IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/daredp/1804.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The use of hybrid scientometric clustering for systematic literature reviews in business and economics

Author

Listed:
  • Viergutz, Tim
  • Schulze-Ehlers, Birgit

Abstract

Given a substantial increase in publications over the last decades, researchers often face an insurmountable quantity of publications potentially relevant for the own research endeavors. Quantitative approaches can be used to analyze the extant scientific literature (also known as scientometrics), which may help to overcome this information overload. This article introduces a hybrid scientometric method, which is based on semantic and bibliographic indicators, for systematic literature reviews into the business and economics literature. To this end, the article provides a step-by-step analysis of the literature referring to the term "loyalty" in the area of business and economics. The analysis reveals four research discourses associated with loyalty, which can be labeled as: 1. Brand loyalty and customer retention, 2. Economic welfare and market power through loyalty, 3. Understanding of customers and formation of loyalty in services marketing and 4. Organizational and employee loyalty. The understanding and use of loyalty is described for each research discourse. The article closes with a discussion about the overall usefulness of the quantitative approach for the review of latent constructs such as loyalty.

Suggested Citation

  • Viergutz, Tim & Schulze-Ehlers, Birgit, 2018. "The use of hybrid scientometric clustering for systematic literature reviews in business and economics," DARE Discussion Papers 1804, Georg-August University of Göttingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:daredp:1804
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/179902/1/1024084418.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lommerud, Kjell Erik & Sorgard, Lars, 2003. "Entry in telecommunication: customer loyalty, price sensitivity and access prices," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 15(1), pages 55-72, March.
    2. Loet Leydesdorff, 2005. "Similarity measures, author cocitation analysis, and information theory," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 56(7), pages 769-772, May.
    3. Kapil Bawa & Robert Shoemaker, 2004. "The Effects of Free Sample Promotions on Incremental Brand Sales," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(3), pages 345-363, November.
    4. Ratchford, Brian T, 2001. "The Economics of Consumer Knowledge," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 27(4), pages 397-411, March.
    5. Kevin W. Boyack & Richard Klavans, 2010. "Co-citation analysis, bibliographic coupling, and direct citation: Which citation approach represents the research front most accurately?," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 61(12), pages 2389-2404, December.
    6. Chiung-Ju Liang & Hui-Ju Chen & Wen-Hung Wang, 2008. "Does online relationship marketing enhance customer retention and cross-buying?," The Service Industries Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(6), pages 769-787, July.
    7. Jarneving, Bo, 2007. "Bibliographic coupling and its application to research-front and other core documents," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 1(4), pages 287-307.
    8. Andrew A. Luchak, 2003. "What Kind of Voice Do Loyal Employees Use?," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 41(1), pages 115-134, March.
    9. Frizo Janssens & Wolfgang Glänzel & Bart Moor, 2008. "A hybrid mapping of information science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 75(3), pages 607-631, June.
    10. Eric Anderson & Nanda Kumar, 2007. "Price competition with repeat, loyal buyers," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 333-359, December.
    11. Laroche, Michel & Pons, Frank & Zgolli, Nadia & Cervellon, Marie-Cecile & Kim, Chankon, 2003. "A model of consumer response to two retail sales promotion techniques," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 56(7), pages 513-522, July.
    12. Wolfgang Glänzel & Bart Thijs, 2012. "Using ‘core documents’ for detecting and labelling new emerging topics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 91(2), pages 399-416, May.
    13. R. Chumpitaz & N. Paparoidamis, 2007. "Service quality, relationship satisfaction, trust, commitment, and business-to-business loyalty," Post-Print hal-00199063, HAL.
    14. Bing Jing & Zhong Wen, 2008. "Finitely Loyal Customers, Switchers, and Equilibrium Price Promotion," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 17(3), pages 683-707, September.
    15. David C Thomas & Kevin Au, 2002. "The Effect of Cultural Differences on Behavioral Responses to Low Job Satisfaction," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 33(2), pages 309-326, June.
    16. Charles J. Bullock, 1901. "Trust Literature: A Survey and a Criticism," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 15(2), pages 167-217.
    17. Per Ahlgren & Bo Jarneving & Ronald Rousseau, 2003. "Requirements for a cocitation similarity measure, with special reference to Pearson's correlation coefficient," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 54(6), pages 550-560, April.
    18. M. M. Kessler, 1963. "Bibliographic coupling between scientific papers," American Documentation, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(1), pages 10-25, January.
    19. J. Miguel Villas-Boas, 2004. "Consumer Learning, Brand Loyalty, and Competition," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(1), pages 134-145, December.
    20. Romaniuk, Jenni & Nenycz-Thiel, Magda, 2013. "Behavioral brand loyalty and consumer brand associations," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 67-72.
    21. Lutz Bornmann & Rüdiger Mutz, 2015. "Growth rates of modern science: A bibliometric analysis based on the number of publications and cited references," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 66(11), pages 2215-2222, November.
    22. Kocas, Cenk & Kiyak, Tunga, 2006. "Theory and evidence on pricing by asymmetric oligopolies," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 83-105, January.
    23. Roberto Rodríguez-Ibeas & U. Cantner, 2000. "A hybrid equilibrium in segmented markets: the three-firm case," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 72(1), pages 81-97, February.
    24. Kevin W. Boyack & Richard Klavans, 2010. "Co‐citation analysis, bibliographic coupling, and direct citation: Which citation approach represents the research front most accurately?," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 61(12), pages 2389-2404, December.
    25. Hart, David W. & Thompson, Jeffery A., 2007. "Untangling Employee Loyalty: A Psychological Contract Perspective," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 17(2), pages 297-323, April.
    26. Ciarreta, Aitor & Kuo, Ching-Kuang, 2002. "A supergame-theoretic model with consumer loyalty," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 74(2), pages 211-217, January.
    27. Sergios Dimitriadis & Christos Koritos, 2014. "Core service versus relational benefits: what matters most?," The Service Industries Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 34(13), pages 1092-1112, September.
    28. Aghaei Chadegani, Arezoo & Salehi, Hadi & Md Yunus, Melor & Farhadi, Hadi & Fooladi, Masood & Farhadi, Maryam & Ale Ebrahim, Nader, 2013. "A Comparison between Two Main Academic Literature Collections: Web of Science and Scopus Databases," MPRA Paper 46898, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 18 Mar 2013.
    29. Radner, Roy & Richardson, Thomas J., 2003. "Monopolists and viscous demand," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 442-464, November.
    30. Leo Egghe & Loet Leydesdorff, 2009. "The relation between Pearson's correlation coefficient r and Salton's cosine measure," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 60(5), pages 1027-1036, May.
    31. Scott Deerwester & Susan T. Dumais & George W. Furnas & Thomas K. Landauer & Richard Harshman, 1990. "Indexing by latent semantic analysis," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 41(6), pages 391-407, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Adnan Ali & Suresh Ramakrishnan & Faisal Faisal & Zahir Ullah, 2023. "Bibliometric analysis of global research trends on microfinance institutions and microfinance: Suggesting new research agendas," International Journal of Finance & Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(4), pages 3552-3573, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. García-Lillo, Francisco & Seva-Larrosa, Pedro & Sánchez-García, Eduardo, 2023. "What is going on in entrepreneurship research? A bibliometric and SNA analysis," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    2. Yang, Siluo & Han, Ruizhen & Wolfram, Dietmar & Zhao, Yuehua, 2016. "Visualizing the intellectual structure of information science (2006–2015): Introducing author keyword coupling analysis," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 132-150.
    3. Jun-Ping Qiu & Ke Dong & Hou-Qiang Yu, 2014. "Comparative study on structure and correlation among author co-occurrence networks in bibliometrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(2), pages 1345-1360, November.
    4. Michel Zitt, 2015. "Meso-level retrieval: IR-bibliometrics interplay and hybrid citation-words methods in scientific fields delineation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(3), pages 2223-2245, March.
    5. Yun, Jinhyuk & Ahn, Sejung & Lee, June Young, 2020. "Return to basics: Clustering of scientific literature using structural information," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(4).
    6. Rons, Nadine, 2018. "Bibliometric approximation of a scientific specialty by combining key sources, title words, authors and references," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 113-132.
    7. Nassiri, Isar & Masoudi-Nejad, Ali & Jalili, Mahdi & Moeini, Ali, 2013. "Normalized Similarity Index: An adjusted index to prioritize article citations," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(1), pages 91-98.
    8. Cleomar Marcos Fabrizio & Fabíola Kaczam & Gilnei Luiz Moura & Luciana Santos Costa Vieira Silva & Wesley Vieira Silva & Claudimar Pereira Veiga, 2022. "Competitive advantage and dynamic capability in small and medium-sized enterprises: a systematic literature review and future research directions," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 617-648, April.
    9. Ding, Ying, 2011. "Community detection: Topological vs. topical," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(4), pages 498-514.
    10. Shuo Xu & Liyuan Hao & Xin An & Hongshen Pang & Ting Li, 2020. "Review on emerging research topics with key-route main path analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(1), pages 607-624, January.
    11. Ying Huang & Wolfgang Glänzel & Lin Zhang, 2021. "Tracing the development of mapping knowledge domains," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(7), pages 6201-6224, July.
    12. Duong, Quang Huy & Zhou, Li & Meng, Meng & Nguyen, Truong Van & Ieromonachou, Petros & Nguyen, Duy Tiep, 2022. "Understanding product returns: A systematic literature review using machine learning and bibliometric analysis," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 243(C).
    13. Toshiyuki Hasumi & Mei-Shiu Chiu, 2022. "Online mathematics education as bio-eco-techno process: bibliometric analysis using co-authorship and bibliographic coupling," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(8), pages 4631-4654, August.
    14. Wolfram, Dietmar & Zhao, Yuehua, 2014. "A comparison of journal similarity across six disciplines using citing discipline analysis," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 840-853.
    15. Cristian Colliander & Per Ahlgren, 2012. "Experimental comparison of first and second-order similarities in a scientometric context," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 90(2), pages 675-685, February.
    16. Mu-Hsuan Huang & Chia-Pin Chang, 2014. "Detecting research fronts in OLED field using bibliographic coupling with sliding window," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(3), pages 1721-1744, March.
    17. Marco Galvagno & Vincenzo Pisano, 2021. "Building the genealogy of family business internationalization: a bibliometric mixed-method approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(1), pages 757-783, January.
    18. Mu-hsuan Huang & Chia-Pin Chang, 2015. "A comparative study on detecting research fronts in the organic light-emitting diode (OLED) field using bibliographic coupling and co-citation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(3), pages 2041-2057, March.
    19. Kraker, Peter & Schlögl, Christian & Jack, Kris & Lindstaedt, Stefanie, 2015. "Visualization of co-readership patterns from an online reference management system," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 169-182.
    20. Wang, Xiaoli & Daim, Tugrul & Huang, Lucheng & Li, Zhiqiang & Shaikh, Ruqia & Kassi, Diby Francois, 2022. "Monitoring the development trend and competition status of high technologies using patent analysis and bibliographic coupling: The case of electronic design automation technology," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    loyalty; bibliometric methods; LSA; latent constructs;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:daredp:1804. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iagoede.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.