IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v127y2022i12d10.1007_s11192-022-04279-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The small world of innovation studies: an “editormetrics” perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Ana Teresa Santos

    (Instituto Universitário de Lisboa (ISCTE-IUL), ISCTE Business School (IBS-IUL), Business Research Unit (BRU-IUL))

  • Sandro Mendonça

    (Instituto Universitário de Lisboa (ISCTE-IUL), ISCTE Business School (IBS-IUL), Business Research Unit (BRU-IUL)
    UECE/REM – ISEG/ University of Lisbon
    University of Sussex)

Abstract

Editors exert a significant influence on a journal’s mission and in governing the strategic direction of entire fields. They act as gatekeepers not only by ensuring the quality of contributions but also the integrity of the scholarly process. For being such an important element in the sectoral system of scientific production and communication, the editorial phenomenon constitutes an apt but still underexplored research focus. This paper identifies a core group of Innovation Studies journals from the 20-journals list found by Fagerberg et al. (Res Policy 41:1132–1153, 2012) and focuses on seven innovation-oriented top-tier journals to better understand the structure and relationships among the editors. The sample comprises 419 editors occupying 467 editorial positions and assuming 38 different duties. An interlocking editorship pattern is uncovered as 11% of the editors serve on multiple boards. We deploy social network analysis to further map and understand the editorial infrastructure of Innovation Studies thus offering new insights on how the field is organised. Industrial and Corporate Change, Research Policy, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, and Technovation have the highest centrality in terms of number of direct connections to other boards (degree), the shortest distance from all network journals (closeness) and bridges to the largest number of other pairs of journals (betweenness) although Industrial and Corporate Change is noticed as the primus inter pares in the sample.

Suggested Citation

  • Ana Teresa Santos & Sandro Mendonça, 2022. "The small world of innovation studies: an “editormetrics” perspective," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(12), pages 7471-7486, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:127:y:2022:i:12:d:10.1007_s11192-022-04279-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-022-04279-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-022-04279-9
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-022-04279-9?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fagerberg, Jan & Verspagen, Bart, 2009. "Innovation studies--The emerging structure of a new scientific field," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 218-233, March.
    2. Tony Brinn & Michael John Jones, 2008. "The composition of editorial boards in accounting: a UK perspective," Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 21(1), pages 5-35, January.
    3. Alberto Baccini & Lucio Barabesi, 2010. "Interlocking editorship. A network analysis of the links between economic journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 82(2), pages 365-389, February.
    4. Martin, Ben R., 2012. "The evolution of science policy and innovation studies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(7), pages 1219-1239.
    5. Fulvio Castellaci & Stine Grodal & Sandro Mendonca & Mona Wibe, 2005. "Advances and Challenges in Innovation Studies," Journal of Economic Issues, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(1), pages 91-121, March.
    6. Fagerberg, Jan & Fosaas, Morten & Sapprasert, Koson, 2012. "Innovation: Exploring the knowledge base," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(7), pages 1132-1153.
    7. Eduardo Kunzel Teixeira & Mirian Oliveira, 2018. "Editorial board interlocking in knowledge management and intellectual capital research field," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(3), pages 1853-1869, December.
    8. Esther García-Carpintero & Begoña Granadino & Luis M. Plaza, 2010. "The representation of nationalities on the editorial boards of international journals and the promotion of the scientific output of the same countries," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(3), pages 799-811, September.
    9. Kam C. Chan & Robert C. W. Fok, 2003. "Membership On Editorial Boards And Finance Department Rankings," Journal of Financial Research, Southern Finance Association;Southwestern Finance Association, vol. 26(3), pages 405-420, September.
    10. Sandro Mendonça & João Pereira & Manuel Ennes Ferreira, 2018. "Gatekeeping African studies: what does “editormetrics” indicate about journal governance?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(3), pages 1513-1534, December.
    11. Castellacci, Fulvio & Grodal, Stine & Mendonca, Sandro & Wibe, Mona, 2005. "Advances and challenges in innovation studies," MPRA Paper 27519, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Fagerberg, Jan & Martin, Ben R. & Andersen, Esben Sloth (ed.), 2013. "Innovation Studies: Evolution and Future Challenges," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199686353.
    13. Hugo Confraria & Manuel Mira Godinho, 2015. "The impact of African science: a bibliometric analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(2), pages 1241-1268, February.
    14. Daniel C. Feldman, 2008. "Building and Maintaining a Strong Editorial Board and Cadre of Ad Hoc Reviewers," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Yehuda Baruch & Alison M. Konrad & Herman Aguinis & William H. Starbuck (ed.), Opening the Black Box of Editorship, chapter 7, pages 68-74, Palgrave Macmillan.
    15. Sandra Rousseau & Ronald Rousseau, 2021. "Bibliometric Techniques And Their Use In Business And Economics Research," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(5), pages 1428-1451, December.
    16. Alessandro Vespignani, 2018. "Twenty years of network science," Nature, Nature, vol. 558(7711), pages 528-529, June.
    17. Richard R. Nelson, 1959. "The Simple Economics of Basic Scientific Research," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 67, pages 297-297.
    18. Floortje Alkemade & Carolina Castaldi, 2005. "Strategies for the Diffusion of Innovations on Social Networks," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 25(1), pages 3-23, February.
    19. Joel Emanuel Fuchs & Gunnar Sivertsen & Ronald Rousseau, 2021. "Measuring the relative intensity of collaboration within a network," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(10), pages 8673-8682, October.
    20. Simoes, Nadia & Crespo, Nuno, 2020. "Self-Citations and scientific evaluation: Leadership, influence, and performance," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(1).
    21. Chad M Topaz & Shilad Sen, 2016. "Gender Representation on Journal Editorial Boards in the Mathematical Sciences," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(8), pages 1-21, August.
    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. Ana Teresa Santos & Sandro Mendonça, 2022. "Do papers (really) match journals’ “aims and scope”? A computational assessment of innovation studies," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(12), pages 7449-7470, December.

    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. Ana Teresa Santos & Sandro Mendonça, 2022. "Do papers (really) match journals’ “aims and scope”? A computational assessment of innovation studies," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(12), pages 7449-7470, December.
    2. Davies, Andrew & Manning, Stephan & Söderlund, Jonas, 2018. "When neighboring disciplines fail to learn from each other: The case of innovation and project management research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(5), pages 965-979.
    3. Callegari, Beniamino & Nybakk, Erlend, 2022. "Schumpeterian theory and research on forestry innovation and entrepreneurship: The state of the art, issues and an agenda," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    4. Ávila-Robinson, Alfonso & Islam, Nazrul & Sengoku, Shintaro, 2022. "Exploring the knowledge base of innovation research: Towards an emerging innovation model," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    5. Ben R. Martin, 2016. "Twenty challenges for innovation studies," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 43(3), pages 432-450.
    6. Yundong Xie & Qiang Wu & Xingchen Li, 2019. "Editorial team scholarly index (ETSI): an alternative indicator for evaluating academic journal reputation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 120(3), pages 1333-1349, September.
    7. Mikaela Backman & Johan Klaesson & Özge Öner, 2017. "Innovation in the hospitality industry," Tourism Economics, , vol. 23(8), pages 1591-1614, December.
    8. José M. Merigó & Christian A. Cancino & Freddy Coronado & David Urbano, 2016. "Academic research in innovation: a country analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(2), pages 559-593, August.
    9. Jan Fagerberg, 2013. "Innovation - a New Guide," Working Papers on Innovation Studies 20131119, Centre for Technology, Innovation and Culture, University of Oslo.
    10. Souzanchi Kashani, Ebrahim & Roshani, Saeed, 2019. "Evolution of innovation system literature: Intellectual bases and emerging trends," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 68-80.
    11. Mendonça, Sandro & Damásio, Bruno & Charlita de Freitas, Luciano & Oliveira, Luís & Cichy, Marcin & Nicita, António, 2022. "The rise of 5G technologies and systems: A quantitative analysis of knowledge production," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(4).
    12. Fagerberg, Jan & Landström, Hans & Martin, Ben R., 2012. "Exploring the emerging knowledge base of ‘the knowledge society’," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(7), pages 1121-1131.
    13. Rinaldo Evangelista, 2018. "Technology and Economic Development: The Schumpeterian Legacy," Review of Radical Political Economics, Union for Radical Political Economics, vol. 50(1), pages 136-153, March.
    14. Manuel Goyanes & Luis de-Marcos, 2020. "Academic influence and invisible colleges through editorial board interlocking in communication sciences: a social network analysis of leading journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(2), pages 791-811, May.
    15. Clausen, Tommy & Fagerberg, Jan & Gulbrandsen, Magnus, 2012. "Mobilizing for change: A study of research units in emerging scientific fields," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(7), pages 1249-1261.
    16. Martin, Ben R. & Nightingale, Paul & Yegros-Yegros, Alfredo, 2012. "Science and technology studies: Exploring the knowledge base," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(7), pages 1182-1204.
    17. Leckel, Anja & Veilleux, Sophie & Dana, Leo Paul, 2020. "Local Open Innovation: A means for public policy to increase collaboration for innovation in SMEs," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    18. Bhupatiraju, Samyukta & Nomaler, Önder & Triulzi, Giorgio & Verspagen, Bart, 2012. "Knowledge flows – Analyzing the core literature of innovation, entrepreneurship and science and technology studies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(7), pages 1205-1218.
    19. Andersen, Per Dannemand & Johnston, Ron & Saritas, Ozcan, 2017. "FTA and Innovation Systems," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 236-239.
    20. Leonid Gokhberg & Dirk Meissner & Ilya Kuzminov, 2023. "What semantic analysis can tell us about long term trends in the global STI policy agenda," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 48(6), pages 2249-2277, December.

    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:spr:scient:v:127:y:2022:i:12:d:10.1007_s11192-022-04279-9. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.