Acceso Abierto

Innovation Research in Management and STEM for Sustainability in Developing Countries Insights from Bibliometrics in the Global South

dc.creatorCortés Sánchez, Julián David
dc.creatorBohle Carbonell, Katerina
dc.creatorGuix, Mireia
dc.descriptionLa investigación en innovación para la sostenibilidad en países en vías de desarrollo (i. e., el Sur global: sg) es crucial para la agenda de desarrollo global. Investigaciones previas han contribuido en establecer la relación entre sostenibilidad y administración señalando la desfragmentación entre áreas de investigación e industrias. No obstante, poco se sabe sobre el rol integrativo de la innovación en administración y stem (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) para la sostenibilidad en el sg. Este estudio presenta un estudio bibliométrico exploratorio sobre la producción, impacto y estructura de la investigación en innovación y administración y stem para la sostenibilidad en el sg con base en una muestra de más de 14, 000 documentos indexados en Scopus. China es el líder en producción e impacto, además de establecer la agenda de investigación según sus prioridades. Las áreas de investigación en el sg son periféricas a los Objetivos de Desarrollo del Milenio y la colaboración Sur-Norte es más frecuente que la Sur-Sur.spa
dc.description.abstractResearch on innovation for sustainability in developing countries (i. e., the Global South: gs) is crucial for the global development agenda. Previous research has contributed to establishing the relationship between sustainability and management and outlining fragmented insights on several research topics and industries. However, little is known on the integrative role of innovation in management and stem (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) for sustainability in the gs. Here, we present an exploratory bibliometric outlook on the output, impact, and structure of the research innovation in management and stem for sustainability in the gs based on a sample of 14,000+ documents indexed in Scopus. China is leading the overall output and impact and is setting the research agenda by its priorities. Research topics in the gs are rather peripherical to the Sustainable Development Goals and South-North collaboration is more frequent than South-South.spa
dc.publisherUniversidad del Rosariospa
dc.relation.citationIssueNo. 154
dc.relation.citationTitleDocumento de investigación
dc.relation.ispartofDocumento de investigación, ISSN: 2463-1892, No. 154 (agosto, 2020); 31 pp.spa
dc.rightsAtribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 2.5 Colombiaspa
dc.rights.accesoAbierto (Texto Completo)spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationAdams, J. (2012). The rise of research networks. Nature, 490(7420), 335-336. https://doi.org/10.1038/490335aspa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationAria, M., & Cuccurullo, C. (2017). Bibliometrix: an R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 11(4), 959-975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationArunachalam, S., & Doss, M. J. (2000). Mapping international collaboration in science in Asia through co-authorship analysis. Current Science, 79(5), 621-628.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationBaregheh, A., Rowley, J., & Sambrook, S. (2009). Towards a multidisciplinary definition of innovation. Management Decision, 47(8), 1323- 1339. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740910984578spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationBettencourt, L. M. A., & Kaur, J. (2011). Evolution and structure of sustainability science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(49), 19540. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1102712108spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationCeretta, G. F., Dos Reis, D. R., & Da Rocha, A. C. (2016). Innovation and business models: a bibliometric study of scientific production on Web of Science database. Gestao e Producao, 23(2), 433-444. Scopus. https:// doi.org/10.1590/0104-530X1461-14spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationCortés-Sánchez, J. D. (2019). Innovation in Latin America through the lens of bibliometrics: crammed and fading away. Scientometrics, 121(2), 869-895. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03201-0spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationDe Carvalho, G. D. G., Cruz, J. A. W., De Carvalho, H. G., Duclós, L. C., & De Fátima Stankowitz, R. (2017). Innovativeness measures: a bibliometric review and a classification proposal. International Journal of Innovation Science, 9(1), 81-101. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1108/ IJIS-10-2016-0038spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationDefazio, D., Lockett, A., & Wright, M. (2009). Funding incentives, collaborative dynamics and scientific productivity: Evidence from the eu framework program. Research Policy, 38(2), 293-305. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.11.008spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationDurieux, V., & Gevenois, P. A. (2010). Bibliometric indicators: quality measurements of scientific publication. Radiology, 255(2), 342-351. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.09090626spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationDyachenko, E. L. (2014). Internationalization of academic journals: is there still a gap between social and natural sciences? Scientometrics, 101(1), 241-255. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1357-9spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationFagerberg, J., Fosaas, M., & Sapprasert, K. (2012). Innovation: exploring the knowledge base. Research Policy, 41(7), 1132-1153. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.03.008spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationFairthorne, R. (2005). Empirical hyperbolic distributions (Bradford–Zipf– Mandelbrot) for bibliometric description and prediction. Journal of Documentation, 61(2), 171-193. https://doi.org/10.1108/00220410510585179spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationFinardi, U. (2015). Scientific collaboration between brics countries. Scientometrics, 102(2), 1139-1166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1490-5spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationGlänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2001). Double effort = double impact? A critical view at international co-authorship in chemistry. Scientometrics, 50(2), 199-214. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010561321723spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationGlänzel, Wolfgang, & Schubert, A. (2005). Analysing scientific networks through co-authorship. In H. F. Moed, W. Glänzel & U. Schmoch (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative science and technology research: the use of publication and Patent Statistics in studies of S&T systems (pp. 257-276). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-2755-9_12spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationGlavič, P., & Lukman, R. (2007). Review of sustainability terms and their definitions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 15(18), 1875-1885. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.12.006spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationGuan, J., & He, Y. (2007). Patent-bibliometric analysis on the Chinese science. Technology linkages. Scientometrics, 72(3), 403-425. Scopus. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11192-007-1741-1spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationHuang, F. (2018). Low quality studies belie hype about research boom in China. Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ low-quality-studies-belie-hype-about-research-boom-in-china/spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationHuang, L., Zhang, Y., Guo, Y., Zhu, D., & Porter, A. L. (2014). Four dimensional Science and Technology planning: a new approach based on bibliometrics and technology roadmapping. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 81(1), 39-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. techfore.2012.09.010spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationInönü, E. (2003). The influence of cultural factors on scientific production. Scientometrics, 56(1), 137-146. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021906925642spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationInternational Telecommunications Union (itu). (2018). Country classifications. https://www.itu.int/en/itu-d/Statistics/Pages/definitions/ regions.aspxspa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationJacob, B. A., & Lefgren, L. (2011). The impact of research grant funding on scientific productivity. Special Issue: The Role of Firms in Tax Systems, 95(9), 1168-1177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2011.05.005spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationJentsch, B., & Pilley, C. (2003). Research relationships between the South and the North: Cinderella and the ugly sisters? Social Science & Medicine, 57(10), 1957-1967. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277- 9536(03)00060-1spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationJia, Q., Wei, L., & Li, X. (2019). Visualizing sustainability research in business and management (1990-2019) and emerging topics: a large-scale bibliometric analysis. Sustainability, 11(20), 5596. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su11205596spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationKajikawa, Y. (2008). Research core and framework of sustainability science. Sustainability Science, 3(2), 215-239. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625- 008-0053-1spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationKajikawa, Y., Ohno, J., Takeda, Y., Matsushima, K., & Komiyama, H. (2007). Creating an academic landscape of sustainability science: an analysis of the citation network. Sustainability Science, 2(2), 221. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11625-007-0027-8spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationKing, D. A. (2004). The scientific impact of nations. Nature, 430(6997), 311-316. https://doi.org/10.1038/430311aspa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationKozma, C., & Calero-Medina, C. (2019). The role of South African researchers in intercontinental collaboration. Scientometrics, 121(3), 1293-1321. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03230-9spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationLazzarotti, F., Dalfovo, M. S., & Hoffmann, V. E. (2011). A bibliometric study of innovation based on schumpeter. Journal of Technology Management and Innovation, 6(4), 121-135. https://doi.org/10.4067/ S0718-27242011000400010spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationLi, N., Chen, K., & Kou, M. (2017). Technology foresight in China: academic studies, governmental practices and policy applications. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 119, 246-255. Scopus. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.08.010spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationLi, X., Zhou, Y., Xue, L., & Huang, L. (2015). Integrating bibliometrics and roadmapping methods: a case of dye-sensitized solar cell technologybased industry in China. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 97, 205-222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2014.05.007spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationLisée, C., Larivière, V., & Archambault, É. (2008). Conference proceedings as a source of scientific information: A bibliometric analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(11), 1776-1784. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20888spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationLopes, A. P. V. B. V., & De Carvalho, M. M. (2012). The evolution of the literature on innovation in cooperative relationships: a bibliometric study for the last two decades. Gestao e Producao, 19(1), 203-217. Scopus.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationManjarrez, C. C. A., Pico, J. A. C., & Díaz, P. A. (2016). Industry interactions in innovation systems: a bibliometric study. Latin American Business Review, 17(3), 207-222. https://doi.org/10.1080/10978526. 2016.1209036spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationMerigó, J. M., Cancino, C. A., Coronado, F., & Urbano, D. (2016). Academic research in innovation: a country analysis. Scientometrics, 108(2), 559-593. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1984-4spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationMichels, C., & Fu, J.-Y. (2014). Systematic analysis of coverage and usage of conference proceedings in web of science. Scientometrics, 100(2), 307-327. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1309-4spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationNakamura, M., Pendlebury, D., Schnell, J., & Szomszor, M. (2019). Navigating the structure of research on sustainable development goals. Web of Science Group. https://clarivate.com/webofsciencegroup/campaigns/ sustainable-development-goals/spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationNational Science Foundation. (2014). nsf approved fields of study. https:// www.btaa.org/docs/default-source/diversity/nsf-approved-fields-ofstudy. pdf?sfvrsn=1bc446f3_2spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationOrtiz-Ospina, E., Beltekian, D., & Roser, M. (2018). Trade and globalization. Our world in data. https://ourworldindata.org/trade-and-globalizationspa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationPadilla-Ospina, A. M., Medina-Vásquez, J. E., & Rivera-Godoy, J. A. (2018). Financing innovation: a bibliometric analysis of the field. Journal of Business and Finance Librarianship, 23(1), 63-102. Scopus. https:// doi.org/10.1080/08963568.2018.1448678spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationPouris, A., & Pouris, A. (2009). The state of science and technology in Africa (2000-2004): a scientometric assessment. Scientometrics, 79(2), 297-309. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0419-xspa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationPrathap, G. (2017). Scientific wealth and inequality within nations. Scientometrics, 113(2), 923-928. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2511-yspa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationPritchard, A. (1969). Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics. Journal of Documentation, 25(4), 348-349.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationQiu, J.-P., Dong, K., & Yu, H.-Q. (2014). Comparative study on structure and correlation among author co-occurrence networks in bibliometrics. Scientometrics, 101(2), 1345-1360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192- 014-1315-6spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationSCImago. (2018). scimago Journal Ranking. https://www.scimagojr.com/spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationScopus. (2015). Breaking the 1996 barrier: Scopus adds nearly 4 million pre-1996 articles and more than 83 million references. https://blog. scopus.com/posts/breaking-the-1996-barrier-scopus-adds-nearly- 4-million-pre-1996-articles-and-more-than-83spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationScopus. (2018). Search. https://www.scopus.com/spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationSedighi, M. (2016). Application of word co-occurrence analysis method in mapping of the scientific fields (case study: The field of Informetrics). Library Review, 65(1/2), 52-64. https://doi.org/10.1108/LR-07-2015- 0075spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationSilveira, F. F., & Zilber, S. N. (2017). Is social innovation about innovation? A bibliometric study identifying the main authors, citations and co-citations over 20 years. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 21(6), 459-484.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationSmall, H. (1973). Co-citation in the scientific literature: a new measure of the relationship between two documents. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 24(4), 265-269. https://doi.org/10.1002/ asi.4630240406spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationTanco, M., Escuder, M., Heckmann, G., Jurburg, D., & Velazquez, J. (2018). Supply chain management in Latin America: current research and future directions. Supply Chain Management, 23(5), 412-430. Scopus. https:// doi.org/10.1108/SCM-07-2017-0236spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationThe World Bank. (2018). World Bank open data | Data. https://data.worldbank. org/spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationTollefson, J. (2018). China declared world’s largest producer of scientific articles. Nature, 553, 390. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-00927-4spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationUddin, A., Singh, V. K., Pinto, D., & Olmos, I. (2015). Scientometric mapping of computer science research in Mexico. Scientometrics, 105(1), 97-114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1654-yspa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationundp. (2019). Southern development solutions for the sustainable development goals. undp. https://www.latinamerica.undp.org/content/rblac/en/home/ library/poverty/southern-development-solutions-for-the-sustainabledevelopment- g.htmlspa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationUnited Nations. (2018). Goal 9. Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation. https:// sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdg9spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationUnited Nations. (2019a). Special edition: Progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals. United Nations. https://undocs.org/ pdf?symbol=en/E/2019/68spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationUnited Nations. (2019b). What is “South-South cooperation” and why does it matter? un desa | United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/intergovernmental- coordination/south-south-cooperation-2019.htmlspa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationUsman, M. K., & Ewulum, O. (2019). A bibliometric analysis of Nigeria’s Library and Information Sciences literature: a study of journal of applied information science and technology. collnet Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management, 13(1), 53-64. https://doi.org/10.1080/0 9737766.2018.1541042spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationVan Arensbergen, P., Van der Weijden, I., & Van den Besselaar, P. (2012). Gender differences in scientific productivity: a persisting phenomenon? Scientometrics, 93(3), 857-868. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192- 012-0712-yspa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationVan 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/s11192-009-0146-3spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationWalker, R., Barros, B., Conejo, R., Neumann, K., & Telefont, M. (2015). Personal attributes of authors and reviewers, social bias and the outcomes of peer review: a case study [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research, 4(21). https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.6012.2spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationWikipedia. (2015). List of countries by regional classification. https://meta. wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_regional_classificationspa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationWorld Economic Forum. (2019). Future technologies will drive industry 4.0 | World Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/01/ future-technologies-will-drive-industry-4-0/spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationWorld Intellectual Property Organization. (2019). Patent Cooperation Treaty Yearly Review 2019. WIPO.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationWuchty, S., Jones, B. F., & Uzzi, B. (2007). The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science, 316(5827), 1036-1039. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1136099spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationZavale, N. C., & Langa, P. V. (2018). University-industry linkages’ literature on Sub-Saharan Africa: systematic literature review and bibliometric account. Scientometrics, 116(1), 1-49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192- 018-2760-4spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationZhu, J., & Hua, W. (2017). Visualizing the knowledge domain of sustainable development research between 1987 and 2015: a bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics, 110(2), 893-914. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016- 2187-8spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationZupic, I., & Čater, T. (2015). Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organizational Research Methods, 18(3), 429-472. https:// doi.org/10.1177/1094428114562629spa
dc.source.instnameinstname:Universidad del Rosariospa
dc.source.reponamereponame:Repositorio Institucional EdocURspa
dc.subjectSur globalspa
dc.subjectPaíses en vías de desarrollospa
dc.subject.ddcMacroeconomía & temas relacionadosspa
dc.subject.keywordGlobal southspa
dc.subject.keywordDeveloping countriesspa
dc.subject.lembDesarrollo sostenible - Investigacionesspa
dc.subject.lembInvestigación científicaspa
dc.subject.lembAdministración - Innovaciones tecnológicasspa
dc.titleInnovation Research in Management and STEM for Sustainability in Developing Countries Insights from Bibliometrics in the Global Southspa
dc.title.TranslatedTitleInvestigación sobre innovación en gestión y STEM para la sostenibilidad en países en desarrollo Perspectivas de la bibliometría en el Sur globalspa
dc.type.spaDocumento de trabajospa
Bloque original
Mostrando1 - 1 de 1
835.13 KB
Adobe Portable Document Format