European Journal of International Management
Are you a researcher?
Create a profile to get free access to personal recommendations for colleagues and new articles.
SCImago
Q3
WOS
Q4
Impact factor
1.2
SJR
0.362
CiteScore
2.0
Categories
Business and International Management
Education
Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management
Areas
Business, Management and Accounting
Social Sciences
Years of issue
2007, 2009-2025
journal names
European Journal of International Management
EUR J INT MANAG
Top-3 citing journals

Sustainability
(232 citations)

International Journal of Human Resource Management
(127 citations)

SSRN Electronic Journal
(63 citations)
Top-3 organizations

University of Beira Interior
(9 publications)

Vienna University of Economics and Business
(8 publications)

University of Twente
(7 publications)

University of St. Gallen
(2 publications)

University of Tehran
(2 publications)

Yeditepe University
(2 publications)
Top-3 countries
Most cited in 5 years
Found
Publications found: 1347
Q1

Feeding the Flock: The Role of the Revenue Portfolio in the Financial Growth of Congregations and Religious Organizations
Searing E.A., Grasse N.J., Cline R.R.
ABSTRACTThere have been fewer population‐level studies of religious organization revenues compared to other nonprofit organizations. This discrepancy is due to the exemption of houses of worship from filing the U.S. Form 990, which is the basis for most nonprofit financial analysis in academic literature. Using granular financial data on over 30,000 religious organizations in Canada from 2009 to 2016, we explore the characteristics of the revenue portfolios for this under‐studied subsector of tax‐exempt organizations. In addition to providing useful descriptive information, such as the differences between funding portfolios by religion or denomination, we identify characteristics associated with financial growth using dynamic difference‐generalized method of moments estimations. We find that donations where receipts were given drive almost all portfolios, while revenues that comprise the portfolio fringe vary widely in form and importance for growth. This study yields information useful to practitioners and researchers interested in nonprofit finance and the financial management.
Q1

Hybrid Coping: The Impact of Covid‐19 on Social Enterprise Resilience
Hazenberg R., Paterson‐Young C.
ABSTRACTThis article explores the impact of Covid‐19 on nonprofit resilience, utilizing the UK social enterprise ecosystem as the area of focus. The article engages the theoretical concepts of organizational resilience and community engagement; specifically, how these are impacted by exogenous shocks that change ecosystem dynamics. The article focuses in particular on financial resilience within the context of social enterprises in the United Kingdom both before and during the Covid‐19 pandemic, explored through a grant funding program delivered between 2021 and 2023. The research utilizes quantitative financial and organizational data gathered from 1507 social enterprise applicants to this grant fund, based upon the period 2019–2022. This is supplemented by qualitative data in the form of interviews and focus groups held with social entrepreneurs (N = 17) and key ecosystem support stakeholders (N = 16), as well as researcher observations of discussions of social enterprise applications from the grant fund panel meetings. The research demonstrates how Covid‐19 impacted organizations' resilience over time, illustrating financial and social resilience among the social enterprise sample engaged during the period 2019–2022. The paper posits that this financial and social resilience is grounded within social enterprises' focus on their communities and their hybrid missions. The findings are useful to policy‐makers and practitioners looking to understand and support third‐sector resilience in the post‐pandemic world.
Q1

In‐Person Volunteering in the Times of the Pandemic: Lessons for Organizations Dependent on Essential Volunteering
Cnaan R.A., Unetic P.E., Choi D.
ABSTRACTThis research note focuses on the experience of nonprofit organizations that relied on in‐person essential volunteers during the pandemic to conduct their core, mission‐related programs. We use unique case data from a survey of a single organization's volunteers before and during the pandemic. We found that there were very few socio‐demographic differences between volunteers before and during the pandemic. However, the organization's volunteer administrative data revealed important differences in the modes that volunteers engaged with the organization. While the total number of volunteers decreased significantly, the number and frequency of individual volunteers volunteering alone increased during the pandemic, and the decline in volunteers overall was driven by the many organized groups of volunteers that the organization depended on pre‐pandemic, which declined precipitously. Individual, committed volunteers became more essential to the organization during the pandemic to help sustain the organization when their stable flows of revolving volunteer groups ended. The prior volunteer management inattention to core, individual volunteers before the pandemic and over‐reliance on revolving volunteer groups left the nonprofit vulnerable at the time of the pandemic disruption, which provides lessons for many similar organizations. Our findings suggest that organizations that benefit from steady volunteer groups should do more to promote individual volunteer loyalty while also managing the revolving door of groups.
Q1

Using Machine Learning to Understand and Manage the Transformation of Peer Donors to Organizational Donors
Hesse L.
ABSTRACTPeer‐to‐peer fundraising has become a popular funding approach for nonprofit organizations, generating quick revenue and a promising opportunity for donor base expansion by transforming peer donors into organizational donors following their peer donation. This study uses survey data from 706 participants to examine peer donors' transformation likelihood and its determining factors. Additionally, it evaluates the capacity of machine learning to predict which peer donors are most likely to transform. The results reveal that, among peer donors who lack prior affiliation with the nonprofit organization, the transformation likelihood is 14.1%, indicating a transformation rate of approximately one in seven peer donors. Regarding the determining factors, post‐donation communication with peer donors after their initial donation increased the odds of transformation threefold, while established nonprofit‐related factors, such as trust in the organization, exhibit no influence. Moreover, applying the random forest approach allowed for the prediction of the transformation with an accuracy of 79% slightly outperforming logistic regression. This study assists in identifying the donors most likely to transform, enabling fundraising managers to allocate efforts effectively and maximize fundraising success.
Q1

A Scoping Review of Bullying and Harassment in Nonprofit and Voluntary Organizations
Hodgins M., Pursell L., Itzkovich Y., MacCurtain S., Rayner C.
ABSTRACTApproximately 15% of workers are exposed to bullying in their workplace. However, few studies appear to have been conducted in nonprofit and voluntary organizations. This scoping review explored prevalence and structural and contextual factors that influence bullying in nonprofit and voluntary organizations. From a capture of 671 papers, 54 were assessed for eligibility and 18 full‐text articles were reviewed. Bullying is prevalent in nonprofit and voluntary organizations at the same or higher levels as other sectors, with sexual harassment appearing to be a serious problem in the context of fundraising. A synthesis of papers found a suite of factors presented in four themes; complex and unique power relations, the exploitation of virtuosity, the exercise of hegemonic power, and asymmetrical power and extreme dependency, which together act to stabilize the presence of bullying in nonprofit and voluntary organizations. Such dynamics need to be disrupted for intervention to occur. Further research is needed on how volunteers “sense‐make” in the face of dissonance between organizational mission and behavior, intervention evaluation, and regulating philanthropic donation to reduce donor dependence.
Q1

Measuring the Human Values That Predominate in the Organization's Culture: A Dynamic Multilevel Linear Mixed Model Based on Genetic Algorithms
Molina‐Sánchez H., Ortiz‐Gomez M., Fernández‐Navarro F.
ABSTRACTThe alignment between organizational and employee human values is critical in institutions that base their management on values. This research aims to link Schwartz's 10 human values to workplace authenticity, determining prevalent values in organizations. In tandem, nonprofit organizations are intricately intertwined with the values held by their members, forming the bedrock of their identity. To achieve this goal, an in‐depth analysis is conducted on three nonprofit and faith‐based organizations. The study proposes a hybrid model, merging a genetic algorithm with a linear mixed model, to comprehensively explore the intricate relationship between employees’ human values and authenticity in organizational settings. The underlying model is estimated from data to theory using a genetic algorithm (global optimization) to dynamically determine the best set of human values regressors (also considering interaction effects). The regressors selected to explain the authenticity construct the most from two perspectives, namely, the general model (fixed effects) and the particular model (random effects).
Q1

A Machine‐Learning Approach to Understanding Performance of Canadian Nonprofit Sport Organizations
Yang Y., Byers T., Koenigstorfer J.
ABSTRACTPrevious approaches to model the performance of nonprofit organizations and their determinants largely rely on linearity and monotonicity assumptions. This research note makes a methodological contribution by jointly using descriptive and predictive models, particularly advanced machine‐learning algorithms that allow for the consideration of non‐linear or non‐monotonic relationships, to understand the relevance of factors associated with the performance of nonprofit sport clubs as well as the nature of relationships. Data were collected via an online survey with 126 representatives of Canadian sport clubs, in which four performance domains were considered: Member relationship, service quality, financial stability, and sporting success. Explanatory linear regressions and four machine‐learning models (i.e., ridge regression, bagged regression, random forest, and gradient boosting machine) are used. The results reveal that machine‐learning models increase the explanatory power compared to linear models. The random forest outperforms the other models in terms of root mean squared error and, partly, mean absolute error, and R square (even though absolute levels of R square are low at times, particularly for financial stability and sporting success, where the presence or absence of a high‐volume donor or high‐performance sports mission might help or hinder performance). Non‐linear relationships are found for several predictors across the four dimensions that were considered, such as the use of outside knowledge, trust, coopetition, age, and tenure of the club representative. We showcase the use of joint computational techniques in nonprofit research to serve two relevant goals: enhance the explanatory power and maintain the interpretability of predictive models.
Q1

Opportunities for Downward Accountability? Survey Evidence From Small Transnational NGOs
Schnable A., Appe S., Buyannemekh B.
ABSTRACTDevelopment NGOs face expanded pressures for accountability, both to deliver project results and to operate with participatory and democratic processes. Existing research distinguishes between “upward” accountability to donors and “downward” accountability to clients or beneficiaries, and it often finds that pressures of upward accountability can be stronger. We examine the practices of a subset of NGOs that could be an ideal case for strong downward accountability: small transnational NGOs, which rely on individual donors, tend to make long‐term commitments to a handful of sites, and prize relationships with beneficiaries. We analyze a survey of small U.S.‐based NGOs and find that informal, relational forms of downward accountability dominate among this group. Our analysis finds that the reported frequent visits by U.S. leadership and partnership structure with the host community are associated with more robust downward accountability. Contrary to our predictions, higher shares of funding from foundations and government are not associated with weaker downward accountability. Most importantly for theory, we learn that a lack of required formal upward accountability—in written reports and quantification—is not sufficient to produce stronger downward accountability. Small NGOs are largely untouched by the era of evaluation and quantification in the management of nonprofits. We cannot say whether the absence of these pressures is necessary to promote downward accountability, but we conclude that it is not sufficient.
Q1

Nonprofit Entry, Exit, and Implications for Sector Growth
Harrison T.D., Oxley J.
ABSTRACTPatterns of nonprofit sector growth, organizational birth, and organizational dissolution continue to be at the forefront of the nonprofit management literature. We contribute to this line of research by examining entry, exit, and growth simultaneously, employing the longest panel of US nonprofits of which we are aware. We find estimates of entry ranging between four and 5%, while exit ranges between 1% and 2% per year. The combined rates result in positive sector growth every year, despite variations in regulatory and economic conditions. Our results indicate that lack of exit—not excess entry—is an important, and often overlooked, factor for continued growth of the nonprofit sector. Furthermore, we document the importance of including 990‐N filers and addressing missed filings, demonstrating the bias introduced in metrics of sector growth and exit if we do not account for these issues. We conclude by providing guidance on best practices for scholars and practitioners when measuring nonprofit entry, exit, density, and growth metrics, along with suggested reframing of the mindset around sector growth to consider a lack of exit driving growth rather than exclusively focusing on the creation of new nonprofits.
Q1

Equitable Decision‐Making in Community Foundations
Azevedo L., Bell A.
ABSTRACTCommunity foundations can strengthen their localities by connecting philanthropists with areas of greatest need. This article seeks to examine if equitable practices constitute more equitable decision‐making in the structure and processes of the foundation. To this end, we explore decision‐making in terms of the processes involved in funding allocation and grantmaking of discretionary funds in foundation boardrooms, where these decisions typically begin or take place. Through an inductive approach, we formulate a theoretical framework and test our framework through surveys to community foundation leaders. Findings reveal that cultivating diversity and inclusive practices in decision‐making, organizing decisions by mission and strategic goals, and an organizational commitment to equity can strengthen perceived equitable decision‐making. This research has substantial implications in nonprofit spaces by exploring informal and nontraditional prescriptions for better engaging with communities they are serving and creating a more inclusive society. Theoretical and practical contributions are made for advancing equity through decision‐making in spaces where important community‐based decisions are made.
Q1

What Can Nonprofits Learn From Mutual Aid Organizing? Investigating Mutual Aid Approaches During the COVID ‐19 Pandemic
Wu V.C., Russell A.R., Scott M.L.
ABSTRACTMutual aid groups surfaced globally to serve marginalized communities, offering a crucial community‐led crisis response at the onset of the COVID‐19 pandemic. Despite playing a critical role in community‐led crisis responses, the existing literature offers limited insight into why and how they emerged to address the immediate needs of these communities. This study addresses this gap by investigating mutual aid organizing during the pandemic. Employing a sequential mixed methods approach, we utilize survey and interview data to examine how mutual aid groups in the United States rapidly responded to community needs, establishing legitimacy and gaining support from stakeholders. While these groups faced unique management challenges, they offer valuable lessons for the public and nonprofit sectors serving marginalized communities. These lessons include cultivating inclusive and egalitarian relationships, facilitating reciprocity and communal sharing, and catalyzing community‐led responses. Such community‐rooted responses offer crucial insights for enhancing community resilience during and after the pandemic.
Q1

Advocacy on a Tightrope: Effects of Government Funding and Perceived Support for Advocacy on Nonprofit Cooperative and Confrontational Advocacy Tactics
Carré B., Oosterlynck S., Verschuere B., Raeymaeckers P.
ABSTRACTIn nonprofit literature, there is evidence that a more relative dependence on public funding tends to result in nonprofits relying more heavily on insider/cooperative rather than outsider/confrontational advocacy. This led some researchers to believe that there is a resource imbalance between nonprofits and governments while others were convinced of a balance. However, there is hardly any empirical evidence that tests these assumptions. In this paper, we aim to address this research gap by examining the moderating effect of public funding and public service delivery on the relationship between nonprofit perceptions of government support for advocacy and advocacy tactics. Based on a survey of Flemish nonprofits, we find that these nonprofit organizations more frequently use cooperative insider rather than confrontational outsider tactics. Moreover, public funding and public service delivery are important explanatory and moderating variables.
Q1

Strategic Human Resource Management Bundles and Job Performance in the Nonprofit Sector: A Multilevel Longitudinal Study
Abukhalifa A.M., Kamil N.L., Yong C.C.
ABSTRACTLeaning on social exchange theory and job demand Resource theory, this study examines the impact of ability, motivation, and opportunity strategic human resource management bundles on job performance via the mediating mechanism of work engagement. Our data were gathered in two waves from 270 paid employees employed by 30 nonprofit organizations in Palestine and were analyzed using hierarchical linear modeling. The findings reveal that ability, motivation, and opportunity for strategic human resource management bundles have a significant positive impact on work engagement and job performance. Among these bundles, the opportunity‐enhancing bundle emerged as the strongest predictor of work engagement and job performance. Work engagement was found to partially mediate the relationship between strategic human resource management and performance. The novelty of this study lies in its examination of these relationships using a multilevel longitudinal methodology in the understudied contexts of the nonprofit sector and an Eastern setting, thereby addressing several theoretical, methodological, and empirical gaps within the literature on strategic HRM, the non‐profit sector, and positive psychology.
Q1

Volunteers in Name Only: Implications of Court‐Mandated Service on Volunteer Management
Clerkin R.M., Coggburn J.D., Lawrence K.L.
ABSTRACTFor nonprofits facing a shifting volunteer base and pressure to engage volunteers in new ways, mandatory service presents both opportunities and challenges for volunteer management that are similar yet distinct from episodic volunteers. In this manuscript, we use semi‐structured interview data from a sample of 26 nonprofit organizations to explore why and how nonprofits use court‐mandated volunteers (CMs). We find that nonprofits base their decisions on whether and how to use CMs on instrumental, expressive, and affiliative considerations. Our findings suggest that nonprofits who use CMs perceive that engaging with CMs aligns with their mission, can accommodate many volunteer hours in a short amount of time, and possess the capacity to effectively manage CMs. However, when nonprofits choose to use CMs, especially those with full‐time volunteer managers, they utilize them differently than traditional volunteers, tending to put them in sweat roles segregated from other volunteers and service beneficiaries. This differential use of CMs raises important concerns about whether this sort of mandated service can achieve its purpose of connecting CMs to their communities to curb recidivism. Further, it challenges the very notion of what it means to be a volunteer from both the coercive nature of the relationship and how this labor is used, leading us to consider individuals engaging in mandated service as volunteers in name only.
Q1

The Many Indicators of Nonprofit Success as Seen by Nonprofit Leaders
Maier F., Zheng W., Brandtner C., Cornips L.
ABSTRACTNonprofit organizations are increasingly compelled to demonstrate their success to stakeholders, drawing scholarly interest toward systematizing indicators of their success. But what best indicates success is in the eye of the beholder, as success is socially constructed. This paper examines the multifaceted success indicators used by nonprofit leaders in practice and explores how they align with scholarly conceptions of nonprofit success. We develop a framework of nonprofit success from the perspective of nonprofit leaders that is more comprehensive and generalizable than previous ones by analyzing responses from leaders of 861 randomly sampled nonprofit organizations in three metropolitan regions representing different institutional contexts—Vienna (Austria), Shenzhen (China), and San Francisco (USA). Despite contextual differences, leaders' understandings have much in common across settings. The indicators overlap with existing scholarly understandings of nonprofit performance and effectiveness, focusing on internal actions and external stakeholder relationships. However, our findings also uncover two practically relevant groups of indicators that are under‐appreciated in scholarly discourse: relationships within the organization (cohesiveness and social inclusion), and the uptake behavior of external stakeholders (engagement with the organization's offerings). Our findings categorize these indicators in terms of whether they manifest inside or outside the organization and whether they emphasize actions or relationships. The two‐dimensional framework thereby maps common ground among nonprofit leaders across diverse national and organizational contexts, noting how the priority of success aspects varies. Our comparative data underscore the wide‐ranging applicability of the proposed framework, illuminating new directions for research on nonprofit success.
Top-100
Citing journals
50
100
150
200
250
|
|
Sustainability
232 citations, 5.02%
|
|
International Journal of Human Resource Management
127 citations, 2.75%
|
|
SSRN Electronic Journal
63 citations, 1.36%
|
|
Thunderbird International Business Review
61 citations, 1.32%
|
|
Journal of Global Mobility
55 citations, 1.19%
|
|
International Journal of Emerging Markets
52 citations, 1.12%
|
|
Review of Managerial Science
52 citations, 1.12%
|
|
Technological Forecasting and Social Change
51 citations, 1.1%
|
|
Frontiers in Psychology
47 citations, 1.02%
|
|
Journal of International Management
47 citations, 1.02%
|
|
International Business Review
46 citations, 0.99%
|
|
Journal of Knowledge Management
42 citations, 0.91%
|
|
Employee Relations
41 citations, 0.89%
|
|
Management Decision
35 citations, 0.76%
|
|
Economic Research-Ekonomska Istrazivanja
34 citations, 0.73%
|
|
Handbook of Research on Global Business Opportunities
34 citations, 0.73%
|
|
Journal of Business Research
33 citations, 0.71%
|
|
Review of International Business and Strategy
32 citations, 0.69%
|
|
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research
32 citations, 0.69%
|
|
Advances in Global Leadership
31 citations, 0.67%
|
|
Critical Perspectives on International Business
28 citations, 0.61%
|
|
Journal of World Business
28 citations, 0.61%
|
|
Management International Review
27 citations, 0.58%
|
|
Kybernetes
27 citations, 0.58%
|
|
Journal of Cleaner Production
25 citations, 0.54%
|
|
International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal
25 citations, 0.54%
|
|
Contributions to Management Science
25 citations, 0.54%
|
|
Advances in Human Resources Management and Organizational Development
25 citations, 0.54%
|
|
Human Resource Management
24 citations, 0.52%
|
|
International Marketing Review
24 citations, 0.52%
|
|
Personnel Review
23 citations, 0.5%
|
|
Journal of International Entrepreneurship
23 citations, 0.5%
|
|
European Journal of Innovation Management
23 citations, 0.5%
|
|
Multinational Business Review
22 citations, 0.48%
|
|
Journal of Management Development
22 citations, 0.48%
|
|
Administrative Sciences
22 citations, 0.48%
|
|
Journal of Intellectual Capital
21 citations, 0.45%
|
|
European Management Journal
21 citations, 0.45%
|
|
Management Research Review
21 citations, 0.45%
|
|
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
20 citations, 0.43%
|
|
Entrepreneurship Research Journal
20 citations, 0.43%
|
|
Cross Cultural and Strategic Management
20 citations, 0.43%
|
|
Heliyon
20 citations, 0.43%
|
|
Management Review Quarterly
19 citations, 0.41%
|
|
Journal of Family Business Management
19 citations, 0.41%
|
|
Journal of Organizational Change Management
18 citations, 0.39%
|
|
SAGE Open
18 citations, 0.39%
|
|
Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing
17 citations, 0.37%
|
|
Human Resource Management Review
17 citations, 0.37%
|
|
International Journal of Organizational Analysis
17 citations, 0.37%
|
|
Long Range Planning
16 citations, 0.35%
|
|
International Studies of Management and Organization
16 citations, 0.35%
|
|
International Journal of Management Education
15 citations, 0.32%
|
|
BRQ Business Research Quarterly
15 citations, 0.32%
|
|
Journal of East-West Business
15 citations, 0.32%
|
|
British Food Journal
15 citations, 0.32%
|
|
Outsourcing Management for Supply Chain Operations and Logistics Service
15 citations, 0.32%
|
|
Journal of International Business Studies
14 citations, 0.3%
|
|
Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies
14 citations, 0.3%
|
|
Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development
14 citations, 0.3%
|
|
Human Resource Management Journal
14 citations, 0.3%
|
|
Journal of Business Ethics
14 citations, 0.3%
|
|
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services
14 citations, 0.3%
|
|
Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences
13 citations, 0.28%
|
|
Cogent Business and Management
13 citations, 0.28%
|
|
Journal of Enterprising Communities
13 citations, 0.28%
|
|
Journal of Strategy and Management
13 citations, 0.28%
|
|
International Journal of Cross Cultural Management
12 citations, 0.26%
|
|
Business Strategy and the Environment
12 citations, 0.26%
|
|
International Journal of Consumer Studies
12 citations, 0.26%
|
|
International Journal of Management Reviews
12 citations, 0.26%
|
|
Humanities and Social Sciences Communications
12 citations, 0.26%
|
|
Applied Mathematics and Nonlinear Sciences
12 citations, 0.26%
|
|
IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management
11 citations, 0.24%
|
|
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management
11 citations, 0.24%
|
|
Management Research
11 citations, 0.24%
|
|
Business Process Management Journal
11 citations, 0.24%
|
|
International Journal of Manpower
11 citations, 0.24%
|
|
European Business Review
11 citations, 0.24%
|
|
EuroMed Journal of Business
11 citations, 0.24%
|
|
Journal of Management Studies
11 citations, 0.24%
|
|
PLoS ONE
11 citations, 0.24%
|
|
Corporate Ownership and Control
11 citations, 0.24%
|
|
Managing, Subsidiary Dynamics: Headquarters Role, Capability Development, and China Strategy
11 citations, 0.24%
|
|
Chinese Management Studies
10 citations, 0.22%
|
|
Quality and Quantity
10 citations, 0.22%
|
|
European Management Review
10 citations, 0.22%
|
|
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management
10 citations, 0.22%
|
|
Journal of the Knowledge Economy
10 citations, 0.22%
|
|
Small Business Economics
10 citations, 0.22%
|
|
Business History
9 citations, 0.19%
|
|
Career Development International
9 citations, 0.19%
|
|
Baltic Journal of Management
9 citations, 0.19%
|
|
Competitiveness Review
9 citations, 0.19%
|
|
Social Responsibility Journal
9 citations, 0.19%
|
|
Service Industries Journal
9 citations, 0.19%
|
|
Leadership and Organization Development Journal
9 citations, 0.19%
|
|
Journal of Organizational Effectiveness
9 citations, 0.19%
|
|
Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity
9 citations, 0.19%
|
|
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management
9 citations, 0.19%
|
|
Show all (70 more) | |
50
100
150
200
250
|
Citing publishers
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
|
|
Emerald
1302 citations, 28.15%
|
|
Elsevier
584 citations, 12.62%
|
|
Springer Nature
485 citations, 10.48%
|
|
Taylor & Francis
445 citations, 9.62%
|
|
MDPI
361 citations, 7.8%
|
|
Wiley
317 citations, 6.85%
|
|
IGI Global
152 citations, 3.29%
|
|
SAGE
146 citations, 3.16%
|
|
Walter de Gruyter
74 citations, 1.6%
|
|
Social Science Electronic Publishing
63 citations, 1.36%
|
|
Frontiers Media S.A.
61 citations, 1.32%
|
|
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
47 citations, 1.02%
|
|
CAIRN
26 citations, 0.56%
|
|
Virtus Interpress
18 citations, 0.39%
|
|
Hindawi Limited
16 citations, 0.35%
|
|
Oxford University Press
14 citations, 0.3%
|
|
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
12 citations, 0.26%
|
|
Vilnius Gediminas Technical University
12 citations, 0.26%
|
|
AOSIS
12 citations, 0.26%
|
|
LLC CPC Business Perspectives
10 citations, 0.22%
|
|
IntechOpen
10 citations, 0.22%
|
|
World Scientific
8 citations, 0.17%
|
|
John Benjamins Publishing Company
8 citations, 0.17%
|
|
EDP Sciences
8 citations, 0.17%
|
|
Centre for Evaluation in Education and Science (CEON/CEES)
8 citations, 0.17%
|
|
SciELO
6 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Intellect
6 citations, 0.13%
|
|
AIP Publishing
5 citations, 0.11%
|
|
Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences (INFORMS)
5 citations, 0.11%
|
|
Fundacao Getulio Vargas, Escola de Administracao de Empresas de Sao Paulo
5 citations, 0.11%
|
|
Center for Strategic Studies in Business and Finance SSBFNET
5 citations, 0.11%
|
|
Cambridge University Press
4 citations, 0.09%
|
|
IOS Press
4 citations, 0.09%
|
|
Vilnius University Press
4 citations, 0.09%
|
|
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)
4 citations, 0.09%
|
|
JMIR Publications
4 citations, 0.09%
|
|
Consortium Erudit
4 citations, 0.09%
|
|
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
3 citations, 0.06%
|
|
Editura ASE Bucuresti
3 citations, 0.06%
|
|
Academy of Management
3 citations, 0.06%
|
|
NP Voprosy Ekonomiki
3 citations, 0.06%
|
|
Akademiai Kiado
3 citations, 0.06%
|
|
South Florida Publishing LLC
3 citations, 0.06%
|
|
Narxoz University - Non-profit joint stock company
3 citations, 0.06%
|
|
Research Square Platform LLC
3 citations, 0.06%
|
|
Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)
2 citations, 0.04%
|
|
IOP Publishing
2 citations, 0.04%
|
|
International Journal of Mathematical, Engineering and Management Sciences (IJMEMS)
2 citations, 0.04%
|
|
Fakulteta za Organizacijske Vede, Univerza v Mariboru
2 citations, 0.04%
|
|
2 citations, 0.04%
|
|
Science Alert
2 citations, 0.04%
|
|
OpenEdition
2 citations, 0.04%
|
|
Scandinavian University Press / Universitetsforlaget AS
2 citations, 0.04%
|
|
Hogrefe Publishing Group
2 citations, 0.04%
|
|
Universidad Complutense de Madrid (UCM)
2 citations, 0.04%
|
|
Hans Publishers
2 citations, 0.04%
|
|
Fundacja Upowszechniajaca Wiedze i Nauke Cognitione
2 citations, 0.04%
|
|
World Scientific and Engineering Academy and Society (WSEAS)
2 citations, 0.04%
|
|
Universitatea Sapientia din municipiul Cluj-Napoca
2 citations, 0.04%
|
|
Mendel University Press
2 citations, 0.04%
|
|
Colegio Oficial de la Psicologia de Madrid
2 citations, 0.04%
|
|
Centre of Sociological Research, NGO
2 citations, 0.04%
|
|
Bentham Science Publishers Ltd.
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
Pleiades Publishing
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC)
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
American Institute of Mathematical Sciences (AIMS)
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
Universitat Politecnica de Valencia
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
European Academy of Management and Business Economics
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
Universidade Sao Francisco
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
Middle Tennessee State University
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
Altai State University
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
Universidad Catolica de Colombia
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
Editura Economica
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
Pluto Journals
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
Copernicus
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
Mackenzie Presbyterian University
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
Unisa Press
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
Eurasian Society of Educational Research
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
Research Institut of Pomology and Floriculture
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
Association of Professional Managers in South Africa
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
DMSP Research Center, Paris-Dauphine University
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
Departamento de Psicologia, Universidade de Brasilia
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
Academic Journals
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
Annual Reviews
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
CSIRO Publishing
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
Infra-M Academic Publishing House
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
EJournal Publishing
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
Maad Rayan Publishing Company
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
Inderscience Publishers
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
Center for Crisis Society Studies
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
Publishing House Finance and Credit
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
Malaga University
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
Termedia Sp. z.o.o.
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
Cognizant, LLC
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
MGIMO University
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
Brieflands
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
Show all (70 more) | |
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
|
Publishing organizations
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
|
|
University of Beira Interior
9 publications, 0.77%
|
|
Vienna University of Economics and Business
8 publications, 0.68%
|
|
University of Twente
7 publications, 0.6%
|
|
Copenhagen Business School
7 publications, 0.6%
|
|
Aalto University
5 publications, 0.43%
|
|
University of Valencia
5 publications, 0.43%
|
|
University of Castilla-La Mancha
5 publications, 0.43%
|
|
Autonomous University of Barcelona
4 publications, 0.34%
|
|
University of Cambridge
4 publications, 0.34%
|
|
University of Erlangen–Nuremberg
4 publications, 0.34%
|
|
University of Sheffield
4 publications, 0.34%
|
|
Polytechnic University of Valencia
4 publications, 0.34%
|
|
National Research University Higher School of Economics
3 publications, 0.26%
|
|
Saint Petersburg State University
3 publications, 0.26%
|
|
Koc University
3 publications, 0.26%
|
|
University of Tehran
3 publications, 0.26%
|
|
University of Tübingen
3 publications, 0.26%
|
|
Open University of Israel
3 publications, 0.26%
|
|
University of Bayreuth
3 publications, 0.26%
|
|
Aston University
3 publications, 0.26%
|
|
University of Warwick
3 publications, 0.26%
|
|
University of Applied Sciences Northwestern Switzerland
3 publications, 0.26%
|
|
Aarhus University
3 publications, 0.26%
|
|
University of Southern Denmark
3 publications, 0.26%
|
|
Nottingham Trent University
3 publications, 0.26%
|
|
National Taipei University of Technology
3 publications, 0.26%
|
|
University of Agder
3 publications, 0.26%
|
|
University of Otago
3 publications, 0.26%
|
|
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
3 publications, 0.26%
|
|
Athens University of Economics and Business
3 publications, 0.26%
|
|
University of Leeds
3 publications, 0.26%
|
|
Tecnológico de Monterrey
3 publications, 0.26%
|
|
University of North Carolina at Greensboro
3 publications, 0.26%
|
|
American University of Sharjah
2 publications, 0.17%
|
|
Marmara University
2 publications, 0.17%
|
|
Yeditepe University
2 publications, 0.17%
|
|
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
2 publications, 0.17%
|
|
University of Lisbon
2 publications, 0.17%
|
|
Uppsala University
2 publications, 0.17%
|
|
Halmstad University
2 publications, 0.17%
|
|
University of Zurich
2 publications, 0.17%
|
|
Jönköping University
2 publications, 0.17%
|
|
University of St. Gallen
2 publications, 0.17%
|
|
Åbo Akademi University
2 publications, 0.17%
|
|
Shanghai Lixin University of Accounting and Finance
2 publications, 0.17%
|
|
Hanken School of Economics
2 publications, 0.17%
|
|
King's College London
2 publications, 0.17%
|
|
Manchester Metropolitan University
2 publications, 0.17%
|
|
Fu Jen Catholic University
2 publications, 0.17%
|
|
National Chung Cheng University
2 publications, 0.17%
|
|
Asia University
2 publications, 0.17%
|
|
Feng Chia University
2 publications, 0.17%
|
|
University of Melbourne
2 publications, 0.17%
|
|
La Trobe University
2 publications, 0.17%
|
|
American University in Cairo
2 publications, 0.17%
|
|
Reykjavik University
2 publications, 0.17%
|
|
Virginia Tech
2 publications, 0.17%
|
|
Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
2 publications, 0.17%
|
|
Loyola Marymount University
2 publications, 0.17%
|
|
Loyola University Chicago
2 publications, 0.17%
|
|
Northeastern University
2 publications, 0.17%
|
|
University of Texas at Dallas
2 publications, 0.17%
|
|
Dublin City University
2 publications, 0.17%
|
|
University of Cologne
2 publications, 0.17%
|
|
Keele University
2 publications, 0.17%
|
|
Pablo de Olavide University
2 publications, 0.17%
|
|
University of Seville
2 publications, 0.17%
|
|
Simon Fraser University
2 publications, 0.17%
|
|
University of Groningen
2 publications, 0.17%
|
|
Hochschule Niederrhein
2 publications, 0.17%
|
|
University of Amsterdam
2 publications, 0.17%
|
|
University of Wisconsin–Green Bay
2 publications, 0.17%
|
|
University of Salamanca
2 publications, 0.17%
|
|
Poznań University of Economics and Business
2 publications, 0.17%
|
|
Kozminski University
2 publications, 0.17%
|
|
University of Warsaw
2 publications, 0.17%
|
|
Erasmus University Rotterdam
2 publications, 0.17%
|
|
University of Maribor
2 publications, 0.17%
|
|
Universidad de Alcalá
2 publications, 0.17%
|
|
University of Victoria
2 publications, 0.17%
|
|
University of Ljubljana
2 publications, 0.17%
|
|
University of Murcia
2 publications, 0.17%
|
|
University of Sussex
2 publications, 0.17%
|
|
University of Oviedo
2 publications, 0.17%
|
|
University of Rovira i Virgili
2 publications, 0.17%
|
|
University of Kentucky
2 publications, 0.17%
|
|
Valencia Catholic University Saint Vincent Martyr
2 publications, 0.17%
|
|
Quinnipiac University
2 publications, 0.17%
|
|
Coventry University
2 publications, 0.17%
|
|
Ural Federal University
1 publication, 0.09%
|
|
Kazan National Research Technical University named after A. N. Tupolev - KAI
1 publication, 0.09%
|
|
Rostov State Economic University
1 publication, 0.09%
|
|
Kharazmi University
1 publication, 0.09%
|
|
Tarbiat Modares University
1 publication, 0.09%
|
|
United Arab Emirates University
1 publication, 0.09%
|
|
Boğaziçi University
1 publication, 0.09%
|
|
Istanbul University
1 publication, 0.09%
|
|
Bahcesehir University
1 publication, 0.09%
|
|
Ferdowsi University of Mashhad
1 publication, 0.09%
|
|
Iqra University
1 publication, 0.09%
|
|
Show all (70 more) | |
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
|
Publishing organizations in 5 years
1
2
|
|
University of Tehran
2 publications, 0.41%
|
|
Yeditepe University
2 publications, 0.41%
|
|
University of St. Gallen
2 publications, 0.41%
|
|
University of Southern Denmark
2 publications, 0.41%
|
|
University of Agder
2 publications, 0.41%
|
|
American University in Cairo
2 publications, 0.41%
|
|
University of Valencia
2 publications, 0.41%
|
|
National Research University Higher School of Economics
1 publication, 0.2%
|
|
Marmara University
1 publication, 0.2%
|
|
Gebze Technical University
1 publication, 0.2%
|
|
Peking University
1 publication, 0.2%
|
|
Tel Aviv University
1 publication, 0.2%
|
|
Ghent University
1 publication, 0.2%
|
|
Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics
1 publication, 0.2%
|
|
University of Milano-Bicocca
1 publication, 0.2%
|
|
University of Cambridge
1 publication, 0.2%
|
|
University of Vaasa
1 publication, 0.2%
|
|
Interuniversity Microelectronics Centre
1 publication, 0.2%
|
|
Ca' Foscari University of Venice
1 publication, 0.2%
|
|
La Trobe University
1 publication, 0.2%
|
|
University of New England
1 publication, 0.2%
|
|
University of Hassan II Casablanca
1 publication, 0.2%
|
|
Parahyangan Catholic University
1 publication, 0.2%
|
|
Covenant University
1 publication, 0.2%
|
|
Ebonyi State University
1 publication, 0.2%
|
|
Chonnam National University
1 publication, 0.2%
|
|
Tohoku University
1 publication, 0.2%
|
|
University of Porto
1 publication, 0.2%
|
|
University of Beira Interior
1 publication, 0.2%
|
|
Józef Piłsudski University of Physical Education in Warsaw
1 publication, 0.2%
|
|
University of Warsaw
1 publication, 0.2%
|
|
Erasmus University Rotterdam
1 publication, 0.2%
|
|
University of Maribor
1 publication, 0.2%
|
|
University of Vigo
1 publication, 0.2%
|
|
Valencia Catholic University Saint Vincent Martyr
1 publication, 0.2%
|
|
Valencian International University
1 publication, 0.2%
|
|
Show all (6 more) | |
1
2
|
Publishing countries
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
|
|
USA
|
USA, 63, 5.37%
USA
63 publications, 5.37%
|
United Kingdom
|
United Kingdom, 47, 4%
United Kingdom
47 publications, 4%
|
Spain
|
Spain, 45, 3.83%
Spain
45 publications, 3.83%
|
Germany
|
Germany, 36, 3.07%
Germany
36 publications, 3.07%
|
China
|
China, 28, 2.39%
China
28 publications, 2.39%
|
France
|
France, 22, 1.87%
France
22 publications, 1.87%
|
Netherlands
|
Netherlands, 15, 1.28%
Netherlands
15 publications, 1.28%
|
Denmark
|
Denmark, 14, 1.19%
Denmark
14 publications, 1.19%
|
Italy
|
Italy, 14, 1.19%
Italy
14 publications, 1.19%
|
Switzerland
|
Switzerland, 14, 1.19%
Switzerland
14 publications, 1.19%
|
Portugal
|
Portugal, 13, 1.11%
Portugal
13 publications, 1.11%
|
Austria
|
Austria, 13, 1.11%
Austria
13 publications, 1.11%
|
Turkey
|
Turkey, 11, 0.94%
Turkey
11 publications, 0.94%
|
Finland
|
Finland, 11, 0.94%
Finland
11 publications, 0.94%
|
Russia
|
Russia, 10, 0.85%
Russia
10 publications, 0.85%
|
Australia
|
Australia, 9, 0.77%
Australia
9 publications, 0.77%
|
Ireland
|
Ireland, 9, 0.77%
Ireland
9 publications, 0.77%
|
Poland
|
Poland, 9, 0.77%
Poland
9 publications, 0.77%
|
Sweden
|
Sweden, 9, 0.77%
Sweden
9 publications, 0.77%
|
Greece
|
Greece, 8, 0.68%
Greece
8 publications, 0.68%
|
Canada
|
Canada, 8, 0.68%
Canada
8 publications, 0.68%
|
Iran
|
Iran, 7, 0.6%
Iran
7 publications, 0.6%
|
Norway
|
Norway, 7, 0.6%
Norway
7 publications, 0.6%
|
Israel
|
Israel, 6, 0.51%
Israel
6 publications, 0.51%
|
Mexico
|
Mexico, 6, 0.51%
Mexico
6 publications, 0.51%
|
Malaysia
|
Malaysia, 5, 0.43%
Malaysia
5 publications, 0.43%
|
New Zealand
|
New Zealand, 5, 0.43%
New Zealand
5 publications, 0.43%
|
Liechtenstein
|
Liechtenstein, 4, 0.34%
Liechtenstein
4 publications, 0.34%
|
Slovenia
|
Slovenia, 4, 0.34%
Slovenia
4 publications, 0.34%
|
Belgium
|
Belgium, 3, 0.26%
Belgium
3 publications, 0.26%
|
UAE
|
UAE, 3, 0.26%
UAE
3 publications, 0.26%
|
Pakistan
|
Pakistan, 3, 0.26%
Pakistan
3 publications, 0.26%
|
Republic of Korea
|
Republic of Korea, 3, 0.26%
Republic of Korea
3 publications, 0.26%
|
North Macedonia
|
North Macedonia, 3, 0.26%
North Macedonia
3 publications, 0.26%
|
Chile
|
Chile, 3, 0.26%
Chile
3 publications, 0.26%
|
South Africa
|
South Africa, 3, 0.26%
South Africa
3 publications, 0.26%
|
Argentina
|
Argentina, 2, 0.17%
Argentina
2 publications, 0.17%
|
Brazil
|
Brazil, 2, 0.17%
Brazil
2 publications, 0.17%
|
Egypt
|
Egypt, 2, 0.17%
Egypt
2 publications, 0.17%
|
Indonesia
|
Indonesia, 2, 0.17%
Indonesia
2 publications, 0.17%
|
Iceland
|
Iceland, 2, 0.17%
Iceland
2 publications, 0.17%
|
Cyprus
|
Cyprus, 2, 0.17%
Cyprus
2 publications, 0.17%
|
Colombia
|
Colombia, 2, 0.17%
Colombia
2 publications, 0.17%
|
Lithuania
|
Lithuania, 2, 0.17%
Lithuania
2 publications, 0.17%
|
Romania
|
Romania, 2, 0.17%
Romania
2 publications, 0.17%
|
Tunisia
|
Tunisia, 2, 0.17%
Tunisia
2 publications, 0.17%
|
Czech Republic
|
Czech Republic, 2, 0.17%
Czech Republic
2 publications, 0.17%
|
Japan
|
Japan, 2, 0.17%
Japan
2 publications, 0.17%
|
Estonia
|
Estonia, 1, 0.09%
Estonia
1 publication, 0.09%
|
Angola
|
Angola, 1, 0.09%
Angola
1 publication, 0.09%
|
Bangladesh
|
Bangladesh, 1, 0.09%
Bangladesh
1 publication, 0.09%
|
Bosnia and Herzegovina
|
Bosnia and Herzegovina, 1, 0.09%
Bosnia and Herzegovina
1 publication, 0.09%
|
Hungary
|
Hungary, 1, 0.09%
Hungary
1 publication, 0.09%
|
Ghana
|
Ghana, 1, 0.09%
Ghana
1 publication, 0.09%
|
India
|
India, 1, 0.09%
India
1 publication, 0.09%
|
Kuwait
|
Kuwait, 1, 0.09%
Kuwait
1 publication, 0.09%
|
Morocco
|
Morocco, 1, 0.09%
Morocco
1 publication, 0.09%
|
Nigeria
|
Nigeria, 1, 0.09%
Nigeria
1 publication, 0.09%
|
Saudi Arabia
|
Saudi Arabia, 1, 0.09%
Saudi Arabia
1 publication, 0.09%
|
Serbia
|
Serbia, 1, 0.09%
Serbia
1 publication, 0.09%
|
Singapore
|
Singapore, 1, 0.09%
Singapore
1 publication, 0.09%
|
Slovakia
|
Slovakia, 1, 0.09%
Slovakia
1 publication, 0.09%
|
Croatia
|
Croatia, 1, 0.09%
Croatia
1 publication, 0.09%
|
Show all (33 more) | |
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
|
Publishing countries in 5 years
1
2
3
|
|
Portugal
|
Portugal, 3, 0.61%
Portugal
3 publications, 0.61%
|
Spain
|
Spain, 3, 0.61%
Spain
3 publications, 0.61%
|
Norway
|
Norway, 3, 0.61%
Norway
3 publications, 0.61%
|
Turkey
|
Turkey, 3, 0.61%
Turkey
3 publications, 0.61%
|
France
|
France, 2, 0.41%
France
2 publications, 0.41%
|
China
|
China, 2, 0.41%
China
2 publications, 0.41%
|
Australia
|
Australia, 2, 0.41%
Australia
2 publications, 0.41%
|
United Kingdom
|
United Kingdom, 2, 0.41%
United Kingdom
2 publications, 0.41%
|
Denmark
|
Denmark, 2, 0.41%
Denmark
2 publications, 0.41%
|
Egypt
|
Egypt, 2, 0.41%
Egypt
2 publications, 0.41%
|
Iran
|
Iran, 2, 0.41%
Iran
2 publications, 0.41%
|
Italy
|
Italy, 2, 0.41%
Italy
2 publications, 0.41%
|
Poland
|
Poland, 2, 0.41%
Poland
2 publications, 0.41%
|
Switzerland
|
Switzerland, 2, 0.41%
Switzerland
2 publications, 0.41%
|
Russia
|
Russia, 1, 0.2%
Russia
1 publication, 0.2%
|
Germany
|
Germany, 1, 0.2%
Germany
1 publication, 0.2%
|
USA
|
USA, 1, 0.2%
USA
1 publication, 0.2%
|
Belgium
|
Belgium, 1, 0.2%
Belgium
1 publication, 0.2%
|
Israel
|
Israel, 1, 0.2%
Israel
1 publication, 0.2%
|
Indonesia
|
Indonesia, 1, 0.2%
Indonesia
1 publication, 0.2%
|
Cyprus
|
Cyprus, 1, 0.2%
Cyprus
1 publication, 0.2%
|
Morocco
|
Morocco, 1, 0.2%
Morocco
1 publication, 0.2%
|
Nigeria
|
Nigeria, 1, 0.2%
Nigeria
1 publication, 0.2%
|
Netherlands
|
Netherlands, 1, 0.2%
Netherlands
1 publication, 0.2%
|
Republic of Korea
|
Republic of Korea, 1, 0.2%
Republic of Korea
1 publication, 0.2%
|
Romania
|
Romania, 1, 0.2%
Romania
1 publication, 0.2%
|
Slovenia
|
Slovenia, 1, 0.2%
Slovenia
1 publication, 0.2%
|
Finland
|
Finland, 1, 0.2%
Finland
1 publication, 0.2%
|
Chile
|
Chile, 1, 0.2%
Chile
1 publication, 0.2%
|
Japan
|
Japan, 1, 0.2%
Japan
1 publication, 0.2%
|
1
2
3
|
2 profile journal articles
Moreira António
227 publications,
2 432 citations
h-index: 26
2 profile journal articles
Fernandes Cristina
127 publications,
4 639 citations
h-index: 34