Let the best story win – evaluation of the most cited business history articles

Ojala, Jari; Eloranta, Jari; Ojala, Anu; Valtonen, Heli

doi:10.1080/17449359.2017.1394200

Cited by 12 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 91 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This finding may respond to the fact that these fields are more firmly established in their own right and generally present a greater volume of scientific activity. It also helps to contextualize the similarly low citation indicators in coronavirus research and could explain the influence of other factors, like the dispersion or atomization among multiple communicable diseases attracting research attention [ 93 , 94 , 95 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Systematic analysis of the scientific literature on population surveillance

González‐Alcaide¹,

Llorente²,

Ramos‐Rincón³

2020

Heliyon

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Population surveillance provides data on the health status of the population through continuous scrutiny of different indicators. Identifying risk factors is essential for the quickly detecting and controlling of epidemic outbreaks and reducing the incidence of cross-infections and non-communicable diseases. The objective of the present study is to analyze research on population surveillance, identifying the main topics of interest for investigators in the area. Methodology We included documents indexed in the Web of Science Core Collection in the period from 2000 to 2019 and assigned with the generic Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) “population surveillance” or its related terms (“public health surveillance,” “sentinel surveillance” or “biosurveillance”). A co-occurrence analysis was undertaken to identify the document clusters comprising the main research topics. Scientific production, collaboration, and citation patterns in each of the clusters were characterized bibliometrically. We also analyzed research on coronaviruses, relating the results obtained to the management of the COVID-19 pandemic. Results We included 39,184 documents, which reflected a steady growth in scientific output driven by papers on “Public, Environmental & Occupational Health” (21.62% of the documents) and “Infectious Diseases” (10.49%). Research activity was concentrated in North America (36.41%) and Europe (32.09%). The USA led research in the area (40.14% of documents). Ten topic clusters were identified, including “Disease Outbreaks,” which is closely related to two other clusters (“Genetics” and “Influenza”). Other clusters of note were “Cross Infections” as well as one that brought together general public health concepts and topics related to non-communicable diseases (cardiovascular and coronary diseases, mental diseases, diabetes, wound and injuries, stroke, and asthma). The rest of the clusters addressed “Neoplasms,” “HIV,” “Pregnancy,” “Substance Abuse/Obesity,” and “Tuberculosis.” Although research on coronavirus has focused on population surveillance only occasionally, some papers have analyzed and collated guidelines whose relevance to the dissemination and management of the COVID-19 pandemic has become obvious. Topics include tracing the spread of the virus, limiting mass gatherings that would facilitate its propagation, and the imposition of quarantines. There were important differences in the scientific production and citation of different clusters: the documents on mental illnesses, stroke, substance abuse/obesity, and cross-infections had much higher citations than the clusters on disease outbreaks, tuberculosis, and especially coronavirus, where these values are substantially lower. Conclusions The role of population surveillance should be strengthened, promoting research and the development of public health surveillance systems in countries whose contribution to the area is limited.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Systematic analysis of the scientific literature on population surveillance

González‐Alcaide¹,

Llorente²,

Ramos‐Rincón³

2020

Heliyon

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This choice can be justified by the careful vetting that citation databases subject journals to before admitting them. In contrast, we also consider journals of business history, although many consider this as a separate subfield (Ojala et al 2017), and certain interdisciplinary journals with a strong interest in social and economic history. 3 We have selected the two most representative measures of impact, the IF (Impact Factor) from WoS and SNIP (Source Normalised Impact per Paper) from Scopus.…”

Section: A Bibliometric Analysis Of Economic History Journalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Harte (1977) describes the publications in British economic history, including books. Di Vaio and Weisdorf (2010) and Ojala et al (2017) respectively explore the pattern of citations in a sample of leading economic history journals in 2007 and in two long-established business history journals, Business History and Business History Review. Selzer and Hamermesh (2018) analyse the causes of the growth in coauthorship, Fourie and Gardner (2014) outline the growing interest in non-Western economic history, Eloranta, Ojala and Valtonen (2010) analyse the spread of quantitative methods in business history and Margo (2018) and Wehrheim (2018) outline the diffusion of advanced statistical techniques in economic history journals.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The long-term evolution of economic history: evidence from the top five field journals (1927–2017)

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the other camp, mainstream business historians, concerned with the "study of the growth and development of business as an institution" (Wilkins, 1988, p. 1), have traditionally shown little interest in ethical questions of the CSR agenda (Amatori, 2009;Booth & Rowlinson, 2006). Recent developments, however, indicate that individual business historians are open to joining an interdisciplinary conversation (e.g., Bergquist & Lindmark, 2016;Jones, 2017;Reed, 2017), since business history is arguably undergoing an "organisational turn" to MOS more generally (Rowlinson, 2015, p. 71; see also Decker, Kipping, & Wadhwani, 2015;Friedman & Jones, 2017;Maclean, Harvey, & Clegg, 2017;Ojala, Eloranta, Ojala, & Valtonen, 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%