Mapping the lean supply chain management research through citation classics

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to systematically identify the key intellectual developments of the lean supply chain management (LSCM) field from its very first beginning by analyzing the publications that have been highly cited. Design/methodology/approach The citation classics method has been used to examine the origins and evolution of the research field. In total, 74 articles have been identified as having the highest impact on LSCM research published from its beginnings to the present day. Key aspects and links among the scientific contributions are studied by descriptive, bibliometric, network and content analysis. Findings Publication and citation trends, methodologies used, top journals, most influential authors, institutions and countries, collaboration patterns and evolution of the most used keywords are some of the aspects studied. Three main research areas are identified: LSCM foundations and implementation, lean-agile supply chain and performance assessment and the role of sustainability, which offers a holistic view of the field and enables the identification of potential avenues for future research susceptible to contribute to advancing the knowledge on LSCM. Originality/value This study provides a useful insight into the development of the LSCM field and can help researchers as it explores the state-of-the-art of LSCM by identifying the most relevant contributions in the area, the main research lines addressed by the scientific community in this topic and opportunities for further research on LSCM for years to come.

Citation Classics in Consumer Neuroscience, Neuromarketing and Neuroaesthetics: Identification and Conceptual Analysis

Neuromarketing, consumer neuroscience and neuroaesthetics are a broad research area of neuroscience with an extensive background in scientific publications. Thus, the present study aims to identify the highly cited papers (HCPs) in this research field, to deliver a summary of the academic work produced during the last decade in this area, and to show patterns, features, and trends that define the past, present, and future of this specific area of knowledge. The HCPs show a perspective of those documents that, historically, have attracted great interest from a research community and that could be considered as the basis of the research field. In this study, we retrieved 907 documents and analyzed, through H-Classics methodology, 50 HCPs identified in the Web of Science (WoS) during the period 2010–2019. The H-Classic approach offers an objective method to identify core knowledge in neuroscience disciplines such as neuromarketing, consumer neuroscience, and neuroaesthetics. To accomplish this study, we used Bibliometrix R Package and SciMAT software. This analysis provides results that give us a useful insight into the development of this field of research, revealing those scientific actors who have made the greatest contribution to its development: authors, institutions, sources, countries as well as documents and references.

Top-100 Most-cited Articles on Esophageal Cancer: A Bibliometric Analysis

Background A citation classic is a highly cited work in a field and regarded as an influential contribution to the field’s advancements and literature. Analyzing citation classics and top articles promotes the recognition of research trends within a field. We present the results of the first analysis to identify the 100 most frequently cited research studies on esophageal cancer or esophagogastric junction cancer using the bibliometric analysis method. Method We searched the Web of Science on September 24, 2020. Articles were listed in descending order by the total number of citations, and the top-100 most-cited original articles on esophageal cancer or esophagogastric junction cancer were extracted and evaluated. Results The top-100 citation classics in esophageal cancer were published from 1981 to 2018. A significant increase was found in the number of citation classics from the early 1990s to the late 2000s, which was paralleled by an increase in randomized controlled trials focusing on the clinical treatment of tumors. The medians of the total and annual citations in our analysis were 444.50 (interquartile range [IQR] 346.25-684.50) and 30.08 (IQR 19.10-56.60), respectively. The majority of articles were published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology (n=26), originated in the United States (n=38) and focused on clinical therapies (n=59). The median impact factor of the journals was 27.603 (IQR 9.727-32.956). Conclusion Our analysis provides a historical perspective on the scientific progress of esophageal cancer and contributes to the recognition of important advances in this specialty.

Is invasion science moving towards agreed standards? The influence of selected frameworks

The need to understand and manage biological invasions has driven the development of frameworks to circumscribe, classify, and elucidate aspects of the phenomenon. But how influential have these frameworks really been? To test this, we evaluated the impact of a pathway classification framework, a framework focussing on the introduction-naturalisation-invasion continuum, and two papers that outline an impact classification framework. We analysed how these framework papers are cited and by whom, conducted a survey to determine why people have cited the frameworks, and explored the degree to which the frameworks are implemented. The four papers outlining these frameworks are amongst the most-cited in their respective journals, are highly regarded in the field, and are already seen as citation classics (although citations are overwhelmingly within the field of invasion science). The number of citations to the frameworks has increased over time, and, while a significant proportion of these are self-citations (20–40%), this rate is decreasing. The frameworks were cited by studies conducted and authored by researchers from across the world. However, relative to a previous citation analysis of invasion science as a whole, the frameworks are particularly used in Europe and South Africa and less so in North America. There is an increasing number of examples of uptake into invasion policy and management (e.g., the pathway classification framework has been adapted and adopted into EU legislation and CBD targets, and the impact classification framework has been adopted by the IUCN). However, we found that few of the citing papers (6–8%) specifically implemented or interrogated the frameworks; roughly half of all citations might be viewed as frivolous (“citation fluff”); there were several clear cases of erroneous citation; and some survey respondents felt that they have not been rigorously tested yet. Although our analyses suggest that invasion science is moving towards a more systematic and standardised approach to recording invasions and their impacts, it appears that the proposed standards are still not applied consistently. For this to be achieved, we argue that frameworks in invasion science need to be revised or adapted to particular contexts in response to the needs and experiences of users (e.g., so they are relevant to pathologists, plant ecologists, and practitioners), the standards should be easier to apply in practice (e.g., through the development of guidelines for management), and there should be incentives for their usage (e.g., recognition for completing an EICAT assessment).