Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Measuring CMOT’s intellectual structure and its development

  • Published:
Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Computational Organization Theory is often described as a multidisciplinary and fast-moving field which can make it difficult to keep track of it. The recent inclusion of Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory (CMOT) into the Social Science Citation Index offers a good reason to take stock of what has happened since the foundation of the journal and to analyze its intellectual structure and development from 1995 to 2008. We identify the most influential publications by means of citation analysis and show that a core of codified knowledge has developed over time. Additionally, we provide empirical support for the characteristics generally ascribed to the journal such as multidisciplinarity. Finally, we depict the main research foci in CMOT’s intellectual structure employing a co-citation analysis of publications and investigate their development over time. Overall, our quantitative review shows CMOT to be thematically focused on organizations, groups and networks while being remarkably diverse in terms of theoretical approaches and methods used.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ahlgren P, Jarneving B, Rousseau R (2003) Requirements for a cocitation similarity measure, with special reference to pearson’s correlation coefficient. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 54:550–560

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashworth MJ, Carley KM (2007) Can tools help unify organization theory: perspectives on the state of computational modelling. Comput Math Organ Theory 13:89–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bricker R (1988) Knowledge preservation in accounting: a citational study. Abacus 24:120–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burton RM, Obel B (1995) The validity of computational models in organization science: from model realism to purpose of the model. Comput Math Organ Theory 1:57–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carley KM (1995) Computational and mathematical organization theory: perspective and directions. Comput Math Organ Theory 1:39–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carley KM, Wallace WA (1995) Editorial. Comput Math Organ Theory 1:5–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carley KM, Reminga J, Storrick J, DeReno M (2009) ORA user’s guide 2009, Carnegie Mellon University, School of Computer Science, Institute for Software Research, Technical Report CMU-ISR-09-115

  • Chan KC, Liano K (2009) Threshold citation analysis of influential articles, journals, institutions and researchers in accounting. Account Finance 49:49–74

    Google Scholar 

  • Charvet FF, Cooper MC, Gardner JT (2008) The intellectual structure of supply chain management: a bibliometric approach. J Bus Logist 29:47–73

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen C, Paul RJ (2001) Visualizing a knowledge domain’s intellectual structure. Computer 34:65–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clauset A, ME Newman, Moore C (2004) Finding community structure in very large networks. Phys Rev E 70

  • Coen C (2009) Simple but not simpler. Comput Math Organ Theory 15:1–4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cole S (1983) The hierarchy of the sciences? Am J Sociol 89:111–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cole S (2004) Merton’s contribution to the sociology of science. Soc Stud Sci 34:829–844

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crane D (1972) Invisible colleges: diffusion of knowledge in scientific communities. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronin B (1984) The citation process: the role and significance of citations in scientific communication. Taylor Graham, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Franklin JJ (1988) Testing and using quantitative methods in science policy contexts: a response to Hicks. Sci Soc Stud 18:365–375

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert N (1997) A simulation of the structure of academic science. Socio Res Online 2

  • Gmür M (2003) Co-citation analysis and the search for invisible colleges: a methodological evaluation. Scientometrics 57:27–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hicks D (1987) Limitations of co-citation analysis as a tool for science policy. Soc Stud Sci 17:295–316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hicks D (1988) Limitations and more limitations of co-citation analysis/bibliometric modelling: a reply to Franklin. Soc Stud Sci 18:375–384

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klavans R, Boyack KW (2006) Identifying a better measure of relatedness for mapping science. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 57:251–263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn TS (1970) The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Lunin LF, White HD (1990) Author cocitation analysis, introduction. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 41:429–432

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCain KW (1986) Cocited author mapping as a valid representation of intellectual structure. J Am Soc Inf Sci 37:111–122

    Google Scholar 

  • Merton RK (1979) The sociology of science: theoretical and empirical investigations. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Merton RK, Zuckerman H (1972) Age, aging, and age structure in science. Russell Sage Foundation, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer M, Lorscheid I, Troitzsch KG (2009) The development of social simulation as reflected in the first ten years of JASSS: a citation and co-citation analysis. J Artif Soc Soc Simulat 12

  • Moed HF (2002) The impact-factors debate: the ISI’s uses and limits. Nature 415:731–732

    Google Scholar 

  • Mullins NC, Hargens LL, Hecht PK, Kick EL (1977) The group structure of cocitation clusters: a comparative study. Am Sociol Rev 42:552–562

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nerur SP, Natarajan V Rasheed AA (2008) The intellectual structure of the strategic management field: an author co-citation analysis. Strateg Manag J 29:319–336

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osareh F (1996a) Bibliometrics citation analysis and co-citation analysis I: a review of literature. Libri 46:149–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osareh F (1996b) Bibliometrics citation analysis and co-citation analysis II: a review of literature. Libri 46:217–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ponzi LJ (2002) The intellectual structure and interdisciplinary breadth of knowledge management: a bibliometric study of its early stage of development. Scientometrics 55:259–272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prus RC (1996) Symbolic interaction and ethnographic research: intersubjectivity and the study of human lived experience. State University of New York Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramos-Rodriguez AR, Ruiz-Navarro J (2004) Changes in the intellectual structure of strategic management research: a bibliometric study of the Strategic Management Journal. Strateg Manag J 25:981–1004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samuelson D (2000) Designing organizations. OR/MS Today, 1–4

  • Samuelson D, Macal C (2006) Agent-based simulation comes of age. OR/MS Today 33:34–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Small HG (1978) Cited documents as concept symbols. Soc Stud Sci 8:327–340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Small HG (1980) Co-citation context analysis and the structure of paradigms. J Doc 36:183–196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tempest D (2009) Breaking boundaries: patterns in interdisciplinary citation. http://www.info.scopus.com/researchtrends/archive/RT11/bib_mes_11.html, download: February 5th 2010

  • Thackray A, Merton RK (1972) On discipline building: the paradoxes of George Sarton. Isis 63:473–495

    Google Scholar 

  • Valverde S, Solé RV, Bedau MA, Packard N (2007) Topology and evolution of technology innovation networks. Phys Rev E 76:56118

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Management Control and Accounting, Hamburg University of Technology, Hamburg, Germany

    Matthias Meyer & Michael A. Zaggl

  2. Institute for Software Research, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, USA

    Kathleen M. Carley

Authors
  1. Matthias Meyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael A. Zaggl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kathleen M. Carley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthias Meyer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Meyer, M., Zaggl, M.A. & Carley, K.M. Measuring CMOT’s intellectual structure and its development. Comput Math Organ Theory 17, 1–34 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10588-010-9076-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10588-010-9076-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation