dc.creatorCortés-Sánchez, Julián David
dc.date.accessioned2020-09-14T13:20:15Z
dc.date.accessioned2022-09-22T14:54:24Z
dc.date.available2020-09-14T13:20:15Z
dc.date.available2022-09-22T14:54:24Z
dc.date.created2020-09-14T13:20:15Z
dc.identifier2463-1892
dc.identifierhttps://repository.urosario.edu.co/handle/10336/30108
dc.identifierhttps://doi.org/10.48713/10336_30108
dc.identifier.urihttp://repositorioslatinoamericanos.uchile.cl/handle/2250/3443247
dc.description.abstractUnlike the previous three volumes of the Atlas of Management Research in Latin America where networks based on information were modeled, analyzed, and discussed, this volume presents collaboration or co-authorship networks at the institutional level. The co-authorship networks were studied based on more than 17 000 articles in the field of business, management and accounting indexed in the Scopus bibliographic database published by authors from Latin America (LAC). The co-authorship networks for lac and each of the countries, were modeled and visualized, in addition to computing the density and betweenness of the networks and nodes, respectively. The institutions with the highest betweenness in LAC were the universities of São Paulo (Brazil), los Andes (Colombia), and Chile (Chile). There is no direct relationship between productivity and betweenness. Institutions in Guatemala, Costa Rica, and Mexico have collaborated with universities in the global north and with higher betweenness worldwide, such as Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Maryland. Networks from Paraguay, Bolivia, or Honduras exhibit a closed or dense structure, while those in Colombia, Mexico, or Brazil, an open structure or with multiple clusters connected indirectly. The three universities with the highest betweenness also focus their research efforts on topics of high intermediation identified in the third volume of the Atlas, such as sustainable development and decision making. Like the three previous volumes, data are provided in open access.
dc.languagespa
dc.publisherUniversidad del Rosario
dc.relationDocumento de investigación, ISSN: 2463-1892, No.158 (septiembre, 2020) 45 pp.
dc.relationNo. 158
dc.relationDocumento de investigación
dc.rightshttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/co/
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.rightsAbierto (Texto Completo)
dc.rightsAtribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 2.5 Colombia
dc.sourceCortés-Sánchez, J. D. (2020a). Atlas de la investigación en administración en América Latina Vol. 1 (No. 155). https://repository.urosario. edu.co/handle/10336/28293
dc.sourceCortés-Sánchez, J. D. (2020b). Atlas de la investigación en administración en América Latina Vol. 2 (No. 156). https://repository.urosario. edu.co/handle/10336/28292
dc.sourceCortés-Sánchez, J. D. (2020b). Atlas de la investigación en administración en América Latina Vol. 3 (No. 157). https://repository.urosario. edu.co/handle/10336/29080
dc.sourceYan, E., & Ding, Y. (2012). Scholarly network similarities: how bibliographic coupling networks, citation networks, cocitation networks, topical networks, coauthorship networks, and coword networks relate to each other. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol., 63(7), 1313-1326. https:// doi.org/10.1002/asi.22680
dc.sourceNewman, M. E. J. (2004). Coauthorship networks and patterns of scientific collaboration. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 101(suppl 1), 5200- 5205. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0307545100
dc.sourcePutman, R. (1993). Making democracy work: civic traditions in modem Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
dc.sourceLi, E. Y., Liao, C. H., & Yen, H. R. (2013). Co-authorship networks and research impact: a social capital perspective. Res. Policy, 42(9), 1515-1530. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.06.012
dc.sourceOkoli, C., & Oh, W. (2007). Investigating recognition-based performance in an open content community: a social capital perspective. Inf. Manag., 44(3), 240-252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2006.12.007
dc.sourceDebicki, B. J., Matherne III, C. F., Kellermanns, F. W., & Chrisman, J. J. (2009). Family business research in the new millennium: an overview of the who, the where, the what, and the why. Fam. Bus. Rev., 22(2), 151-166. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894486509333598
dc.sourceRutledge, R., & Karim, K. (2009). Determinants of coauthorship for the most productive authors of accounting literature. J. Educ. Bus., 84(3), 130-134. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.84.3.130-134
dc.sourceSeibert, S. E., Kacmar, K. M., Kraimer, M. L., Downes, P. E., & Noble, D. (2017). The role of research strategies and professional networks in management scholars’ productivity. J. Manage., 43(4), 1103-1130. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314546196
dc.sourceMcDowell, J. M., Singell Jr., L D., & Stater, M. (2006). Two to tango? Gender differences in the decisions to publish and coauthor. Econ. Inq., 44(1), 153-168. https://doi.org/10.1093/ei/cbi065
dc.sourceBoschini, A., & Sjögren, A. (2007). Is team formation gender neutral? Evidence from coauthorship patterns. J. Labor Econ., 25(2), 325-365. https://doi.org/10.1086/510764
dc.sourceDing, W. W., Levin, S. G., Stephan, P. E., & Winkler, A. E. (2010). The impact of information technology on academic scientists’ productivity and collaboration patterns. Manage. Sci., 56(9), 1439-1461. https://doi. org/10.1287/mnsc.1100.1195
dc.sourceMarzi, G., Caputo, A., Garces, E., & Dabić, M. (2020). A three decade mixed-method bibliometric investigation of the IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag., 67(1), 4-17. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2018.2870648
dc.sourceBaker, H. K., Kumar, S., & Pattnaik, D. (2020). Twenty-five years of the Journal of Corporate Finance: a scientometric analysis. J. Corp. Financ., 101572. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2020.101572
dc.sourceBaker, H. K., Kumar, S., & Pattnaik, D. (2020). Fifty years of The Financial Review: a bibliometric overview. Financ. Rev., 55(1), 7-24. https://doi.org/10.1111/fire.12228
dc.sourceR Core Team. (2014). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
dc.sourceBastian, M., Heymann, S., & Jacomy, M. (2009). Gephi: an open source software for exploring and manipulating networks. In International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media. https://gephi.org/users/ publications/
dc.sourceAria, M., & Cuccurullo, C. (2017). Bibliometrix: an R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. J. Informetr., 11(4), 959-975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007
dc.sourceThe Igraph Core Team. (2019). Igraph - Network analysis software. https://igraph.org/
dc.sourceSix, J. M., & Tollis, I. G. (2006). A framework and algorithms for circular drawings of graphs. J. Discret. Algorithms, 4(1), 25-50. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jda.2005.01.009
dc.sourceFruchterman, T. M. J., & Reingold, E. M. (1991). Graph drawing by force-directed placement. Softw. Pract. Exp., 21(11), 1129-1164. https:// doi.org/10.1002/spe.4380211102
dc.sourceKöseoglu, M. A., Sehitoglu, Y., & Craft, J. (2015). Academic foundations of hospitality management research with an emerging country focus: a citation and co-citation analysis. Int. J. Hosp. Manag., 45, 130-144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2014.12.004
dc.sourceKumar, S., Pandey, N., & Tomar, S. (2020). Twenty years of Latin American Business Review: a bibliometric overview. Lat. Am. Bus. Rev., 21(2), 197-222. https://doi.org/10.1080/10978526.2020.1722683
dc.sourcePutman, R. (2001). Bowling alone: the collapse and revival of American community. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
dc.sourcePrell, C. (2009). Linking social capital to small-worlds: a look at local and network-level processes and structure. Methodol. Innov. Online, 4(1), 8-22. https://doi.org/10.1177/205979910900400102
dc.sourceUniversity of São Paulo. https://www5.usp.br/institucional/a-usp/
dc.sourceQuacquarelli Symonds. (2020). qs World University Rankings 2019: top global universities. https://www.topuniversities.com/universityrankings/ world-university-rankings/2019
dc.sourceQuacquarelli Symonds. (2020). qs World University Rankings 2019: top global universities. https://www.topuniversities.com/universityrankings/ world-university-rankings/2019
dc.sourceFaculdade de Economia Administração e Contabilidade da Universidade de São Paulo. http://www.fea.usp.br/
dc.sourceQuacquarelli Symonds. (2020). qs World University Rankings for Business & Management Studies 2020. https://www.topuniversities. com/university-rankings/university-subject-rankings/2020/businessmanagement- studie
dc.sourceQuacquarelli Symonds. (2020). qs World University Rankings for Business & Management Studies 2020. https://www.topuniversities. com/university-rankings/university-subject-rankings/2020/businessmanagement- studie
dc.sourceUniversidad de los Andes. Nuestra historia. https://uniandes.edu.co/ es/universidad/informacion-general/historia
dc.sourceUniversidad de los Andes. La Facultad - Facultad de Administración. https://administracion.uniandes.edu.co/index.php/es/facultad/sobre-lafacultad/ la-facultad
dc.sourceBiblioteca del Congreso Nacional. (1842). Ley Universidad de Chile. Su creación. https://www.leychile.cl/Navegar?idNorma=1081247&id Parte=
dc.sourceFacultad de Economía y Negocios, Universidad de Chile. Historia de la Facultad. http://www.fen.uchile.cl/es/quienes-somos/historiafacultad
dc.sourceinstname:Universidad del Rosario
dc.sourcereponame:Repositorio Institucional EdocUR
dc.subjectInvestigación en administración
dc.subjectAmérica Latina
dc.subjectBibliometría
dc.subjectMapas de ciencia
dc.subjectRedes de coautoría
dc.titleAtlas de la investigación en administración en América Latina Vol. 4
dc.typeworkingPaper


Este ítem pertenece a la siguiente institución