Dijital İnovasyon ve Sürdürülebilirlik Konulu Yayınların Bibliyometrik Analizi

Öz

The main purpose of this study is to conduct bibliometric analysis through visual mapping of publications in digital innovation and sustainability indexed in Web of Science and SCOPUS databases. The bibliometric method was preferred to map the changes in publications in the field in a certain period. The VOSviewer and BibExcel software were used for network maps of the trend of publications during the examined period. The study analyzed 670 articles published in 168 journals to reveal the state of the intellectual structure and emerging trends in the field. For this purpose, co-word, citation, co-citation, author, and country productivity were analyzed. In the examined period, Germany had the most digital innovation and sustainability publications, and Romania had the fewest publications. The co-word analysis identified a thematic relationship among the frequently co-occurring keywords "value, digital talent, and business models". In addition, it has been determined that Vinit Parida is the most published author, and Youngjin Yoo is the most cited author. It was determined that publications started to increase in 2017 and increased rapidly, especially after 2019. It can be argued that the search for innovative applications, forced by the pandemic conditions, effectively increased the number of publications after 2019. Key Words: Digital Innovation, Sustainability, Bibliometric Analysis JEL Classification: O32, Q55, Q56

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Dijital İnovasyon
• Sürdürülebilirlik
• Bibliyometrik Analiz

Bibliometric Analysis of Publications on Digital Innovation and Sustainability

Öz

The main purpose of this study is to conduct bibliometric analysis through visual mapping of publications in digital innovation and sustainability indexed in Web of Science and SCOPUS databases. The bibliometric method was preferred to map the changes in publications in the field in a certain period. The VOSviewer and BibExcel software were used for network maps of the trend of publications during the examined period. The study analyzed 670 articles published in 168 journals to reveal the state of the intellectual structure and emerging trends in the field. For this purpose, co-word, citation, co-citation, author, and country productivity were analyzed. In the examined period, Germany had the most digital innovation and sustainability publications, and Romania had the fewest publications. The co-word analysis identified a thematic relationship among the frequently co-occurring keywords "value, digital talent, and business models". In addition, it has been determined that Vinit Parida is the most published author, and Youngjin Yoo is the most cited author. It was determined that publications started to increase in 2017 and increased rapidly, especially after 2019. It can be argued that the search for innovative applications, forced by the pandemic conditions, effectively increased the number of publications after 2019. Key Words: Digital Innovation, Sustainability, Bibliometric Analysis JEL Classification: O32, Q55, Q56

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Digital Innovation
• Sustainability
• Bibliometric Analysis

Kaynakça

1. Accenture, (2021). Technology Vision 2021, Available online: https://www.accenture.com/us-en/insights/technology/_acnmedia/Thought-Leadership-Assets/PDF-3/Accenture-Tech-Vision-2021-Full-Report.pdf (accessed on 12 December 2022).
2. Archambault, E., Vignola-Gagne, É., Côté, G., Larivère, V., & Gingras, Y. (2006). Benchmarking scientific outputs in the social sciences and humanities: The limits of existing databases. Scientometrics, Vol. 68, Iss. 3, 329-342.
3. Bağcı, E. (2018). Endüstri 4.0: Yeni üretim tarzını anlamak. Gümüşhane Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Elektronik Dergisi, Vol. 9, Iss. 24, 122-146.
4. Batra, S., Saini, M., & Yadav, M. (2023). Mapping the intellectual structure of corporate governance and ownership structure: a bibliometric analysis. International Journal of Law and Management, Vol. 65, Iss. 4, 333-353.
5. Brynjolfsson, E., McAfee, A. (2014). The Second Machine Age: Work, Progress, and Prosperity in a Time of Brilliant Technologies. New York, NY: WW Norton & Company.
6. Caputo, A., & Kargina, M. (2022). A user-friendly method to merge Scopus and Web of Science data during bibliometric analysis. Journal of Marketing Analytics, Vol. 10, Iss. 1, 82-88.
7. Chen, Y. S., Leimkuhler, F. F. (1986). A relationship between Lotka's law, Bradford's law, and Zipf's law. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Vol. 37, Iss. 5, 307-314.
8. Chirici, G. (2012). Assessing the scientific productivity of Italian forest researchers using the Web of Science, SCOPUS and SCIMAGO databases. IForest-Biogeosciences and Forestry, Vol. 5, Iss. 3, 101-107.

9. Cillo, V., Petruzzelli, A. M., Ardito, L., Del Giudice, M., (2019). Understanding sustainable innovation: A systematic literature review. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 26, Iss. 5, 1012-1025. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1783
10. Cobo, M. J., López‐Herrera, A. G., Herrera‐Viedma, E., Herrera, F. (2011). Science mapping software tools: Review, analysis, and cooperative study among tools. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 62, Iss. 7, 1382-1402. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21525
11. Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., Lim, W. M. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, Vol. 133, 285-296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070
12. Echchakoui, S. (2020). Why and how to merge Scopus and Web of Science during bibliometric analysis: the case of sales force literature from 1912 to 2019. Journal of Marketing Analytics, Vol. 8, Iss. 3, 165-184.
13. Eck, N. J. V., Waltman, L. (2009). How to normalize co-occurrence data? An analysis of some well‐known similarity measures. Journal of the American Society for İnformation Science and Technology, Vol. 60, Iss. 8, 1635-1651. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21075
14. Ejsmont, K., Gladysz, B., Kluczek, A., (2020). Impact of Industry 4.0 on Sustainability-Bibliometric Literature Review. Sustainability, Vol. 12, 5650. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12145650
15. Fichman, R. G., Dos Santos, B. L., Zheng, Z. (2014). Digital innovation as a fundamental and powerful concept in the information systems curriculum. MIS Quarterly, Vol. 38, Iss. 2, 329-354. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2014/38.2.01
16. Gavel, Y., & Iselid L. (2008). Web of Science and Scopus: A journal title overlap study. Online Information Review, Vol. 32, Iss. 1, 8–21.
17. Goodman, D., & Deis, L. (2007). Update on scopus and web of science. The Charleston Advisor, Vol. 7, Iss. 3, 15–18.
18. Hogan, S. J., Soutar, G. N., McColl-Kennedy, J. R., & Sweeney, J. C. (2011). Reconceptualizing professional service firm innovation capability: Scale development. Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 40, Iss. 8, 1264-1273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2011.10.002
19. Karasözen, B., Bayram, Ö. K., & Zan, B. U. (2011). WoS ve Scopus Veri Tabanlarının Karşılaştırması. Türk Kütüphaneciliği, 25(2), 238-260.
20. Lucas, H. C., & Goh, J. M. (2009). Disruptive technology: How Kodak missed the digital photography revolution. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, Vol. 18, Iss. 1, 46-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2009.01.002
21. Maier, D.; Maier, A., Așchilean, I., Anastasiu, L., & Gavriș, O. (2020). The relationship between innovation and sustainability: A bibliometric review of the literature. Sustainability, Vol. 12, 4083. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12104083
22. Mauri-Castello, J., Alonso-Gonzalez, A., & Peris-Ortiz, M. (2019). Applied innovation methodology: A proposal for a dynamic, sustainable environment for the generation of innovation and knowledge management practices in SMEs. In Knowledge, Innovation and Sustainable Development in Organizations, (pp. 61-76). Springer, Cham.
23. Melane-Lavado, A., Álvarez-Herranz, A., & González-González, I. (2018). Foreign direct investment as a way to guide the innovative process towards sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 172, 3578-3590. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.131
24. Mingers, J., & Lipitakis, E. (2010). Counting the citations; a comparison of Web of Science and Google Scholar in the field of business and management. Scientometrics, Vol. 85, Iss. 2, 613–625.
25. Nambisan, S., Lyytinen, K., Majchrzak, A., & Song, M. (2017). Digital Innovation Management: Reinventing innovation management research in a digital world. MIS Quarterly, Vol. 41, Iss. 1. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2017/41:1.03
26. Öztürk, O. (2021). Bibliometric review of resource dependence theory literature: An overview. Management Review Quarterly, Vol. 71, Iss. 3, 525–552. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-020-00192-8 Palmatier, R. W., Houston, M. B., & Hulland, J. (2018). Review articles: Purpose, process, and structure. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 46, Iss. 1, 1-5.
27. Ronda‐Pupo, G. A., & Guerras‐Martin, L. Á. (2012). Dynamics of the evolution of the strategy concept 1962–2008: a co‐word analysis. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 33, Iss. 2, 162-188. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.948
28. Schmidt, F. (2008). Meta-analysis: A constantly evolving research integration tool. Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 11, Iss. 1, 96-113.
29. Şakar, G. D., & Cerit, A. G. (2013). Uluslararası alan indekslerinde Türkiye pazarlama yazını: Bibliyometrik analizler ve nitel bir araştırma. Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, Vol. 27, Iss. 4, 37-62.
30. Tavares-Lehmann, A.T., & Varum, C. (2021). Industry 4.0 and sustainability: A bibliometric literature review. Sustainability, Vol. 13, 3493. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063493
31. UNDP, (2021). Sustainable Development Goals, Available online: https://www.tr.undp.org/content/turkey/tr/home/sustainable-development-goals.html (accessed on 18 November 2021).
32. Veloso, E., da Silva, R. C., Trevisan, L., & Dutra, J. (2020). Technological innovations in the work environment and the career of the millennium generation. Innovation & Management Review, Vol. 17, Iss. 4, 379-394. https://doi.org/10.1108/INMR-05-2019-0070
33. Vogel, R. (2012). The visible colleges of management and organization studies: A bibliometric analysis of academic journals. Organization Studies, Vol. 33, Iss. 8, 1015-1043.
34. Waltman, L., Van Eck, N. J., & Noyons, E. C. (2010). A unified approach to mapping and clustering of bibliometric networks. Journal of Informetrics, Vol. 4, Iss. 4, 629-635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.07.002.
35. Yılmaz, H. O., Babazade, R., Turan, O. A., Babazade, B., Koyuncu, O., Turan, A. (2017). Scientific publication performance of Turkish anesthesia clinics in high impact factor international journals between 2005 and 2014: A bibliometric analysis. Turkish Journal of Anaesthesiology and Reanimation, Vol. 45, Iss. 1, 16-25. https://doi.org/10.5152/TJAR.2016.16680.
36. Yoo, Y., Henfridsson, O., Lyytinen, K. (2010). The new organizing logic of digital innovation: An agenda for information systems research. Information Systems Research, Vol. 21, Iss. 4, 724-735. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1100.0322.
37. Zan, B. U. (2019). Doğrudan atıf, ortak atıf ve bibliyografik eşleşme yaklaşımlarına dayalı olarak araştırma alanlarının değerlendirilmesi. Sosyal Bilimler Araştırmaları Dergisi, 14(2), 501-516.
38. Zupic, I., Čater, T. (2015). Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 18, Iss. 3, 429-472. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114562629.
39. Zyoud, S.H., W.S. Waring, S.W. Al-Jabi, and W.M. Sweileh. (2017). Global cocaine intoxication research trends during 1975–2015: A bibliometric analysis of Web of Science publications. Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy, Vol. 12, Iss. 6, 1-16.