Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Cross-national distance and international business: an analysis of the most influential recent models

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Cross-national distance among countries has been of central interest in International Business and Management research. Therefore, different efforts have been made to develop models/measurements to address this issue. In this article we identify the models/measurements of cross-national distance developed since the beginning of the 2000 decade. After briefly presenting each model’s distinctive features, we assess their impact on the research field based on a wide range of bibliometric techniques (direct, indirect, and adjusted citation impacts, altmetrics, academic reviews, journals and publishers’ prestige). Our analysis shows that the narrower cultural distance construct has lost ground to the wider psychic distance one. Furthermore, researchers highly value those models and measurement that go beyond the cultural and psychic distance constructs providing a multidimensional framework to analyze and measure cross-national distance among countries. Our analysis of these models’ impact shows that this a salient issue in the research field as a whole and a central topic in the highest ranked journals in International Business and Management.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. See, for instance, Beugelsdijk et al. (2018), Ferreira et al. (2014a, b), Shenkar (2001), Harzing (2003), Pinto et al. (2014), Sousa and Bradley (2006), Wang and Schaan (2008), Zaheer et al. (2012).

  2. An integrative index developed by Kogut and Singh (1988) based on Hofstede's (1980) cultural dimensions.

  3. This dataset is available to scholars through the journal web site.

  4. See Tahanmtan and Bornmann (2018) and Waltman (2016) for exhaustive reviews on citation processes and citation impact indicators.

  5. See Bornmann (2014) for a broad overview of altmetrics features, advantages, and disadvantages.

  6. The International Studies of Management and Organization is not included in any of these data sources; therefore, the citation analysis includes no information for Child et al.’s (2002) study.

  7. Self-citation excluded in all cases.

  8. The h-core or h-classics of a particular topic is composed of the h highly cited papers that have at least h citations each (Jin et al. 2007; Martinez et al. 2014).

  9. As pointed by Harzing and Van der Wal (2008), publishing processes in social sciences are long (they may take several years); therefore, to assess early citation we have worked with citation counts within the 3 years after publication. To check the reliability of our measurement, we have also measured early citation using a 2–4 year window following each article’s publication. Results and rankings relative to early citation do not vary in a significant way.

  10. Except for Smith et al. (2011) when relying on the WOS data source.

  11. Ailon (2008), Au (2000), Kelley et al. (2006), Kirkman et al. (2006), McSweeney (2002), Ng et al. 2007, Robertson (2000), Shenkar (2001), Steenkamp (2001), Steel and Taras (2010) and Tang and Koveos (2008).

  12. See Ferreira et al. (2014a, b) and Pinto et al. (2014) for an exhaustive analysis of existing connections between both models.

  13. Corean, Danish, Dutch, French, Japanese, Polish, Romanian, Swedish, and Vietnamese.

References

  • Acedo, F. J., & Casillas, J. C. (2005). Current paradigms in the international management field: An author co-citation analysis. International Business Review, 14, 619–639.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ailon, G. (2008). Mirror, mirror on the wall: culture’s consequences in a value test of its own design. Academy of Management Review, 33(4), 885–904.

    Google Scholar 

  • Au, K. Y. (2000). Intra-cultural variation as another construct of international management: A study based on secondary data of 42 countries. Journal of International Management, 6, 217–238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Avloniti, A., & Filippaios, F. (2014). Unbundling the differences between psychic and cultural distance: An empirical examination of the existing measures. International Business Review, 23(3), 660–674.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, G., & Fink, E. (2008). Impact of the internet and scholar age distribution on academic citation age. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(4), 526–534.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berry, H., Guillén, M. F., & Zhou, N. (2010). An institutional approach to cross-national distance. Journal of International Business Studies, 41, 1460–1480.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beugelsdijk, S., Kostova, T., Kunst, V. E., Spadafora, E., & van Essen, M. (2018). Cultural distance and the process of firm internationalization: A meta-analytical review and theoretical implications. Journal of Management, 44(1), 89–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bornmann, L. (2014). Do altmetrics point to the broader impact of research? An overview of benefits and disadvantages of altmetrics. Journal of Informetrics, 8(4), 895–903.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bornmann, L. (2015). Alternative metrics in scientometrics: A meta-analysis of research into three altmetrics. Scientometrics, 103(3), 1123–1144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bornmann, L., Leydesdorff, L., & Wang, J. (2013). Which percentile-based approach should be preferred for calculating normalized citation impact values? An empirical comparison of five approaches including a newly developed citation-rank approach (P100). Journal of Informetrics, 7(4), 933–944.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bornmann, L., Leydesdorff, L., & Wang, J. (2014). How to improve the prediction based on citation impact percentiles for years shortly after the publication date? Journal of Informetrics, 8(1), 175–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bornmann, L., & Marx, W. (2011). The h index as a research performance indicator. European Science Editing, 37(3), 77–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brewer, P. (2007). Operationalizing psychic distance: A revised approach. Journal of International Marketing, 15(1), 44–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brewer, P., & Venaik, S. (2011). Individualism–collectivism in Hofstede and GLOBE. Journal of International Business Studies, 42, 436–445.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brewer, P., & Venaik, S. (2012). On the misuse of national culture dimensions. International Marketing Review, 29(6), 673–683.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burrell, Q. L. (2002). The nth-citation distribution and obsolescence. Scientometrics, 53(3), 309–323.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chakraborty, T., Kumar, S., Goyal, P., Ganguly, N., & Mukherjee, A. (2014). Towards a stratified learning approach to predict future citation counts. Paper presented at the proceedings of the ACM/IEEE joint conference on digital libraries. http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84919398068&partnerID=40&md5=4ab5eaa92d5b8f6d089ef130650f22ac.

  • Chan, K. C., Fung, H. G., & Leung, W. K. (2006). International business research: Trends and school rankings. International Business Review, 15(4), 317–338.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chandy, P. R., & Williams, T. G. (1994). The impact of journals and authors on international business research: A citational analysis of JIBS articles. Journal of International Business Studies, 25(4), 715–728.

    Google Scholar 

  • Child, J., Ng, S. H., & Wong, C. (2002). Psychic distance and internationalization. Evidence from Hong Kong firms. International Studies of Management & Organization, 32(1), 36–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Child, J., Rodrigues, S., & Frynas, J. (2009). Psychic distance, its impact and coping modes. Interpretations of SME decision makers. Management International Review, 49(2), 199–224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Costas, R., van Leeuwen, T. N., & van Raan, A. F. J. (2010). Is scientific literature subject to a ‘sell-by-date’? A general methodology to analyze the ‘durability’ of scientific documents. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(2), 329–339.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, S. J., & Bocock, D. (1995). Obsolescence of computing literature. Scientometrics, 34(2), 255–262.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Mooij, M. (2013). On the misuse and misinterpretation of dimensions of national culture. International Marketing Review, 30(3), 253–261.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Dorfman, P., Javidan, M., Hanges, P., Dastmalchian, A., & House, R. (2012). GLOBE: A twenty year journey into the intriguing world of culture and leadership. Journal of World Business, 47, 504–518.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dow, D. (2000). A note on psychological distance and export market selection. Journal of International Marketing, 8(1), 51–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dow, D., & Karunaratna, A. (2006). Developing a multidimensional instrument to measure psychic distance stimuli. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(5), 578–602.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubois, F. L., & Reeb, D. (2000). Ranking the international business journals. Journal of International Business Studies, 31(4), 689–704.

    Google Scholar 

  • Earley, P. C. (2006). Leading cultural research in the future: A matter of paradigms and taste. Journal of International Business Studies, 37, 922–931.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ebrahimy, S., Mehrad, J., Setareh, F., & Hosseinchari, M. (2016). Path analysis of the relationship between visibility and citation: The mediating roles of save, discussion, and recommendation metrics. Scientometrics, 109, 1497–1510.

    Google Scholar 

  • Egghe, L. (2011). The single publication H-index of papers in the Hirsch-core of a researcher and the indirect H-index. Scientometrics, 89, 727–739.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erdt, M., Nagarajan, A., Sin, S.-C. J., & Theng, Y.-L. (2016). Altmetrics: An analysis of the state-of-the-art in measuring research impact on social media. Scientometrics, 109, 1117–1166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, J., & Mavondo, F. T. (2002). Psychic distance and organizational performance: An empirical examination of international retailing operations. Journal of International Business Studies, 33(3), 515–532.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferreira, M. P., Li, D., Reis, N., & Serra, F. (2014a). Culture in international business research: A bibliometric study in four top IB journals. Management Research, 12, 68–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferreira, M. P., Santos, J., Almeida, M., & Reis, N. (2014b). Mergers and acquisitions research: A bibliometric study of top strategy and international business journals, 1980–2010. Journal of Business Research, 67(12), 2550–2558.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finardi, U. (2014). On the time evolution of received citations, in different scientific fields: An empirical study. Journal of Informetrics, 8(1), 13–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fragkiadaki, E., & Evangelidis, G. (2014). Review of the indirect citations paradigm: Theory and practice of the assessment of papers, authors and journals. Scientometrics, 99(2), 261–288.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fragkiadaki, E., & Evangelidis, G. (2016). Three novel indirect indicators for the assessment of papers and authors based on generations of citations. Scientometrics, 106, 657–694.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghemawat, P. (2001). Distance still matters. The hard reality of global expansion. Harvard Business Review, 79(8), 137–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giménez-Toledo, E., & Román-Román, A. (2009). Assessment of humanities and social sciences monographs through their publishers: A review and a study towards a model of evaluation. Research Evaluation, 18(3), 201–213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W. (2004). Towards a model for diachronous and synchronous citation analyses. Scientometrics, 60(3), 511–522.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W., & Schoepflin, U. (1995). A bibliometric study on ageing and reception processes of scientific literature. Journal of Information Science, 21(1), 37–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W., & Schoepflin, U. (1999). A bibliometric study of reference literature in the sciences and social sciences. Information Processing and Management, 35, 31–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gomez-Mejia, L. R., & Balkin, D. B. (1992). Determinants of faculty pay: An agency theory perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 35(5), 921–955.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gorraiz, J., Gumpenberger, C., & Purnell, P. J. (2014). The power of book reviews: A simple and transparent enhancement approach for book citation indexes. Scientometrics, 98(2), 841–852.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gorraiz, J., Gumpenberger, C., Schlögl, C. (2013a). Difference and similarities in usage versus citation behaviours observed for five subject areas. In J. Gorraiz, E. Schiebel, C. Gumpenberger, M. Hörlesberger, & H. Moed (Eds.), Proceedings of the 14th international society of scientometrics and informetrics conference, Vienna, 15th–18th July (Vol. 1, pp. 519–535).

  • Gorraiz, J., Purnell, P. J., & Glänzel, W. (2013b). Opportunities for and limitations of the Book Citation Index. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(7), 1388–1398.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guerrero-Bote, V. P., & Moya-Anegón, F. (2014). Relationship between downloads and citations at journal and paper levels, and the influence of language. Scientometrics, 101, 1043–1065.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hakason, L., & Ambos, B. (2010). The antecedents psychic distance. Journal of International Management, 16, 195–2010.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harzing, A. (2003). The role of culture in entry mode studies: From neglect to myopia. Advances in International Management, 15(15), 75–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harzing, A., & Pudelko, M. (2016). Do we need to distance ourselves from the distance concept? Management International Review, 56(1), 1–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harzing, A., & Van der Wal, R. (2008). Google Scholar as a new source for citation analysis. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, 8(1), 61–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. (2006). What did GLOBE really measure? Researchers’ minds versus respondents’ minds. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(6), 882–896.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1), 8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. H. (1988). The Confucius connection: From cultural roots to economic growth. Organizational Dynamics, 16(4), 4–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations. London: McGrawHill.

    Google Scholar 

  • House, R., Hanges, P., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P., & Gupta, V. (2004). Culture, leadership and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • House, R., Javidan, M., Hanges, P., & Dorfman, P. (2002). Understanding cultures and implicit leadership theories across the globe: An introduction to project GLOBE. Journal of World Business, 37, 3–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hu, X., Rousseau, R., & Chen, J. (2011). On the definition of forward and backward citation generations. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 27–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Javidan, M., House, R. J., Dorfman, P. W., Hanges, P. J., & de Luque, M. (2006). Conceptualizing and measuring cultures and their consequences: A comparative review of GLOBE’s and Hofstede’s approaches. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(6), 897–914.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jin, B. H., Liang, L. M., Rousseau, R., & Egghe, L. (2007). The R- and AR-indices: Complementing the h-index. Chinese Science Bulletin, 52(6), 855–863.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johanson, J., & Wiedersheim-Paul, F. (1975). The internationalization of the firm—Four Swedish cases. Journal of Management Studies, 12(3), 305–323.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaasa, A., Vadi, M., & Varblane, U. (2016). A new dataset of cultural distances for European countries and regions. Research in International Business and Finance, 37, 231–241.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, L., MacNab, B., & Worthley, R. (2006). Crossvergence and cultural tendencies: A longitudinal test of the Hong Kong, Taiwan and United States banking sectors. Journal of International Management, 12, 67–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirkman, B. L., Lowe, K. B., & Gibson, C. B. (2006). A quarter century of “culture’s consequences”: A review of empirical research incorporating Hofstede’s cultural values framework. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(3), 285–320.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kochen, M. (1987). How well do we acknowledge intellectual debts? Journal of Documentation, 43(1), 54–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kogut, B., & Singh, H. (1988). The effect of national culture on the choice of entry mode. Journal of International Business Studies, 19(3), 411–432.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kosmulski, M. (2010). Hirsch-type approach to the 2nd generation citations. Journal of Informetrics, 4(3), 257–264.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kostoff, R. (1997). Citation analysis cross-field normalization: A new paradigm. Scientometrics, 39(3), 225–230.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kousha, K., Thelwall, M. (2015). Alternative metrics for book impact assessment: Can Choice reviews be a useful source? In A. A. Salah, Y. Tonta, A. A. A. Salah, C. Sugimoto, & U. Al (Eds.), Proceedings of the 15th international conference on scientometrics and informetrics (pp. 59–70). Istanbul: Bogazic ¸i University Printhouse.

  • Kousha, K., Thelwall, M., & Rezaie, S. (2011). Assessing the citation impact of books: The role of Google Books, Google Scholar, and Scopus. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(11), 2147–2164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lachance, C., & Larivière, V. (2014). On the citation lifecycle of papers with delayed recognition. Journal of Informetrics, 8(4), 863–872.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, J., Shi, D., Zhao, S. X., & Ye, F. Y. (2014). A study of the “heartbeat spectra” for “sleeping beauties”. Journal of Informetrics, 8(3), 493–502.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, X., Thelwall, M., & Giustini, D. (2012). Validating online reference managers for scholarly impact measurement. Scientometrics, 91, 461–471.

    Google Scholar 

  • López-Duarte, C., Vidal-Suárez, M. M., & González-Díaz, B. (2016). International business and national culture: A literature review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 18, 397–416.

    Google Scholar 

  • Magnusson, P., Wilson, R. T., Zdravkovic, S., Zhou, J. X., & Westjohn, S. A. (2008). Breaking through the cultural clutter: A comparative assessment of multiple cultural and institutional frameworks. International Marketing Review, 25(2), 183–201.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martínez, M. A., Herrera, M., López-Gijón, J., & Herrera-Viedma, E. (2014). H-classics: Characterizing the concept of citation classics through H-index. Scientometrics, 98, 1971–1983.

    Google Scholar 

  • McSweeney, B. (2002). Hofstede’s model of national cultural differences and their consequences: A triumph of faith—A failure of analysis. Human Relations, 55(1), 89–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • McSweeney, B. (2013). Fashion founded on a flaw: The ecological mono-deterministic fallacy of Hofstede, GLOBE, and followers. International Marketing Review, 30(5), 483–504.

    Google Scholar 

  • Min, C., Sun, J., Pei, L., & Ding, Y. (2016). Measuring delayed recognition for papers: Uneven weighted summation and total citations. Journal of Informetrics, 10(4), 1153–1165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moed, H. F., Van Leeuwen, T. N., & Reedijk, J. (1998). A new classification system to describe the ageing of scientific journals and their impact factors. Journal of Documentation, 54(4), 387–419.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ng, S., Lee, J. A., & Soutar, G. N. (2007). Are Hofstede’s and Schwartz’s value frameworks congruent? International Marketing Review, 24(2), 164–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicolaisen, J. (2002). The scholarliness of published peer reviews: A bibliometric study of book reviews in selected social science fields. Research Evaluation, 11(3), 129–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nordstrom, K. A., & Vahlne, J. E. (1994). Is the globe shrinking? Psychic distance and the establishment of Swedish sales subsidiaries during the last 100 years. In M. Landeck (Ed.), International trade: Regional and global issues (pp. 41–56). New York: St Martin’s Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Onodera, N. (2016). Properties of an index of citation durability of an article. Journal of Informetrics, 10(4), 981–1004.

    Google Scholar 

  • Onodera, N., & Yoshikane, F. (2015). Factors affecting citation rates of research articles. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(4), 739–764.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinto, C. F., Serra, F. R., & Ferreira, M. P. (2014). A bibliometric study on culture research in IB. BAR-Brazilian Administration Review, 11(3), 340–363.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pisani, N. (2011). International management research: Investigating its recent diffusion in top management journal. Journal of Management, 35(2), 199–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piwowar, H. (2013). Altmetrics: Value all research products. Nature, 493(7431), 159–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pooladian, A., & Borrego, Á. (2016). A longitudinal study of the bookmarking of library and information science literature in Mendeley. Journal of Informetrics, 10(4), 1135–1142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Priem, J., Parra, C., Piwowar, H., & Waagmeester, A. (2012). Uncovering impacts: CitedIn and total impact, two new tools for gathering altmetrics. Paper presented at the iConference 2012.

  • Priem, J., Piwowar, H. A., & Hemminger, B. M. (2012). Altmetrics in the wild: Using social media to explore scholarly impact. arXiv preprint. arXiv:1203.4745

  • Prime, N., Obadia, C., & Vida, I. (2009). Psychic distance in exporter–importer relationships: A grounded theory approach. International Business Review, 18(2), 184–198.

    Google Scholar 

  • Qian, Y., Rong, W., Jiang, N., Tang, J., & Xiong, Z. (2017). Citation regression analysis of computer science publications in different ranking categories and subfields. Scientometrics, 110(3), 1351–1374.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robertson, C. J. (2000). The global dispersion of Chinese values: A three-country study of confucian dynamism. Management International Review, 40(3), 253–268.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salimi, N. (2017). Quality assessment of scientific outputs using the BWM. Scientometrics, 112, 195–213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sangam, S. (1999). Obsolescence of literature in the field of psychology. Scientometrics, 44(1), 33–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sasaki, I., & Yoshikawa, K. (2014). Going beyond national cultures—Dynamic interaction between intra-national, regional, and organizational realities. Journal of World Business, 49(3), 455–464.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlögl, C., Gorraiz, J., Gumpenberger, C., Jack, K., & Kraker, P. (2014). Comparison of downloads, citations and readership data for two information systems journals. Scientometrics, 101, 1113–1128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schubert, A. (2009). Using the h-index for assessing single publications. Scientometrics, 78(3), 559–565.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schubert, A., & Braun, T. (1986). Relative indicators and relational charts for comparative assessment of publication output and citation impact. Scientometrics, 9, 281–291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schubert, A., & Braun, T. (1996). Cross-field normalization of scientometric indicators. Scientometrics, 36(3), 311–324.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, S. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 1–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, S. (1994). Beyond individualism/collectivism: New cultural dimensions of values. In U. Kim, H. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S. Choi, & G. Yoons (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theory, methods and applications (pp. 85–119). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shenkar, O. (2001). Cultural distance revisited: Towards a more rigorous conceptualization and measurement of cultural differences. Journal of International Business Studies, 32(3), 519–535.

    Google Scholar 

  • Small, H. G. (1978). Cited documents as concept symbols. Social Studies of Science, 8(3), 327–340.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, P. B. (2006). When elephants fight, the grass gets trampled: The GLOBE and Hofstede Projects. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(6), 915–921.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M., Dowling, P. J., & Rose, E. L. (2011). Psychic distance revisited: A proposed conceptual framework and research agenda. Journal of Management & Organization, 17(1), 123–143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Song, Y., Ma, F., & Yang, S. (2015). Comparative study on the obsolescence of humanities and social sciences in China: Under the new situation of web. Scientometrics, 102, 365–388.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sousa, C. M., & Bradley, F. (2005). Global markets: Does psychic distance matter? Journal of Strategic Marketing, 13(1), 43–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sousa, C. M., & Bradley, F. (2006). Cultural distance and psychic distance: Two peas in a pod? Journal of International Marketing, 14(1), 49–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sousa, C. M., & Lages, L. (2011). The PD scale: A measure of psychic distance and its impact on international marketing strategy. International Marketing Review, 28(2), 201–222.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steel, P., & Taras, V. (2010). Culture as a consequence: A multi-level multivariate meta-analysis of the effects of individual and country characteristics on work-related cultural values. Journal of International Management, 16, 211–233.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steenkamp, J. B. E. M. (2001). The role of national culture in international marketing research. International Marketing Review, 18(1), 30–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stegehuis, C., Litvak, N., & Waltman, L. (2015). Predicting the long-term citation impact of recent publications. Journal of informetrics, 9(3), 642–657.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sun, J., Min, C., & Li, J. (2016). A vector for measuring obsolescence of scientific article. Scientometrics, 107, 745–757.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sun, Y., & Xia, B. S. (2016). The scholarly communication of economic knowledge: A citation analysis of Google Scholar. Scientometrics, 109, 1965–1978.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tahamtan, I., Afshar, A. S., & Ahamdzadeh, K. (2016). Factors affecting number of citations: A comprehensive review of the literature. Scientometrics, 107, 1195–1225.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tahamtan, I., & Bornmann, L. (2018). Core elements in the process of citing publications: Conceptual overview of the literature. Journal of Informetrics, 12(1), 203–216.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tang, L., & Koveos, P. E. (2008). A framework to update Hofstede’s cultural value indices: Economic dynamics and institutional stability. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(6), 1045–1063.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taras, V., Steel, P., & Kirkman, B. (2010). Negative practice–value correlations in the GLOBE data: Unexpected findings, questionnaire limitations and research directions. Journal of International Business Studies, 41, 1330–1338.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taras, V., Steel, P., & Kirkman, B. L. (2012). Improving national cultural indices using a longitudinal meta-analysis of Hofstede’s dimensions. Journal of World Business, 47(3), 329–341.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thelwall, M., & Nevill, T. (2018). Could scientists use Altmetric.com scores to predict longer term citation counts? Journal of Informetrics, 12(1), 237–248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tihanyi, L., Griffith, D. A., & Russell, C. J. (2005). The effect of cultural distance on entry mode choice, international diversification, and MNE performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of International Business Studies, 36(3), 270–283.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torres-Salinas, D., Robinson-García, N., Cabezas-Clavijo, A., & Jiménez-Contreras, E. (2014). Analyzing the citation characteristics of books: Edited books, book series and publisher types in the book citation index. Scientometrics, 98(3), 2113–2127.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Dalen, H. P., & Henkens, K. (2005). Signals in science—On the importance of signaling in gaining attention in science. Scientometrics, 64(2), 209–233.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Raan, A. F. J. (2004). Sleeping beauties in science. Scientometrics, 59(3), 467–472.

    Google Scholar 

  • Venaik, S., & Brewer, P. (2010). Avoiding uncertainty in Hofstede and GLOBE. Journal of International Business Studies, 41, 1294–1315.

    Google Scholar 

  • Venaik, S., & Brewer, P. (2013). Critical issues in the Hofstede and GLOBE national culture models. International Marketing Review, 30(5), 469–482.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vinkler, P. (1988). An attempt of surveying and classifying bibliometric indicators for scientometric purposes. Scientometrics, 13(5–6), 239–259.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vinkler, P. (2003). Relations of relative scientometric indicators. Scientometrics, 58(3), 687–694.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vinkler, P. (2013). Comparative rank assessment of journal articles. Journal of Informetrics, 7(3), 712–717.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walters, G. (2006). Predicting subsequent citations to articles published in twelve crime-psychology journals: Author impact versus journal impact measures: From cross-field to cross-scale effects of field-normalisation. Scientometrics, 69(3), 499–510.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waltman, L. (2016). A review of the literature on citation impact indicators. Journal of Informetrics, 10(2), 365–391.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, H., & Schaan, J. L. (2008). How much distance do we need? Revisiting the “National cultural distance paradox”. Management International Review, 48(3), 263–278.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weller, K. (2015). Social media and altmetrics: An overview of current alternative approaches to measuring scholarly impact. In I. Welpe, J. Wollersheim, S. Ringelhan, & M. Osterloh (Eds.), Incentives and performance (pp. 261–276). Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Werner, S. (2002). Recent development in international management research: A review of 20 top management journals. Journal of Management, 28(3), 277–305.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wouters, P., & Costas, R. (2012). Users, narcissism and control: tracking the impact of scholarly publications in the 21st century. Utrecht: SURFfoundation Utrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yeganeh, H. (2014). A weighted, Mahalanobian, and asymmetrical approach to calculating national cultural distance. Journal of International Management, 20(4), 436–463.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zahedi, Z., & Haustein, S. (2018). On the relationships between bibliographic characteristics of scientific documents and citation and Mendeley readership counts: A large-scale analysis of Web of Science publications. Journal of Informetrics, 12(1), 191–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zaheer, S., Schomaker, M. S., & Nachum, L. (2012). Distance without direction: Restoring credibility to a much-loved construct. Journal of International Business Studies, 43(1), 18–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, Q., Zhang, C., Zhao, X., & Chen, B. (2016). Measuring book impact based on the multi-granularity online review mining. Scientometrics, 107, 1435–1455.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zitt, M., Ramanana-Rahary, S., & Bassecoulard, E. (2005). Relativity of citation performance and excellence measures: From cross-field to cross-scale effects of field-normalisation. Scientometrics, 63(2), 373–401.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zoller, D., Doerfel, S., Jäschke, R., Stumme, G., & Hotho, A. (2016). Posted, visited, exported: Altmetrics in the social tagging system BibSonomy. Journal of Informetrics, 10(3), 732–749.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zuccala, A., Guns, R., Cornacchia, R., & Bod, R. (2015). Can we rank scholarly book publishers? A bibliometric experiment with the field of history. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 66(7), 1333–1347.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Business, Fc. Commerce, Tourism and Social Sciences, University of Oviedo, Av. Luis Moya, 33203, Gijón, Asturias, Spain

    Cristina López-Duarte & Marta M. Vidal-Suárez

  2. Department of Accounting, Fc. Commerce, Tourism and Social Sciences, University of Oviedo, Av. Luis Moya, 33203, Gijón, Asturias, Spain

    Belén González-Díaz

Authors
  1. Cristina López-Duarte
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marta M. Vidal-Suárez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Belén González-Díaz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Belén González-Díaz.

Additional information

This work was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Economy, Industry and Competitiveness [grant number ECO2016-80518-R].

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

López-Duarte, C., Vidal-Suárez, M.M. & González-Díaz, B. Cross-national distance and international business: an analysis of the most influential recent models. Scientometrics 121, 173–208 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03203-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03203-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation