Journal of International Management: A 25-year review using bibliometric analysis

The Journal of International Management (JIM) is a leading international academic journal in the field of international business. This study presents a retrospect of the publications in JIM for the last 25 years (as JIM was founded in 1995) through a bibliometric methodology using the Scopus database and Web of Science. The study graphically maps the bibliographic material using VOS viewer software and applies co-citation analysis, bibliographic coupling, and co-occurrence of author keywords. We identify that the journal has expanded consistently and steadily in terms of both number of publications and citations. The collaboration network has expanded over the years, and the geographical focus is more global, encompassing Asia and Oceania. Bibliographic coupling of JIM publications reveals several distinct, major themes in the international management/business domain. Conventional international management themes that have emerged include market entry modes, globalization, international human resource management, cross-cultural management/leadership, and expatriate management. New emerging themes include emerging markets, global sourcing, innovation performance, digital firms, diversity of global teams, internationalization in uncertain environments, and virtual teams. A summary of the shifting research trends and themes in the discipline and their development is presented in this review, culminating in future directions for prospective publishers of JIM.     

Looking Forward,Looking Back: British Journal of Management 2000–2015

This paper reflects on 16 years of the British Journal of Management (BJM) and discusses what the future holds. The paper analyses publication statistics and submission figures, as well as Special Interest Group (SIG) affiliation of submissions over the more recent period of 2007–2015. It is found that human resource management has a clear dominance among the SIGs. Other fields that are well represented include strategy, work psychology, corporate governance and performance management. The paper also highlights that submissions to BJM are predominantly made by UK‐based authors, possibly reflecting the concentration of UK‐based academics among the pool of associate editors and the editorial board members.     

The evolution of Omega-The International Journal of Management Science over the past 40 years: A bibliometric overview

The aim of this study is to reflect on where Omega-The International Journal of Management Science (Omega) comes from and evaluate where Omega currently is in a field that arguably paves the way for the challenging task of identifying future directions and trends. To achieve this goal, this study presents a bibliometric overview of Omega over the past 40 years, from 1979 to 2018. First, this study outlines the basic bibliometric profile of Omega. Second, VOSviewer is employed to visualize the collaborative relationships that Omega has with other journals to show how Omega has linked to them over the past 40 years. Finally, co-occurrences of keywords are analysed and strategic diagrams are built to reveal the thematic trends in Omega. The results show that Omega has substantial influences in the field of operational research and management science (OR&MS), with contributors from all over the world. Omega has strong connections with other leading journals in the fields of OR&MS and engineering. The mainstream research of Omega mainly focuses on production and manufacturing management, mathematical modelling for optimization problems, supply chain management, data envelopment analysis, multicriteria and decision making. Moreover, motor themes, highly developed-and-isolated themes, emerging-or-declining themes, and basic-and-transversal themes are identified. The study provides strong evidence that Omega has been a story of success, and the findings of this study will support decision making for the Omega-related scientific community.     

中国管理思想史研究：对象、原则及存在的问题

尽管有关中国传统管理思想的著述数量很多,但从思想史研究的视角看,其研究水平却并不尽如人意.以管理思想史的研究对象来看,一些研究偏重于宏观经济管理思想、行政管理思想;以管理思想史的研究原则来看,存在不注重史料的考证、不注重时代条件和背景以及管理思想演变过程的问题.思想史研究在原则、方法上都有其特殊性,它很难被容纳到现有的管理学门类下的诸一级学科中,这是造成目前中国管理思想史研究水平低下的重要原因.只有赋予中国管理思想史独立的学科地位,才能为中国管理思想史的发展提供良好的环境.也只有这样,中国管理学才能更好地借鉴中国管理思想史的研究成果,达到共同发展的目的.