Digital Business Adoption 2013-2018 A Bibliometric Study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.51601/ijersc.v3i2.324Abstract
Evaluating changes in the field of research on business adoption of digitalization is very
useful to know the direction and topics of research during a certain period. This information
can quickly identify the most influential research variables and become research updates. So
far, we have not come across any research on digital business adoption over the past decade.
Therefore, bibliometric mapping will be of great benefit to readers and can help convert
publication metadata into maps or visualizations. The data is obtained from the publish or
perish 7 application and then exported to the Mendeley application. We select articles and
reviews published in Scopus indexed journals to be processed through VOSviewer. To
describe 4665 terms with a minimum number of 7 occurrences in one term and 184 terms. A
relevance score will be calculated based on the 30 most relevant terms. The results were
found that from 2015 to 2020, there were 65089 total publications involved in the annual list
and 30 terms were taken which are variables of digital business adoption. The most
frequently repeated terms from the 4 clusters are Customer and Government with the same
relevance score of 8571, Bitcoin with a relevance score of 83333, Firm with a relevance
score of 7273, efficiency with a relevance score of 3333, experience with a relevance score of
2222.
Downloads
References
Tjahjana, D., Abbas, B. S., Setiad, N. J., Bisnis, S., & Nusantara, U. B. (2018). Pengaruh Adopsi Bisnis Digital dan Inovasi Organisasi terhadap Kinerja Usaha Kecil dan Menengah. 1.
López-Abente, G., & Muñoz-Tinoco, C. (2006). Time trends in the impact factor of Public Health journals. BMC Public Health, 5, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-5-24
López-Muñoz, F., Shen, W. W., Shinfuku, N., Pae, C. U., Castle, D. J., Chung, A. K., Sim, K., & Álamo, C. (2014). A Bibliometric Study on Second-generation Antipsychotic Drugs in the Asia-Pacific Region. Journal of Experimental and Clinical Medicine (Taiwan), 6(4), 111–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecm.2014.06.001
Xu, W., Chen, Y.-Z., and Shen, Z.-C. (2003). Neuroscience output of China: a MEDLINE-based bibliometric study. Scientometrics 57, 399–409. doi: 10.1023/A:1025060819495
Shahabuddin, SM (2013). Mapping neuroscience research in India-a bibliometric approach. Curr. Sci. 104, 1619–1626.
Glänzel, W., Danell, R., and Persson, O. (2003). The decline of Swedish neuroscience: decomposing a bibliometric national science indicator. Scientometrics 57, 197–213. doi: 10.1023/A:1024185601555
ezama-Nicolás, R., et al. (2018). A Bibliometric Method for Assessing Technological Maturity: The Case of Additive Manufacturing. Scientometrics, 117(3), 1425–1452.
Leeder, S. (2019). The IJE and the Volatile World of Academic Publication. International Journal of Epidemiology, 48(2), 323–331.
Yeung, A. W. K., Goto, T. K., & Leung, W. K. (2017). The changing landscape of neuroscience research, 2006-2015: A bibliometric study. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 11(MAR), 2006–2015. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2017.00120
Wagner, C. S., Whetsell, T. A., & Mukherjee, S. (2019). International research collaboration: Novelty, conventionality, and atypicality in knowledge recombination. Research Policy, 48(5), 1260–1270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2019.01.002
ezama-Nicolás, R., et al. (2018). A Bibliometric Method for Assessing Technological Maturity: The Case of Additive Manufacturing. Scientometrics, 117(3), 1425–1452.
Park, I. and Yoon, B. (2018). Identifying Promising Research Frontiers of Pattern Recognition through Bibliometric Analysis. Sustainability (Switzerland), 10(11).
Wong, D. (2018). VOSviewer. Technical Services Quarterly, 35(2), 219–220.
Lammey, R. (2019). How Publishers Can Work with Crossref on Data Citation. Science Editing, 6(2), 166–170.
Pentz, E. (2019). CrossRef: The Missing Link. College & Research Libraries News, 62(2), 206–228.
Fairhurst, V. (2018). The International Reach of Crossref. Science Editing, 5(1), 62–65.
Harzing, A. W. (2019). Two New Kids on the Block: How do Crossref and Dimensions Compare with Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus and the Web of Science? Scientometrics, 120(1), 341–349.
van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3
Waltman, L., van Eck, N. J., & Noyons, E. C. M. (2010). A unified approach to mapping and clustering of bibliometric networks. Journal of Informetrics, 4(4), 629–635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.07.002
van Eck, N. J., Waltman, L., van Raan, A. F. J., Klautz, R. J. M., & Peul, W. C. (2013). Citation Analysis May Severely Underestimate the Impact of Clinical Research as Compared to Basic Research. PLoS ONE, 8(4). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0062395
Heersmink, R., van den Hoven, J., van Eck, N. J., & van Berg, J. den. (2011). Bibliometric mapping of computer and information ethics. Ethics and Information Technology, 13(3), 241–249. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-011-9273-7
Waltman, L., Van Raan, A. F. J., & Smart, S. (2014). Exploring the relationship between the engineering and physical sciences and the health and life sciences by advanced bibliometric methods. PLoS ONE, 9(10). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0111530
van Eck, N. J., & W. (2014). Visualizing bibliometric networks. In Measuring scholarly impact. Springer, 285–320.
López-Abente, G., & Muñoz-Tinoco, C. (2005). Time trends in the impact factor of Public Health journals. BMC Public Health, 5, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-5-24 2003 to 2012: A bibliometric analysis. PLoS ONE, 10(3), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0119503
Jayaratne, Y. S. N., & Zwahlen, R. A. (2015). The evolution of dental journals from 2003 to 2012: A bibliometric analysis. PLoS ONE, 10(3), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0119503
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 International Journal of Educational Research & Social Sciences
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
