Advertisement

Scientometrics

, Volume 121, Issue 1, pp 173–208 | Cite as

Cross-national distance and international business: an analysis of the most influential recent models

  • Cristina López-Duarte
  • Marta M. Vidal-Suárez
  • Belén González-DíazEmail author
Article
  • 90 Downloads

Abstract

Cross-national distance among countries has been of central interest in International Business and Management research. Therefore, different efforts have been made to develop models/measurements to address this issue. In this article we identify the models/measurements of cross-national distance developed since the beginning of the 2000 decade. After briefly presenting each model’s distinctive features, we assess their impact on the research field based on a wide range of bibliometric techniques (direct, indirect, and adjusted citation impacts, altmetrics, academic reviews, journals and publishers’ prestige). Our analysis shows that the narrower cultural distance construct has lost ground to the wider psychic distance one. Furthermore, researchers highly value those models and measurement that go beyond the cultural and psychic distance constructs providing a multidimensional framework to analyze and measure cross-national distance among countries. Our analysis of these models’ impact shows that this a salient issue in the research field as a whole and a central topic in the highest ranked journals in International Business and Management.

Keywords

Cross-national distance Cultural distance Psychic distance Bibliometric analysis Altmetrics 

References

  1. Acedo, F. J., & Casillas, J. C. (2005). Current paradigms in the international management field: An author co-citation analysis. International Business Review, 14, 619–639.Google Scholar
  2. Ailon, G. (2008). Mirror, mirror on the wall: culture’s consequences in a value test of its own design. Academy of Management Review, 33(4), 885–904.Google Scholar
  3. Au, K. Y. (2000). Intra-cultural variation as another construct of international management: A study based on secondary data of 42 countries. Journal of International Management, 6, 217–238.Google Scholar
  4. Avloniti, A., & Filippaios, F. (2014). Unbundling the differences between psychic and cultural distance: An empirical examination of the existing measures. International Business Review, 23(3), 660–674.Google Scholar
  5. Barnett, G., & Fink, E. (2008). Impact of the internet and scholar age distribution on academic citation age. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(4), 526–534.Google Scholar
  6. Berry, H., Guillén, M. F., & Zhou, N. (2010). An institutional approach to cross-national distance. Journal of International Business Studies, 41, 1460–1480.Google Scholar
  7. Beugelsdijk, S., Kostova, T., Kunst, V. E., Spadafora, E., & van Essen, M. (2018). Cultural distance and the process of firm internationalization: A meta-analytical review and theoretical implications. Journal of Management, 44(1), 89–130.Google Scholar
  8. Bornmann, L. (2014). Do altmetrics point to the broader impact of research? An overview of benefits and disadvantages of altmetrics. Journal of Informetrics, 8(4), 895–903.Google Scholar
  9. Bornmann, L. (2015). Alternative metrics in scientometrics: A meta-analysis of research into three altmetrics. Scientometrics, 103(3), 1123–1144.Google Scholar
  10. Bornmann, L., Leydesdorff, L., & Wang, J. (2013). Which percentile-based approach should be preferred for calculating normalized citation impact values? An empirical comparison of five approaches including a newly developed citation-rank approach (P100). Journal of Informetrics, 7(4), 933–944.Google Scholar
  11. Bornmann, L., Leydesdorff, L., & Wang, J. (2014). How to improve the prediction based on citation impact percentiles for years shortly after the publication date? Journal of Informetrics, 8(1), 175–180.Google Scholar
  12. Bornmann, L., & Marx, W. (2011). The h index as a research performance indicator. European Science Editing, 37(3), 77–80.Google Scholar
  13. Brewer, P. (2007). Operationalizing psychic distance: A revised approach. Journal of International Marketing, 15(1), 44–66.Google Scholar
  14. Brewer, P., & Venaik, S. (2011). Individualism–collectivism in Hofstede and GLOBE. Journal of International Business Studies, 42, 436–445.Google Scholar
  15. Brewer, P., & Venaik, S. (2012). On the misuse of national culture dimensions. International Marketing Review, 29(6), 673–683.Google Scholar
  16. Burrell, Q. L. (2002). The nth-citation distribution and obsolescence. Scientometrics, 53(3), 309–323.Google Scholar
  17. Chakraborty, T., Kumar, S., Goyal, P., Ganguly, N., & Mukherjee, A. (2014). Towards a stratified learning approach to predict future citation counts. Paper presented at the proceedings of the ACM/IEEE joint conference on digital libraries. http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84919398068&partnerID=40&md5=4ab5eaa92d5b8f6d089ef130650f22ac.
  18. Chan, K. C., Fung, H. G., & Leung, W. K. (2006). International business research: Trends and school rankings. International Business Review, 15(4), 317–338.Google Scholar
  19. Chandy, P. R., & Williams, T. G. (1994). The impact of journals and authors on international business research: A citational analysis of JIBS articles. Journal of International Business Studies, 25(4), 715–728.Google Scholar
  20. Child, J., Ng, S. H., & Wong, C. (2002). Psychic distance and internationalization. Evidence from Hong Kong firms. International Studies of Management & Organization, 32(1), 36–56.Google Scholar
  21. Child, J., Rodrigues, S., & Frynas, J. (2009). Psychic distance, its impact and coping modes. Interpretations of SME decision makers. Management International Review, 49(2), 199–224.Google Scholar
  22. Costas, R., van Leeuwen, T. N., & van Raan, A. F. J. (2010). Is scientific literature subject to a ‘sell-by-date’? A general methodology to analyze the ‘durability’ of scientific documents. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(2), 329–339.Google Scholar
  23. Cunningham, S. J., & Bocock, D. (1995). Obsolescence of computing literature. Scientometrics, 34(2), 255–262.Google Scholar
  24. de Mooij, M. (2013). On the misuse and misinterpretation of dimensions of national culture. International Marketing Review, 30(3), 253–261.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  25. Dorfman, P., Javidan, M., Hanges, P., Dastmalchian, A., & House, R. (2012). GLOBE: A twenty year journey into the intriguing world of culture and leadership. Journal of World Business, 47, 504–518.Google Scholar
  26. Dow, D. (2000). A note on psychological distance and export market selection. Journal of International Marketing, 8(1), 51–64.Google Scholar
  27. Dow, D., & Karunaratna, A. (2006). Developing a multidimensional instrument to measure psychic distance stimuli. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(5), 578–602.Google Scholar
  28. Dubois, F. L., & Reeb, D. (2000). Ranking the international business journals. Journal of International Business Studies, 31(4), 689–704.Google Scholar
  29. Earley, P. C. (2006). Leading cultural research in the future: A matter of paradigms and taste. Journal of International Business Studies, 37, 922–931.Google Scholar
  30. Ebrahimy, S., Mehrad, J., Setareh, F., & Hosseinchari, M. (2016). Path analysis of the relationship between visibility and citation: The mediating roles of save, discussion, and recommendation metrics. Scientometrics, 109, 1497–1510.Google Scholar
  31. Egghe, L. (2011). The single publication H-index of papers in the Hirsch-core of a researcher and the indirect H-index. Scientometrics, 89, 727–739.Google Scholar
  32. Erdt, M., Nagarajan, A., Sin, S.-C. J., & Theng, Y.-L. (2016). Altmetrics: An analysis of the state-of-the-art in measuring research impact on social media. Scientometrics, 109, 1117–1166.Google Scholar
  33. Evans, J., & Mavondo, F. T. (2002). Psychic distance and organizational performance: An empirical examination of international retailing operations. Journal of International Business Studies, 33(3), 515–532.Google Scholar
  34. Ferreira, M. P., Li, D., Reis, N., & Serra, F. (2014a). Culture in international business research: A bibliometric study in four top IB journals. Management Research, 12, 68–91.Google Scholar
  35. Ferreira, M. P., Santos, J., Almeida, M., & Reis, N. (2014b). Mergers and acquisitions research: A bibliometric study of top strategy and international business journals, 1980–2010. Journal of Business Research, 67(12), 2550–2558.Google Scholar
  36. Finardi, U. (2014). On the time evolution of received citations, in different scientific fields: An empirical study. Journal of Informetrics, 8(1), 13–24.Google Scholar
  37. Fragkiadaki, E., & Evangelidis, G. (2014). Review of the indirect citations paradigm: Theory and practice of the assessment of papers, authors and journals. Scientometrics, 99(2), 261–288.Google Scholar
  38. Fragkiadaki, E., & Evangelidis, G. (2016). Three novel indirect indicators for the assessment of papers and authors based on generations of citations. Scientometrics, 106, 657–694.Google Scholar
  39. Ghemawat, P. (2001). Distance still matters. The hard reality of global expansion. Harvard Business Review, 79(8), 137–147.Google Scholar
  40. Giménez-Toledo, E., & Román-Román, A. (2009). Assessment of humanities and social sciences monographs through their publishers: A review and a study towards a model of evaluation. Research Evaluation, 18(3), 201–213.Google Scholar
  41. Glänzel, W. (2004). Towards a model for diachronous and synchronous citation analyses. Scientometrics, 60(3), 511–522.Google Scholar
  42. Glänzel, W., & Schoepflin, U. (1995). A bibliometric study on ageing and reception processes of scientific literature. Journal of Information Science, 21(1), 37–53.Google Scholar
  43. Glänzel, W., & Schoepflin, U. (1999). A bibliometric study of reference literature in the sciences and social sciences. Information Processing and Management, 35, 31–44.Google Scholar
  44. Gomez-Mejia, L. R., & Balkin, D. B. (1992). Determinants of faculty pay: An agency theory perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 35(5), 921–955.Google Scholar
  45. Gorraiz, J., Gumpenberger, C., & Purnell, P. J. (2014). The power of book reviews: A simple and transparent enhancement approach for book citation indexes. Scientometrics, 98(2), 841–852.Google Scholar
  46. Gorraiz, J., Gumpenberger, C., Schlögl, C. (2013a). Difference and similarities in usage versus citation behaviours observed for five subject areas. In J. Gorraiz, E. Schiebel, C. Gumpenberger, M. Hörlesberger, & H. Moed (Eds.), Proceedings of the 14th international society of scientometrics and informetrics conference, Vienna, 15th–18th July (Vol. 1, pp. 519–535).Google Scholar
  47. Gorraiz, J., Purnell, P. J., & Glänzel, W. (2013b). Opportunities for and limitations of the Book Citation Index. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(7), 1388–1398.Google Scholar
  48. Guerrero-Bote, V. P., & Moya-Anegón, F. (2014). Relationship between downloads and citations at journal and paper levels, and the influence of language. Scientometrics, 101, 1043–1065.Google Scholar
  49. Hakason, L., & Ambos, B. (2010). The antecedents psychic distance. Journal of International Management, 16, 195–2010.Google Scholar
  50. Harzing, A. (2003). The role of culture in entry mode studies: From neglect to myopia. Advances in International Management, 15(15), 75–127.Google Scholar
  51. Harzing, A., & Pudelko, M. (2016). Do we need to distance ourselves from the distance concept? Management International Review, 56(1), 1–34.Google Scholar
  52. Harzing, A., & Van der Wal, R. (2008). Google Scholar as a new source for citation analysis. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, 8(1), 61–73.Google Scholar
  53. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  54. Hofstede, G. (2006). What did GLOBE really measure? Researchers’ minds versus respondents’ minds. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(6), 882–896.Google Scholar
  55. Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1), 8.Google Scholar
  56. Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. H. (1988). The Confucius connection: From cultural roots to economic growth. Organizational Dynamics, 16(4), 4–21.Google Scholar
  57. Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations. London: McGrawHill.Google Scholar
  58. House, R., Hanges, P., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P., & Gupta, V. (2004). Culture, leadership and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  59. House, R., Javidan, M., Hanges, P., & Dorfman, P. (2002). Understanding cultures and implicit leadership theories across the globe: An introduction to project GLOBE. Journal of World Business, 37, 3–10.Google Scholar
  60. Hu, X., Rousseau, R., & Chen, J. (2011). On the definition of forward and backward citation generations. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 27–36.Google Scholar
  61. Javidan, M., House, R. J., Dorfman, P. W., Hanges, P. J., & de Luque, M. (2006). Conceptualizing and measuring cultures and their consequences: A comparative review of GLOBE’s and Hofstede’s approaches. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(6), 897–914.Google Scholar
  62. Jin, B. H., Liang, L. M., Rousseau, R., & Egghe, L. (2007). The R- and AR-indices: Complementing the h-index. Chinese Science Bulletin, 52(6), 855–863.Google Scholar
  63. Johanson, J., & Wiedersheim-Paul, F. (1975). The internationalization of the firm—Four Swedish cases. Journal of Management Studies, 12(3), 305–323.Google Scholar
  64. Kaasa, A., Vadi, M., & Varblane, U. (2016). A new dataset of cultural distances for European countries and regions. Research in International Business and Finance, 37, 231–241.Google Scholar
  65. Kelley, L., MacNab, B., & Worthley, R. (2006). Crossvergence and cultural tendencies: A longitudinal test of the Hong Kong, Taiwan and United States banking sectors. Journal of International Management, 12, 67–84.Google Scholar
  66. Kirkman, B. L., Lowe, K. B., & Gibson, C. B. (2006). A quarter century of “culture’s consequences”: A review of empirical research incorporating Hofstede’s cultural values framework. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(3), 285–320.Google Scholar
  67. Kochen, M. (1987). How well do we acknowledge intellectual debts? Journal of Documentation, 43(1), 54–64.Google Scholar
  68. Kogut, B., & Singh, H. (1988). The effect of national culture on the choice of entry mode. Journal of International Business Studies, 19(3), 411–432.Google Scholar
  69. Kosmulski, M. (2010). Hirsch-type approach to the 2nd generation citations. Journal of Informetrics, 4(3), 257–264.Google Scholar
  70. Kostoff, R. (1997). Citation analysis cross-field normalization: A new paradigm. Scientometrics, 39(3), 225–230.Google Scholar
  71. Kousha, K., Thelwall, M. (2015). Alternative metrics for book impact assessment: Can Choice reviews be a useful source? In A. A. Salah, Y. Tonta, A. A. A. Salah, C. Sugimoto, & U. Al (Eds.), Proceedings of the 15th international conference on scientometrics and informetrics (pp. 59–70). Istanbul: Bogazic ¸i University Printhouse.Google Scholar
  72. Kousha, K., Thelwall, M., & Rezaie, S. (2011). Assessing the citation impact of books: The role of Google Books, Google Scholar, and Scopus. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(11), 2147–2164.Google Scholar
  73. Lachance, C., & Larivière, V. (2014). On the citation lifecycle of papers with delayed recognition. Journal of Informetrics, 8(4), 863–872.Google Scholar
  74. Li, J., Shi, D., Zhao, S. X., & Ye, F. Y. (2014). A study of the “heartbeat spectra” for “sleeping beauties”. Journal of Informetrics, 8(3), 493–502.Google Scholar
  75. Li, X., Thelwall, M., & Giustini, D. (2012). Validating online reference managers for scholarly impact measurement. Scientometrics, 91, 461–471.Google Scholar
  76. López-Duarte, C., Vidal-Suárez, M. M., & González-Díaz, B. (2016). International business and national culture: A literature review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 18, 397–416.Google Scholar
  77. Magnusson, P., Wilson, R. T., Zdravkovic, S., Zhou, J. X., & Westjohn, S. A. (2008). Breaking through the cultural clutter: A comparative assessment of multiple cultural and institutional frameworks. International Marketing Review, 25(2), 183–201.Google Scholar
  78. Martínez, M. A., Herrera, M., López-Gijón, J., & Herrera-Viedma, E. (2014). H-classics: Characterizing the concept of citation classics through H-index. Scientometrics, 98, 1971–1983.Google Scholar
  79. McSweeney, B. (2002). Hofstede’s model of national cultural differences and their consequences: A triumph of faith—A failure of analysis. Human Relations, 55(1), 89–118.Google Scholar
  80. McSweeney, B. (2013). Fashion founded on a flaw: The ecological mono-deterministic fallacy of Hofstede, GLOBE, and followers. International Marketing Review, 30(5), 483–504.Google Scholar
  81. Min, C., Sun, J., Pei, L., & Ding, Y. (2016). Measuring delayed recognition for papers: Uneven weighted summation and total citations. Journal of Informetrics, 10(4), 1153–1165.Google Scholar
  82. Moed, H. F., Van Leeuwen, T. N., & Reedijk, J. (1998). A new classification system to describe the ageing of scientific journals and their impact factors. Journal of Documentation, 54(4), 387–419.Google Scholar
  83. Ng, S., Lee, J. A., & Soutar, G. N. (2007). Are Hofstede’s and Schwartz’s value frameworks congruent? International Marketing Review, 24(2), 164–180.Google Scholar
  84. Nicolaisen, J. (2002). The scholarliness of published peer reviews: A bibliometric study of book reviews in selected social science fields. Research Evaluation, 11(3), 129–140.Google Scholar
  85. Nordstrom, K. A., & Vahlne, J. E. (1994). Is the globe shrinking? Psychic distance and the establishment of Swedish sales subsidiaries during the last 100 years. In M. Landeck (Ed.), International trade: Regional and global issues (pp. 41–56). New York: St Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  86. Onodera, N. (2016). Properties of an index of citation durability of an article. Journal of Informetrics, 10(4), 981–1004.Google Scholar
  87. Onodera, N., & Yoshikane, F. (2015). Factors affecting citation rates of research articles. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(4), 739–764.Google Scholar
  88. Pinto, C. F., Serra, F. R., & Ferreira, M. P. (2014). A bibliometric study on culture research in IB. BAR-Brazilian Administration Review, 11(3), 340–363.Google Scholar
  89. Pisani, N. (2011). International management research: Investigating its recent diffusion in top management journal. Journal of Management, 35(2), 199–218.Google Scholar
  90. Piwowar, H. (2013). Altmetrics: Value all research products. Nature, 493(7431), 159–159.Google Scholar
  91. Pooladian, A., & Borrego, Á. (2016). A longitudinal study of the bookmarking of library and information science literature in Mendeley. Journal of Informetrics, 10(4), 1135–1142.Google Scholar
  92. Priem, J., Parra, C., Piwowar, H., & Waagmeester, A. (2012). Uncovering impacts: CitedIn and total impact, two new tools for gathering altmetrics. Paper presented at the iConference 2012.Google Scholar
  93. Priem, J., Piwowar, H. A., & Hemminger, B. M. (2012). Altmetrics in the wild: Using social media to explore scholarly impact. arXiv preprint. arXiv:1203.4745
  94. Prime, N., Obadia, C., & Vida, I. (2009). Psychic distance in exporter–importer relationships: A grounded theory approach. International Business Review, 18(2), 184–198.Google Scholar
  95. Qian, Y., Rong, W., Jiang, N., Tang, J., & Xiong, Z. (2017). Citation regression analysis of computer science publications in different ranking categories and subfields. Scientometrics, 110(3), 1351–1374.Google Scholar
  96. Robertson, C. J. (2000). The global dispersion of Chinese values: A three-country study of confucian dynamism. Management International Review, 40(3), 253–268.Google Scholar
  97. Salimi, N. (2017). Quality assessment of scientific outputs using the BWM. Scientometrics, 112, 195–213.Google Scholar
  98. Sangam, S. (1999). Obsolescence of literature in the field of psychology. Scientometrics, 44(1), 33–46.Google Scholar
  99. Sasaki, I., & Yoshikawa, K. (2014). Going beyond national cultures—Dynamic interaction between intra-national, regional, and organizational realities. Journal of World Business, 49(3), 455–464.Google Scholar
  100. Schlögl, C., Gorraiz, J., Gumpenberger, C., Jack, K., & Kraker, P. (2014). Comparison of downloads, citations and readership data for two information systems journals. Scientometrics, 101, 1113–1128.Google Scholar
  101. Schubert, A. (2009). Using the h-index for assessing single publications. Scientometrics, 78(3), 559–565.Google Scholar
  102. Schubert, A., & Braun, T. (1986). Relative indicators and relational charts for comparative assessment of publication output and citation impact. Scientometrics, 9, 281–291.Google Scholar
  103. Schubert, A., & Braun, T. (1996). Cross-field normalization of scientometric indicators. Scientometrics, 36(3), 311–324.Google Scholar
  104. Schwartz, S. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 1–65.Google Scholar
  105. Schwartz, S. (1994). Beyond individualism/collectivism: New cultural dimensions of values. In U. Kim, H. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S. Choi, & G. Yoons (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theory, methods and applications (pp. 85–119). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  106. Shenkar, O. (2001). Cultural distance revisited: Towards a more rigorous conceptualization and measurement of cultural differences. Journal of International Business Studies, 32(3), 519–535.Google Scholar
  107. Small, H. G. (1978). Cited documents as concept symbols. Social Studies of Science, 8(3), 327–340.Google Scholar
  108. Smith, P. B. (2006). When elephants fight, the grass gets trampled: The GLOBE and Hofstede Projects. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(6), 915–921.Google Scholar
  109. Smith, M., Dowling, P. J., & Rose, E. L. (2011). Psychic distance revisited: A proposed conceptual framework and research agenda. Journal of Management & Organization, 17(1), 123–143.Google Scholar
  110. Song, Y., Ma, F., & Yang, S. (2015). Comparative study on the obsolescence of humanities and social sciences in China: Under the new situation of web. Scientometrics, 102, 365–388.Google Scholar
  111. Sousa, C. M., & Bradley, F. (2005). Global markets: Does psychic distance matter? Journal of Strategic Marketing, 13(1), 43–59.Google Scholar
  112. Sousa, C. M., & Bradley, F. (2006). Cultural distance and psychic distance: Two peas in a pod? Journal of International Marketing, 14(1), 49–70.Google Scholar
  113. Sousa, C. M., & Lages, L. (2011). The PD scale: A measure of psychic distance and its impact on international marketing strategy. International Marketing Review, 28(2), 201–222.Google Scholar
  114. Steel, P., & Taras, V. (2010). Culture as a consequence: A multi-level multivariate meta-analysis of the effects of individual and country characteristics on work-related cultural values. Journal of International Management, 16, 211–233.Google Scholar
  115. Steenkamp, J. B. E. M. (2001). The role of national culture in international marketing research. International Marketing Review, 18(1), 30–44.Google Scholar
  116. Stegehuis, C., Litvak, N., & Waltman, L. (2015). Predicting the long-term citation impact of recent publications. Journal of informetrics, 9(3), 642–657.Google Scholar
  117. Sun, J., Min, C., & Li, J. (2016). A vector for measuring obsolescence of scientific article. Scientometrics, 107, 745–757.Google Scholar
  118. Sun, Y., & Xia, B. S. (2016). The scholarly communication of economic knowledge: A citation analysis of Google Scholar. Scientometrics, 109, 1965–1978.Google Scholar
  119. Tahamtan, I., Afshar, A. S., & Ahamdzadeh, K. (2016). Factors affecting number of citations: A comprehensive review of the literature. Scientometrics, 107, 1195–1225.Google Scholar
  120. Tahamtan, I., & Bornmann, L. (2018). Core elements in the process of citing publications: Conceptual overview of the literature. Journal of Informetrics, 12(1), 203–216.Google Scholar
  121. Tang, L., & Koveos, P. E. (2008). A framework to update Hofstede’s cultural value indices: Economic dynamics and institutional stability. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(6), 1045–1063.Google Scholar
  122. Taras, V., Steel, P., & Kirkman, B. (2010). Negative practice–value correlations in the GLOBE data: Unexpected findings, questionnaire limitations and research directions. Journal of International Business Studies, 41, 1330–1338.Google Scholar
  123. Taras, V., Steel, P., & Kirkman, B. L. (2012). Improving national cultural indices using a longitudinal meta-analysis of Hofstede’s dimensions. Journal of World Business, 47(3), 329–341.Google Scholar
  124. Thelwall, M., & Nevill, T. (2018). Could scientists use Altmetric.com scores to predict longer term citation counts? Journal of Informetrics, 12(1), 237–248.Google Scholar
  125. Tihanyi, L., Griffith, D. A., & Russell, C. J. (2005). The effect of cultural distance on entry mode choice, international diversification, and MNE performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of International Business Studies, 36(3), 270–283.Google Scholar
  126. Torres-Salinas, D., Robinson-García, N., Cabezas-Clavijo, A., & Jiménez-Contreras, E. (2014). Analyzing the citation characteristics of books: Edited books, book series and publisher types in the book citation index. Scientometrics, 98(3), 2113–2127.Google Scholar
  127. van Dalen, H. P., & Henkens, K. (2005). Signals in science—On the importance of signaling in gaining attention in science. Scientometrics, 64(2), 209–233.Google Scholar
  128. van Raan, A. F. J. (2004). Sleeping beauties in science. Scientometrics, 59(3), 467–472.Google Scholar
  129. Venaik, S., & Brewer, P. (2010). Avoiding uncertainty in Hofstede and GLOBE. Journal of International Business Studies, 41, 1294–1315.Google Scholar
  130. Venaik, S., & Brewer, P. (2013). Critical issues in the Hofstede and GLOBE national culture models. International Marketing Review, 30(5), 469–482.Google Scholar
  131. Vinkler, P. (1988). An attempt of surveying and classifying bibliometric indicators for scientometric purposes. Scientometrics, 13(5–6), 239–259.Google Scholar
  132. Vinkler, P. (2003). Relations of relative scientometric indicators. Scientometrics, 58(3), 687–694.Google Scholar
  133. Vinkler, P. (2013). Comparative rank assessment of journal articles. Journal of Informetrics, 7(3), 712–717.Google Scholar
  134. Walters, G. (2006). Predicting subsequent citations to articles published in twelve crime-psychology journals: Author impact versus journal impact measures: From cross-field to cross-scale effects of field-normalisation. Scientometrics, 69(3), 499–510.Google Scholar
  135. Waltman, L. (2016). A review of the literature on citation impact indicators. Journal of Informetrics, 10(2), 365–391.Google Scholar
  136. Wang, H., & Schaan, J. L. (2008). How much distance do we need? Revisiting the “National cultural distance paradox”. Management International Review, 48(3), 263–278.Google Scholar
  137. Weller, K. (2015). Social media and altmetrics: An overview of current alternative approaches to measuring scholarly impact. In I. Welpe, J. Wollersheim, S. Ringelhan, & M. Osterloh (Eds.), Incentives and performance (pp. 261–276). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  138. Werner, S. (2002). Recent development in international management research: A review of 20 top management journals. Journal of Management, 28(3), 277–305.Google Scholar
  139. Wouters, P., & Costas, R. (2012). Users, narcissism and control: tracking the impact of scholarly publications in the 21st century. Utrecht: SURFfoundation Utrecht.Google Scholar
  140. Yeganeh, H. (2014). A weighted, Mahalanobian, and asymmetrical approach to calculating national cultural distance. Journal of International Management, 20(4), 436–463.Google Scholar
  141. Zahedi, Z., & Haustein, S. (2018). On the relationships between bibliographic characteristics of scientific documents and citation and Mendeley readership counts: A large-scale analysis of Web of Science publications. Journal of Informetrics, 12(1), 191–202.Google Scholar
  142. Zaheer, S., Schomaker, M. S., & Nachum, L. (2012). Distance without direction: Restoring credibility to a much-loved construct. Journal of International Business Studies, 43(1), 18–27.Google Scholar
  143. Zhou, Q., Zhang, C., Zhao, X., & Chen, B. (2016). Measuring book impact based on the multi-granularity online review mining. Scientometrics, 107, 1435–1455.Google Scholar
  144. Zitt, M., Ramanana-Rahary, S., & Bassecoulard, E. (2005). Relativity of citation performance and excellence measures: From cross-field to cross-scale effects of field-normalisation. Scientometrics, 63(2), 373–401.Google Scholar
  145. Zoller, D., Doerfel, S., Jäschke, R., Stumme, G., & Hotho, A. (2016). Posted, visited, exported: Altmetrics in the social tagging system BibSonomy. Journal of Informetrics, 10(3), 732–749.Google Scholar
  146. Zuccala, A., Guns, R., Cornacchia, R., & Bod, R. (2015). Can we rank scholarly book publishers? A bibliometric experiment with the field of history. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 66(7), 1333–1347.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Business, Fc. Commerce, Tourism and Social SciencesUniversity of OviedoGijónSpain
  2. 2.Department of Accounting, Fc. Commerce, Tourism and Social SciencesUniversity of OviedoGijónSpain

Personalised recommendations