networks by bibliometric methods’’ (Glanzel and Schubert, 2004: 257). These collaboration (co-authorship) networks illustrate research teams, factors influencing the co-authorship, impact or output of collaborations, and social structure of the field by conducting social network analysis (SNA) (Zupic and ˇ Cater, 2015). SNA-incorporating methods utilized at a macro level (focusing on the typology features of the overall networks) or micro level (seeking the position and impact of individual researchers) (Ye et al., 2013) are not new for readers of business and management. Although there are a number of studies assessing intellectual structures of management and organization by conducting SNA for co-citation data, there is a paucity of research utilizing SNA via co-authorship data to elucidate social (collaboration) structures of management and organization (see Zupic and ˇ Cater, 2015). For example, Acedo et al. (2006a) visualized a network of co-authorship at the macro level for all management and organizational studies published in leading management journals, including the Academy of Management Journal, the Academy of Management Review, the Administrative Science Quarterly, the Journal of Management, Management Science, Organization Science, and the Strategic Management Journal. In addition, while Hu and Racherla (2008) studied the combination of co-authorship networks and research themes in the hospitality literature, Ye et al. (2013) analyzed co-authorship networks of the tourism and hospitality literature, including its leading tourism management journals and three leading hospitality management journals at both macro and micro levels. Therefore, more research addressing the structure of co-authorship networks at both the macro and micro levels and the sub-fields such as human resource management, strategic management, and organizational behavior is needed to gain deeper understanding for issues related to the co-authorship mentioned above. Bibliometrics research in strategic management Several extant papers investigated the evolution of the SM field by using bibliometric methods that can be categorized in the four groups. The first group used citation and/or cocitations analysis by focusing on the intellectual structure of strategic management. Ramos-Rodrigues and Ruiz-Navarro’s (2004) identified changes in the intellectual structure of SM in the articles published in the SMJ between 1980 and 2000. To complement this study, Nerur et al. (2008) investigated the intellectual structure of the SM field by focusing on an author co-citation analysis based on the scientific output of the SMJ between 1980 and 2000. In addition to this research focusing on the knowledge domain of SM, scholars sought the intellectual structure of sub-fields of SM, such as resource-based theory (Acedo et al., 2006b) and dynamic capabilities (Di Stefano et al., 2010). Pilkington and Lawton (2014) presented transnational insights into epistemological and methodological approaches to SM research in Englishspeaking countries. Last, Nerur et al. (2015) illuminated the knowledge flows to and from the SMJ between 1980 and 2009. They found that the SMJ has a significant role in diffusing and storing knowledge, the practitioner orientation has been declining, and there are significant relationships between finance and sociology and between international business and entrepreneurship. The second group of papers utilized co-word analysis to highlight the dynamics of the conceptual structure of SM. Furrer et al. (2008) outlined the evolution of SM by using keywords in articles related to SM published in the Academy of Management Journal, the Academy of Management Review, the Administrative Science Quarterly and the Strategic Management Journal between 1980 and 2005. Ronda-Pupo and Guerras-Martín (2012) investigated the evolution of strategy definitions obtained from journals and books published between 1962 and 2008. Tan and Ding (2015) demonstrated the frontier and evolution of the strategic management theory from articles published between 2001 and 2012 in SMJ by employing both co-word and co-citations analysis. They identified several key research streams, including the knowledge-based view, network organization research, and dynamic capabilities. The third group of papers utilized bibliographic coupling analysis. This method has been employed once to demonstrate the intellectual structure of dynamic capabilities as sub-topic of SM from articles published in the extant literature between 1994 and 2011 by Vogel and Güttel (2013). They found that the core cluster of the current dynamic capability view focused on learning and change capabilities and related them to firm performance. The last group of papers was conducted via co-authorship analysis. The evolution of authorship and co-authorship specifically in the SM field in the SMJ has not been studied. However, Furrer et al. (2008) identified authors contributing to SM field in leading management journals. Concerning co-author analysis, Ronda-Pupo and Guerras-Martín’s (2010) used network analysis to describe the evolution of the participant countries’ position in the articles published in SMJ between 1980 and 2009. They found that the network structure of the SM scientific community inferred an evolution in three stages: formation/incorporation, consolidation/dissemination, and expansion/transformation. Consequently, as they recommended as well, to understand the evolution of research community and knowledge domain of SM, more research focusing on co-authorship network both macro and micro levels is needed. Therefore, the main purpose of the current study is to elucidate the evolution of author collaboration and co-authorship network in the SM field by using evaluative and relational (co-authorship) bibliometrics methods, providing details on their meanings and representations in the methodology section. Methodology Database, document type and journal selection These researchers followed three steps in the creation of the sample: database selection, document type selection, and journal selection. Due to its reputation and significance in the academic world, the Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) database was selected to achieve the main goals of 156 M.A. Koseoglu the study. Documents such as books, congress proceedings, theses, journals, articles, etc., are sources of bibliometric methods as a sample. To increase the validity and reliability of the bibliometric studies, the sample should include documents providing ‘‘certified knowledge’’ generated by scientific journals that apply a critical review process (Callon et al., 1993; Ramos-Rodriguez and Ruiz-Navarro, 2004). Therefore, scientific journals publishing articles related to SM were considered as the sample of the study. There is an abundance of journals focusing on SM in the academic publishing industry. Some of these journals address only SM topics.1Hence, there are several important reasons why the SMJ was selected for this study. First, SMJ is the top strategic management-focused journal indexed by the Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) database and is well known by scholars due to its reputation and significance around the academic world. Based on this index (Journal of Citation Reports), SMJ has been on a growth trajectory since its first issue was released in 1980. In addition, according to information given by the SMJ web page (http://smj.strategicmanagement.net/, 10.08.2015), SMJ is a highly cited journal. For example, in 2014, according to the ISI Journal Citation Reports (JCR), scholars in academic journals cited SMJ articles 18,882 times --- #5/185 journals in the ‘‘Management’’ list and #3/115 in the ‘‘Business’’ list. It is also a high broad-based ranking journal. For example, in 2014, across six key JCR scales (total citations; 2-year impact factor; 5-year impact factor, immediacy index; Eigenfactor score; article influence score), SMJ had a median ranking of number 6 out of 185 in the ‘‘Management’’ list and number 5 out of 115 in the ‘‘Business’’ list. It was listed as a ‘‘4’’ journal (i.e., ‘‘world elite journal’’) in 2015 by the Association of Business Schools (UK), and global reach. For example, during 2014, more than 3000 different scholars based in 67 countries submitted articles to the SMJ; in the prior five years, more than 6400 unique scholars submitted from 100 countries. Second, SMJ represents the Strategic Management Society that, ‘‘is unique in bringing together the worlds of reflective practice and thoughtful scholarship’’ and has ‘‘nearly 3000 members representing a kaleidoscope of backgrounds and perspectives from more than 80 different countries’’ (Strategic Management Society, 2.8.2015). Finally, SM is an ambiguous and highly contestable field (Nag et al., 2007: 936). Therefore, all articles selected were published in only SMJ to avoid making subjective decisions whether or not an article published in other journals (e.g., Academy of Management Journal, Academy of Management 1These journals are Academy of Strategic Management Journal, Business Management and Strategy, International Journal of Applied Strategic Management, International Journal of Strategic Management, International Journal of Strategic Management and Decision Support Systems in Strategic Management, International Journal of Sustainable Strategic Management, International Strategic Management Review, Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Journal of Global Strategic Management, Journal of Management and Strategy, Journal of Strategy and Management, Journal of Strategic Management Education, Strategic Management Journal, Strategic Management Quarterly, and Technology Analysis & Strategic Management. Review, Administrative Science Quarterly, Journal of Management, Management Science, Organization Science, etc.) is related to strategy or SM (Nerur et al., 2015) and the arduous task of finding such articles from other journals (Ramos- Rodriguez and Ruiz-Navarro, 2004). This choice may be questionable from a generalizability perspective. However, since subjectivity came out in the related article selection process from other journals, the reliability and validity of the findings may decrease. Therefore, the sample including SMJ articles is ‘‘a representative sample of SM research’’ as emphasized by Nerur et al. (2015) and Ramos-Rodrigues and Ruiz-Navarro (2004: 983). Consequently, the sample of this study consisted of all articles (articles and research notes/communications/ commentaries) published in SMJ from volume 1, issue 1 in 1980 to volume 35, issue 13 in 2014. As a result, 2092 articles were selected from SMJ between those years. Data collection To frame the sample of the study, all the articles (articles and research notes/communications/commentaries) published in SMJ between 1980 and 2014 were obtained. The names of authors from these articles were inserted into a spreadsheet manually to eliminate and/or minimize possible spelling errors in the SSCI databases, and papers were sorted by number of authors. Authors from each article were identified and cataloged. Additionally, to avoid authorname disambiguation, the data were checked and cleaned manually by considering combinations of authors’ names represented with initials or different name variations that identified two different authors with the same name using initials (Kumar and Jan, 2013). Analysis The first step presented information on the descriptive analysis of the authorship in the SMJ by years. The second step demonstrated a co-authorship analysis. Authors who contributed to the articles were counted to produce the characteristics of co-authorship. The BibExcel program was used to gather data for the co-authorship analysis. The authorship and co-authorship analysis via network visualizations and analyses were performed using Pajek and Ucinet 6, network analyses software packages. Co-authorship was analyzed to show changes that have occurred in the literature from 1980 to 2014. This period was divided into five equal and consecutive 7-year subperiods (1980---1986, 1987---1993, 1994---2000, 2001---2007, and 2008---2014) to illustrate more fully significant changes and trends in authorship analysis. Results and discussion General view of authorship data in SMJ Table 1 Authorship Data: General View, provides information on the frequency of issues and articles published in the SMJ, author appearances, authors, papers per author, articles per author, multi-authored articles, authors of multi-authored articles, and a collaboration index by sub-periods. A total Growth and structure of authorship and co-authorship network in the strategic management realm 157 Table 1 Authorship data: general view. Period 1980---1986 1987---1993 1994---2000 2001---2007 2008---2014 1980---2014 # Issues 30 57 78 90 91 346 # Articles 195 380 447 487 583 2092 # Author appearances 300 674 894 1026 1361 4255 # Author 231 465 651 740 997 2364 Articles per author 0.84 0.82 0.69 0.66 0.58 0.88 Authors per article 1.18 1.22 1.46 1.52 1.71 1.13 #Multi authored articles 90 225 318 367 494 1494 #Authors of multi authored articles 161 371 581 680 945 2145 Collaboration index 1.79 1.65 1.83 1.85 1.91 1.44 of 2092 articles were obtained from the SMJ between 1980 and 2014, and the number of articles increased in each period. Comparing the number of the first (1980---1986) and second periods (1987---1993), the number of author appearances, authors, multi-authored articles, and authors of multi-authored articles more than doubled. In addition, the number of these indicators steadily increased in subsequent periods. While the number of authors per article increased, the number of articles per author decreased in given periods. These two indicators are generally similar with the indicators of organization behavior and human resource management (Talukdar, 2015); however, they are less than other disciplines such as computer science and biomedicine (Newman, 2001). This is a sign that SMJ is relatively young discipline, like organization behavior and human resource management (Talukdar, 2015). A collaboration index (CI) referred to as Total Authors of Multi- Authored Articles/Total Multi-Authored Articles (Elango and Rajendran, 2012) demonstrated a growth of collaboration among authors, although the index decreased from the first period to the second. The CI ranged from 1.65 to 1.91, suggesting that the research team was generally built by two authors in the field. Additionally, as seen Fig. 1 the collaboration rate among SM authors, by years, produced an upward trend over the past 35 years, plus, in recent years, singleauthored papers significantly declined. This conclusion is consistent with those of other studies, including Fischbach et al. (2011), Elango and Rajendran (2012), Kumar and Jan (2013), Braun et al. (2001), Cronin et al. (2003), Ardanuy (2012), Kundra (1996), and Moody (2004). Authorship pattern The SMJ authorship pattern between 1980 and 2014 is presented in Table 2. In the first period, the number of articles contributed by a single author was greater than the number of multi-authored articles. However, in the second period, there was a significant increase in multiauthored papers. After the first period, the highest number of multi-authored articles included two authors, followed by three, four, and five authors. Two articles, one in 2008---2014 and one in 1994---2000, were written by six authors and seven authors, respectively. As observed from other studies conducted in different disciplines (see Amsaveni et al., 2013; Arya, 2012; Elango and Rajendran, 2012; Zafrunnisha and Pullareddy, 2009; Maheswaran et al., 2008; Weeks et al., 2004; Bandyopadhyay, 2001; Kalyane and Sen, 1995; Rana Madan and Agarwal, 1994), multi-authored articled dominated single-authored articles, a phenomenon that increased each period. These results elucidate that team research is a significant aspect in scientific development. However, some questions should be addressed to understand the nature of these research teams. For example, why are these research teams created, how do research teams form (e.g., departmental, national, or international 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 # Articles Years #Multi authored articles Total articles Figure 1 Annual production of articles multi-authored articles. 158 M.A. Koseoglu Table 2 Authorship pattern. Period 1980---1986 1987---1993 1994---2000 2001---2007 2008---2014 1980---2014 #Articles 195 380 447 486 584 2092 Single 105 155 129 119 90 598 Double 75 167 213 231 260 946 Triple 15 49 86 102 190 442 Quadruple --- 8 16 31 39 94 Quintuple --- 1 2 3 4 10 Sextuple --- --- --- --- 1 1 Septuble --- --- 1 --- --- 1 level), how do research teams influence scientific progress (i.e., theoretical or empirical), what is the relationship among research teams, and how does the relationship evolve? Author productivity Lotka’s Law provides insight into the SMJ author productivity. According to Lotka’s Law, when ‘‘. . .a handful of researchers are responsible for most of the literature. . .the contribution of the large majority of researchers is very low in terms of number of publications’’ (Barrios et al., 2008, p. 458). Therefore, based on this law, only 6% of authors in a discipline will produce more than 10 journal articles (Potter, 1988). In this respect, Lotka software developed by Rousseau and Rousseau (2000) (see http://www.cindoc.csic.es/cybermetrics/articles/v4i1p4.html) was utilized. The calculated ˇ value from the software must be between 1.27 and 3.29 to confirm Lotka’s Law (Kumar and Jan, 2013). In Table 3, Author Productivity, typing the numbers from the Papers row as Production and from the Authors row as Sources, the estimated ˇ values for each period, 2.93, 2.66, 2.77, 2.76, 2.81, respectively and for the overall period, 2.34, which confirmed a fit with Lotka’s Law. These findings identify that a handful of scholars was responsible for most SMJ papers as seen in other disciplines (Wallace, 2012; Barrios et al., 2008; Elango and Rajendran, 2012; Nath and Jackson, 1991; Chung and Cox, 1990). The productivity of authors who have articles in the SMJ is generally similar to other leading business and management journals, including those in organization behavior and human resource management (Talukdar, 2015), business ethics (Talukdar, 2011), finance (Chung and Cox, 1990), accounting (Chung et al., 1992), and economics (Cox and Chung, 1991). The findings demonstrate that ‘success breeds success’ or the ‘cumulative advantage’ in publication process is relatively stronger in leading business and management journals as seen in Talukdar’s (2015) study. Additionally, according to the results of the analysis one might discuss SMJ has ‘‘an implicit high ‘entry barrier’ to scholarly publications in the discipline that can stimulate legitimate discussion about its doctoral student trainings, journals’ editorial board compositions, and peer review processes’’ (Talukdar, 2015, pp. 480). Ranking of authors As outlined Table 4 authors were ranked via the Dominance Factor (DF); DF = [the number of multi-authored articles of an author as first author (Nmf)/total number of multiauthored articles (Nmt)] formulated by Kumar and Kumar (2008). The value of dominance factor gives signals for collaboration in the field. A value less than 0.5, reflects a good sign for collaboration (Kumar and Kumar, 2008). Authors having 10 or more articles between 1980 and 2014 were filtered from the database by author and their DFs were estimated based on the formula (see Table 4). Thomas C. Powell topped the rank with 1.00 DF, followed by Kent D. Miller (0.70), Yan Zhang (0.63), Jeffrey J. Reuer (0.62), Ranjay Gulati (0.56), Karel Cool (0.56), and Margarethe F. Wiersema (0.5). Two out of 21 authors had a zero DF and the remaining authors had a DF value less than 0.5. Although Michael A. Hitt and Will Mitchell were top authors with 22 articles, they ranked the twelfth and fifteenth respectively based on DF. There is a good sign for collaboration in the SM field since the value of DF of the most prolific authors was found less than 0.5. Assessment and visualization of co-authorship network of SMJ Table 5 demonstrates the most important indicators of networks of five periods, paving the way for comparison among periods. Collaboration rates referring to cooperation among authors consistently increased over the 35-year period. The density rate, delineating the relationship between the number of real links against all the possible linkages in the network and showing connection level among authors (Acedo et al., 2006a), was 0.004 in 1980---1986, followed by 0.003, 0.002, 0.003, and 0.003 in subsequent periods, respectively. There was a significant decrease from the first period through the last period, indicating that the co-authorship network was steadily losing strength. In other words, this evolution of density rate shows that the disconnection level of networks in each period was high and these disconnections were increasing based on a clustering co-efficient value. Circular visualizations of networks are provided for each period in Fig. 2 and attest to this trend by showing the increase with the nodes representing the authors and the edges representing a co-authorship. While the size of nodes presents their relative frequency in a network structure, Growth and structure of authorship and co-authorship network in the strategic management realm 159 Table 3 Author productivity. # Articles 1980---1986 1987---1993 1994---2000 2001---2007 2008---2014 1980---2014 1 182 344 497 562 777 1603 2 36 76 100 117 135 359 3 8 23 34 37 48 171 4 3 9 12 13 22 83 5 2 8 6 4 10 47 6 --- 2 1 2 4 32 7 --- 3 --- 5 --- 22 8 --- --- --- --- 1 15 9 --- --- --- --- --- 11 10 --- --- --- --- --- 3 11 --- --- 1 --- --- 3 12 --- --- --- --- --- 3 13 --- --- --- --- 3 14 --- --- --- --- --- 3 15 --- --- --- --- --- 1 16 --- --- --- --- --- 2 18 --- --- --- --- --- 1 22 --- --- --- --- --- 2 Lotka’s Law (␤) 2.93 2.66 2.77 2.76 2.81 2.34 Table 4 Ranking of authors (1980---2014). Author #Article Single authored First authored Dominance factor Rank (DF) Rank (#Articles) Thomas C. Powell 13 4 9 1.00 1 6 Kent D. Miller 13 3 7 0.70 2 6 Yan Zhang 10 2 5 0.63 3 9 Jeffrey J. Reuer 14 1 8 0.62 4 5 Ranjay Gulati 11 2 5 0.56 5 8 Karel Cool 10 1 5 0.56 5 9 Margarethe F. Wiersema 12 --- 6 0.50 6 7 Danny Miller 15 4 5 0.45 7 4 Richard A. Bettis 13 2 5 0.45 7 6 Constance E. Helfat 12 2 4 0.40 8 7 Michael Lubatkin 10 1 3 0.33 9 9 Donald C. Hambrick 18 2 5 0.31 10 2 Edward J. Zajac 16 2 4 0.29 11 3 Michael A. Hitt 22 --- 5 0.23 12 1 Joseph T. Mahoney 11 1 2 0.20 13 8 David J. Ketchen Jr. 12 --- 2 0.17 14 7 J. Myles Shaver 14 1 2 0.15 15 5 Will Mitchell 22 2 3 0.15 15 1 Harbir Singh 16 --- 2 0.13 16 3 Howard Thomas 14 2 --- 0.00 17 5 Paul W. Beamish 11 --- --- 0.00 17 8 Table 5 Summary of topology feature of co-authorship network by periods. 1980---1986 1987---1993 1994---2000 2001---2007 2008---2014 1980---2014 Collaboration rate 0.46 0.59 0.71 0.75 0.84 0.65 Density 0.004 0.003 0.002 0.002 0.003 0.002 Clustering coefficient 0.32 0.29 0.28 0.26 0.25 013 Mean distance 1.13 1.62 1.33 1.41 1.85 5.05 Main component Size 4 42 20 17 81 296 Main component % 2.5 11.3 5.0 4.2 20.5 69.0 160 M.A. Koseoglu (1980–1986) (1987–1993) (1994–2000) (2001–2007) (2008–2014) (1980–2014) Figure 2 Social network circular visualization of SMJ. the width of links illustrates the strength of the relationship between each pair. Hence, the density values of networks were changing significantly over periods, demonstrating that the authors in the five periods were not well connected in the each period. Additionally, the co-authorship network of all periods (1980---2014), accounting for 0.003 density, did not have strength connection as observed in the density of whole network of management and organization network in Acedo el al.’s (2006a) study. The mean distance illuminates the collaboration maturity level in the network by distance among authors. A shorter distance means there is a higher level of maturity in the collaboration networks (Ye et al., 2013). The main component size and main component percentages show an extensive and intimate collaboration network in the field (Ye et al., 2013: 63) and usually includes the most productive authors (Kretschmer, 2004). As seen in Table 5, mean distance, main component size, and main component percentages reflected the same trend, indicating that the values increased significantly. The mean distance was 1.13 in the first period, reflecting that the information flow between any pair of authors needed to pass through an average of only 1.13 individuals. Clustering coefficients, depicting the closeness of community members and indicating networks’ trend toward small groups or clusters (Acedo et al., 2006a), fluctuated between 0.32 and 0.27. This closeness decreased from the first to the fifth period. These indicate that SM was a very close scientific community in first two periods. As a result, mean distance, main component size, and main component percentages have increased markedly and clustering coefficient has decreased since 1994, except for the clustering coefficient value in fourth period. This illustrates that the community expanded significantly, although most of the new members remained as peripheral authors, mirroring similar findings reported in Ye, Li and Law’s study (2013) conducted in tourism and hospitality field. Evolution of main component network and core authors in the network Fig. 3 presents the evolution of main component networks. In the first period, there were five members; in the second, 43; in the third, 20; in the fourth, 32; and in the last, 108, for a total of 321. These numbers for each period accounted for 3.1%, 11.5%, 3.4%, 7.9%, 14.7, and 71.7% of the total, respectively. The member sizes surged significantly among periods and, in the last period, a remarkable increase occurred. Collaboration has increased and plays a crucial role in being productive. In addition to main component network, social network analysis programs generate core and periphery authors in networks to gain a deeper understanding of the evolution and development of network and topics studied by core authors. Table 6 shows core authors from each period. There were 3 authors in first period (1980---1986) with 2 articles, followed by 22 authors with 38 articles in second period, 4 authors with 13 articles in third period, 20 authors with 30 articles in fourth period, and 6 authors with 8 articles in last period. When the entire period (1980---2014) was assessed, 167 articles authored by 21 authors were found. Michael A. Hitt appeared in three periods and all period (1980---2014). On the other hand, although a number of authors appeared Growth and structure of authorship and co-authorship network in the strategic management realm 167 collaboration in the field and strengthen the network of the research community to consolidate the disciplines, disseminate knowledge, and shift expansion and transformation in the discipline. Last, many researchers in the SM field and the management and organization field are familiar with social network analysis, but studies conducted via this methodology are not common. Consequently, this paper offers benefits to all stakeholders. Practical implications SM is a practice-centered field (Bromiley and Rau, 2014) helping managers formulate and implement strategies and scholars explore performance differences among firms. Hence, the findings of the current study provide helpful information to managers who ‘‘. . .do not typically search the scientific literature, sometimes work closely with academics’’ (Fischbach et al., 2011: p. 37) and/or are looking for new scholars or advisors. For example, managers work with core authors in the SM field who were identified in this study; they should read their studies to find out ways to improve their existing strategies or formulate new ones. Additionally, this study identified authors who played critical roles in the academic community of SM and have the potential to play such roles in the future. Therefore, managers benefit from these authors and their outputs. Last, this study might inspire some managers who are interested in conducting research and publishing their work. On the other hand, these benefits are useful for policy makers who are working universities and government agencies. Limitations and future research The findings of this study will be helpful for researchers, academicians, graduate students, practitioners, and scientific journal editors within the SM field, but several limitations should be acknowledged. First, methodological limitations existed, including the subjective nature of visualization interpretation (Ramos-Rodriguez and Ruiz-Navarro, 2004), the seven-year time frame used in analysis and interpretations related to this time frame, and spelling errors and/or disambiguation in the authors’ names. Second, researchers might assess the authorship and co-authorship from related books, as well as conference papers focusing on strategy and SM practices since the sample of this study does not include them. Last, although this study focused on only coauthorship networks generated via articles published in the SMJ between 1908 and 2014, research groups and topics appeared in the network that were not assessed. As these last three limitations create opportunities, there are new avenues for future research. First, this study is the first that evaluates the evolution of authorship and co-authorship in the SM field as a sub-discipline of management and organization. Further research can be conducted in the other sub-disciplines of management and organization, including human resource management, organization behavior, organization theory, leadership, business ethics, and entrepreneurship by following the methodology employed in this study. Second, to gain a deeper understanding in the co-authorship structure of the SM or other disciplines, research, including a single sample or multiple samples, may be conducted by focusing on dimensions, such as a number of leading international business and management journals (Academy of Management Journal, Academy of Management Review, Administrative Science Quarterly, Journal of Management, Management Science, Organization Science, and Strategic Organization) focus on strategy and SM themes or publish strategy and SM research, and/or regional differences based on continent, country, institution, and industry. Additionally, this study can be repeated in other disciplines within the management and organization realm, such as health care management and hospitality management. Third, while a few studies illustrate the structure of collaborations based on gender (Abramo et al., 2013; Ozel et al., 2014), future authorship or co-authorship research in the SM field may be designed considering authors’ affiliations, as well as gender. Fourth, there are ongoing discussions on how collaboration influences the performance indicators, including the number of articles, citations count, h-index, etc. (Cimenler et al., 2014; Abbasi et al., 2011; Corley and Sabharwal, 2010; Bidault and Hildebrand, 2014; Abbasi et al., 2012). In the future, these discussions may be embedded in the SM field. Fifth, because in the networks, individual-level analysis, including structure holes (Burt, 1995) and group levelclique(s) (Hu and Racherla, 2008) were not considered in this study, new studies may be constructed using these indicators to gain comprehensive insights and ideas. Last, only a few studies have utilized co-citation analysis (Ramos-Rodriguez and Ruiz-Navarro, 2004; Nerur et al., 2008), the evolution of the participant countries’ position (Ronda-Pupo and Guerras-Martín, 2010), and co-authorship, by using the SMJ as a sample. Moreover, research is needed that focuses on cross-institutional collaboration in articles published in the SMJ to delineate the intellectual structure of the SM field. Acknowledgements The author would like to thank John A. Parnell, Gary Ross, and Fevzi Okumus for their many helpful comments and suggestions. The author, also, gratefully acknowledges the helpful comments and suggestions received from the referees and the Associate Editor, Jaime Gómez. References Abbasi, A., Altmann, J., Hossain, L., 2011. Identifying the effects of co-authorship networks on the performance of scholars: a correlation and regression analysis of performance measures and social network analysis measures. J. Informetr. 5, 594---607. Abbasi, A., Chung, K.S.K., Hossain, L., 2012. Egocentric analysis of co-authorship network structure, position and performance. Inf. Process. Manage. 48, 671---679. Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C.A., Murgia, G., 2013. Gender differences in research collaboration. J. Inf. 7, 811---822. Acedo, F.J., Barroso, C., Casanueva, C., Galan, J.L., 2006a. Co-authorship in management and organizational studies: an empirical and network analysis. J. Manage. Stud. 43 (5), 957---983. 168 M.A. Koseoglu Acedo, F.J., Barroso, C., Galan, J.L., 2006b. The resource-based theory: dissemination and main trends. Strateg. Manage. J. 27, 621---636. Amsaveni, N., Manikandan, M., Manjula, M., 2013. Authorship pattern and collaborative research in bioinformatics. Int. J. Comput. Sci. Mobile Comput. 2 (11), 230---238. Antonio, G., 2013. Revisiting business strategy under discontinuity. Manage. Decis. 51 (7), 1326---1358. Ardanuy, J., 2012. Scientific collaboration in library and information science viewed through the web of knowledge: the Spanish case. Scientometrics 90 (3), 877---890. Armstrong, C.E., Shimizu, K., 2007. A review of approaches to empirical research on the resource-based view of the firm. J. Manage. 33, 959---986. Arya, C., 2012. Authorship trends and collaborative research in the field of veterinary medicine. Int. J. Inf. Dissem. Technol. 2 (1), 50---53. Bandyopadhyay, A.K., 2001. Authorship pattern in different disciplines. Ann. Libr. Inf. Stud. 48 (4), 139---147. Barabási, A., 2009. Scale-free networks: a decade and beyond. Science 325, 412---413. Barabási, A.L., Albert, R., 1999. Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science 286, 509---512. Barrios, M., Borrego, A., Vilaginés, A., Ollé, C., Somoza, M., 2008. A bibliometric study of psychological research on tourism. Scientometrics 77 (3), 453---467. Benckendorff, P. , 2009. Themes and trends in Australian and New Zealand tourism research: A social network analysis of citations in two leading journals (1994-2007). J. Hosp. Tourism Manage. 16, 1---15. Benckendorff, P. , Zehrer, A., 2013. A network analysis of tourism research. Ann. Tourism. Res. 43, 121---149. Bergh, D.D., Fairbank, J.F., 2002. Measuring and testing change in the strategic management research. Strateg. Manage. J. 23, 359---366. Bidault, F. , Hildebrand, T., 2014. The distribution of partnership returns: evidence from co-authorships in economics journals. Res. Policy 43, 1002---1013. Björneborn, L., 2004. Small-world link structures across an academic web space: a library and information science approach. PhD thesis from the Department of Information Studies, Royal School of Library and Information Science, Denmark. Bonacich, P. , 1972. Factoring and weighting approaches to status scores and clique identification. J. Math. Sociol. 2 (1), 113---120. Bonacich, P. , 1987. Power and centrality: a family of measures. Am. J. Sociol. 92 (5), 1170---1182. Borgman, C., Furner, J., 2002. Scholarly communication and bibliometrics. Ann. Rev. Inf. Sci. Tech. 36, 3---72. Boyacigiller, N.A., Adler, N.J., 1991. The Parochial Dinosaur: Organizational Science in a Global Context. Acad. Manage. Rev. 16 (2), 262---290. Boyd, B., Finkelstein, S., Gove, S., 2005a. How advanced is the strategy paradigm? The role of particularism and universalism in shaping research outcomes. Strateg. Manage. J. 26, 841---854. Boyd, B.K., Gove, S., Hitt, M.A., 2005b. Consequences of measurement problems in strategic management research: the case of Amihud and Lev. Strateg. Manage. J. 26, 367---375. Boyd, B.K., Gove, S., Hitt, M.A., 2005c. Construct measurement in strategic management research: illusion or reality? Strateg. Manage. J. 26, 239---257. Boyd, B.K., Haynes, K.T., Hitt, M.A., Bergh, D.D., Ketchen, D.J., 2012. Contingency hypotheses in strategic management research: use, disuse, or misuse? J. Manage. 38 (1), 278---313. Brahma, S.S., 2009. Assessment of construct validity in management research: a structured guideline. J. Manage. Res. 9, 59---71. Braun, T., Glanzel, W., Schubert, A., 2001. Publication and cooperation patterns of the authors of neuroscience journals. Scientome 51, 499---510. Bromiley, P. , Rau, D., 2014. Towards a practice-based view of strategy. Strateg. Manage. J. 35 (8), 1249---1256. Burt, R., 1995. Structure Holes: The social Structure of Competition. Harvard University Press. Callon, M., Courtial, J., Penan, H., 1993. Cienciometría. La medición de la actividadcientífica: de la bibliometría a la vigilancia tecnológica. Ediciones Trea, Gijón, Spain. Chung, K.H., Cox, R.A.K., 1990. Patterns of productivity in the finance literature: a study of the bibliometric distributions. J. Finance 45, 301---309. Chung, K.H., Pak, H.S., Cox, R.A.K., 1992. Patterns of research output in the accounting literature: a study of the bibliometric distributions. Abacus 28 (2), 168---185. Cimenler, O., Reeves, K.A., Skvoretz, J., 2014. A regression analysis of researchers’ social network metrics on their citation performance in a college of engineering. J. Informetr. 8, 667---682. Cobo, M.J., López-Herrera, A.G., Herrera-Viedma, E., Herrera, F. , 2011. Science mapping software tools: Review, analysis, and cooperative study among tools. J. Am. Soc. Inform. Sci. Technol. 62 (7), 1382---1402. Cox, R.A.K., Chung, K.H., 1991. Patterns of research output and author concentrations in the economics literature. Rev. Econ. Stat. 73, 729---733. Corley, E.A., Sabharwal, M., 2010. Scholarly collaboration and productivity patterns in public administration: analysing recent trends. Public Adm. 88 (3), 627---648. Cronin, B., Shaw, D., La Barre, K., 2004. Visible, less visible, and invisible work: patterns of collaboration in twentieth century chemistry. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 55 (2), 160---168. Cronin, B., Shaw, D., La Barre, K., 2003. A cast of thousands: coauthorship and subauthorship collaboration in the 20th century as manifested in the scholarly journal literature of psychology and philosophy. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 54, 855---871. Di Stefano, G., Peteraf, M., Verona, G., 2010. Dynamic capabilities deconstructed: a bibliographic investigation into the origins, development, and future directions of the research domain. Ind. Corp. Change 19, 1187---1204. Doordarshi, S., Jaspreet, S.O., Inderpreet, S.A., 2013. An empirical investigation of dynamic capabilities in managing strategic flexibility in manufacturing organizations. Manage. Decis. 51 (7), 1442---1461. Dorogovtsev, S.N., Mendes, J.F., Samukhin, A.N., 2002. Multifractal properties of growing networks. EPL (Europhys. Lett.) 57, 334. Elango, B., Rajendran, P. , 2012. Authorship trends and collaboration pattern in the marine sciences literature: a scientometric study. Int. J. Inf. Dissem. Technol. 2 (3), 166---169. Fatt, C.K., Ujum, E.A., Ratnavelu, K., 2010. The structure of collaboration in the Journal of Finance. Scientometrics 85, 849---860. Fernandez-Alles, M., Ramos-Rodríguez, A., 2009. Intellectual structure of human resources management research: a bibliometric analysis of the Journal Human Resources Management, 1985---2005. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 60 (1), 161---175. Ferreira, M.P., Pinto, C.P., Serra, F.R., 2014. The transation costs theory in international business research: a bibliometric study over three decades. Scientometrics 98, 1899---1922. Fischbach, K., Putzke, J., Schoder, D., 2011. Co-authorship networks in electronic markets research. Electron. Mark. 21, 19---40. Fleming, L., 2004. Perfecting cross-pollination. Harv. Bus. Rev. 83 (9), 22---24. Fréry, F. , 2006. The fundamental dimensions of strategy. MIT Sloan Manage. Rev. 48 (1), 71---75. Furrer, O., Thomas, H., Goussevskaia, A., 2008. The structure and evolution of the strategic management field: a content analysis of 26 years of strategic management research. Int. J. Manage. Rev. 10 (1), 1---23. Gibbs, W., 1995. Lost science in the third world. Sci. Am. 273 (2), 76---83. Growth and structure of authorship and co-authorship network in the strategic management realm 169 Glanzel, W., Schubert, A., 2004. Analyzing scientific networks through co-authorship. In: Moed, H.F., et al. (Eds.), Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research. Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands, pp. 257---276. Godfrey, P.C., Hill, C.W.L., 1995. The problem of unobservables in strategic management research. Strategic Manage. J. 16, 519---533. Guerras-Martín, L.A., Madhok, A., Montoro-Sánchez, Á., 2014. The evolution of strategic management research: recent trends and current directions. Bus. Res. Q. 17, 69---76. Hahn, E., Doh, J., 2006. Using Bayesian methods in strategy research: an extension of Hansen et al. Strateg. Manage. J. 27 (8), 783---798. Hall, C.M., 2011. Publish and perish? Bibliometric analysis, journal ranking and the assessment of research quality in tourism. Tourism Manage. 32, 16---27. Hamel, G., Heene, A., 1994. Introduction: Competing Paradigms in Strategic Management. In: Hamel, G., Heene, A. (Eds.), Competence-Based Competition. John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp. 1---7. Hoskisson, R.E., Hitt, M.A., Wan, W.P., Yiu, D., 1999. Theory and research in strategic management: swings of a pendulum. J. Manage. 25 (3), 417---456. Hotker, G., 2006. The use of Logit and Probit models in strategic management research: critical issues. Strateg. Manage. J. 28 (2), 331---343. Hu, C., Racherla, P. , 2008. Visual representation of knowledge networks: a social network analysis of hospitality research domain. Int. J. Hosp. Manage. 27 (2), 302---312. Kalyane, V.L., Sen, B.K., 1995. A bibliometric study of the journal of oilseeds research. Ann. Libr. Sci. Doc. 42 (4), 121---141. Katz, J.S., Martin, B.R., 1997. What is research collaboration? Res. Policy 26, 1---18. Kenworthy, T.P. , Verbeke, A., 2015. The future of strategic management research: assessing the quality of theory borrowing. Eur. Manage. J. 33, 179---190. Ketchen, D.J., Boyd, B.K., Bergh, D.D., 2008. Research methodology in strategic management: past accomplishments and future challenges. Organ. Res. Methods 11 (4), 643---658. Ketchen, D.J., Ireland, R.D., Baker, L.T., 2013. The use of archival proxies in strategic management studies: Castles made of sand? Organ. Res. Meth. 16, 32---42. Kretschmer, H., 2004. Author productivity and geodesic distance in bibliographic co-authorship networks and visibility of the web. Scientometrics 60, 409---420. Kronegger, L., Mali, F. , Ferligoj, A., Doreian, P. , 2012. Collaboration structures in Slovenian scientific communities. Scientome 90, 631---647. Kumar, S., Jan, J.M., 2013. Mapping research collaborations in the business and management field in Malaysia, 1980---2010. Scientometrics 97, 491---517. Kumar, S., Kumar, S., 2008. Collaboration in research productivity in oil seeds research institutes in India. In: Paper presented at the Fourth International Conference on Webometrics, Informetrics and Scientometrics & Ninth COLLNET Meeting, Berlin. Kundra, R., 1996. Investigation of collaborative research trends in Indian Medical Sciences: 1900---1945. Scientometrics 36 (1), 69---80. Laudel, G., 2002. What do we measure by co-authorships? Res. Eval. 11 (1), 3---15. Leydesdorff, L., Vaughan, L., 2006. Co-occurrence matrices and their applications in information science: Extending ACA to the Web environment. J. Am. Soc. Inform. Sci. Technol. 57 (12), 1616---1628. Lin, N., 2001. Social Capital: A Theory of Social Structure and Action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Lu, K., Wolfram, D., 2012. Measuring author research relatedness: a comparison of word-based, topic-based and author co-citation approaches. J. Am. Soc. Inform. Sci. Technol. 63 (10), 1973---1986. Lu, Y., Luo, X., Polgar, M., Cao, Y., 2010. Social network analysis of a criminal hackers community. J. Comput. Inf. Syst. Winter, 31---41. Maheswaran, S., Satish Kumar, R.D., Sridharan, K.R., 2008. Research publications in structural engineering based on Journal of structural engineering. Ann. Libr. Inf. Stud. 55 (1), 17---26. McBurney, M.K., Novak, P.L., 2002. What is bibliometrics and why should you care? , Proceedings of the Professional Communication Conference, pp. 108---114. Molina-Azorín, J.F., 2014. Microfoundations of strategic management: toward micro-macro research in the resource-based theory. Bus. Res. Q. 17, 102---114. Moody, J., 2004. The structure of a social science collaboration network: disciplinary cohesion from 1963 to 1999. Am. Sociol. Rev. 69 (2), 213---238. Nag, R., Hambrick, D.C., Chen, M-J., 2007. What is strategic management, really? Inductive derivation of a consensus definition of the field. Strateg. Manage. J. 28 (9), 935---955. Nath, R., Jackson, W.M., 1991. Productivity of management information systems researchers: does Lotka’s law apply? Inf. Process. Manage. 27 (2/3), 203---209. Nerur, S., Rasheed, A.A., Pandey, A., 2015. Citation footprints on the sands of time: an analysis of idea migrations in strategic management. Strateg. Manage. J., http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.2377. Nerur, S.P., Rasheed, A.A., Natarajan, V., 2008. The intellectual structure of the strategic management field: an author cocitation analysis. Strateg. Manage. J. 29, 319---336. Newman, M.E.J., 2000. Small Worlds: The Structure of Social Networks. Santa Fe Institute, Santa Fe. Newman, M.E.J., 2001. Scientific collaboration networks. Phys. Rev. E 64, http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.64.016131. Newman, M.E.J., 2001a. The structure of scientific collaboration networks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 98 (2), 404---409. Newman, M.E.J., 2004a. Who is the best connected scientist? A study of scientific coauthorship networks. In: Ben-Naim, E., Frauenfelder, H., Toroczkai, Z. (Eds.), Complex Networks. Springer, Berlin, pp. 337---370. Newman, M.E.J., 2004b. Coauthorship networks and patterns of scientific collaboration. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 101, 5200---5520. Otte, E., Rousseau, R., 2002. Social network analysis: a powerful strategy, also for the information sciences. J. Inf. Sci. 28 (6), 441---453. Owen-Smith, J., Riccaboni, M., Pammolli, F. , Powell, W.W., 2002. A comparison of US and European university---industry relations in the life sciences. Manage. Sci. 48 (1), 24---43. Ozel, B., Kretschmer, H., Kretschmer, T., 2014. Co-authorship pair distribution patterns by gender. Scientometrics 98, 703---723. Perc, M., 2010. Growth and structure of Slovenia’s scientific collaboration network. J. Informetr. 4, 475---482. Perianes-Rodríhuez, A., Olmeda-Gómez, C., Moya-Anegón, F. , 2010. Detecting, identifying and visualizing research groups in coauthorship networks. Scientometrics 82, 307---319. Pilkington, A., Lawton, T.C., 2014. Divided by a common language? Transnational insights into epistemological and methodological approaches to strategic management research in englishspeaking countries. Long Range Plan. 47 (5), 299---311. Potter, W.G., 1988. Of making many books there is no end: bibliometrics and libraries. J. Acad. Libr. 14 (September), 238---239. Powell, T.C., 2001. Competitive advantage: logical and philosophical considerations. Strategic Manage. J. 22 (9), 875---888. Prahalad, C.K., Hamel, G., 1994. Strategy as a Field of Study: Why Search for a New Paradigm? Strategic Manage. J. 15, 5---16. 170 M.A. Koseoglu Quintana-Garcia, C., Benavides-Velasco, C.A., 2008. Innovative competence, exploration and exploitation: the influence of technological diversification. Res. Policy 37, 492---507. Ramos-Rodriguez, A-R., Ruiz-Navarro, J., 2004. Changes in the intellectual structure of strategic management research: a bibliometric study of the Strategic Management Journal, 1980---2000. Strateg. Manage. J. 25 (10), 981---1004. Rana Madan, S., Agarwal, S., 1994. Authorship trends in Indian wildlife and fisheries literature --- a bibliometric study. Ann. Libr. Inf. Stud. 41 (1), 13---18. Ronda-Pupo, G.A., Guerras-Martín, L.Á., 2010. Dynamics of the scientific community network within the strategic management field through the Strategic Management Journal 1980---2009: the role of cooperation. Scientometrics 85, 821---848. Ronda-Pupo, G.A., Guerras-Martín, L.Á., 2012. Dynamics of the evolution of the strategy concept 1962---2008: a co-word analysis. Strateg. Manage. J. 33 (2), 162---188. Rousseau, B., Rousseau, R., 2000. LOTKA: a program to fit a power law distribution to observed frequency data. Cybermetr.: Int. J. Scientometr. Informetr. Bibliometr. 4, 1---6. Rumelt, R.P., Schendel, D., Tecee, D.J., 1994. Fundamental Issues in Strategy. In: Rumelt, R.P., Schendel, D., Tecee, D.J. (Eds.), Fundamental Issues in Strategy. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, pp. 9---53. Said, Y.H., Wegman, E.J., Sharabati, W.K., Rigsby, J., 2008. Social networks of author---coauthor relationships. Comput. Stat. Data Anal. 52 (4), 2177---2184. Short, J.C., Ketchen, D.J., Palmer, P.B., 2002. The role of sampling in strategic management research on performance: a two-study analysis. J. Manage. 28, 363---385. Sonnenwald, D., 2007. Scientific collaboration: a synthesis of challenges and strategies. Annu. Rev. Inf. Sci. Technol. 41, 643---681. Sorenson, O., Fleming, L., 2004. Science and the diffusion of knowledge. Res. Policy 33 (10), 1615---1634. Sorenson, O., Rivkin, J.W., Fleming, L., 2006. Complexity, networks, and knowledge flow. Res. Policy 35 (7), 994---1017. Talukdar, D., 2015. Research productivity patterns in the organizational behavior and human resource management literature. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manage. 26 (4), 467---484. Talukdar, D., 2011. Patterns of research productivity in the Business Ethics Literature: insights from analyses of bibliometric distributions. J. Bus. Ethics 98, 137---151. Tan, L., Ding, J., 2015. The frontier and evolution of the strategic management theory: A scientometric analysis of Strategic Management Journal, 2001-2012. Nankai Bus. Rev. Int. 6 (1), 20---41. Uzzi, B., Amaral, L.A.N., Reed-Tsochas, F. , 2007. Small-world networks and management science research: a review. Eur. Manage. Rev. 4 (2007), 77---91. Vogel, R., Güttel, W.H., 2013. The dynamic capability view in strategic management: a bibliometric review. Int. J. Manage. Rev. 15, 426---446. Wagner, C.S., Leydesdorff, L., 2005. Network structure, selforganization, and the growth of international collaboration in science. Res. Policy 34, 1608---1618. Wallace, D.P., 2012. Authorship productivity in the knowledge management literature. Proc. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 49, 1---6. Warnier, V., Weppe, X., Lecocq, X., 2013. Extending resource-based theory: considering strategic, ordinary and junk resources. Manage. Decis. 51 (7), 1359---1379. Watts, D.J., Strogatz, S.H., 1998. Collective dynamics of ‘smallworld’ networks. Nature 393 (6684), 440---442. Weeks, W.B., Wallace, A.E., Kimberly, B.C.S., 2004. Changes in authorship patterns in prestigious US medical journals. Soc. Sci. Med. 59 (9), 1949---1954. Yan, E., Ding, Y., 2009. Applying centrality measures to impact analysis: a coauthorship network analysis. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 60, 2107---2118. Yan, E.J., Ding, Y., Zhu, Q.H., 2010. Mapping library and information science in China: a coauthorship network analysis. Scientometrics 83 (1), 115---131. Ye, Q., Li, T., Law, R., 2013. A coauthorship network analysis of tourism and hospitality research collaboration. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 37 (1), 51---76. Ye, Q., Song, H., Li, T., 2012. Cross-institutional collaboration networks in tourism and hospitality research. Tour. Manage. Perspect. 2 (3), 55---64. Yin, L., Kretschmer, H., Hanneman, R.A., Liu, Z., 2006. Connection and stratification in research collaboration: an analysis of the COLLNET network. Inf. Process. Manage. 42, 1599---1613. Zafrunnisha, N., Pullareddy, V., 2009. Authorship pattern and degree of collaboration in psychology. Ann. Libr. Inf. St 56, 255---261. Zupic, I., ˇ Cater, T., 2015. Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organ. Res. Methods 18 (3), 429---472.