Contents lists available at Science Direct
The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics
Journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ajsl2092-5212/© 2016 The Korean Association of Shipping and Logistics, Inc. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
A Comparative Study on the Logistics Research between International and Korean Journals
Hee Young YOON
a, Hee Seok BANG
b, Su Han WOO
caAssistant Professor, Soongeui Women’s College, Korea, E-mail: [email protected] (First Author) b Professor, Chung-Ang University, Korea, E-mail: [email protected]
c Professor, Chung-Ang University, Korea, E-mail: [email protected] (Corresponding Author)
A R T I C L E I N F O
Article history: Received 23 March 2016Received in revised form 30 August 2016 Accepted 1 September 2016 Keywords: Logistics Research Korean Journals International Journals Research Topic Research Methods Analytical Techniques
A B S T R A C T
This study aims to compare and analyze differences and similarities between some Korean and international logistics-related journals. To this end, this study reviewed academic journal articles published between 2007 and 2011 in three international journals. A total of 990 articles were reviewed and categorized in terms of research topics, research methods, and analytical techniques,
and subsequently compared. This study is, to the authors’ knowledge, the first attempt to evaluate
and compare prestigious international journals and Korean journals in the logistics-related research field similar to studies undertaken in scientific journals. The differences and similarities revealed in this study will help logistics researchers understand the interaction and communication between international and Korean journals, and how they can be used to develop logistics research at both the international and local levels.
Copyright © 2016 The Korean Association of Shipping and Logistics, Inc. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Peer review under responsibility of the Korean Association of Shipping and Logistics, Inc.
1.Introduction
Since the acknowledgement of logistics as a core component of firm and country-level competitiveness, it has become a popular area of study. The logistics industry has sought innovation and performance improvement to meet ever-complicated customers’ demand and to adopt technological
advancement in operations. A number of studies have suggested that the field of logistics has grown not only in volume, but also in the evolution in themes, theory, and methods to reflect and analyse these changes (e.g., Burgess et al., 2006; Georgi et al., 2013; Liao-Troth et al., 2012; Woo et al., 2011; Keratas-Cetin and Denkatas-Sakar, 2013). The supply chain management (SCM) research has increasingly adopted theories and rigorous methods with this higher research volume (Liao-Troth et al.,
2012). A geographical transition in publications is also evident: from the dominance of North American and European countries to the emergence of Asian and Latin American countries in the 2000s (Liao-Troth et al., 2012; Woo et al., 2011; 2013). It is also suggested that SCM studies published in the top management journals extends the spectrum of research by scholars beyond their academic boundaries (Grimm et al., 2014).
These observations are primarily from major academic journals published internationally in English and listed in the Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) or Association of Business School (ABS) List (Liao-Troth et al., 2012; Georgi et al., 2010; 2013; Maloni et al., 2009) http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajsl.2016.09.003
150 A Comparative Analysis on the Logistics Research between International and Korean Journals
such as Journal of Business Logistics (JBL), International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management (IJPDLM), International Journal of Logistics Management (IJLM), Journal of Supply Chain Management (JSCM) among others. These journals can serve as more trustworthy data source for review studies in logistics and SCM research than non-indexed journals or journals published domestically and in local languages. In addition, researchers tend to publish more papers in international journals such as SSCI listed journals since publication in such journals provides greater international diffusion and visibility for their work.
Korean journals, however, still have an important role as outlets in which local researchers can publish their work and communicate with each other. These journals also have an advantage in that they are more open to studies focused on local issues than international journals seeking general rules and trends that are internationally applicable. Korean journals offer a source of research topics, since local issues discussed in Korean journals sometimes develop into new research agendas that draw researchers’ attention internationally. These journals function as a channel through which academic knowledge and theories are transferred from the international to local levels and vice versa. A healthy communication between international and domestic journal (e.g. Korean journals) can create sound and sustainable development in logistics research. Despite the academic contribution of domestic journals, there also exists a perception that there may be gaps between international and Korean journals in terms of research agendas, methods, and eventually research quality. Therefore, a comparative study between international and Korean journals would be useful and necessary in understanding how they interact and in which directions they communicate.
Landry et al. (2001) provides this study with theoretical support suggesting models explaining the relationship between social science research and knowledge users as shown in Figure 1. The ‘science supply push model’ emphasizes the supply of advances in research findings from academics and researchers as the major determinant of knowledge utilization whereas, in ‘the demand pull model’, the initiative shifts from the researchers to the users who define the problems and request research that identifies and assesses alternative solutions to specific problems. Their empirical analysis, however, suggested that knowledge transfer or dissemination is better explained by ‘the interaction model’, which suggests that knowledge utilization depends on various disorderly interactions occurring between researchers and users rather than on linear sequences beginning with the needs of the researchers or the needs of the users. Relying on the interaction model, it is assumed that international journals and domestic journal interact each other bringing similarities and differences in research themes and approaches.
Fig. 1.Knowledge utilization model
Source: Illustrated by authors based on Landry et al. (2001)
This study, therefore, aims to investigate similarities and differences between international and domestic journals in research topics, research methodologies, and analytical techniques. To this end, this study collected 990 articles published in three international and three Korean journals
from 2007 to 2011. Domestic journals are represented by Korean Journals in this study due to language limitation. The collected papers were subsequently categorized in terms of research topics, research methods, and analytical techniques and a comparison was made between these journals. This study is, to the authors’ knowledge, the first attempt to evaluate and compare international prestigious journals and domestic journals in the logistics research field, although a few similar studies were undertaken in scientific journals (e.g. Rey-Rocha and Martin-Sempere, 2004). The results from this study will help logistics researchers understand the interactions and communication between international and domestic journals, and how this can be used to develop logistics research at both the international and local levels.
2. Research Methods
2.1. Collection of Papers
Although there are quite a few international journals in the logistics research field, three journals were selected based on the rankings of previous studies such as Menachof et al. (2009), Carter et al. (2009) and Sachan and Datta (2005). They were Journal of Business Logistics (JBL), International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management (IJPDLM), and Supply Chain Management: An International Journal (SCMIJ). Language issue limited this study to Korean journals, leaving the possibility that this study could be extended in the future to include domestic journals published in other countries. The Korean journals were theKorea Logistics Review (KLR), The Journal of Korea Logistics Society (JKLS) and The Journal of Korean Association of Shipping and Logistics (JKASL). These journals are peer-reviewed and listed in the Korea Citation Index list published by the Korea Research Foundation. Research articles published in 2007 to 2011 were collected from academic databases such as Emerald and Wiley for the international journals, and the Korea Citation Index and Korean Studies Information Service System for the Korean journals. Table 1 show that 499 papers were collected from international journals and 419 from Korean journals.
Table 1
Number of papers published by six major logistics journals
Journal Title 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total
International Journal JBL 16 27 25 29 28 125 IJPDLM 41 38 39 39 45 202 SCMIJ 32 36 34 35 35 172 Sub-total 73 101 98 103 108 499 Korean Journal KLR 34 44 49 50 53 230 JKLS 13 13 16 21 26 89 JKASL 31 33 41 35 32 172 Sub-total 78 90 106 106 111 491 Total 167 191 204 209 219 990 2.2 Classification Framework
During the initial review of the collected papers, authorship information such as institutional affiliation and the nationality of institution for each paper was logged using Microsoft Excel. The subsequent and more intensive review attempted classification of the collected papers by research topic, method and analytical technique, if applicable. Category
Research Knowledge creation Industry/ Government Knowledge utilization Supply push Demand pull Interaction
constru since results themat was c dissert catego et al. broade (2008) among constru The Figure adopte study. from catego catego compa (2011) publish presen identif researc analys Note: D Analyti Analys
uction and categor this process has t s (Stock and Broad tic categorization created. Stock an tations in SCM ories and 26 topical (2012). Relevant er categorization: P ) 10 categories and g the authors of t ucted for the collec e methodological e 2. Classification ed to identify resea Mentzer and Kha 1978 to 1993 and ories, while Sach orization to 442 pa
ared their results w ) adopted a similar hed in the past nted in Figure 1 is
fy a converging s ch methods are cl sis techniques are c
Fig
DEA: data envelopme ic Hierarchy Process, is
rical classification the greatest influe dus, 2006, Woo et a of previous review nd Broadus (200 and logistics-rela l categories, and th review studies in Park and Kim (200 d Ha (2006) 11 cate
this current study cted papers as show
classification fram framework used in arch methods and an (1995) reviewe d used a methodo han and Datta ( apers published in J with those of Mentz
r but extended cate three decades. T the result of severa tructure from the lassified into seven classified into fourt
g. 2.Classification f ent analysis, SEM: S , ANP: Analytic Netw
requires the most c ence over the con al., 2012). Using th w studies in logis 06) classified 1,8 ated areas into hese were applied t the Korean journ 9) used 12 categori egories. Through a , 22 thematic cat wn in Figure 1. mework is also n previous review data analysis techn d the papers publi logical classificati (2005) applied a JBL, IJPDLM, and zer and Khan (1995 egorization for sea The categorization al rounds of review collected papers. n different categor teen types. framework Structural Equation M
work Process, SNA: S
consideration ntent analysis his method, a stics research 883 doctoral 24 different to Liao-Troth nal applied a ies, Kim et al. cross-review egories were presented in studies were niques in this ished in JBL ion using six at a similar d SCMIJ and 5). Woo et al. aport research n framework ws looking to As a result, ries and data
G
Modeling, AHP: Social Network3. Classification r
3.1.General Obse Table 2 shows the journals. Papers international journ international journ with four author dominant and sing the proportion of three or more auth
Table 2
The number of auth
Rank I 1 Two Auth 2 Three Aut 3 Four Auth 4 One Auth 5 More Aut Total Institutional produ were counted usin credits as authors Tennessee Unive University, and A contribution acco institutions were a Korean journals institutions than t and their institutio research area (Ma publications may concentration of p weaken scientific segments of the disciplines, facult developing resear concentration leve it can be inferred mature, relying m Table 3 Institutional produc Rank In 1 T U 2 O U 3 Cranf 4 Card 5 Alaba Proportion
Table 4 shows the nationality was de
result
ervation and Featu e authorship inform
written by two nals and 43.6% of nals, papers with t rs were 15.6%, gle authorship is re single-authored pa hors accounted for
hors per article International hors 175 35.1 thors 167 33.5 hors 78 15.6 hor 63 12.6 thors 16 3.2 499 100 uctivity is presente ng unweighted cou affiliated to the in ersity, Ohio Unive Alabama University ounted for 29%. F all Korean and thei
exhibited a hig the international jo onal affiliation wa
loni et al., 2009). T y provide two m papers among fewe c debate and limi research commun ties in many cou rch records compa els (Maloni et al., 2 that communicatio ore on leading inst
ctivity from three log
nternational N Tennessee University Ohio State University field University diff University ama University 29 e geographical dis etermined by the c ures
mation of the intern authors account Korean journals, r three authors were indicating that m elatively rare. For t
apers was 31.4% w 25%. % Two Author % One Author % Three Author % Four Author % More Author % ed in Table 3. Pap unting, giving an nstitution. For the i ersity, Cranfield y ranked within th For the Korean p r contribution acco gher concentratio ournals. The conce
s used to evaluate The level of concen meaningful impli er faculty member it knowledge crea nity. Second, in h untries or schools ared to other disc 2009; Swanson et a on in the Korean jo titutions than the in
gistics journals No. Kore 51 Incheon N Unive 27 Korea M Instit 26 Chung-Ang 23 Pusan N Unive 18 Korea N Defence U 9.0% stribution of the au country of their af
national and Korea ted for 35.1% o respectively. For th e 33.5% and paper multi-authorship i the Korean journal whereas papers wit
Korean rs 214 43.6% r 154 31.4% rs 95 19.3% rs 23 4.7% rs 5 1.0% 491 100%
pers per institution institution as man international paper University, Cardif he top five and the
apers, the top fiv ounted for 39%. Th on in the leadin entration of author the maturity of th ntration in academi cations. First, th s and schools coul ation by excludin highly concentrate may have troubl ciplines with lowe al., 2007). Therefor ournals may be les nternational journal ean No. National ersity 50 Maritime tute 40 University 36 National ersity 36 National University 29 38.9%
uthors. The authors ffiliated institution an of he rs is s, th % % % % % % ns ny s, ff ir ve he ng rs he ic he ld ng ed le er re, ss ls. % s’ s.
152 A Comparative Analysis on the Logistics Research between International and Korean Journals
The three international journals were primarily dominated by authors from North America (40.57%) and Europe (40.22%).
Table 4
Nationality of authors’ affiliation
Rank International Korean
1 North
America 456 40.57 Asia* 610 98.07
2 Europe 452 40.22 North America 6 0.96
3 Asia 161 6.94 Europe 6 0.96
4 Australia 37 3.29
5 South
America 18 1.61
Total 1124 100% 622 100%
Note: The breakdown of the Asia proportion is South Korea 591(95.02%), Taiwan 11 (1.77%), China 4 (0.64%) and Japan 4 (0.64%)
Authors from Asian countries accounted for 6.94% in the third position. In the international case, America and Europe were ranked from 1st to 5th. Compared to Sachan and Datta (2005), who reviewed the same journals from 1999 to 2004, the contributions from North America and Australia decreased from 50% to 40.47% and from 7% to 3.29%, respectively. In contrast, Europe and Asia increased slightly from 32.7% to 40.22% and from 6.1% to 9.94%, respectively. The Korean journals were dominated by Korean authors with a handful of international contributions from other Asian countries (3.05%), North America (0.96%), and Europe (0.96%).
3.2.Research Topics
Table 5 presents the top five popular research topics in the international and Korean journals. ‘SCM’ research was the most popular in the international journals, accounting for 20.24%, followed by ‘performance’, ‘general logistics’, ‘purchasing, order, procurement’ and ‘education and research’. In contrast, ‘Transportation’ was the most popular in the Korean Journals followed by ‘logistics infrastructure’, ‘performance’, ‘general logistics’ and ‘logistics information system’.
Table 5
Research topics in the journals
Rank International Korean
1 Supply Chain Management 101 20.24% Transportation 113 23.01% 2 Performance 61 12.22% Logistics infrastructure 76 15.48% 3 General Logistics 46 9.22% Performance 49 9.98% 4 Purchasing, Order, Procurement 37 7.41% Logistics General 44 8.96% 5 Education/ Research 37 7.41% Logistics Information System 28 5.70%
The list of research topics within the top five international journals was compared with Stock and Broadus (2006) as shown in Table 6. They undertook a contents analysis of PhD dissertations in logistics and SCM from 1999 to 2004, and compared their investigation with the data back to 1970. The most prominent change is that SCM research has increased quickly since the 1990s, taking the top rank in international journals in this study.
Table 6
Comparison with Stock and Broadus (2006)
Table 7
Comparison with Kim et al. (2008)
Kim et al. (2008) This study (Korean)
1997-2006 2007-2011
Logistics Infra 24% Transportation 23.01%
General SCM 15% Logistics Infra 15.48%
Logistics Information System 12% Performance 9.98%
Logistics Outsourcing 11% Logistics in general 8.96% Logistics Policy 10% Logistics Information System 5.70%
Research topics in the Korean journals were also compared with a previous study, shown in Table 7. Kim et al. (2008) reviewed the papers published in KLR, JKLS, JKASL, and the Korea Journal of Supply Chain Management from 1997 to 2006. The apparent change is the decrease in ‘Logistics Infrastructure’ and ‘Logistics Information System’ where as the topics related to ‘Transportation’ have increased by 7% compared to the earlier study with 23.01%. This may reflect the trends towards management in transportation in logistics rather than planning transportation infrastructure.
3.3.Research methods
It has been suggested that methodological developments are necessary if logistics researchers intend to establish logistics and SCM as an independent discipline (Burgess et al., 2006). ‘Survey’ was the most popular methods for both the international and Korean journals with 33.47 % and 31.98%, respectively, as shown in Table 8. ‘Case Study' accounted for 20.84% internationally but only 4.07% in the Korean journals. Though ‘Math and economic modelling’ ranked third for both, the proportion in the Korean journals was much greater than that of the international journals. The ‘Interview’ methodology did not rank in the top five in Korean journals, though is frequently employed by the international journals.
Table 8
Comparison with classification study of existing analytical techniques
International Korean Survey 167 (33.47%) Survey 157 (31.98%) Case Study 104 (20.84%) Literature review 151 (30.75%) Math and economic
modelling
77 (15.43%)
Math and economic modelling 142 (28.92%) Literature review 61 (12.22%) Case Study 20 (4.07%) Interview 49 (9.82%) Others 12 (2.44%)
Topic Stock and
Broadus(2006) International 1970- 86 1992-98 1999-04 (2007-2011) Decision Support System 75 (11%) 31 (9.8%) 87 (21.2%) SCM 101 (20.24%) Transportation (34.8%)238 (22.8%)72 (14.9%) 64 Performance (12.22%)61 SCM (0%)0 (4.4%)14 (13.9%) 57 General Logistics (9.22%)46 Inventory Management 79 (11.5%) 15 (4.7%) 38 (9.3%) Purchasing, Order, Procurement 37 (7.41%) International Logistics 37 (5.4%) 28 (8.8%) 29 (7.1%) Education/Research 37 (7.41%)
3.4.Data Analysis techniques
In both the international and Korean journals, Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) and regression were used with a high frequency, as shown in Table 9. The results of Mentzer and Khan(1995) and Sachan and Datta(2005) are compared with this study in Table 10. ‘Regression’ and ‘SEM’ appear to have a similar weight, through there is a very rapid decrease in ‘Descriptive Statistics’, ‘Correlation Analysis’ and ‘Factor Analysis’. One cause for this result may be the difference in the standard of data analysis methods, through the appearance of new analysis methods such as ‘DEA’ and ‘SNA’ have created variations in distribution.
Table 9
Comparison of Korean and international analytical techniques
International Korean SEM 59 (11.82%) Regression Analysis 50 (10.18%) Regression Analysis 51 (10.22%) SEM 47 (9.57%) ANOVA 22 (4.41%) AHP/ANP 24 (4.68%) Simulation Analysis 21 (4.21%) Simulation Analysis 22 (4.48%) Cluster Analysis 17 (3.41%) ANOVA/time-series Analysis 16 (3.26%) Table 10
Comparison with classification study of existing analytical techniques (%)
Mentzer and Kahn (1995)
Sachan and Datta
(2005) International Korean Period (1978-1993) (1999-2004) (2007-2011) (2007-2011) Descriptive Statistics 66.70 39.88 1.0 0.61 Regression Analysis 5.70 14.72 10.22 10.18 Factor Analysis - 13.50 2.20 1.83 SEM 1.10 9.20 11.82 9.57 Correlation Analysis 3.40 5.52 1.00 0.81
4. Discussion and Conclusion
4.1 Discrepancies in Research Topic
There are clear discrepancies in research topics between the international and Korean journals. Korean journals tend to focus on issues in physical transportation and logistics infrastructure such as seaports, airports, and railways, whereas international journals focus primarily on SCM-related issues such as supply chain integration and strategies and performance issues (see Table 5). There are several possible explanations for this difference using the knowledge utilization model presented in Figure 1.
First, adopting the supply push model, regardless of the current development and research demand from the logistics sector, researchers have concentrated on different topical areas and created knowledge focusing on a variety of topics. Second, based on the demand pull model, the differences in research demand stemming from the situation of the logistics sector across countries have created differences in the thematic focus of research. This explanation seems more plausible. As management practices that firms intend to use to effectively manage their supply chains have spread across various industries, SCM has emerged as an important research area since the late 1990s (Liao-Troth et al. 2012). In addition, outsourcing of logistics functions to third-party logistics (TPL) companies
has increased as firms focus more on their core business. This trend has been clearly reflected in logistics research, indicating the increase of SCM-related studies and the decrease of transportation and logistics infrastructure research (see Table 6). The relatively lower proportion of SCM research in the Korea journals may have been influenced by the unique situation of the Korean logistics industry. Even though Asian countries including Korea have been the through similar industrial trends, the TPL market size for Korea is still smaller than European and American countries (Armstrong and Associates, 2013). It is also reported that only around 50% of manufacturing companies in Korea outsource logistics functions, whereas the proportion of companies in European and American countries is around 80% (MLTM, 2011).
Related to the second explanation above, a discussion of the geographical inconsistency in the disciplinary development of the logistics sector in universities is worthwhile. Although it is still debatable as to whether the logistics and SCM areas can be developed into an independent discipline, logistics and SCM are taught and researched at the departmental level in many European and North American countries. According to Lancioni et al. (2001), 52.9% of 93 respondent schools and universities in their survey offer logistics undergraduate degrees, 10% graduate programs, and 39.3% both. In Asian countries, particularly Korea, the disciplinary development of the logistics area has been a bit slow. Only a few universities established independent logistics departments, and in most schools, logistics-related subjects are taught in management or economics departments. Therefore logistics education and research in most Korean universities has not extended to SCM issues sufficiently. SCM research has been published more in management-related journals than logistics journals in Korea, represented in 30 such areas as. The Korean Academic Society of Business Administration, Journal of Korean Distribution Science Academy, Journal of the Society of Korea Industrial, and Systems Engineering.
4.2 Research methodology
According to the investigation into research methods used in logistics (see Table 8), the research shows a difference in methodological distribution. While surveys were favored by the international and Korean journals, the Korean journal showed a preference for math and economics modeling. The international journals showed more frequent use of interviews than Korean journals, which may imply that the international journals consider perception of human-beings more than the Korean journals. While past studies focused on the nation and its policies, studies that focus on business have become significant and grown in. Case studies now occupy a large portion of the research in international publications. However, 'Case Study' and 'Interview' are still used at low rates in the Korean journals. A balance is necessary between qualitative and quantitative research methodologies for the development of Korean logistics studies. It is not only needed for researchers to deeply understand for a qualitative study, but also to widen foundation through segmented research.
4.3 Interaction between International and Korean journals
This study assumed that ‘academic journals function as a channel through which academic knowledge and theories are transferred from international to local levels and vice versa’. Knowledge transfer between international and Korean journals may be possible only through publication at both levels, or through research collaboration. Throughout the investigation into the logistics research in the six journals, there were discrepancies in research topics and methods to some extent between the international and Korean journals. This leads one to wonder to which
154 A Comparative Analysis on the Logistics Research between International and Korean Journals
extent research collaboration has been made among the authors of the 6 journals. There were no authors who published at both levels. In other words, even though there were Korean logistics researchers who published in JBL, IJPDLM, SCMIJ, they did not publish in the sample Korean journals.
Another possible interaction would be citation between the journals. There were not found citations of the Korean journal papers by the international journals. In contrast, Table 11 shows the number of citations of the international journals by the Korean journals. In 2011, 109 citations were found for only one year, which implies knowledge transfer only in one direction from the international journals to the Korean journals. More participation of Korean researchers to the international journals would involve more bi-directional knowledge transfer between the international and Korean journals.
Table 11
Citation of the international journals by the Korean journals
Journals 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total
KLR
JBL 12 JBL 36 JBL 37 JBL 29 JBL 38 152 IJPDLM 9 IJPDLM 19 IJPDLM 26 IJPDLM 15 IJPDLM 40 109 SCMIJ 0 SCMIJ 4 SCMIJ 4 SCMIJ 4 SCMIJ 5 17
JKLS
JBL 7 JBL 3 JBL 3 JBL 3 JBL 8 24
IJPDLM 3 IJPDLM 11 IJPDLM 3 IJPDLM 3 IJPDLM 15 35 SCMIJ 2 SCMIJ 1 SCMIJ 1 SCMIJ 1 SCMIJ 2 7
JKASL
JBL 2 JBL 8 JBL 17 JBL 16 JBL 0 43 IJPDLM 1 IJPDLM 8 IJPDLM 8 IJPDLM 7 IJPDLM 1 25 SCMIJ 0 SCMIJ 3 SCMIJ 3 SCMIJ 1 SCMIJ 0 7
Total 36 93 102 79 109
5. Contribution and Limitation
This study offers several contributions. This is the first attempt to compare logistics research between Korean and international journals. This study will enable readers to objectively assess the Korean and international direction of research from the analysis of data, gathered from six major journals. The study also broadens the scope of review studies conducted previously. Most previous review studies include only research topics and research methodologies, whereas this study even includes data analysis methods. In addition, the research topics and methodologies were analysed based on the characteristics of each of them as well as their relationship with one another. This will help future researchers in their practical consideration for selecting research topics and methodologies.
While logistics research in Korea has advanced since the late 1990s with increases in the number of studies and topics, it is found that many scholars are still inclined to choose ‘Transportation’ and ‘Infrastructure’ as their research topics. This bias reflects the large roles these two topics play in the Korean logistics industry. However, the logistics industry growing and evolving fast in Korea and therefore, it is necessary for Korean researchers to develop research topics and methods to respond to the changes in industry or borrow theories and methods from other disciplines or international journals.
However, this paper is subject to several limitations. First, the classification standards for research methods may differ by individual scholars due to unavoidable subjectivity of classification framework by nature. Second, one will have criticism on the time period of this study with the database from 2007 to 2011. This study was undertaken using the database collected in 2013-2014 which required demanding works.
Despite outdatedness of the literature sources, the comparative analysis has meaningful implications within the timeframe. Future study may be able to extend the timeframe to show recent development in logistics research. Third, this study was not able to include comprehensive list of logistics journals since this study intended to be comparative rather than comprehensive. One can be critical of comparability of the sample journals and it is likely that the discrepancies observed from the comparison in research topics and method are attributed to the selection of the sample journals. More careful and comprehensive selection of sample journals may improve validity of such comparative analysis.
References
ARMSTRONG AND ASSOCIATES, 2013. Global 3PL Market Size Estimates, Available from http://www.3plogistics.com/3PLmarketGlobal.htm, (Accessed on 16 May 2014)
BURGESS. K., SINGH. P. J. and KOROGLU. R., 2006. Supply chain management: a structured literature review and implications for future research. International journal of operations & production management, 26(7), pp. 703-729.
CARTER, C. R., EASTON, P. L. VELLENGA, D. B. and ALLEN, B.J. 2009. Affiliation of authors in transportation and logistics academic journals: A reevaluation, Transportation Journal, Vol. 48, No. 1, pp. 42-52.
GEORGI, C., DARKOW, I. L. and KOTZAB, H., 2010. The Intellectual foundation of the journal of business logistics and its evolution between 1978 and 2007. Journal of business logistics, 31(2), pp. 63-109.
GEORGI, C., DARKOW, I. L. and KOTZAB, H., 2013. Foundations of logistics and supply chain research: A bibliometric analysis of four international journals. International Journal of logistics research and applications, 16(6), pp. 552-533.
GRIMM. C., KNEMEYER. M., POLYVIOU. M., REN XINYI., 2014. Supply chain management research in management journals: A review of recent literature(2004-2013).International journal of physical distribution & logistics management, 45(5), pp. 404-458.
HA. Y. S., 2006. Analysis of the articles issued in journal of shipping and logistics : from vol. 41 to vol. 50. The journal of Korean Association of Shipping and logistics, 51, pp. 1-24.
KIM. T. H., MOON, S. A., KIM, W. S., and CHOI, D. H., 2008, Research trends analysis and future researches in Korean logistics journals. Korean Journal of Logistics, 16(1), 1-11.
KERATAS-CETIN, C., and DENKATAS-SAKAR, G., 2013. Logistics Research beyond 2000: Theory, Method and Relevance. The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics, 29(2), 125-144.
LANCIONI. R., FORMAN. H. and SMITH. M. F., 2001. Logistics and supply chain education: Roadblocks and challenges. International journal of physical distribution & logistics management, 31(10), pp. 733-745.
LANDRY. R., AMARA. N. and LAMARI. M., 2001. Utilization of social science research knowledge in Canada. Research policy, 30(2), pp. 333-349.
LIAO-TROTH. S., THOMAS. S. and FAWCETT. S. E., 2012. Twenty years of IJLM: Evolution in research. The international journal of logistics management, 23(1), pp. 4-30.
MALONI. M. J., CARTER. C. R. and CARR. A. S., 2009. Assessing logistics maturation through author concentration. International journal of physical distribution & logistics management, 39(3), pp. 250-268.
MENACHOF. D. A., GIBSON. B. J., HANNA. J. B. and WHITEING. A. E., 2009. An analysis of the value of supply chain management periodicals. International journal of physical distribution & logistics management, 39(2), pp. 145-165.
MENTZER. J. T. and KAHN. K. B., 1995. A framework of logistics research. Journal of business logistics, 16(1), pp. 231-250.
MLTM, 2011. National Statistics on Transportation and Logistics. Ministry of Land, Transportation and Maritime Affairs.
PARK. J. S., and KIM, D. H., 2009, Analysis of the articles issued in korea logistics review : from vol. 17 to vol. 18. Korea Trade Review, 19(2), pp. 5-26.. SACHAN. A. and DATTA. S., 2005. Review of supply chain management and logistics research. International journal of physical distribution & logistics management, 35(9), pp. 664-705.
STOCK. J. R. and BROADUS. C. J., 2006. Doctoral research in supply chain management and/or logistics-related areas: 1999-2004. Journal of business logistics, 27(1), pp. 139-151.
SWANSON. E.P., WOLFE. C.J. and ZARDKOOHI. A., 2007. Concentration in publishing at top-tier business journals: Evidence and potential explanations. Contemporary accounting research, 24(4), pp. 1255-1289.
WOO. S. H., BANG. H. S., MARTIN. S. and LI. K. X., 2013. Evolution of research themes in maritime policy & management: 1973-2012. Maritime policy & management, 40(3), pp. 200-225.
WOO. S. H., PETTIT. S. J., KWAK. D. W. and BERESFORD. A. K. C., 2011. Seaport Research: A structured literature review on methodological issues since the 1980s. Transportation research part A: policy and practice, 45(7), pp. 667-685.
WOO. S. H., PETTIT. S. J., BERESFORD. A. K. C. and KWAK. D. W., 2012. Seaport research: A decadal analysis of trends and themes since the 1980s. Transportation review, 32(3), pp. 351-377.