Openness and information technology: a bibliometric analysis of literature production

Abstract

Purpose Research in the field of openness has become very broad and, unfortunately, also opaque. Thus, the purpose of this paper was to analyse and map the trends by applying bibliometric tools to the scientific literature published between 1990 and 2015, for descriptive bibliometric analysis, and 2011 to 2015, for content analysis. Design/methodology/approach A bibliometric analysis was used to identify document types, most prolific institutions, countries, source titles and Web of Science categories in the field of openness. Furthermore, bibliometric mapping was performed to discover country and institutional cooperation networks and to be able to understand funding opportunities for openness and information technology research. Additionally, with content analysis, scientific landscape was produced with most prolific terms and their chronological evolution through time. Findings The first information sources were published in 1990, and production was steady until 1998. After that period, the growth becomes exponential for the total number of information sources, as well as articles and proceedings papers, with a slight decrease in growth between 2009 and 2011. Descriptive bibliometric analysis showed that the most productive countries were the USA, the UK, Germany, China, Italy and Spain. Originality/value This paper presents the first holistic bibliometric analysis of the literature production concerning openness in relation to information and communication technology which helps researchers in the field to better understand the relations between themes and outsiders to get an overview of the openness scientific landscape.

Prosumption: bibliometric analysis using HistCite and VOSviewer

“…This study applied the VOSviewer bibliographic coupling technique for citation mapping. In this analysis, different units of analysis, including journals, publications, and authors (van Eck and Waltman, 2018), can be used. This study set publication as the unit of analysis (Zhao and Strotmann, 2008).…”

“…This study is largely inspired by the methodology used in Vošner et al (2017), Llanos-Herrera and Merigo (2019) and da Silva et al (2017). This methodology has been used to perform bibliometric analyses of specific journals (Vošner et al, 2016;Merig o et al, 2018;Tang et al, 2018;Byington et al, 2019) and research areas such as brand personality (Llanos-Herrera and Merigo, 2019), e-health informatics (Kokol et al, 2018), fuzzy decision making (Merig o et al, 2015a), accounting research (Merig o and Yang, 2017), environmental Kuznets curves (Sarkodie and Strezov, 2019) and innovation (Merig o et al, 2016).…”

“…HistCite is used to conduct a bibliometric analysis by generating chronological tables of the most significant authors, journals, cited reference, institutions, and countries (Thelwall, 2008). With VOSviewer, researchers can analyze a broad range of bibliometric networks, composed of publications, authors, journals, authors, organizations, or countries (van Eck and Waltman, 2010;van Eck and Waltman, 2018), and Five types of bibliometric mapping analysis can be used: named as coauthor, co-occurrence of keywords, citation, bibliographic coupling and co-citation. In keyword analysis, VOSviewer utilizes a text-mining technique to analyze the content of titles, keywords, and abstracts.…”

“…Each link was assigned a strength, which is expressed by a positive numerical value. Where the link is stronger, the strength is higher (van Eck and Waltman, 2018). All links related to a given article were counted together, and their strength values are calculated using VOSviewer In a value called total link strength.…”

“…This study employed bibliometric co-citation analysis with HistCite to develop an in-depth understanding of prosumption in marketing discipline. Furthermore, new research streams have been explored through cartography analysis using the VOSviewer, which has frequently been used in other bibliometric mapping studies (Vošner et al, 2017;Byington et al, 2019;Sarkodie and Strezov, 2019).…”