Enterprise risk management: A bibliometric analysis of research Trends
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A bibliometric study of 510 enterprise risk management (ERM) papers from the Web of Science Core Collection (WOS-CC) database from 2004 to 2023 is presented in this article. The study's main goal was to give a bibliometric overview of ERM research, focusing on annual publications, references, journals, authors, author affiliations, and nations. Each article's author, document type, publication year, source, volume, edition, pages, number of citations, and references were obtained from WOS in BibTex format. To help the research, Biblioshiny evaluated this data. The survey indicated that ERM research has increased fast over the previous two decades, with a consistent upward trend and increasing pace in the past five years. "What's wrong with risk matrices?" by Cox, LA (2008) was the most cited publication in this topic, and the Journal of Risk and Financial Management was the most influential journal. David L. Olson of the University of Nebraska Lincoln was the most prolific author, and UNL was the premier research institution in this area, according to the survey. ERM research was heavily influenced by the US and several other countries. To further ERM research, the paper recommends international collaboration. More research can refine the identification of ERM research hotspots and emerging trends, according to the report.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.134 | 0.179 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".