See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/312979069

Logistics management research collaboration in Asia

Article  in  The International Journal of Logistics Management · January 2017

DOI: 10.1108/IJLM-09-2013-0104

CITATIONS READS

31 10,413

4 authors:

Yenchun Jim Wu Mark Goh

National Taiwan Normal University National University of Singapore
239 PUBLICATIONS   7,771 CITATIONS    369 PUBLICATIONS   9,931 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Chih-Hung Yuan Shan-Huen Huang

University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Zhongshan Institute National Kaohsiung University of Science and Technology (NKUST)
29 PUBLICATIONS   597 CITATIONS    18 PUBLICATIONS   630 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

CFP: Special Issue: Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Risk Management in Collective Wisdom Era View project

Organizational Behavior View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Yenchun Jim Wu on 17 May 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Logistics Management Research Collaboration in Asia

Abstract

Purpose of this paper: This paper investigates the state of logistics management research in
Asia. The study focuses on the research agenda, the topics of interest, and the extent of research
collaboration in logistics theory building and knowledge specific to Asia.

Design/methodology/approach: This study uses a mixed methods approach namely, content

analysis drawn from the articles found in six well-recognized peer-reviewed logistics
management related journals from 2003 to 2013, followed by social network analysis which is
applied on the selected articles to provide a structure of the collaboration relationship.

Findings: Initial findings suggest that there are some scholars in Asia who are instrumental in
research collaboration and in building a body of knowledge on logistics management focused
on Asia. More co-production of knowledge from deeper and tightly knit industry-academic
collaboration is needed to progress this domain. Most of the published work use an empirical
instrument drawn from the resource based view to explore firm level supply chain collaboration
and strategy. This suggests a positivist research tradition within logistics. There is a shortage
of studies conducted on the supply chain as a network of enterprises.

Research limitations/implications: The review of the articles is limited to six logistics

specific journals and we only concentrate on logistics management research focused on Asia.
The contributions from the other journals may have been missed. More collaboration at the
institutional, national, and international levels is called for especially on cross-collaboration
between practice and theory.

Practical implications: Though the analysis is restricted to 260 articles found in six journals,
this paper can shed light on the research needs from different perspectives and facilitate the
progress of logistics management research in Asia.

Originality/Value: This is the first paper to discuss the state of logistics management research
collaboration in Asia, and provides an overview of the research issues, topics, and approaches
undertaken thus far. Through this work, this study hopes that it will encourage greater research
collaboration between industry and academia, and academics themselves.

Keywords: Logistics research, Content analysis, Network analysis, Asia, Collaboration

1
1. Introduction
Emerging markets and developing economies, especially those in Asia, will witness relatively
robust economic growth of 6.2 and 6.4 percent for 2014 and 2015 respectively, thus attracting
greater foreign direct investment (Asian Development Bank, 2014). This increase is paralleled
in the logistics industry, an important driver for trade and industry. Armstrong and Associates
has estimated global 3PL revenue at USD 677 bn in 2012, of which the 35 percent (USD 236
bn) revenue contribution from the Asia-Pacific region is a y-o-y increase of 24 percent (Langley,
2014). Overall, the value of the global logistics market was USD 4 trillion in 2013, or about 10
percent of global GDP (Evotech Capital, 2014). Given the increasing attention on trade and
investment in Asia, most of the logistics activities will shift from North America and Europe
to the emerging economies in Asia. Already, the share of the transport and warehousing sector
in Asia to the global market currently at 18 percent is expected to exceed 21 percent by 2014
(Webb, 2010).
Recently, the World Economic Forum (2014) reports that eleven Asian countries belong
to the top 30 in the Global Competiveness Report 2013-2014. These countries are also placed
in the top 30 in the recent Logistics Performance Index 2014 (Arvis et al., 2014). Given this
correlation, studies focusing on logistics and the larger supply chain management domain in
Asia have also witnessed an increase in publication and attention from academia. For instance,
Soni and Kodali (2011) have indicated that Asian countries now contribute to nearly 10 percent
of research studies, exceeding Sachan and Datta (2005)’s earlier findings of 6.1 percent. Clearly,
there appears to be a sustained interest in this field of study, which serves the purpose and intent
of this paper.
On the research front, this begs some pertinent questions about supply chain and logistics
management research, namely, what is the state and extent of research collaboration in supply
chain and logistics management in Asia, and the research techniques used.
To address these questions, this study uses a mixed methods approach, primarily content
analysis to explore the status of logistics research and then social network analysis to examine
the author-collaborator relationship in Asia from the perspective of the papers published in the
studied logistics and supply chain journals. Collaboration in this context includes engaging
with researchers outside of Asia to address the logistics management research issues pertinent
to a growing Asia. We believe that addressing the research questions would reveal that the
research progress has led to greater communication and collaboration among contemporary
researchers based in Asia as articulated by Chang and Harrington (2005), and affords the
opportunity to examine the structure of the collaboration relationship within an academic
community (Racherla and Hu, 2010).
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 reviews the extant literature.
Section 3 details the research method used. Section 4 presents the results of our analysis.
Section 5 offers some insights for research directions, and the concluding remarks.

2
2. Literature review
We set the scene of our work by reviewing the literature on logistics research, research
collaboration, and social network analysis.

2.1 Logistics research

Logistics research can be classified into the following streams: (1) research focus which refers
to identifying the different levels within the network of operations such as function, firm, dyad,
and network (Selviaridis and Spring, 2007) (2) research method which refers to analyzing the
research by its design, method, and data analysis techniques (Woo et al., 2011), and (3) the
research context which refers to the industry, theory, and topics covered (Shook et al., 2009).
Previous studies have focused on the level of analysis, research design, and the data analysis
methods to highlight the orientation of logistics and supply chain research. Most of the review
studies have focused on specific contemporary topics such as sustainability (Gimenez and
Tachizawa, 2012; Miemczyk et al., 2012), logistics capabilities (Gligor and Holcomb, 2012),
and third party logistics (Selviaridis and Spring, 2007). Further, research has also focused on a
specific region. Doing so helps the researchers to identify the trends in logistics development
in regions such as Asia and this can suggest opportunities for further logistics research and to
inform policy.
Asia has engendered research attention on supply chain collaboration (Cadilhon et al.,
2005; Nakano, 2009), green (Zhu et al., 2010; Chiou et al., 2011), supplier selection (Ting and
Cho, 2008), outsourcing (Chu and Wang, 2012), inventory (Mustaffa and Potter, 2009), and
literature survey (Liu, 2014). Liu (2014), who studied China-based logistics research articles
published in peer-reviewed logistics and supply chain management journals from 2001-2012,
reports that logistics service providers, transport and logistics infrastructure, outsourcing,
environmental issues, relationship management, and risk management are popular topics
among academics who have used at least ten different theories to explain the phenonmenon
studied.

2.2 Research collaboration

In general, the value of fostering collaborative research has been extensively discussed in the
literature. However, Bjerregaard (2010) notes that cultural differences and communication can
impede the co-production of knowledge and collaboration. In addition, the disparities in work
style, language, and time schedules distracts collaboration between academics (Chen et al.,
2013). Lee and Bozeman (2005) surveyed 433 professors on collaboration and publishing
productivity. Their empirical results reveal no significant relationship between research
collaboration and research productivity.

3
 Besides, other related studies have shown that industry tends to collaborate with university
or research institutions to improve firm performance through innovation (Kang and Park, 2012;
Chen et al., 2013). Cross-institutional collaboration can deliver an increased diversity of
resources, skills, knowledge, and viewpoints (Curran and Hannigan, 2008). Cantor et al. (2010)
have examined 3,116 articles published in seven logistics journal from 1987 to 2007. They
conclude that scholars in the logistics domain value co-authored research. The results show
that co-authorship and the frequency of citations are significant related. This leads us to a
proposition, namely, cross-disciplinary and international collaboration are a conduit for
providing knowledge, and they facilitate an ongoing knowledge exchange for developing a
better understanding of this domain.
Given the complexity of supply chain issues even in a research context, it is
understandable that research collaboration, either between scholars or between academia and
industry is needed to meet publication outcomes. Recently, research collaboration has become
a focal sub-domain of interest among academics (Autry and Griffis, 2005). Melin and Persson
(1996) have studied the effects of scientific collaboration and suggest that the growth of such
collaboration is attributed to the internal dynamics of the subject matter and the prevailing
environment. Logistics management, which straddles several traditional learned disciplines, is
one such subject matter. Indeed, research collaboration is intense and fast becoming a requisite
for success in the publication arena, which often requires multi-disciplinary expertise.
According to Melin and Persson (1996), a key indicator for the success of such collaborations
is the extent of co-authorship in scholarly output. One intended outcome of collaboration is an
improvement in scientific productivity (Lee and Bozeman, 2005). However, “the literature has
also highlighted the collaboration paradox which claims that collaboration seems has a positive
impact on publishing productivity (Lee and Bozeman, 2005), particularly when it is research
undertaken in developing areas such as logistics management in Asia. In particular, Duque et
al. (2005) have conducted a comparative analysis of some developing economies and found
that such research collaboration is often hindered by national and regional concerns. The extant
literature is also replete with theoretical lenses such as the popular resource based view, and
transaction cost economics theory which have been used to show that international research
collaborations are more successful when complementary resources are increased and
transaction costs reduced (Ou et al., 2012). Clearly, this points to the choice of social networks
as an important collaboration mechanism.

2.3 Social network analysis

Next, Social Network Analysis (SNA), drawn from network theory, has emerged as a
technique for the methodical analysis of social networks in various contexts (Freeman, 2006).
For instance, SNA has been used in studies on organizations (Carpenter et al., 2012), tourism
(Racherla and Hu, 2010), social capital (Li, 2013), and innovation (Dahlander and Gann, 2010).

4
In these studies, SNA views relationships as comprising nodes (denoting individual actors
within the network) and ties (denoting the relationship between individuals). As the visual
representation of networks may be a powerful way of conveying complex information, SNA
has since been applied in innovative exploratory research on management related issues. The
potential application of SNA has gained a significant following in the management and
organizational studies (Kilduff and Tsai, 2003). In the logistics domain, the following pieces
inform the reader of the state of SNA use (Philips and Philips, 1998; Carter et al., 2007; Autry
and Griffis, 2008).
For instance, Philips and Philips (1998) use SNA to track the flow of information between
business logistics and transportation to show that information flow has become more efficient,
entities communicate directly with each other, and logistics and transportation are becoming
more intertwined. Borgatti and Li (2009) have provided logistics researchers with the overview
concepts and mechanisms of SNA. Carter et al. (2007) have highlighted the potential
application of SNA to empirical logistics research through the hypotheses related to the
informal and formal structures of influence within the context of an organization’s social
network, thus providing guidance for future research in the field. Likewise, Autry and Griffis
(2008) have studied supply chain capital using SNA. However, the extant literature has not
examined the extent of research collaboration among logistics management researchers
working in this domain particularly in an Asian context, which is the purpose of our paper.
Hence, we seek to employ techniques such as content analysis and SNA to identify the key
researchers pivotal in collaborating on logistics management research in Asia, and examine the
key research topics, as indicated at the start of our paper.

3. Method
We use a mixed methods approach in this paper, namely, content analysis as the primary
method, supported by social network analysis as the supporting research method.
As this study focuses on logistics management research in Asia from several peer
reviewed journals on logistics and supply chain management, for our content analysis, we
target only the SSCI/SCI ranked journals which have a specific focus on logistics related
research issues. Also, as the study’s scope is limited to Asia, a large geography, we need to rely
on a realistic working definition for Asia. For this, we draw from the Central Intelligence
Agency (2013)’s definition of Asia which is divided into 56 countries, with Russia and Turkey
having part of their land in Europe. Figure 1 details the steps in the data collection, from 2003
to 2013.
[Insert Figure 1 here]
This study chose six journals: Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation
Review (TRE), International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management
(IJPDLM), the International Journal of Logistics Management (IJLM), Journal of Supply

5
Chain Management (JSCM), Supply Chain Management: An International Journal (SCMIJ),
and the Journal of Business Logistics (JBL). In previous review studies, the criteria for journal
selection are based on the highest usage scores for peer-reviewed (Gibson and Hanna, 2003),
journal ranking (Kovács and Spens, 2005), or characteristics of publishing standards (Ellinger
and Chapman, 2011). In our study, the selection of the six journals was based on the number
of publications taken from a list of review papers on logistics / supply chain management
research found in the following sources (e.g. Kovács and Spens, 2005; Spens and Kovács, 2006;
Craighead et al., 2007; Svensson et al., 2008; Cantor et al., 2010; Ellinger and Chapman, 2011;
Abbasi and Nilsson, 2012; McKinnon, 2013). These then yielded 2,513 papers for potential
analysis.
Next, this study employed four research assistants who proceeded to download only
papers with contents on either city or country in Asia, firms with operating headquarters in
Asia, or case studies based on Asia, except for publication information, book reviews, notes,
and comments. This meta-search process yielded 499 papers. Third, our full paper analysis
process, as indicated by Figure 1, is a further scrutiny by two research assistants to see if the
papers are indeed city, country, institution or event-based. In short, this study selected only
those papers that covered Asia from either title, abstract, keywords, research object, method,
or data collection. All non-Asian articles were deleted from consideration. This reduced the
research papers space from 499 to 398. One author then proceeded to read the filtered papers
to confirm content validity by checking the paper for content, including the comparative studies
between Asia and the other regions. Finally, choosing only those papers that focus only on Asia
and excluding those that with little focus on Asia yielded 260 data points for analysis. As shown
in Table I, Asia-based logistics management research articles are fairly distributed by
frequency count among three journals: TRE (18 percent), SCMIJ (16 percent), and IJPDLM (9
percent).
[Insert Table I here]
Table II presents the breakdown by year and journal title. Of the 260 logistics research
studies based on Asia, 45 percent are published in TRE, followed by 30 percent in SCMIJ, and
16 percent in IJPDLM. This result is comparable to Liu (2014), who reported that logistics
research based on China were published in IJPDLM (19.8 percent), TRE (14.3 percent), and
SCMIJ (13.2 percent).
[Insert Table II here]
Table III shows the classification technique applied in this paper. The categorization on
collaboration provides information about the social network of the authors, the number of
authors, and the authors’ affiliations (Gubi et al., 2003; Racherla and Hu, 2010). Research focus
is a categorization that provides the region covered by the articles and the level of analysis
(firm, dyad) (Selviaridis and Spring, 2007; Soni and Kodali, 2011). The categorization on
methodology provides the hypothesis formulation, research design (empirical and qualitative),

6
research method (survey, etc), data analysis techniques (SEM, path analysis, t-test), sampled
industry (manufacturing, transportation), subject area (research topic), and logistics-related
issues in Asia (Burgess et al., 2006; Shook et al., 2009; Woo et al., 2011). The theoretical
perspective provides the lenses (resource dependency, institutional theory, TAM) that have
been applied on the papers (Shook et al., 2009). Two coders then analyzed the papers. The
coders had an initial meeting to check for human errors after ten papers. After analyzing another
11 papers, the coding results had a reliability of 97 percent.
[Insert Table III here]
For the social network analysis, we primarily use it to study the extent of the research
collaboration from the centrality, density, and structural soundness perspectives. To do so, we
rely on openware from the Net. The key results for this are found in Figures 2 to 4.

4. Results and discussion

4.1 Geographic research
Table IV provides the information on the research collaboration network. Twelve researchers
have published at least four articles focused on Asia, accounting for 24 percent of the total
number of papers (62 out of 260). As the median number of co-authored papers for these
researchers is 4.5, this suggests good collaboration among the authors as indicated by the
density of the network (see also Figure 2). Sole authorship is a minority with most of the single
authored articles published in TRE.
[Insert Table IV here]
As mentioned, research collaboration network analysis, adapted from SNA, is conducted
to delineate the status of Asia-based collaboration at different levels of the collaboration
spectrum. Figures 2 - 4 present a representation of the research collaboration network based on
the co-authored papers arising from 532 authors, 247 institutions, and 28 countries respectively.
UCINET 6.522 is used for the analysis and Netdraw 2.139 for the output. Figure 2 shows that
the logistics research community is relatively fragmented. Only a few researchers have co-
operated with others. There are few bridges connecting the teams of scholars with the exception
of scholars such as Daugherty, who is central in connecting logistics researchers on topical and
contextual aspects such as 3PL in China. Another case is that of Lai who is most dense for the
largest connected component on green supply chain management.
[Insert Figure 2 here]
Figure 3 presents the collaboration network for Asia-based papers among institutions.
Seven institutions are pivotal in conducting research on Asia-based logistics research. Most of
the key players are located in Asia, notably, three universities (Kainan U, NCTU, NSYSU) are
in Taiwan, followed by two (HKPU, CUHK) in Hong Kong, and NUS in Singapore.
[Insert Figure 3 here]
Figure 4 shows research collaboration at the country level. The network of 28 countries

7
shows some evidence of country-level collaboration between the authors. For instance,
academics in China, Canada, UK, Australia, Singapore, Taiwan, Japan, and the U.S. tend to
build a wider collaboration network with those outside of their home countries.
[Insert Figure 4 here]
Table V highlights the form of research collaboration based on affiliation information.
The categories for Table V are obtained through the SciVal Metrics Guidebook (Colledge and
Verlinde, 2014). The number of papers co-authored by academics from the same institution
(institutional level) accounts for 27 percent. Collaboration between academics at the national
and international levels accounts for 47 percent. International collaboration, accounting for 30
percent, outweighs the collaboration at the national level, suggesting perhaps that distance and
time are not an impediment to collaboration. This resonates well with Melin and Persson (1996),
especially on national and international levels of collaboration among researchers. However,
the extent of cross sector collaboration is low, at only 10 percent. There is a need to build
collaboration between disciplines to fuel new research and innovation (Bjerregaard, 2010).
[Insert Table V here]
On the number of authors contributing to a paper, Table VI shows that the modal tie of
the co-authored papers is 2 to 3, which signals an optimal density for research collaboration,
presumably pointing to greater productivity through the power of 2 to 3 in publication
outcomes. Cantor et al. (2010) have indicated a trend in the mean number of co-authors, co-
institutions, and co-countries in the logistics field from 1987 to 2007. Some of the universities
providing the guidance and encouragement in that direction are from Asia itself. This augurs
well for logistics management research in Asia as institutions in Asia are taking the lead in
growing the requisite body of knowledge on Asia. This also attests to an institutional
environment that fosters international and regional collaboration between these schools.
However, the extensiveness of this collaboration decreases markedly after 4 authors. This
finding could be viewed through the lens of Duque et al. (2005)’s collaboration paradox. Our
study has unearthed another variant of the collaboration paradox, which perhaps indicates a
point of diminishing contribution from the authors, or what is proverbially known as the case
of too many cooks spoiling the broth. Therein lies the challenge of multi-partner research
collaboration, past and present.
[Insert Table VI here]
Next, Figure 5 suggests that nearly 70 percent of the research collaboration and the
research agenda on logistics management in Asia has so far focused on Northeast Asia. The
work is predominantly conducted by institutions from Taiwan (National Chiao-tung University,
National Central University, National Cheng Kung University), and Hong Kong (Hong Kong
Polytechnic University, City University of Hong Kong, Chinese University of Hong Kong),
and Singapore (National University of Singapore). This concurs with the prevailing interest
from academia and practice on China as a manufacturing hub and the associated logistics

8
challenges and opportunities. Put simply, geographical proximity helps in research
collaboration and focus.
[Insert Figure 5 here]
Table VII, which classifies the papers with respect to their unit of analysis, shows that
most of the research activity is firm based (52 percent), This concurs with Gubi et al. (2003),
Sachan and Datta (2005), and Selviaridis and Spring (2007). At the chain and network levels,
the research agenda has concentrated only on certain aspects of the supply chain relationship.
Again, this confirms Vallet-Bellmunt et al. (2011)’s finding that there is a shortage of studies
conducted on the supply chain as a network of enterprises. Instead, most research focus on a
single firm or on the relationships of a single enterprise with its suppliers or customers. Our
study shows that very little research is undertaken at the dyadic level. This is intriguing as
research in the other domains has since moved to a dyadic discourse.
[Insert Table VII here]
On the industries being studied collaboratively, our research reveals that manufacturing
(17 percent) and logistics services (12 percent) remain popular and most studied on the
researcher’s agenda of theory building and knowledge advancement. It is interesting to note
that while research on logistics management in Asia has traditionally been studied on logistics
or supply chain collaboration between firms operating in this part of the world, the strategic
intent to collaborate or integrate with other supply chains will yield competitive advantage for
multiple trading partners (Power, 2005).
Finally, from Table VIII, our result suggests that sustainable or green logistics, especially
the empirical research on this area has been receiving much academic attention recently. This
could be attributed to the recent regulations and compliance policy on enterprises, which have
a positive impact on national environmental regulations in developing countries. Other topics
of interest include supply chain collaboration and strategy. What is of lesser interest of study
is that of information (information technology and knowledge management). This may point
to the maturity of logistics management systems research in Asia.
[Insert Table VIII here]

4.2 Research on methodology

On the research methods used, this study finds that most of the papers studied in this
manuscript are not empirically driven nor have a rigorous conceptual or research model
formulation. This hints at the choice of academic postulations as an emerging area of work.
Collaboration is typically required and beneficial when conducting research in environments
that require local field inputs and contacts (e.g. translation and fieldwork) or when local
governments dictate the partnership with a local researcher. In Asia, both considerations are
needed, given the level of political patronage and the diversity of language and custom.
On the research design approach, our frequency counts from Table IX shows that 59

9
percent of the papers are quantitative, reflecting a leaning towards a positivist tradition within
the logistics domain (Sachan and Datta, 2005; Selviaridis and Spring, 2007; Vallet-Bellmunt
et al., 2011). Further, 12 percent of the papers use triangulation (multi-method approach) as
their research design, exceeding the findings of Sachan and Datta (2005). Finally, qualitative
design comprises only 33 percent of the papers, taken from techniques such as conceptual work,
action research, and case studies. This also supports the findings of Table IX, namely, the
current state of logistics management research in Asia is quantitative and survey based. This
concurs with Sachan and Datta (2005) and Vallet-Bellmunt et al. (2011). Though case studies
either single or multiple, only account for 18 percent of the total papers, scholars have
effectively used case studies to develop strategy, internal organization, and building theory
(Eisenhardt and Graebner, 2007). It is also a key to facilitating research collaboration between
practitioners and academics (Rynes et al., 2001).
[Insert Table IX here]
Most of the survey-based works are constructed on an established theoretical lens as
shown by Table X though the analyses are at best at the intermediate statistical level only. The
dominance of mathematical models, OLS regression, and SEM is observed, although a greater
difference was found by Sachan and Datta (2005), and Vallet-Bellmunt et al. (2011).
[Insert Table X here]

4.3 Theoretical perspective

Next, Table XI shows the results of classifying the articles according to the theoretical
perspective presented in the articles. Thirty six theories such as the resource based view (RBV)
and transaction cost economics are used in 61 articles. The results suggest that there is an
increase in theory building in the past decade. Theoretical works form 23.5 percent of the total
number of studies. However, logistics studies are still weakly theorized (Mentzer et al., 2004;
Selviaridis and Spring, 2007). Research tends to employ theory to explore various opportunities,
issues, and problems in Asia, but present no well-developed disciplines of its own (Liu, 2014).
The reason why few papers attempt to build theory from practice is because logistics
management research is an outgrowth arising primarily from the business disciplines of
management and marketing (Selviaridis and Spring, 2007; Liu, 2014). In this regard, RBV,
game theory, and transaction cost economics are the most popular and amenable for logistics
management research in Asia. Yao et al. (2008), and Shang and Marlow (2005) have applied
RBV to explore logistics capability. This resonates well with Liu (2014). Game theory is used
to explore supply chain cooperation and competition (Yao et al., 2008; Sheu, 2011).
Outsourcing, buyer-supplier cooperation, and reverse logistics are main issues discussed
through transaction cost economics (Cai and Yang, 2008; Chu and Wang, 2012).
[Insert Table XI here]

10
5 Conclusion, implications and future research
This paper has attempted to investigate the state and the extent of logistics management
research collaboration in Asia, the common techniques used through an application of content
analysis and social network analysis. By studying the level of research collaboration on
logistics / supply chain management in Asia, this paper finds that there are scholars who are
critical to growing the research network and building a body of knowledge on logistics
management focused on Asia.
The first contribution of this paper is to provide an overall picture of supply chain
management and logistics research in Asia. The second contribution is that more collaboration
between industry and academia and between academics themselves is needed to progress
logistics management research in Asia. Despite the growing economic activity in Asia and a
large share of the global logistics market, there is still a lack of clarity on logistics management
research done in this region. As such, several implications for research exist.

5.1 Implications for research

First, most of the co-authored papers involve 2 to 3 authors, hinting at some evidence of
research collaboration. While, there are a few bridges connecting teams of researchers as shown
in Figure 2, the community of Asian focused research is relatively fragmented with only a few
scholars who have collaborated with others, either institutionally, nationally or internationally.
There is a need for more collaboration given the geographical diversity of Asia. To foster
greater cross sector collaboration, the consulting services provided by professors for industry
provide an avenue for facilitating knowledge co-creation between practice and academia (Chen
et al., 2013).
Second, the institutions from Hong Kong and Taiwan are taking the lead in growing this
body of knowledge as covered by the published articles. It appears that there is much research
from without rather than from within China on China itself. Also, the research collaboration
and the research agenda on logistics management so far have a narrow focus on Northeast Asia.
There are other emerging markets useful for research probing, including Central and South
Asia.
Third, our results suggest that over half of the published work focuses on firm level
activity or at the functional level. While this concurs with Gubi et al. (2003), and Sachan and
Datta (2005), more research is needed to better understand the activities at the inter-
organizational level. This is especially needed as integrating firms in the global supply chain
is key for global competition (Sachan and Datta, 2005).
Fourth, on the industries being investigated, while our results suggest that manufacturing
and logistics will continue to feature in the journals selected, by either choice or interest, we
note that another sector in industry begs research collaboration in logistics management. With
Asia growing her services sector, more research is called for in the service dominant industries,

11
such as tourism, hospital, food, or finance, as these will form the main contribution to economic
growth in the future. More collaboration is needed between scholars and practitioners across
Asia, working in this domain. Finally, supply chain collaboration, green logistics, and supply
chain management strategy are main issues in Asia.
Fifth, as our findings suggest that much of the published work is focused on field surveys.
This apparently reflects the positivist research tradition within logistics (Selviaridis and Spring,
2007). Scholars are interested in using the results of field surveys to support their mathematical
modelling and theoretical frameworks, while practitioners tend to focus on success stories and
improving core competence (Chen et al., 2013). To grow the practice and better develop the
theory, the use of triangulation through qualitative means should be encouraged (Frankel et al.,
2005). Triangulation is beneficial to research as it strengthens the research results and discipline
(Flint and Mentzer, 1997).
Sixth, from a technique standpoint, the growing use of regression, SEM and other
sophisticated statistical / mathematical modelling techniques reflects a research purpose to
explain causality. There should be more case studies on logistics management in Asia to better
reflect a research purpose to explain contemporary behavior.
Seventh, the current evidence suggests that logistics management research in Asia
accounts for barely 10 percent of the 2,513 papers published in our period of analysis. There is
a pressing need to grow this research pipeline either by the numbers or even by quality if we
believe the World Economic Forum (2014)’s report, and use research as a leverage to improve
logistics management understanding and performance. However, as this is an exploratory study
undertaken to examine the issues, trends, opportunities and potential for research collaboration
within Asia, more should be done to better understand the state of logistics management
research within specific countries in Asia and for specific economic blocs within Asia. Clearly,
logistics management research in Asia is an emerging research stream, particularly in the areas
of research collaboration among academics and between academia and industry. This suggests
that a fresh take on logistics management research could be to focus on qualitative but in-depth
case studies of firms, industries and supply chain networks to serve as the major source of
theory building (Eisenhardt and Graebner, 2007). Doing so can then propel logistics
management research to the next level of maturity whereby extensive empirical analysis and
sophisticated model building can take place. There is fertile ground for longitudinal studies on
collaboration, using meta-analysis.

5.2 Implications for practice

Industry inspired research is still nascent in Asia as suggested by our findings. One implication
for practice is clearly that industry must come forward to drive the research agenda towards a
useful and applied level, away from the ivory tower stance. One example and potential for
greater research collaboration between academia and industry is evident from Table VIII where

12
sustainable or green logistics is gathering greater research momentum. Industry should take
this lead and co-develop a better understanding of the research and practical issues surrounding
this topical area. Theory and practice must blend to benefit the discipline. While there has been
several theories applied, few have actually taken Asia-based papers and attempt to build theory
from practice. This is clearly evidenced from Table V where cross sector collaboration at both
the national and international fronts are at best ten percent of the total relevant research output
thus far. This is a need to do more in this regard, especially given the complex nature and more
practice-oriented discipline of logistics management. In addition, it could be timely to form an
Asian approach to supply chain management and logistics research, with industry practitioners
setting research agenda. Further, while our paper makes no mention of graduate student
research in logistics management, we believe that doctoral students with proper guidance from
industry practitioners can develop better insights and outcomes from problems besetting the
logistics industry. Students nurtured through this process will definitely turn out to be more
cognizant of the need for deeper research collaboration and be willing parties to such
collaborations.

5.3 Final remarks

As in any study, there are limitations. First, the choice of journals is restricted to only those
popular in the domain, though journals such as JBL and JSCM are recognized by the Council
of Supply Chain Management Professionals as being the top journals in the field. Second, this
study relied on only six journals. As a post hoc, we have considered several other journals such
as the International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, and Transportation Journal.
However, the increase in the number of initial valid papers is marginal. The literature has not
set a minimum number of journals needed for sufficient analysis saturation. Hence, we
remained with our choice of six journals. Further, we have excluded multi-disciplinary research
projects involving logistics management and computer science, say. Finally, we hope that this
study can shed light on the research needs from different perspectives and facilitate the progress
of logistics management research collaboration in Asia. Perhaps, it is time to consider
embracing new marketplace tools such as Join.Me, a software which allows collaborators to
share ideas easily.

References
Abbasi, M. and Nilsson, F. (2012), "Themes and challenges in making supply chains
environmentally sustainable", Supply Chain Management: An International Journal,
Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 17-530.
Arvis, J.-F., Saslavsky, D., Ojala, L., Shepherd, B., Busch, C. and Raj, A. (2014), Connecting
to Compete 2014: Trade Logistics in the Global Economy, The World Bank:
Washington, DC.

13
Asian Development Bank (2014), Asian Development Outlook 2014: Fiscal Policy for
Inclusive Growth, Asian Development Bank: Metro Manila, Philippines.
Autry, C.W. and Griffis, S.E. (2005), "A social anthropology of logistics research: exploring
productivity and collaboration in an emerging science", Transportation Journal, Vol.
44 No. 4, pp. 27-43.
Autry, C.W. and Griffis, S.E. (2008), "Supply chain capital: the impact of structural and
relational linkages on firm execution and innovation", Journal of Business logistics,
Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 157-173.
Bjerregaard, T. (2010), "Industry and academia in convergence: micro-institutional dimensions
of R & D collaboration", Technovation, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 100-108.
Borgatti, S.P. and Li, X. (2009), "On social network analysis in a supply chain context", Journal
of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 5-22.
Burgess, K., Singh, P.J. and Koroglu, R. (2006), "Supply chain management: a structured
literature review and implications for future research", International Journal of
Operations and Production Management, Vol. 26 No. 7, pp. 703-729.
Cadilhon, J.-J., Fearne, A.P., Tam, P.T.G., Moustier, P. and Poole, N.D. (2005), "Collaborative
commerce or just common sense? Insights from vegetable supply chains in Ho Chi
Minh City", Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp.
147-149.
Cai, S. and Yang, Z. (2008), "Development of cooperative norms in the buyer-supplier
relationship: the Chinese experience", Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 44
No. 1, pp. 55-70.
Cantor, D.E., Bolumole, Y., Coleman, B.J. and Frankel, R. (2010), "An examination of trends
and impact of authorship collaboration in logistics research", Journal of Business
Logistics, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 197-215.
Carpenter, M.A., Li, M. and Jiang, H. (2012), "Social network research in organizational
contexts: a systematic review of methodological issues and choices", Journal of
Management, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 1328-1361.
Carter, C.R., Ellram, L.M. and Tate, W. (2007), "The use of social network analysis in logistics
research", Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 137-168.
Central Intelligence Agency (2013), The World Factbook [online]. Central Intelligence Agency,
Available from: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-
factbook/index.html [Access on Dec 1, 2013].
Chang, M.-H. and Harrington, J.E. (2005), "Discovery and diffusion of knowledge in an
endogenous social network", American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 110 No. 4, pp. 937-
976.
Chen, C.-Y., Wu, Y.-C.J. and Wu, W.-H. (2013), "A sustainable collaborative research dialogue
between practitioners and academics", Management Decision, Vol. 51 No. 3, 566-593.
Chiou, T.-Y., Chan, H.K., Lettice, F. and Chung, S.H. (2011), "The influence of greening the
suppliers and green innovation on environmental performance and competitive
advantage in Taiwan", Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation
Review, Vol. 47 No. 6, pp. 822-836.
Chu, Z. and Wang, Q. (2012), "Drivers of relationship quality logistics outsourcing in China",
Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 78-96.
Colledge, L. and Verlinde, R. (2014), SciVal Metrics Guidebook. Elsevier Research Intelligence:
Philadelphia.

14
Craighead, C.W., Hanna, J.B., Gibson, B.J. and Meredith, J.R. (2007), "Research approaches
in logistics: trends and alternative future directions", International Journal of Logistics
Management, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 22-40.
Curran, K. and Hannigan, B.M. (2008), "CoBud: towards a more effective inter-disciplinary
research collaboration within universities", Journal of the World Universities Forum,
Vol. 1, pp. 61-68.
Dahlander, L. and Gann, D.M. (2010), "How open is innovation?", Research Policy, Vol. 39
No. 6, pp. 699-709.
Duque, R.B., Ynalvez, M., Sooryamoorthy, R., Mbatia, P., Dzorgbo, D.-B.S. and Shrum, W.
(2005), "Collaboration paradox: scientific productivity, the Internet, and problems of
research in developing areas", Social Studies of Science, Vol. 35 No. 5, pp. 755-785.
Eisenhardt, K.M. and Graebner, M.E. (2007), "Theory building from cases: opportunities and
challenges", Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 25-32.
Ellinger, A.E. and Chapman, K. (2011), "Benchmarking leading supply chain management and
logistics strategy journals", International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 22 No.
3, pp. 403-419.
Evotech Capital (2014), Overview and Outlook in Logistics Industry, Evotech Capital: San
Bruno, California.
Flint, D.J. and Mentzer, J.T. (1997), "Validity in logistics research", Journal of Business
Logistics, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 199-216.
Frankel, R., Naslund, D. and Bolumole, Y. (2005), "The "white space" of logistics research: a
look at the role of methods usage", Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp.
185-209.
Freeman, L. (2006), The Development of Social Network Analysis. Empirical Press: Vancouver.
Gibson, B.J. and Hanna, J.B. (2003), "Periodical usefulness: the US logistics educator
perspective", Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 221-240.
Gimenez, C. and Tachizawa, E.M. (2012), "Extending sustainability to suppliers: a systematic
literature review", Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 17 No. 5,
pp. 531-543.
Gligor, D.M. and Holcomb, M.C. (2012), "Understanding the role of logistics capabilities in
achieving supply chain agility: a systematic literature review", Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 438-453.
Gubi, E., Arlbjørn, J.S. and Johansen, J. (2003), "Doctoral dissertations in logistics and supply
chain management: a review of Scandinavian contributions from 1990 to 2001",
International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 33 No.
10, pp. 854-885.
Kang, K.-N. and Park, H. (2012), "Influence of government R & D support and inter-firm
collaborations on innovation in Korean biotechnology SMEs", Technovation, Vol. 32
No. 1, pp. 68-78.
Kilduff, M. and Tsai, W. (2003), Social Networks and Organisations. Sage Publications: New
York.
Kovács, G. and Spens, K.M. (2005), "Abductive reasoning in logistics research", International
Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 132-
144.

15
Langley, C.J. (2014), 2014 Third-party Logistics Study: The State of Logistics Outsourcing,
Capgemini Consulting: Atlanta, Georgia.
Lee, S. and Bozeman, B. (2005), "The impact of research collaboration on scientific
productivity", Social Studies of Science, Vol. 35 No. 5, pp. 673-702.
Li, M. (2013), "Social network and social capital in leadership and management research: a
review of causal methods", The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 24 No. 5, 638-665.
Liu, X. (2014), "China-based logistics research: a review of the literature and implications",
International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 44 No.
5, pp. 392-411.
Mckinnon, A.C. (2013), "Starry-eyed: journal rankings and the future of logistics research",
International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 43 No.
1, pp. 6-17.
Melin, G. and Persson, O. (1996), "Studying research collaboration using co-authorships",
Scientometrics, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 363-377.
Mentzer, J.T., Min, S. and Bobbitt, L.M. (2004), "Toward a unified theory of logistics",
International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 34 No.
8, pp. 606-627.
Miemczyk, J., Johnsen, T.E. and Macquet, M. (2012), "Sustainable purchasing and supply
management: a structured literature review of definitions and measures at the dyad,
chain and network levels", Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol.
17 No. 5, pp. 478-496.
Mustaffa, N.H. and Potter, A. (2009), "Healthcare supply chain management in Malaysia: a
case study", Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp.
234-243.
Nakano, M. (2009), "Collaborative forecasting and planning in supply chains: the impact on
performance in Japanese manufacturers", International Journal of Physical
Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 84-105.
Ou, A.Y., Varriale, L. and Tsui, A.S. (2012), "International collaboration for academic
publication: implications from the resource-based view and transaction cost theory",
Group and Organization Management, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 407-451.
Philips, D.M. and Philips, J.K. (1998), "A social network analysis of business logistics and
transportation", International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics
Management, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 328-348.
Power, D. (2005), "Supply chain management integration and implementation: a literature
review", Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 252-
263.
Racherla, P. and Hu, C. (2010), "A social network perspective of tourism research
collaborations", Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 1012-1034.
Rynes, S.L., Bartunek, J.M. and Daft, R.L. (2001), "Across the great divide: knowledge
creation and transfer between practitioners and academics", The Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 340-355.
Sachan, A. and Datta, S. (2005), "Review of supply chain management and logistics research",
International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 35 No.
9, pp. 664-705.
Selviaridis, K. and Spring, M. (2007), "Third party logistics: a literature review and research
agenda", International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 125-150.

16
Shang, K.-C. and Marlow, P.B. (2005), "Logistics capability and performance in Taiwan's
major manufacturing firms", Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and
Transportation Review, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 217-234.
Sheu, J.-B. (2011), "Bargaining framework for competitive green supply chains under
governmental financial intervention", Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and
Transportation Review, Vol. 47 No. 5, pp. 573-592.
Shook, C.L., Adams, G.L., Jr, D.J.K. and Craighead, C.W. (2009), "Towards a “theoretical
toolbox” for strategic sourcing", Supply Chain Management: An International Journal,
Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 3-10.
Soni, G. and Kodali, R. (2011), "A critical analysis of supply chain management content in
empirical research", Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 238-
266.
Spens, K.M. and Kovács, G. (2006), "A content analysis of research approaches in logistics
research", International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management,
Vol. 36 No. 5, pp. 374-390.
Stock, J.R. and Broadus, C.J. (2006), "Doctoral research in supply chain management and/or
logistics-related areas: 1999-2004", Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp.
139-496.
Svensson, G., Slåtten, T. and Tronvoll, B. (2008), "“Scientific identity” and “ethnocentricity”
in top journals of logistics management", International Journal of Physical Distribution
and Logistics Management, Vol. 38 No. 8, pp. 588-600.
Ting, S.-C. and Cho, D.I. (2008), "An integrated approach for supplier selection and purchasing
decisions", Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp.
116-127.
Vallet-Bellmunt, T., Martínez-Fernández, M.T. and Capó-Vicedo, J. (2011), "Supply chain
management: a multidisciplinary content analysis of vertical relations between
companies, 1997–2006", Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 40 No. 8, pp. 1347-
1367.
Webb, J. (2010), Asian Logistic Sector to Become Driver for Global Growth, Procurement
Intelligence Unit, Procurement Intelligence Unit.
Woo, S.-H., Pettit, S.J., Kwak, D.-W. and Beresford, A.K.C. (2011), "Seaport research: a
structured literature review on methodological issues since the 1980s", Transportation
Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 45 No. 7, pp. 667-685.
World Economic Forum (2014), The Global Competitiveness Report 2013-2014, World
Economic Forum: Geneva, Switzerland.
Yao, Z., Leung, S.C.H. and Lai, K.K. (2008), "The effectiveness of revenue-sharing contract
to coordinate the price-setting newsvendor products' supply chain", Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 263-271.
Zhu, Q., Dou, Y. and Sarkis, J. (2010), "A portfolio-based analysis for green supplier
management using the analytical network process", Supply Chain Management: An
International Journal, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 306-319.

17
 6 journals 499 398 260
2513 articles articles articles articles

Journal Meta-search Full paper Final

selection analysis analysis

Based on Does it cover Asia, Does it really discuss Does it exclude

literature Asian countries, logistics management comparative studies
firms, institutions, issues in Asia? between Asia and other
or events? regions?
Figure 1: Screening methodology

Table I: Articles downloaded for analysis (2003-2013)

Journal Total Downloaded Composite Final paper
acceptable papers (%) papers (%) chosen (%)
IJLM 207 47(23) 23(11) 9(4)
IJPDLM 463 86(19) 66(14) 41(9)
JBL 228 18(8) 16(7) 7(3)
JSCM 465 43(9) 29(6) 10(2)
SCMIJ 491 127(26) 98(20) 77(16)
TRE 659 201(31) 163(25) 116(18)
Total 2513 522(21) 395(16) 260(10)
Note: Composite refers to papers that cover Asia and the other regions.

Table II: Asian-focused papers by year and title

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Total
IJLM 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 2 2 2 9(3.5%)
IJPDLM 5 1 3 8 1 2 4 4 4 1 8 41(15.8%)
JBL 1 1 0 0 1 0 3 1 0 0 0 7(2.7%)
JSCM 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 1 2 3 10(3.8%)
SCMIJ 5 4 8 8 6 12 9 4 7 5 9 77(29.6%)
TRE 4 5 4 7 6 15 10 10 24 13 18 116(44.6%)
Total 15 11 15 25 14 32 28 19 38 23 40 260(100%)

18
Table III: Classification framework for analysis of the papers
Classification Category Definition References
Geographic Collaboration Social network of co-authorship in Gubi et al. (2003)
research Asia, number of authors
Region Region covered by the articles Soni and Kodali (2011)
Unit of analysis Function, firm, dyad, chain, network Selviaridis and Spring (2007)
Industry Sampled industry Burgess et al. (2006)
Subject area Research focus Stock and Broadus (2006)
Research Hypothesis Specific statement of predictions Sachan and Datta (2005)
method Research design Based on desk work or empirical Gubi et al. (2003)
research
Research method Conceptual work, survey, modelling, Woo et al. (2011)
interviews, case studies
Data analysis Analysis techniques used by Woo et al. (2011)
technique researchers to address problem
Theoretical Theory Theoretical lens used Shook et al. (2009)
approach

Table IV: Research collaboration network analysis

Co-
No. of No. of single author
Name Country No. of papers in journal authorship
articles articles
(lines)
J.-B. Sheu Taiwan 8 TRE(8) 7 2
K.-H. Lai Hong Kong 7 JBL(2), TRE(4) 8
B.S. Sahay India 6 IJLM(2), SCMIJ(4) 10
Q. Meng Singapore 6 TRE(6) 6
H. Chen U.S.A. 5 IJLM(2), IJPDLM(2), JBL(1) 5
S. Yan Taiwan 5 TRE(5) 10
Y.-C. J. Wu Taiwan 5 IJPDLM(2), SCMIJ(3) 1 7
C.-S. Lu Taiwan 4 TRE(4) 2 4
C.-I. Hsu Taiwan 4 TRE(4) 4
P. J.
U.S.A. 4 IJLM(2), IJPDLM(1), JBL(1) 5
Daugherty
IJPDLM(1), JSCM(2),
Q. Wang China 4 7
SCMIJ(1)
R. Mohan India 4 IJPDLM(2), SCMIJ(2) 3

19
Note: The authors were chosen based on their focus on Asia; they can be first or other named authors in a paper.

Figure 2: Research network analysis for community based on Asia

Note: Node = individual author. Tie = co-authorship of a publication.

20
 Figure 3: Research network analysis for institutions based on Asia
Note: Node = individual institution. Tie = co-authorship of a publication.

Figure 4: Research network analysis for countries based on Asia

Note: Node = individual country. Tie = co-countries of a publication.

Table V: Form of research collaboration

Form of collaboration Count
Single authored 43 (17%)
Institutional level 70 (27%)
National level Among academics 58 (22%)
Cross-sector collaboration 12 (5%)
International level Among academics 64 (25%)
Cross-sector collaboration 13 (5%)
Total 260 (100%)
Notes: 1. Institutional level refers to papers co-authored by authors from the same institution.
2. National level refers to paper co-authored by authors from different institutions in the same country.
3. International level refers to co-authored papers with at least one author affiliated in another country.
4. Cross sector collaboration refers to papers where at least one author is from a different sector e.g. academia and
industry.

21
 Table VI: Number of authors by year (N=260)
No. of authors No. of papers Percentage Mean Std. dev.
1 43 16.5 2.62 1.11
2 83 31.9
3 79 30.4
4 44 16.9
5 9 3.5
6 1 0.4
7 1 0.4
Total 260 100.0

Figure 5: Region in Asia covered by articles

Note: Bubbles = individual countries. Size of bubbles = normalized by the number of publications.

Table VII: Unit of analysis

Unit 03- 05- 07-08(%) 09-10(%) 11-12(%) 13(%) Total(%)
04(%) 06(%)
Function 1(4) 4(10) 2(4) 3(6) 3(5) 1(3) 14(5)
Firm 14(56) 25(61) 25(56) 24(50) 31(51) 17(43) 136(52)
Dyad 1(2) 1(2) 3(8) 5(2)
Chain 3(12) 3(7) 1(2) 2(3) 9(3)
Network 3(12) 5(12) 7(16) 2(4) 2(3) 4(10) 23(9)
N/A 4(16) 4(10) 10(22) 17(35) 23(38) 15(38) 73(28)
Total 25(100) 41(100) 45(100) 48(100) 61(100) 40(100) 260(100)
Note: The high percentage of N/A arises as the referenced papers did not mention a level.

22
 Table VIII: Main topics studied in database papers
Topic\Year 03-04 05-06 07-08 09-10 11-12 13 Total
Supply chain collaboration and strategy 7 10 4 6 2 8 37
Optimization (routing, location analysis, 4 6 4 6 11 3 34
scheduling allocation)
Network configuration (distribution, hub 1 2 9 7 6 1 26
and spoke, reverse logistics)
Green / CSR 1 4 2 8 8 23
Supplier selection (vendor, services, 1 4 3 3 6 3 20
outsourcing)
Information (IT, information 6 6 6 1 19
management, knowledge)
Note: The topics identified are based on the keywords extracted from the researched papers.

Table IX: Research method used

Method 03- 05- 07- 09- 11-12(%) 13(%) Total(%)
04(%) 06(%) 08(%) 10(%)
Survey/questionnaire 11(33) 19(28) 12(20) 26(45) 26(31) 24(39) 118(32)
Mathematical modelling 1(3) 8(12) 16(26) 9(16) 24(29) 11(18) 69(19)
Case study 8(24) 18(26) 13(21) 9(16) 10(12) 9(15) 67(18)
Interview 4(12) 13(19) 4(7) 4(7) 5(6) 7(11) 37(10)
Simulation - 3(4) 2(3) 4(7) 7(8) 3(5) 19(5)
Conceptual model 5(15) 3(4) 4(7) 1(2) - 4(7) 17(5)
Experiment 1(3) 1(1) 6(10) 3(5) 2(2) 1(2) 14(4)
Economic modelling 1(3) 2(3) 1(2) 1(2) 6(7) - 11(3)
Archival analysis - - - - 1(1) 2(3) 3(1)
Others 2(6) 1(1) 3(5) 1(2) 2(2) - 9(2)
Total (%) 33(100) 68(100) 61(100) 58(100) 83(100) 61(100) 364(100)
Note: Some papers (12 percent) use multiple methods.

Table X: Main data analysis technique used in database papers

Technique 03-04(%) 05-06(%) 07-08(%) 09- 11-12(%) 13(%) Total
10(%)
Mathematical model 3(8) 11(20) 16(33) 7(10) 22(28) 7(12) 66
SEM 3(7) 8(19) 4(9) 12(28) 15(35) 14(33) 43
Regression 2(7) 5(17) 5(17) 9(30) 5(17) 4(13) 30
Note: Some papers use more than one analytical technique.

23
 Table XI: Top five theoretical lenses used in the database papers
Theory 03-04 05-06 07-08 09-10 11-12 13 Count
RBV 1 1 3 4 4 4 17
Transaction cost economics 1 3 2 3 2 11
Game theory 1 1 4 1 7
Resource dependence theory 1 1 2 2 6
Transaction cost theory 2 1 1 4
Note: Some papers use more than one theory.

24

View publication stats