MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409382551 · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2025.115360

Journal of Business Research Publications 1973–2024: Topics, methodological approaches, data, and analyses conducted

2025· article· en· W4409382551 on OpenAlexaff
Praveen K. Kopalle, Donald R. Lehmann, Divya Ramachandran, Ruud Wetzels

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Business Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDigital Marketing and Social Media
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsData scienceManagement scienceComputer scienceEngineering ethicsRegional scienceLibrary scienceSociologyEconomicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study analyzes trends in research published in the Journal of Business Research ( JBR ) by examining 10,211 abstracts from 1973 to 2024. The analysis uses categorization (of articles published in 1977–1988 versus 2013–2024) and topic modeling (of articles published from 1973 to 2024) to identify key patterns. Key findings include: (1) A shift from conceptual papers to more empirical research with a substantive focus, (2) An increase in studies utilizing interviews, surveys, and secondary data, while papers with no data usage have decreased, and (3) A rise in advanced analysis techniques, including regression, structural models, machine learning, and textual analysis. The topic modeling analysis reveals an underlying topical structure of 19 JBR research themes. Emerging themes pertain to digital transformation and technology, value co-creation, customer and brand equity, green (product) development, transformational management, service management, and innovation management and performance. Stable JBR themes include family businesses, leadership and executive boards, communication channels, strategic decision making, business ethics and responsibility, knowledge management, advertising, consumer behavior, (international) entrepreneurship, and buyers and sellers. Declining research themes concern performance and uncertainty, and forecasting and foresight. Thus, the research areas have grown more diverse, with clear subfields receiving increased attention. At the same time, more studies have delved into narrower, specialized topics, allowing for deeper investigation.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.047
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.123
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.527
Threshold uncertainty score0.981

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0470.123
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.840
GPT teacher head0.608
Teacher spread0.232 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Business ResearchSame topicDigital Marketing and Social MediaFrench-language works237,207