Are you a researcher?
Create a profile to get free access to personal recommendations for colleagues and new articles.
SCImago
Q2
WOS
Q3
Impact factor
1.9
SJR
0.565
CiteScore
3.9
Categories
Business, Management and Accounting (miscellaneous)
Areas
Business, Management and Accounting
Years of issue
2007-2025
journal names
Chinese Management Studies
CHIN MANAG STUD
Top-3 citing journals

Chinese Management Studies
(808 citations)

Sustainability
(345 citations)

Frontiers in Psychology
(193 citations)
Top-3 organizations

Harbin Institute of Technology
(27 publications)

Xi'an Jiaotong University
(16 publications)

Zhejiang University
(13 publications)

Harbin Institute of Technology
(9 publications)

Nanjing University
(6 publications)

Shanghai University
(6 publications)
Most cited in 5 years
Found
Publications found: 565
Q3

Moral Profiles Differ in Political Attitudes, Religious Orientations and Personality Dimensions
Saganić K., Matešić K.
Abstract: According to the Moral Foundations Theory, there are five moral foundations: Care, Fairness, Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity. Various studies have aimed to identify moral profiles that differ in the pattern of support for the five moral foundations. Those profiles correspond to distinct ideological positions. However, there are cultural differences in emphasis of certain moral foundations, and no research has been conducted on a Croatian sample to identify moral profiles. We conducted a study on 352 Croatian students and identified three moral profiles: the High Moralist, the Moderate, and the Individuator. The three profiles differ in political attitudes, religious orientations, and personality dimensions. We explain how the differences between our results and the previous research may be reflecting the cultural differences between Croatian culture and those of the US and New Zealand.
Q3

Personality and Positive Body Image
Tan C., Swami V., Cheng S., Cong C.W.
Abstract: Although previous studies have suggested reliable associations between personality traits and body image outcomes, the bulk of this research has been conducted in Western nations. As cultural factors may affect relationships between personality and outcome variables, the present study examined associations between the Big Five personality traits and body appreciation (i.e., a facet of positive body image) in a sample of Malaysian adults. A total of 782 adults (465 women and 317 men) completed an online survey consisting of measures of body appreciation, the Big Five personality traits, and demographic items. Linear model analysis indicated that body appreciation was significantly and negatively associated with Neuroticism while positively associated with Conscientiousness and Agreeableness respectively. Associations between body appreciation and Openness and Extraversion were not significant, nor was the moderating effect of gender. The findings replicate the previously reported negative association between Neuroticism and body appreciation and also suggest that associations with the other Big Five facets may be shaped by cultural contexts.
Q3

Not Feeling Safe Enough to Explore More Aspects
Yang F., Oshio A.
Abstract: Attachment style could be regarded as a prerequisite to resilience, playing an important role in positive adaptation, yet little is known about the mechanism of this attachment-resilience relationship. The present study explored the relationship between attachment style, dichotomous thinking, and resilience. Cross-sectional data from 3,760 participants were used for analysis. The results showed that attachment anxiety, not avoidance, had a statistically significant negative correlation with dichotomous thinking. Both attachment anxiety and avoidance had significant correlations with subscales of dichotomous thinking, though in different directions. Dichotomous thinking, preference for dichotomy, and profit-loss thinking were significantly associated with resilience, yet dichotomous belief was negatively associated with resilience. Attachment anxiety had a negative impact on resilience by increasing the level of dichotomous belief and a positive impact on resilience by increasing the level of preference for dichotomy. Attachment avoidance could have a negative impact on resilience by decreasing the level of preference for dichotomy and increasing the level of dichotomous belief. These findings suggest that dichotomous belief could be one shared feature both dimensions of insecure attachment.
Q3

Do Responsibility Attributions Mediate the Relationship Between Narcissism and Unforgiveness in Intimate Relationships?
Ryan K.M., Sprechini G., Beery S.H., Watsula A.
Abstract: Three studies explored the influence of grandiose and vulnerable narcissism on negative responsibility attributions and unforgiveness following a conflict in an intimate relationship. We tested Morf and Rhodewalt’s (2001a , 2001b ) Dynamic Self-Regulatory Processing Model of Narcissism. In the first two studies, participants were primarily heterosexual college students in a serious dating relationship and both types of narcissism were examined. The first study involved participants’ self-nominated biggest conflict. The second study involved an agreed-upon conflict. The third study attempted a conceptual replication of the actor effects found in the first two studies by testing mediation models with narcissism, negative responsibility attributions, and unforgiveness in a larger, convenience sample of MTurk workers. The first two studies showed gender differences suggesting that responsibility attributions either partially or fully mediated the relationship between grandiose narcissism and unforgiveness in males. The pattern of results for females was different in the first two studies. The third study showed that responsibility attributions partially mediated the relationship between all three forms of narcissism (grandiose narcissism, vulnerable narcissism, and entitlement) and unforgiveness in males and females supporting the Dynamic Self-Regulatory Processing Model of Narcissism.
Q3

Personality Traits Systematically Explain the Semantic Arrangement of Occupational Preferences
Yamashita J., Iwai R., Oishi H., Kumada T.
Abstract: Understanding occupational preferences through Big Five personality traits offers a crucial insight into the socio-psychological profiles of working individuals, extending beyond mere occupational behaviors. Previous research, however, has not conclusively shown that the broad, situation-general Big Five traits can systematically account for occupational preferences as outlined by the existing RIASEC model. The RIASEC framework’s reliance on theory-driven, preselected occupational scenarios may hinder this explanation. In this study, we initially employed data-driven, exploratory methods to identify and validate occupational preference factors from thousands of participants’ responses to a wide array of occupational titles. Subsequently, we explored the connections between the Big Five traits and these newly identified preference factors. Our analysis revealed a coherent and systematic relationship between data-driven occupational preferences and the Big Five traits, formulating the Hexagonal Openness–Extraversion–Agreeableness model of occupational personality traits. This model facilitates a broader understanding of individuals’ work-related personalities from a comprehensive social-psychological viewpoint.
Q3

The Impact of Prior True or False Information on Personality Trait Judgment Accuracy
Gibson J.R., Letzring T.D.
Abstract: How does information about personality learned prior to an observation affect the accuracy of personality judgments? 151 judges were given true, false, or no information about a target’s personality and then watched a recorded interview and judged the Big Five personality traits. Compared to judges without prior information, judges given true information had greater distinctive accuracy, and judges given false information had lower distinctive accuracy and normativity. These results highlight the importance of using reliable and accurate sources of information when forming impressions of others.
Q3

Changes in Personality Traits Predict Future Self-Control
Joshanloo M.
Abstract: Using longitudinal data from over 14,000 participants in the Household, Income, and Labor Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) survey, this study examined how levels of personality traits and their changes predict future self-control. The Big Five traits were assessed at four points between 2005 and 2017. Self-control was evaluated in 2019. For data analysis, latent growth curve analyses were performed. While the initial levels of extraversion and openness showed negligible predictive effects, conscientiousness, emotional stability, and agreeableness more strongly predicted future self-control. Furthermore, the results showed that increases in conscientiousness, emotional stability, and agreeableness were associated with higher future self-control. These results provide new insights into the relationship between personality traits and self-control by showing the predictive power of initial trait levels and their developmental trajectories.
Q3

Reviewers 2024
Q3
Journal of Individual Differences
,
2024
,
citations by CoLab: 0

Q3

The Relationship of Schizotypy and Saccade Performance in Patients With Schizophrenia and Non-Clinical Individuals
Thomas E.H., Rossell S.L., Myles J.B., Tan E.J., Neill E., Carruthers S.P., Sumner P.J., Bozaoglu K., Gurvich C.
Abstract: Deficits in saccade performance (i.e., rapid eye movements) are commonly observed in people with schizophrenia. Investigations of the schizotypy-saccade relationship have been exclusively explored in non-clinical individuals, with mixed findings. Of the three saccadic paradigms, research has predominantly focused on the antisaccade paradigm, while the relationship between schizotypy and prosaccade and memory-guided saccade performance remains underexplored. This study aimed to investigate the relationship between schizotypy and saccade performance across the three saccadic paradigms in both patients and non-clinical individuals. Sixty-two patients with schizophrenia/schizoaffective disorder and 148 non-clinical individuals completed the Oxford-Liverpool Inventory of Feelings and Experiences (O-LIFE) self-report questionnaire as a measure of schizotypy. All participants also completed a prosaccade, memory-guided saccade and antisaccade task. Canonical correlation analyses were conducted to examine the collective, multivariate relationship between the set of schizotypy variables and the sets of prosaccade, memory-guided saccade and antisaccade variables. Differences between patients and non-clinical groups were in line with previous research. In the non-clinical group, Cognitive Disorganisation was the highest contributing variable to prosaccade performance and prosaccade latency was the highest contributing variable to schizotypy. There was no significant relationship between schizotypy and memory-guided or antisaccade performance. No significant relationships between schizotypy and saccade performance were observed in the patient group. Our findings suggest a relationship between disorganized schizotypy and basic processing speed in non-clinical individuals. This relationship was not observed in patients, suggesting that sub-clinical saccade performance may not mirror impairments observed in schizophrenia. Our findings in the non-clinical group were inconsistent with previous studies. These used different schizotypy inventories, suggesting that schizotypy measures derived from different conceptual backgrounds may not be comparable.
Q3

How Seven Different “Empathies” Correlate With Personality
Duong F., Hall J.A., Schwartz R.
Abstract: Self-report measures of empathy capture several distinct facets of the empathy concept. What does this mean for how different “empathies” are correlated with personality? To find out, we measured six empirically derived facets of self-reported empathy in a data-driven approach, plus self-reported global empathy, along with 25 personality variables ( N = 351). The analysis consisted of first correlating each of these seven empathy facets with all of the personality variables, yielding a vector of personality correlates for each empathy facet. Next, we created profile correlations by correlating these vectors of correlates between the empathy facets to show similarities and differences in terms of their pattern of personality correlates. Some of the empathy facets had extremely similar profiles of personality correlates, while others stood apart. These findings indicate that the personality profile of an empathic person depends on the specific facet of empathy that is employed.
Q3

Big Five Domains and Facets Contextualized to the Work Domain Outperform Noncontextualized Ones
Danner D., Lechner C.M.
Abstract: It is well-established that personality predicts a broad range of outcomes across life domains. However, the criterion validity of personality assessments is often limited. One strategy to increase criterion validity is to move from global, noncontextualized personality assessments toward contextualized personality assessments with reference to a specific context. We investigated whether a Big Five assessment contextualized to the work domain allows for better predictions of work-related outcomes than a noncontextualized Big Five assessment. Two hundred ninety respondents completed both the standard Big Five Inventory-2 (BFI-2) and a work-specific variant thereof. In addition, they provided information on a broad range of work-related outcomes (job satisfaction, turnover intentions, organizational citizenship behavior, burnout risk, and occupational commitment), as well as on global health, a not strictly work-related outcome. Results showed that the contextualized personality assessment generally outperformed the noncontextualized one in terms of criterion validity for all outcomes, with the exception of global health. This applied to both the five broad personality domains and the 15 narrow personality facets. We conclude that if maximizing criterion validity in the work domain is the goal, contextualized personality assessments are preferable to noncontextualized ones.
Q3

Validation of the Short Dark Tetrad (SD4) in Persian
Qaderi Bagajan K., Ziegler M., Soleimani M., Paulhus D.L., Soleimani Z.A., Kordbagheri M., Alavinejad L., Amiri H., Asl V.Y., Hoseini S., Bagajan H.Q.
Abstract: The Short Dark Tetrad of Personality (SD4) is a self-report instrument for screening individuals with dark personality traits, including narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and sadism. In the present study, we examined the psychometric properties of the Persian version in an Iranian sample. After translating the instrument, we conducted a large online survey that included 1,696 participants (67% female), aged 18–60 years. We performed a series of confirmatory factor analyses and examined the nomological network to validate the instrument. After assessing five competing structural models, the four-factor model showed the best fit based on standard goodness-of-fit indices. The sub-scales also showed coherent links with risk-taking and pathological personality traits. We conclude that the Persian SD4 has a distinct four-factor structure with adequate reliability and validity. Therefore, it can be used to measure dark personality traits in Farsi-speaking samples.
Q3

How Dark Is the Core of Dark Personality Traits?
Ock J.
Abstract: Previous research on the organizing structure of the Dark Triad (DT) personality traits has consistently found support for the presence of a strong commonality among the DT traits. However, such research has typically relied on a data collection method (e.g., single-source data, multiple traits measured together at the same time) that increases the likelihood of common method variance (CMV) that can artifactually increase the covariance between item scores. In the current study, we administered the 27-item Short Dark Triad (SD3) to 509 working adults in South Korea. Specifically, we added a procedural remedy to mitigate the effect of CMV (temporal separation of 2–5 days between measures), then used a bifactor model to extract a general core of the DT traits along with specific variance that is unique to each trait. Then, we calculated several model-based psychometric indices (omega coefficients, explained common variance) to examine the relative strength of the general and specific variances. Additionally, we examined the degree to which unique variance associated with each DT trait provides incremental validity beyond prediction provided by the commonality among the DT traits for predicting counterproductive work behavior. Results showed that the empirical overlap among the DT traits was not as strong as indicated in previous research.
Q3

Isolated But Not Necessarily Lonely
Galgali M.S., Helm P.J., Arndt J.
Abstract: Previous research points to social/affiliative needs as playing an important role in orienting people towards conspiratorial thinking. Yet no research to date has compared the relative contribution of different forms of subjective interpersonal isolation to general conspiracist ideation (CI). Four studies ( N = 2,452) compare the associations between three forms of subjective isolation (loneliness, existential isolation, alienation/anomie) and CI. Results from Studies 1–3 indicate that existential isolation and alienation, but not loneliness, independently predict higher CI over and above other relevant predictors. Study 4 found that after controlling for relevant covariates, only anomie predicted CI. Exploratory analyses revealed that unique effects of existential isolation on CI emerged when the breakdown of the leadership subdimension of anomie was excluded from the model. Implications of the four studies are discussed.
Q3

Not General Belief in a Just World But Injustice Perception of Concrete Situations Is Associated With Embitterment
Muschalla B., Grove H.
Abstract: Several aspects contribute to whether a person reacts embittered after an injustice or not: the individual basic beliefs (respective life values) of the person, the degree of belief in a just world, the perception of the injustice situation itself, and coping capacities in the form of wisdom. The present study explores to which degree these core aspects contribute to embitterment reaction after a confrontation with injustice. An experimental investigation was conducted in a convenience sample of 228 young persons from the general population (age 28, 68% females). Participants gave sociodemographics, and their wisdom attitudes, life values, and belief in a just world. Then an example of an injustice situation was presented in the form of a short text vignette, followed by a short assessment of the person’s embitterment reaction. The more the participants perceived the situation as unjust, the higher their embitterment reaction. Higher self-enhancement value was associated with higher embitterment after exposure to the injustice situation. In contrast, general belief in a just world, wisdom attitudes, and other life values were not associated with the strength of embitterment reaction. Also, the type of problem (private or work injustice) and sociodemographic characteristics of the participants were not predictive of the embitterment. Not the general belief in a just world, but the interpretation of a concrete situation as unjust is associated with an emotional reaction (here: embitterment) and potentially following behavior. Concluding from comparison with other research, the type of situation and life values of persons may have different and not linear impacts on embitterment reaction.
Top-100
Citing journals
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
|
|
Chinese Management Studies
808 citations, 10.7%
|
|
Sustainability
345 citations, 4.57%
|
|
Frontiers in Psychology
193 citations, 2.56%
|
|
Journal of Knowledge Management
78 citations, 1.03%
|
|
European Journal of Innovation Management
76 citations, 1.01%
|
|
Current Psychology
62 citations, 0.82%
|
|
Cogent Business and Management
60 citations, 0.79%
|
|
Management Decision
56 citations, 0.74%
|
|
Journal of Cleaner Production
55 citations, 0.73%
|
|
International Journal of Emerging Markets
55 citations, 0.73%
|
|
SAGE Open
54 citations, 0.72%
|
|
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
51 citations, 0.68%
|
|
Technology Analysis and Strategic Management
51 citations, 0.68%
|
|
Heliyon
51 citations, 0.68%
|
|
Leadership and Organization Development Journal
47 citations, 0.62%
|
|
SSRN Electronic Journal
46 citations, 0.61%
|
|
Finance Research Letters
45 citations, 0.6%
|
|
Technological Forecasting and Social Change
45 citations, 0.6%
|
|
PLoS ONE
45 citations, 0.6%
|
|
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management
43 citations, 0.57%
|
|
Kybernetes
42 citations, 0.56%
|
|
Management Research Review
41 citations, 0.54%
|
|
Journal of the Knowledge Economy
40 citations, 0.53%
|
|
International Journal of Organizational Analysis
39 citations, 0.52%
|
|
Asia Pacific Business Review
39 citations, 0.52%
|
|
Journal of Business Research
36 citations, 0.48%
|
|
Asian Business and Management
36 citations, 0.48%
|
|
Psychology Research and Behavior Management
35 citations, 0.46%
|
|
Personnel Review
34 citations, 0.45%
|
|
Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing
34 citations, 0.45%
|
|
Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management
33 citations, 0.44%
|
|
Asia Pacific Journal of Management
32 citations, 0.42%
|
|
International Journal of Human Resource Management
32 citations, 0.42%
|
|
VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems
31 citations, 0.41%
|
|
Environmental Science and Pollution Research
31 citations, 0.41%
|
|
International Journal of Hospitality Management
29 citations, 0.38%
|
|
Applied Economics
28 citations, 0.37%
|
|
Business Strategy and the Environment
28 citations, 0.37%
|
|
IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management
27 citations, 0.36%
|
|
Business Process Management Journal
27 citations, 0.36%
|
|
Managerial and Decision Economics
26 citations, 0.34%
|
|
R and D Management
26 citations, 0.34%
|
|
Humanities and Social Sciences Communications
26 citations, 0.34%
|
|
Handbook of Research on Global Business Opportunities
26 citations, 0.34%
|
|
Management Review Quarterly
24 citations, 0.32%
|
|
Management and Organization Review
24 citations, 0.32%
|
|
Evidence-based HRM
23 citations, 0.3%
|
|
International Review of Economics and Finance
22 citations, 0.29%
|
|
Journal of Innovation and Knowledge
22 citations, 0.29%
|
|
Benchmarking
22 citations, 0.29%
|
|
Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity
22 citations, 0.29%
|
|
Industrial Management and Data Systems
22 citations, 0.29%
|
|
Journal of Management Development
21 citations, 0.28%
|
|
Frontiers in Environmental Science
21 citations, 0.28%
|
|
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management
21 citations, 0.28%
|
|
Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration
20 citations, 0.26%
|
|
Knowledge Management Research and Practice
20 citations, 0.26%
|
|
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management
20 citations, 0.26%
|
|
International Journal of Innovation Science
19 citations, 0.25%
|
|
International Business Review
19 citations, 0.25%
|
|
Human Resource Management Review
19 citations, 0.25%
|
|
Environment, Development and Sustainability
19 citations, 0.25%
|
|
Systems
19 citations, 0.25%
|
|
Emerging Markets Finance and Trade
18 citations, 0.24%
|
|
Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies
18 citations, 0.24%
|
|
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management - ASCE
18 citations, 0.24%
|
|
International Journal of Innovation Management
18 citations, 0.24%
|
|
Journal of Business Ethics
18 citations, 0.24%
|
|
Administrative Sciences
18 citations, 0.24%
|
|
Economic Analysis and Policy
17 citations, 0.23%
|
|
Asian Journal of Technology Innovation
17 citations, 0.23%
|
|
Review of Managerial Science
17 citations, 0.23%
|
|
Industrial Marketing Management
17 citations, 0.23%
|
|
Journal of Management and Organization
17 citations, 0.23%
|
|
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences
17 citations, 0.23%
|
|
Employee Relations
16 citations, 0.21%
|
|
Journal of Organizational Change Management
16 citations, 0.21%
|
|
Thunderbird International Business Review
16 citations, 0.21%
|
|
Journal of Management in Engineering - ASCE
16 citations, 0.21%
|
|
Research in International Business and Finance
16 citations, 0.21%
|
|
Outsourcing Management for Supply Chain Operations and Logistics Service
16 citations, 0.21%
|
|
Human Systems Management
15 citations, 0.2%
|
|
Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources
15 citations, 0.2%
|
|
Social Responsibility Journal
15 citations, 0.2%
|
|
Problems and Perspectives in Management
15 citations, 0.2%
|
|
Journal of Asia Business Studies
15 citations, 0.2%
|
|
International Journal of Conflict Management
15 citations, 0.2%
|
|
Technology in Society
15 citations, 0.2%
|
|
IEEE Access
15 citations, 0.2%
|
|
Business Ethics the Environment & Responsibility
15 citations, 0.2%
|
|
Economic Research-Ekonomska Istrazivanja
14 citations, 0.19%
|
|
Behavioral Sciences
14 citations, 0.19%
|
|
Review of International Business and Strategy
13 citations, 0.17%
|
|
Journal of World Business
13 citations, 0.17%
|
|
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services
13 citations, 0.17%
|
|
Strategic Direction
13 citations, 0.17%
|
|
Business Strategy & Development
13 citations, 0.17%
|
|
Applied Mathematics and Nonlinear Sciences
13 citations, 0.17%
|
|
Multinational Business Review
12 citations, 0.16%
|
|
European Management Journal
12 citations, 0.16%
|
|
Show all (70 more) | |
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
|
Citing publishers
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
|
|
Emerald
2455 citations, 32.52%
|
|
Elsevier
894 citations, 11.84%
|
|
Springer Nature
746 citations, 9.88%
|
|
Taylor & Francis
692 citations, 9.17%
|
|
MDPI
587 citations, 7.78%
|
|
Wiley
409 citations, 5.42%
|
|
SAGE
288 citations, 3.82%
|
|
Frontiers Media S.A.
240 citations, 3.18%
|
|
IGI Global
145 citations, 1.92%
|
|
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
86 citations, 1.14%
|
|
Cambridge University Press
72 citations, 0.95%
|
|
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)
49 citations, 0.65%
|
|
World Scientific
46 citations, 0.61%
|
|
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
45 citations, 0.6%
|
|
Hindawi Limited
45 citations, 0.6%
|
|
Social Science Electronic Publishing
42 citations, 0.56%
|
|
Walter de Gruyter
38 citations, 0.5%
|
|
LLC CPC Business Perspectives
29 citations, 0.38%
|
|
Virtus Interpress
19 citations, 0.25%
|
|
IOS Press
17 citations, 0.23%
|
|
AOSIS
15 citations, 0.2%
|
|
EDP Sciences
14 citations, 0.19%
|
|
Vilnius Gediminas Technical University
14 citations, 0.19%
|
|
IOP Publishing
13 citations, 0.17%
|
|
Scientific Research Publishing
12 citations, 0.16%
|
|
Oxford University Press
10 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Trans Tech Publications
10 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Center for Strategic Studies in Business and Finance SSBFNET
10 citations, 0.13%
|
|
World Scientific and Engineering Academy and Society (WSEAS)
10 citations, 0.13%
|
|
9 citations, 0.12%
|
|
F1000 Research
9 citations, 0.12%
|
|
South Florida Publishing LLC
9 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)
8 citations, 0.11%
|
|
China Science Publishing & Media
8 citations, 0.11%
|
|
Centre for Evaluation in Education and Science (CEON/CEES)
7 citations, 0.09%
|
|
CAIRN
7 citations, 0.09%
|
|
AIP Publishing
6 citations, 0.08%
|
|
Academy of Management
6 citations, 0.08%
|
|
American Institute of Mathematical Sciences (AIMS)
5 citations, 0.07%
|
|
Mackenzie Presbyterian University
5 citations, 0.07%
|
|
National Cheng Kung University
5 citations, 0.07%
|
|
Fakulteta za Organizacijske Vede, Univerza v Mariboru
5 citations, 0.07%
|
|
Gyandhara International Academic Publications
4 citations, 0.05%
|
|
Science Alert
4 citations, 0.05%
|
|
SciELO
4 citations, 0.05%
|
|
IntechOpen
4 citations, 0.05%
|
|
SEISENSE Private, Ltd.
4 citations, 0.05%
|
|
Hans Publishers
4 citations, 0.05%
|
|
Brill
3 citations, 0.04%
|
|
Editura Economica
3 citations, 0.04%
|
|
Oxford Brookes University
3 citations, 0.04%
|
|
Universitas Islam Indonesia (Islamic University of Indonesia)
3 citations, 0.04%
|
|
Research Square Platform LLC
3 citations, 0.04%
|
|
Universidade Federal de São Carlos
3 citations, 0.04%
|
|
Springer Singapore
3 citations, 0.04%
|
|
John Benjamins Publishing Company
2 citations, 0.03%
|
|
European Academy of Management and Business Economics
2 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia
2 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Sumy State University
2 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Fundacao Getulio Vargas, Escola de Administracao de Empresas de Sao Paulo
2 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Society for Personality Research
2 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Academic Journals
2 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Annual Reviews
2 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Consortium Erudit
2 citations, 0.03%
|
|
International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences
2 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Intellect
2 citations, 0.03%
|
|
ABEI Journal
2 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Nevsehir Haci Bektas Veli Universitesi SBE Dergisi
2 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
1 citation, 0.01%
|
|
1 citation, 0.01%
|
|
University of Craiova
1 citation, 0.01%
|
|
University of California Press
1 citation, 0.01%
|
|
Pleiades Publishing
1 citation, 0.01%
|
|
American Society for Quality
1 citation, 0.01%
|
|
1 citation, 0.01%
|
|
Morgan & Claypool Publishers
1 citation, 0.01%
|
|
1 citation, 0.01%
|
|
American Accounting Association
1 citation, 0.01%
|
|
1 citation, 0.01%
|
|
Berkeley Electronic Press
1 citation, 0.01%
|
|
Universidad Nacional de Colombia
1 citation, 0.01%
|
|
1 citation, 0.01%
|
|
Index Copernicus
1 citation, 0.01%
|
|
Pensoft Publishers
1 citation, 0.01%
|
|
PeerJ
1 citation, 0.01%
|
|
1 citation, 0.01%
|
|
School of Engineering, Auckland University of Technology
1 citation, 0.01%
|
|
Fuji Technology Press
1 citation, 0.01%
|
|
Akdeniz University Publishing Hous
1 citation, 0.01%
|
|
School of Economics and Business in Sarajevo
1 citation, 0.01%
|
|
Technical University Liberec
1 citation, 0.01%
|
|
Pluto Journals
1 citation, 0.01%
|
|
Institute of Chemical Fibres
1 citation, 0.01%
|
|
Center for Foreign Policy and Peace Research, Ihsan Dogramaci Peace Foundation
1 citation, 0.01%
|
|
Kiel Institute for the World Economy
1 citation, 0.01%
|
|
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Belgrade University
1 citation, 0.01%
|
|
Borsa Istanbul Anonim Sirketi
1 citation, 0.01%
|
|
Unisa Press
1 citation, 0.01%
|
|
Institut fur Asienkunde
1 citation, 0.01%
|
|
Vilnius University Press
1 citation, 0.01%
|
|
Show all (70 more) | |
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
|
Publishing organizations
5
10
15
20
25
30
|
|
Harbin Institute of Technology
27 publications, 3.12%
|
|
Xi'an Jiaotong University
16 publications, 1.85%
|
|
Zhejiang University
13 publications, 1.5%
|
|
Nanyang Technological University
13 publications, 1.5%
|
|
Sun Yat-sen University
12 publications, 1.39%
|
|
Tsinghua University
9 publications, 1.04%
|
|
Nanjing University
9 publications, 1.04%
|
|
Huazhong University of Science and Technology
8 publications, 0.92%
|
|
Beijing Jiaotong University
7 publications, 0.81%
|
|
Wuhan University
7 publications, 0.81%
|
|
Renmin University of China
7 publications, 0.81%
|
|
Shanghai University
7 publications, 0.81%
|
|
Xi'an Jiaotong–Liverpool University
7 publications, 0.81%
|
|
South China University of Technology
6 publications, 0.69%
|
|
Northwestern Polytechnical University
6 publications, 0.69%
|
|
University of International Business and Economics
6 publications, 0.69%
|
|
Hunan University
6 publications, 0.69%
|
|
University of Science and Technology of China
6 publications, 0.69%
|
|
Beijing Normal University
5 publications, 0.58%
|
|
Peking University
5 publications, 0.58%
|
|
Shanghai Jiao Tong University
5 publications, 0.58%
|
|
Central University of Finance and Economics
5 publications, 0.58%
|
|
Shenzhen University
5 publications, 0.58%
|
|
Shanghai University of Finance and Economics
5 publications, 0.58%
|
|
National Taipei University of Technology
5 publications, 0.58%
|
|
Chinese University of Hong Kong
5 publications, 0.58%
|
|
Jinan University
4 publications, 0.46%
|
|
Tianjin University
4 publications, 0.46%
|
|
Hohai University
4 publications, 0.46%
|
|
Shantou University
4 publications, 0.46%
|
|
National Chengchi University
4 publications, 0.46%
|
|
City University of Hong Kong
4 publications, 0.46%
|
|
Shandong University
4 publications, 0.46%
|
|
Beijing Institute of Technology
3 publications, 0.35%
|
|
Fudan University
3 publications, 0.35%
|
|
Tongji University
3 publications, 0.35%
|
|
Sichuan University
3 publications, 0.35%
|
|
Central South University
3 publications, 0.35%
|
|
Nanjing University of Posts and Telecommunications
3 publications, 0.35%
|
|
Nanjing University of Finance and Economics
3 publications, 0.35%
|
|
Shandong University of Science and Technology
3 publications, 0.35%
|
|
Nankai University
3 publications, 0.35%
|
|
Chongqing University
3 publications, 0.35%
|
|
University of New South Wales
3 publications, 0.35%
|
|
Xiamen University
3 publications, 0.35%
|
|
Shanxi University
3 publications, 0.35%
|
|
Guangdong University of Technology
3 publications, 0.35%
|
|
Guangdong University of Foreign Studies
3 publications, 0.35%
|
|
Southwest Jiaotong University
3 publications, 0.35%
|
|
Tamkang University
3 publications, 0.35%
|
|
National Cheng Kung University
3 publications, 0.35%
|
|
Lingnan University
3 publications, 0.35%
|
|
Zhejiang Gongshang University
3 publications, 0.35%
|
|
Hunan University of Technology and Business
3 publications, 0.35%
|
|
University of St Andrews
3 publications, 0.35%
|
|
RWTH Aachen University
3 publications, 0.35%
|
|
Texas A&M University
3 publications, 0.35%
|
|
University of Essex
3 publications, 0.35%
|
|
Dalian University of Technology
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
University of Electronic Science and Technology of China
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
Lund University
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
Nanjing Agricultural University
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
Southeast University
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
Beijing University of Chemical Technology
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
Chongqing Technology and Business University
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
Australian National University
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
Northeastern University
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
South China Agricultural University
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
National Sun Yat-sen University
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
University of Science and Technology Beijing
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
Xidian University
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
Jiangnan University
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
Shihezi University
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
Shanghai Normal University
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
Shanghai Maritime University
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
Shanghai International Studies University
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
Guangzhou University
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
Shih Chien University
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
National Chung Hsing University
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
Anhui University of Finance and Economics
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
Huaqiao University
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
Guizhou University
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
Pennsylvania State University
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
University of Waikato
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
Edith Cowan University
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
Hong Kong Polytechnic University
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
Sogang University
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
Hangzhou Dianzi University
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
Liaoning University
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
Jiangxi University of Finance and Economics
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
Central Michigan University
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
Vienna University of Economics and Business
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
University of North Texas
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
University of the Punjab
1 publication, 0.12%
|
|
National Textile University
1 publication, 0.12%
|
|
University of Lahore
1 publication, 0.12%
|
|
Zhejiang University of Technology
1 publication, 0.12%
|
|
University of Chinese Academy of Sciences
1 publication, 0.12%
|
|
Show all (70 more) | |
5
10
15
20
25
30
|
Publishing organizations in 5 years
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
|
|
Harbin Institute of Technology
9 publications, 2.5%
|
|
Nanjing University
6 publications, 1.67%
|
|
Shanghai University
6 publications, 1.67%
|
|
Zhejiang University
5 publications, 1.39%
|
|
South China University of Technology
4 publications, 1.11%
|
|
Central University of Finance and Economics
4 publications, 1.11%
|
|
Beijing Normal University
3 publications, 0.83%
|
|
Huazhong University of Science and Technology
3 publications, 0.83%
|
|
Tongji University
3 publications, 0.83%
|
|
Nanjing University of Posts and Telecommunications
3 publications, 0.83%
|
|
Wuhan University
3 publications, 0.83%
|
|
Shandong University of Science and Technology
3 publications, 0.83%
|
|
Sun Yat-sen University
3 publications, 0.83%
|
|
University of International Business and Economics
3 publications, 0.83%
|
|
Tianjin University
3 publications, 0.83%
|
|
Shanghai University of Finance and Economics
3 publications, 0.83%
|
|
Xi'an Jiaotong–Liverpool University
3 publications, 0.83%
|
|
Guangdong University of Technology
3 publications, 0.83%
|
|
Southwest Jiaotong University
3 publications, 0.83%
|
|
University of Science and Technology of China
3 publications, 0.83%
|
|
Beijing Institute of Technology
2 publications, 0.56%
|
|
Tsinghua University
2 publications, 0.56%
|
|
Peking University
2 publications, 0.56%
|
|
Shanghai Jiao Tong University
2 publications, 0.56%
|
|
Sichuan University
2 publications, 0.56%
|
|
Xi'an Jiaotong University
2 publications, 0.56%
|
|
Northwestern Polytechnical University
2 publications, 0.56%
|
|
Central South University
2 publications, 0.56%
|
|
Nanjing University of Finance and Economics
2 publications, 0.56%
|
|
Northeastern University
2 publications, 0.56%
|
|
University of Science and Technology Beijing
2 publications, 0.56%
|
|
Jiangnan University
2 publications, 0.56%
|
|
Shanghai Normal University
2 publications, 0.56%
|
|
Shanghai International Studies University
2 publications, 0.56%
|
|
National Taipei University of Technology
2 publications, 0.56%
|
|
Anhui University of Finance and Economics
2 publications, 0.56%
|
|
Guizhou University
2 publications, 0.56%
|
|
Lingnan University
2 publications, 0.56%
|
|
Shandong University
2 publications, 0.56%
|
|
Hunan University of Technology and Business
2 publications, 0.56%
|
|
Hunan University
2 publications, 0.56%
|
|
Liaoning University
2 publications, 0.56%
|
|
Zhejiang University of Technology
1 publication, 0.28%
|
|
University of Chinese Academy of Sciences
1 publication, 0.28%
|
|
Fudan University
1 publication, 0.28%
|
|
Jilin University
1 publication, 0.28%
|
|
Dalian University of Technology
1 publication, 0.28%
|
|
University of Electronic Science and Technology of China
1 publication, 0.28%
|
|
Harbin Engineering University
1 publication, 0.28%
|
|
China University of Mining and Technology
1 publication, 0.28%
|
|
University of Twente
1 publication, 0.28%
|
|
Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics
1 publication, 0.28%
|
|
Nanjing Tech University
1 publication, 0.28%
|
|
Nanjing Agricultural University
1 publication, 0.28%
|
|
Southeast University
1 publication, 0.28%
|
|
China Pharmaceutical University
1 publication, 0.28%
|
|
Beijing Jiaotong University
1 publication, 0.28%
|
|
Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications
1 publication, 0.28%
|
|
North China University of Technology
1 publication, 0.28%
|
|
China University of Petroleum (Beijing)
1 publication, 0.28%
|
|
Beijing University of Chemical Technology
1 publication, 0.28%
|
|
Hubei University of Technology
1 publication, 0.28%
|
|
Nankai University
1 publication, 0.28%
|
|
Chongqing Jiaotong University
1 publication, 0.28%
|
|
Chongqing Technology and Business University
1 publication, 0.28%
|
|
Australian National University
1 publication, 0.28%
|
|
South China Agricultural University
1 publication, 0.28%
|
|
National Sun Yat-sen University
1 publication, 0.28%
|
|
Jiangsu Ocean University
1 publication, 0.28%
|
|
Beijing Technology and Business University
1 publication, 0.28%
|
|
East China University of Science and Technology
1 publication, 0.28%
|
|
University of Technology Sydney
1 publication, 0.28%
|
|
Jinan University
1 publication, 0.28%
|
|
Xiamen University
1 publication, 0.28%
|
|
Shihezi University
1 publication, 0.28%
|
|
Renmin University of China
1 publication, 0.28%
|
|
Tianjin University of Technology
1 publication, 0.28%
|
|
Tianjin University of Finance and Economics
1 publication, 0.28%
|
|
Civil Aviation University of China
1 publication, 0.28%
|
|
Shanxi University of Finance and Economics
1 publication, 0.28%
|
|
University of Shanghai for Science and Technology
1 publication, 0.28%
|
|
Shanghai Maritime University
1 publication, 0.28%
|
|
Huanggang Normal University
1 publication, 0.28%
|
|
Soochow University (Suzhou)
1 publication, 0.28%
|
|
Hohai University
1 publication, 0.28%
|
|
Huaiyin Normal University
1 publication, 0.28%
|
|
Jinling Institute of Technology
1 publication, 0.28%
|
|
Guangzhou University
1 publication, 0.28%
|
|
Guangdong University of Finance
1 publication, 0.28%
|
|
Shantou University
1 publication, 0.28%
|
|
Chengdu University of Technology
1 publication, 0.28%
|
|
Xihua University
1 publication, 0.28%
|
|
Southwest Minzu University
1 publication, 0.28%
|
|
National Taiwan University
1 publication, 0.28%
|
|
Liaoning Technical University
1 publication, 0.28%
|
|
Tamkang University
1 publication, 0.28%
|
|
Johns Hopkins University
1 publication, 0.28%
|
|
National Pingtung University of Science and Technology
1 publication, 0.28%
|
|
Anhui University of Technology
1 publication, 0.28%
|
|
Huaqiao University
1 publication, 0.28%
|
|
Show all (70 more) | |
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
|
Publishing countries
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
|
|
China
|
China, 327, 37.76%
China
327 publications, 37.76%
|
USA
|
USA, 40, 4.62%
USA
40 publications, 4.62%
|
Singapore
|
Singapore, 23, 2.66%
Singapore
23 publications, 2.66%
|
Australia
|
Australia, 16, 1.85%
Australia
16 publications, 1.85%
|
United Kingdom
|
United Kingdom, 15, 1.73%
United Kingdom
15 publications, 1.73%
|
Canada
|
Canada, 7, 0.81%
Canada
7 publications, 0.81%
|
Republic of Korea
|
Republic of Korea, 6, 0.69%
Republic of Korea
6 publications, 0.69%
|
Germany
|
Germany, 5, 0.58%
Germany
5 publications, 0.58%
|
Estonia
|
Estonia, 4, 0.46%
Estonia
4 publications, 0.46%
|
Iraq
|
Iraq, 4, 0.46%
Iraq
4 publications, 0.46%
|
Austria
|
Austria, 3, 0.35%
Austria
3 publications, 0.35%
|
Netherlands
|
Netherlands, 3, 0.35%
Netherlands
3 publications, 0.35%
|
New Zealand
|
New Zealand, 3, 0.35%
New Zealand
3 publications, 0.35%
|
Pakistan
|
Pakistan, 3, 0.35%
Pakistan
3 publications, 0.35%
|
Sweden
|
Sweden, 3, 0.35%
Sweden
3 publications, 0.35%
|
Israel
|
Israel, 2, 0.23%
Israel
2 publications, 0.23%
|
Ireland
|
Ireland, 2, 0.23%
Ireland
2 publications, 0.23%
|
Spain
|
Spain, 2, 0.23%
Spain
2 publications, 0.23%
|
Malaysia
|
Malaysia, 2, 0.23%
Malaysia
2 publications, 0.23%
|
Finland
|
Finland, 2, 0.23%
Finland
2 publications, 0.23%
|
France
|
France, 1, 0.12%
France
1 publication, 0.12%
|
Portugal
|
Portugal, 1, 0.12%
Portugal
1 publication, 0.12%
|
Ghana
|
Ghana, 1, 0.12%
Ghana
1 publication, 0.12%
|
Denmark
|
Denmark, 1, 0.12%
Denmark
1 publication, 0.12%
|
Italy
|
Italy, 1, 0.12%
Italy
1 publication, 0.12%
|
Norway
|
Norway, 1, 0.12%
Norway
1 publication, 0.12%
|
Poland
|
Poland, 1, 0.12%
Poland
1 publication, 0.12%
|
Switzerland
|
Switzerland, 1, 0.12%
Switzerland
1 publication, 0.12%
|
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
|
Publishing countries in 5 years
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
|
|
China
|
China, 140, 38.89%
China
140 publications, 38.89%
|
USA
|
USA, 6, 1.67%
USA
6 publications, 1.67%
|
Australia
|
Australia, 4, 1.11%
Australia
4 publications, 1.11%
|
Iraq
|
Iraq, 2, 0.56%
Iraq
2 publications, 0.56%
|
Netherlands
|
Netherlands, 2, 0.56%
Netherlands
2 publications, 0.56%
|
Republic of Korea
|
Republic of Korea, 2, 0.56%
Republic of Korea
2 publications, 0.56%
|
Portugal
|
Portugal, 1, 0.28%
Portugal
1 publication, 0.28%
|
United Kingdom
|
United Kingdom, 1, 0.28%
United Kingdom
1 publication, 0.28%
|
Ghana
|
Ghana, 1, 0.28%
Ghana
1 publication, 0.28%
|
Ireland
|
Ireland, 1, 0.28%
Ireland
1 publication, 0.28%
|
New Zealand
|
New Zealand, 1, 0.28%
New Zealand
1 publication, 0.28%
|
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
|