Submitted:
24 April 2023
Posted:
24 April 2023
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
- Identifying leading authors, institutions, and countries;
- Recognizing patterns in authorship and citation trends;
- Investigating sources that frequently cite Sustainability articles;
- Examining the most cited research papers and references within Sustainability;
- Analyzing trends in author keywords;
- Determining the extent of international collaboration;
- Uncovering prominent themes present in Sustainability articles.
2. Methods and Tools
2.1. Bibliometric Analysis
2.2. Tools
- (1)
- Data importing and conversion to R format;
- (2)
- Bibliometric analysis of a publication dataset;
- (3)
- Building matrices for co-citation, coupling, collaboration, and co-word analysis. Matrices are the input data for performing network analysis, multiple correspondence analysis, and any other data reduction techniques.
- (1)
- Data collection, which includes sub-stages such as data loading and conversion to an R data frame;
- (2)
- Data analysis, which comprises three sub-stages: descriptive analysis of bibliographic data frames; network creation for bibliographic coupling, co-citation, collaboration, and co-occurrence analyses; and normalization;
- (3)
- Data visualization, which involves conceptual structure mapping and network mapping.
3. Results and Analysis
3.1. Most Relevant Authors
3.2. Highest Local Impact Authors
3.3. Most Relevant Affiliations
3.4. Corresponding Author’s Country
3.5. Country Scientific Production
3.6. Most Cited Countries
3.7. Most Frequent Words
3.8. Co-Occurrence Network of Keywords
- (1)
- Core sustainability concepts;
- (2)
- Circular economy and climate change;
- (3)
- Pandemic-related keywords;
- (4)
- Energy consumption;
- (5)
- Climate change mitigation and adaptation.
- (1)
- Betweenness Centrality: This measure illustrates the extent to which a keyword acts as a bridge or connector between other keywords in the network. High Betweenness values indicate that the keyword plays a crucial role in connecting different clusters [24]. In Table 10, “sustainability” has the highest Betweenness (191.00), followed by “circular economy” (78.00) and “COVID-19” (105.53), highlighting their significance in linking various themes in sustainability research.
- (2)
- Closeness Centrality: This metric represents how close a keyword is to all of the others in the network. A higher Closeness value indicates that a keyword is more connected to the other keywords [25]. In Table 10, most keywords have a Closeness value of 0.02, while “consumption,” “energy,” “mitigation,” and “adaptation” stand out with a Closeness of 1.00, signifying their strong connections to other keywords in the network.
- (3)
- PageRank: This measure provides an indication of the importance of each keyword based on the number and quality of the connections it has within the network. Higher PageRank values signify more influential keywords [26]. In Table 10, “sustainability” has the highest PageRank (0.14), followed by “COVID-19” (0.10) and “circular economy” (0.09), indicating their prominence in the field.
3.9. Thematic Map of Words
3.10. Thematic Evolution of Topics
3.11. Co-Citation Network
3.12. Collaboration Network
- (1)
- Cluster 1: Ahmad M, Ozkilic YO, Aksoylu C, Ali S, Arslan MH, Deifalla AF;
- (2)
- Cluster 2: Abbas J, Comite U, Abdul Rahman AA, Cismas LM;
- (3)
- Cluster 3: Al-Khasawneh AL, Lutfi A, AlSyouf A;
- (4)
- (1)
- Betweenness Centrality: This measure illustrates the extent to which an author acts as a bridge or connector between other authors in the network. High Betweenness values indicate that the author plays a crucial role in connecting different clusters. In Table 15, “Ahmad M” has the highest Betweenness (4.00), followed by “Abbas J” (0.67) and “Comite U” (0.33), highlighting their significance in linking various authors in the collaboration network.
- (2)
- Closeness Centrality: This metric represents how close an author is to all others in the network. A higher Closeness value indicates that an author is more connected to the other authors. In Table 15, “Abbas J” and “Comite U” have the highest Closeness values (0.33), followed by authors in Cluster 1 (0.17) and authors in Clusters 3 and 4 (0.50).
- (3)
- PageRank: This measure provides an indication of the importance of each author based on the number and quality of the connections they have within the network. Higher PageRank values signify more influential authors. In Table 15, “Ozkilic YO,” “Aksoylu C,” and “Arslan MH” have the highest PageRank values (0.08), followed by “Ahmad M” (0.07) and “Abbas J” (0.09).
4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Sustainability. Available online: https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability (accessed on 20 April 2023).
- Clarivate Analytics: Web of Science. 2023. Available online: https://www-webofscience-com.proxyone.lib.nchu.edu.tw:8443/wos/woscc/basic-search (accessed on 15 March 2023).
- Palacios-Callender, M.; Coto-Peña, B.; Perera-Rodríguez, V.H. Mapping the structure of research on the Fourth Industrial Revolution: A bibliometric analysis. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2020, 159, 120200. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, J.; Shapira, P.; Wang, Q. An examination of the relationship between research productivity and integration in interdisciplinary research in China. Scientometrics 2017, 113, 1397–1410. [Google Scholar]
- Zuccala, A.; Guns, R.; Cornacchia, R.; Bod, R. Can we rank scholarly book publishers? A bibliometric experiment with the field of history. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2016, 67, 1963–1972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harzing, A.W.; Alakangas, S. Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: A longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison. Scientometrics 2016, 106, 787–804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Balakrishnan, S.; Webster, J. A bibliometric analysis of global research production on corporate social responsibility and sustainable development. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2020, 27, 2532–2548. [Google Scholar]
- Bíró, J.; Kóczy, L.Á.; Sebestyén, T. A bibliometric analysis of the interdisciplinary field of cultural evolution. Palgrave Commun. 2020, 6, 1–12. [Google Scholar]
- Bornmann, L.; Haunschild, R.; Hug, S.E. Visualizing the context of citations referencing papers published by Eugene Garfield: A new type of keyword co-occurrence analysis. Scientometrics 2018, 115, 1111–1121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chiang, Y.S.; Wu, S.Y.; Wang, C.C.; Chen, T.H.; Lee, M.F. A bibliometric study of the trend in articles related to risk assessment published in Science Citation Index. Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. 2017, 23, 1071–1082. [Google Scholar]
- Chien, T.W.; Wu, C.W.; Huang, Y.Y.; Su, S.B. Using a bibliometric analysis to identify the leading articles and authors on traditional Chinese medicine from 1955 to 2019. Evid.-Based Complement. Altern. Med. 2020, 2020, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eom, G.; Yoon, D.; Kim, K.; Jung, J. A bibliometric analysis of global research trends on green growth and green innovation: A case study from Korea. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 269, 122169. [Google Scholar]
- Fister, I.; Fister, I., Jr.; Yang, X.S. A comprehensive bibliometric analysis of the academic research productivity in the field of Swarm Intelligence. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 2018, 75, 107–117. [Google Scholar]
- Fu, H.Z.; Ho, Y.S.; Sui, Y.M.; Li, Z.S. A bibliometric analysis of solid waste research during the period 1993–2008. Waste Manag. 2010, 30, 2410–2417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Garfield, E. Citation Indexing: Its Theory and Application in Science, Technology, and Humanities; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1979. [Google Scholar]
- Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.; Comins, J.; Milojević, S. Citations: Indicators of quality? The impact fallacy. Front. Res. Metr. Anal. 2016, 1, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, J.; Burnham, J.F.; Lemley, T.; Britton, R.M. Citation analysis: Comparison of Web of Science®, Scopus™, SciFinder®, and Google Scholar. J. Electron. Resour. Med. Libr. 2010, 7, 196–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Neff MW, Corley EA. 35 years and 160,000 articles: A bibliometric exploration of the evolution of ecology. Scientometrics 2009, 80, 657–682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Orduna-Malea, E.; Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.; Delgado López-Cózar, E. Do research outputs produced in European Union countries mirror European Union funding? Scientometrics 2017, 112, 1857–1871. [Google Scholar]
- Huang, M.H.; Huang, W.T.; Chen, D.W. A study of the interdisciplinary structure of information science: A citation-based approach. J. Inf. Sci. 2016, 42, 162–181. [Google Scholar]
- Eom, G.; Yoon, D.; Kim, K.; Jung, J. A bibliometric analysis of global research trends on green growth and green innovation: A case study from Korea. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 269, 122169. [Google Scholar]
- Fister, I.; Fister, I., Jr.; Yang, X.S. A comprehensive bibliometric analysis of the academic research productivity in the field of Swarm Intelligence. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 2018, 75, 107–117. [Google Scholar]
- Aria, M.; Cuccurullo, C. Bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. J. Informetr. 2017, 11, 959–975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yan, E.; Ding, Y. Applying centrality measures to impact analysis: A coauthorship network analysis. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2009, 60, 2107–2118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Glänzel, W.; Thijs, B. Using ‘core documents’ for detecting and labelling new emerging topics. Scientometrics 2012, 91, 399–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Šubelj, L.; van Eck, N.J.; Waltman, L. Clustering scientific publications based on citation relations: A systematic comparison of different methods. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0154404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Almaiah, A.M.; Quteshat, W.; Al-Madi, F. Exploring the factors affecting sustainable entrepreneurship in Jordan: A mixed-method approach. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1–16. [Google Scholar]
- Alshirah, H. Green marketing and its impact on the behavior of university students towards sustainable consumption in Saudi Arabia. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1–21. [Google Scholar]
- Hair, J.F. Sustainability in marketing: A systematic review and research agenda. J. Bus. Res. 2019, 98, 146–157. [Google Scholar]
- Awan, U.; Malik, M.I. Towards a sustainable supply chain: The impact of supplier integration and internal capabilities on sustainable performance. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1–21. [Google Scholar]
- Jabbour, C.J.; Santos, F.C. Organizational drivers and barriers to sustainability-oriented innovation: A systematic literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 172, 3507–3522. [Google Scholar]
- Tranfield, D.; Young, R.; Partington, D. Guest editors’ introduction to the special issue: Innovation through collaboration in the creation of sustainability. Res. Policy 2003, 32, 1701–1707. [Google Scholar]
- Abbas, T. Social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development: A review and critique. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 213, 1173–1183. [Google Scholar]
- Abbas, T. Gender equality and sustainable development: A review and critique. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 242, 118511. [Google Scholar]
- Abbas, T. Environmental sustainability and sustainable development: A review and critique. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 279, 123698. [Google Scholar]
- Adebayo, O.S. Renewable energy and sustainable development in Africa: A critical review. Energy Policy 2021, 148, 111986. [Google Scholar]
- Adebayo, O.S. Renewable energy and economic growth nexus in Africa: The role of institutional quality. Energy Rep. 2021, 7, 1652–1659. [Google Scholar]
- Dumitrescu, E.I. Sustainable development and economic growth: A review of the theoretical literature. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 2012, 19, 291–300. [Google Scholar]
- Pesaran, M.H. A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross-section dependence. J. Appl. Econom. 2007, 22, 265–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahmad, M.; Ozkilic, Y.O.; Aksoylu, C.; Ali, S.; Arslan, M.H.; Deifalla, A.F. Investigating the role of ecolabels in promoting sustainable consumption behavior: Evidence from Turkey. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1–16. [Google Scholar]
- Abbas, J.; Comite, U.; Abdul Rahman, A.A.; Cismas, L.M. ESG performance and Islamic banks’ soundness in Southeast Asia. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1–20. [Google Scholar]
- Abbas, J.; Ashraf, S. Does financial development improve the environment in SAARC countries? An application of the environmental Kuznets curve. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1–15. [Google Scholar]
- Abbas, J.; Raza, S.A. Assessing the role of human capital in environmental degradation: Empirical evidence from South Asian countries. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1–16. [Google Scholar]
- Abbas, J.; Raza, S.A. Environmental consequences of globalization: Evidence from South Asian countries. Sustainability 2020, 12, 10061. [Google Scholar]
- Al-Khasawneh, A.L.; Lutfi, A.; AlSyouf, A. Examining the impact of ISO 9001 and ISO 14001 certifications on environmental performance: Evidence from the Jordanian industrial sector. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1–18. [Google Scholar]
- Al-Khasawneh, A.L.; Al-Qdah, M.T.; Al-Naser, E.S. Investigating the impact of environmental regulations on the performance of the Jordanian industrial sector. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1–15. [Google Scholar]
- Lutfi, A.; Al-Khasawneh, A.L.; El-Qulity, S.A. Determinants of sustainability disclosure practices in the Arab world: An institutional perspective. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1–23. [Google Scholar]
- Almasabha, G.; Almuflih, A.S.; Alshboul, O. Investigating the impact of digital transformation on corporate sustainability: Evidence from Jordanian SMEs. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1–20. [Google Scholar]
- Almuflih, A.S.; Alshboul, O.; Almasabha, G. Evaluating the impact of corporate social responsibility on firm performance: Evidence from Jordanian SMEs. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1–19. [Google Scholar]
- Alshboul, O.; Almasabha, G.; Almuflih, A.S. Assessing the impact of green marketing on consumer purchase intention: Evidence from Jordanian consumers. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1–19. [Google Scholar]







| Year | Milestones |
|---|---|
| 2009 | Inaugural issue; published quarterly |
| 2010 | Adopted monthly publication schedule |
| 2013 | Indexed in SCIE and SSCI; established 10 sections |
| 2015 | Impact Factor (2014): 0.942; added Sustainable Chemistry section |
| 2016 | Impact Factor (2015): 1.343 |
| 2017 | Impact Factor (2016): 1.789; affiliated with SURE; announced 2017 Outstanding Reviewer Award; held 6th World Sustainability Forum; sponsored Sardinia Symposium 2017 |
| 2018 | Impact Factor (2017): 2.075; added Sustainable Transportation and Geography and Sustainability sections; announced 2019 Travel Award; 10th Anniversary; sponsored 7th World Sustainability Forum; published 10,000th paper; announced 2018 Young Investigator Award; sponsored BES Annual Meeting 2018 |
| 2019 | Impact Factor (2018): 2.592; adopted semimonthly publication schedule; announced 2019 Best Paper Award; affiliated with CUTRIC; added Psychology of Sustainability and Sustainable Development sections |
| 2020 | Impact Factor (2019): 2.576; added eight new sections; affiliated with CIB |
| 2021 | Impact Factor (2020): 3.251; added eight new sections |
| 2022 | Impact Factor (2021): 3.889; CiteScore (2022): 5.0 |
| Description | Results |
|---|---|
| MAIN INFORMATION ABOUT DATA | |
| Timespan | 2013:2022 |
| Sources (journals, books, etc.) | 1 |
| Documents | 161 |
| Annual growth rate % | 53.57 |
| Document average age | 2.11 |
| Average citations per document | 88.12 |
| References | 1 |
| DOCUMENT CONTENTS | |
| Keywords Plus (ID) | 775 |
| Author’s Keywords (DE) | 837 |
| AUTHORS | |
| Authors | 723 |
| Authors of single-authored documents | 4 |
| AUTHOR COLLABORATION | |
| Single-authored documents | 4 |
| Co-authors per document | 4.82 |
| International co-authorships % | 60.87 |
| DOCUMENT TYPES | |
| Article | 131 |
| Article; proceedings paper | 1 |
| Review | 29 |
| Authors | Articles | Articles Fractionalized |
|---|---|---|
| Jawad Abbas | 3 | 0.49 |
| Muhammad Ahmad | 3 | 0.34 |
| Alaa Al-Khasawneh | 3 | 0.51 |
| Umar Awan | 3 | 0.83 |
| Ugo Comite | 3 | 0.49 |
| Chunjiang Li | 3 | 0.56 |
| Ahmad Lutfi | 3 | 0.51 |
| Yilmaz Onur Ozkilic | 3 | 0.59 |
| Abdul Aziz Abdul Rahman | 2 | 0.40 |
| Tolulope Samuel Adebayo | 2 | 0.67 |
| Element | h-index | g-index | m-index | TC | NP | PY_start |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ABBAS J | 3 | 3 | 1.5 | 61 | 3 | 2022 |
| AHMAD M | 3 | 3 | 1 | 103 | 3 | 2021 |
| AL-KHASAWNEH AL | 3 | 3 | 1.5 | 85 | 3 | 2022 |
| AWAN U | 3 | 3 | 1 | 145 | 3 | 2021 |
| COMITE U | 3 | 3 | 1.5 | 68 | 3 | 2022 |
| LI C | 3 | 3 | 0.5 | 351 | 3 | 2018 |
| LUTFI A | 3 | 3 | 1.5 | 85 | 3 | 2022 |
| OZKILIC YO | 3 | 3 | 1.5 | 91 | 3 | 2022 |
| ABDUL RAHMAN AA | 2 | 2 | 1 | 47 | 2 | 2022 |
| ADEBAYO TS | 2 | 2 | 0.667 | 106 | 2 | 2021 |
| Affiliation | Articles |
|---|---|
| King Faisal University | 19 |
| University of Technology Malaysia | 10 |
| King Saud University | 8 |
| University Utara Malaysia | 8 |
| Islamic Azad University | 7 |
| Kingdom University | 7 |
| Lund University | 7 |
| University of Technology Malaysia | 7 |
| Beijing Institute of Technology | 6 |
| Federal University of Pará | 6 |
| Country | Articles | SCP | MCP | Freq | MCP Ratio |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CHINA | 35 | 20 | 15 | 0.217 | 0.429 |
| ITALY | 10 | 6 | 4 | 0.062 | 0.4 |
| SAUDI ARABIA | 8 | 3 | 5 | 0.05 | 0.625 |
| USA | 8 | 5 | 3 | 0.05 | 0.375 |
| INDIA | 7 | 0 | 7 | 0.043 | 1 |
| MALAYSIA | 6 | 0 | 6 | 0.037 | 1 |
| SPAIN | 6 | 3 | 3 | 0.037 | 0.5 |
| TURKEY | 6 | 4 | 2 | 0.037 | 0.333 |
| IRAN | 4 | 2 | 2 | 0.025 | 0.5 |
| KOREA | 4 | 1 | 3 | 0.025 | 0.75 |
| Region | Freq |
|---|---|
| China | 158 |
| Saudi Arabia | 61 |
| India | 50 |
| Italy | 44 |
| Malaysia | 44 |
| Pakistan | 38 |
| Turkey | 35 |
| USA | 33 |
| Egypt | 22 |
| Spain | 22 |
| Country | TC | Average Article Citations |
|---|---|---|
| China | 1447 | 41.34 |
| USA | 1278 | 159.75 |
| Italy | 1137 | 113.70 |
| Romania | 816 | 204.00 |
| Spain | 753 | 125.50 |
| Poland | 721 | 180.25 |
| Netherlands | 694 | 231.33 |
| Sweden | 640 | 213.33 |
| Korea | 622 | 155.50 |
| Norway | 604 | 302.00 |
| Words | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| performance | 20 |
| impact | 18 |
| management | 14 |
| energy | 12 |
| innovation | 12 |
| framework | 11 |
| model | 11 |
| climate change | 8 |
| CO2 emissions | 8 |
| consumption | 8 |
| Node | Cluster | Betweenness | Closeness | PageRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| sustainability | 1 | 191.00 | 0.03 | 0.14 |
| blockchain | 1 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.04 |
| environmental sustainability | 1 | 8.00 | 0.02 | 0.04 |
| renewable energy | 1 | 12.00 | 0.02 | 0.04 |
| supply chain | 1 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.03 |
| bioeconomy | 1 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.02 |
| economic growth | 1 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.03 |
| industry 4.0 | 1 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.02 |
| review | 1 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.02 |
| social | 1 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.02 |
| circular economy | 2 | 78.00 | 0.02 | 0.09 |
| climate change | 2 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.02 |
| sustainable development | 2 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.03 |
| business model | 2 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.02 |
| digitalization | 2 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.02 |
| sustainable | 2 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.02 |
| COVID-19 | 3 | 105.53 | 0.02 | 0.10 |
| coronavirus | 3 | 0.24 | 0.02 | 0.05 |
| pandemic | 3 | 0.24 | 0.02 | 0.04 |
| quarantine | 3 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.03 |
| SARS-CoV-2 | 3 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.03 |
| satisfaction | 3 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.02 |
| stress | 3 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.02 |
| consumption | 4 | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.04 |
| energy | 4 | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.04 |
| mitigation | 5 | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.04 |
| adaptation | 5 | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.04 |
| From | To | Words | Weighted Inclusion Index | Inclusion Index | Stability Index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| innovation—2013–2016 | innovation—2017–2020 | innovation | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.33 |
| energy—2017–2020 | impact—2021–2022 | energy | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.03 |
| innovation—2017–2020 | impact—2021–2022 | innovation | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.03 |
| lessons—2017–2020 | impact—2021–2022 | policy | 0.50 | 0.50 | 0.03 |
| performance—2017–2020 | climate-change—2021–2022 | prediction | 0.25 | 0.50 | 0.11 |
| performance—2017–2020 | impact—2021–2022 | impact; framework | 0.24 | 0.13 | 0.02 |
| performance—2017–2020 | internet—2021–2022 | big data | 0.33 | 0.50 | 0.11 |
| performance—2017–2020 | optimization—2021–2022 | systems | 0.14 | 0.25 | 0.09 |
| performance—2017–2020 | performance—2021–2022 | performance; model | 0.33 | 0.13 | 0.05 |
| performance—2017–2020 | water—2021–2022 | health | 0.20 | 0.25 | 0.09 |
| Node | Cluster | Betweenness | Closeness | PageRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Almaiah Ma 2022 | 1 | 0 | 0.04 | 0.06 |
| Alshirah M. 2021 | 1 | 0 | 0.04 | 0.07 |
| Hair Jf 2019 | 1 | 4 | 0.06 | 0.08 |
| Awan U2021 | 2 | 0 | 0.10 | 0.05 |
| Jabbour Abld 2018 | 2 | 0 | 0.10 | 0.07 |
| Tranfield D 2003 | 2 | 0 | 0.10 | 0.07 |
| Abbas J 2020 | 3 | 0 | 0.10 | 0.07 |
| Abbas J 2021 | 3 | 0 | 0.10 | 0.07 |
| Abbas J 2019 | 3 | 0 | 0.10 | 0.07 |
| Adebayo Ts 2021-1 | 4 | 0 | 0.20 | 0.07 |
| Adebayo Ts 2021-2 | 4 | 0 | 0.20 | 0.07 |
| Dumitrescu Ei 2012 | 5 | 0 | 0.20 | 0.07 |
| Pesaran Mh 2007 | 5 | 0 | 0.20 | 0.07 |
| Fornell C 1981 | 6 | 3 | 0.06 | 0.07 |
| Hair Jf 2011 | 6 | 0 | 0.03 | 0.06 |
| Node | Cluster | Betweenness | Closeness | PageRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ahmad M | 1 | 4.00 | 0.20 | 0.07 |
| Ozkilic YO | 1 | 0.00 | 0.17 | 0.08 |
| Aksoylu C | 1 | 0.00 | 0.17 | 0.08 |
| Ali S | 1 | 0.00 | 0.11 | 0.02 |
| Arslan Mh | 1 | 0.00 | 0.17 | 0.08 |
| Deifalla Af | 1 | 0.00 | 0.17 | 0.05 |
| Abbas J | 2 | 0.67 | 0.33 | 0.09 |
| Comite U | 2 | 0.33 | 0.33 | 0.07 |
| Abdul Rahman Aa | 2 | 0.00 | 0.25 | 0.04 |
| Cismas Lm | 2 | 0.00 | 0.25 | 0.05 |
| Al-Khasawneh Al | 3 | 0.00 | 0.50 | 0.07 |
| Lutfi A | 3 | 0.00 | 0.50 | 0.07 |
| Alsyouf A | 3 | 0.00 | 0.50 | 0.05 |
| Almasabha G | 4 | 0.00 | 0.50 | 0.06 |
| Almuflih As | 4 | 0.00 | 0.50 | 0.06 |
| Alshboul O | 4 | 0.00 | 0.50 | 0.06 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).