Publication and citation structure of JMO

This dynamic is most evident in the journal’s publication and citation structures, where fluctuations in annual output and highly uneven citation distributions reveal both the opportunities and vulnerabilities of JMO’s growth. The data point to moments when increased productivity coincided with influential breakthroughs, but also to periods where higher volumes did not translate into proportional impact, highlighting the journal’s ongoing challenge of balancing expansion with scholarly significance. Figure 1 shows that JMO’s publication output has progressed through three distinct phases.

Figure 1.

Annual number of papers published in JMO.

The first decade (1995–2005) was characterised by very modest productivity, averaging fewer than 15 papers per year, reflecting the journal’s early-stage positioning and limited visibility. This period is consistent with the consolidation phase of new journals, where growth is constrained by author awareness, indexing coverage, and editorial capacity. The second phase, beginning in 2006, marks a clear expansion, with output rising steadily and stabilising between 40 and 65 papers annually through much of the 2010s. This growth coincided with the journal’s deeper integration into international databases and its widening author base, yet instability remains visible, especially the sharp dip in 2016, when publication volume fell below 35. Such a contraction suggests a shift towards editorial tightening or policy reorientation, demonstrating that expansion was not pursued at any cost. The third phase begins in 2017, with relatively stable production around 50–65 papers, before the increase in 2024 to more than 100 papers, the highest in JMO’s history. While this unprecedented peak reflects the journal’s 30th anniversary and associated thematic calls, its sustainability remains uncertain. A sharp increase in publication volume of this kind poses both an opportunity to expand influence and a risk of diluting citation performance if quality and thematic coherence are not carefully maintained.

The annual citation structure in Table 2 provides a sharper lens on JMO’s impact trajectory than publication counts alone (Fig. 1). In the formative years (1995–2003), output was modest and citations low, with most articles attracting only minimal attention. Although almost every paper received at least one citation, very few surpassed even the 20-citation threshold, reflecting the journal’s limited international visibility and regional concentration during its early stage.

Table 2.

Annual citation structure of JMO

Abbreviations: TP and TC = Total papers and citations; ≥200, ≥100, ≥50, ≥20, ≥10, ≥5, ≥1 = Number of papers with equal or more than 200, 100, 50, 20, 10, 5, and 1 citations; T50 = Number of documents in the Top 50 of Table 4.

From 2004 onward, a more pronounced shift becomes evident. Despite relatively small volumes, years such as 2004 and 2006 stand out, producing highly cited contributions that significantly boosted the journal’s profile. For example, in 2006, four papers crossed the 50-citation mark, with two exceeding 100 citations. The breakthrough period arrived between 2008 and 2012, when JMO consistently produced articles that today have accumulated over 1,000 citations and multiple papers each year surpass the 100-citation threshold. Importantly, 2008 produced JMO’s first ≥200-citation article, a milestone that marked its entry into the wider global discourse.

The mid-2010s (2013–2017) reflect a pattern of fluctuating citation performance. While total publications grew steadily, the number of highly cited papers fluctuated. Some years, such as 2013 and 2014, have generated few papers above the 50-citation threshold, while others, like 2015 and 2017, have produced multiple influential works, several of which entered the top 50 most cited list (T50). This underlines a key characteristic of JMO’s citation profile: impact has been driven by selective outliers rather than by a uniform rise across all papers.

Accelerated growth found during 2018–2021, which together represent the journal’s most influential period. In 2018 alone, two papers exceeded 200 citations and seven entered the T50, while in subsequent years JMO consistently produced papers crossing the 100-citation mark. This reflects the publication of articles that resonate strongly with global debates on technology, inclusivity, resilience, and crisis management. Yet, as expected, the most recent years (2022–2024) show a sharp drop in cumulative citations, not because of declining relevance but due to citation lag. Despite record output in 2024 (107 papers), only a handful have so far crossed even the 20-citation mark, underscoring the temporal gap between publication volume and measurable impact.

In total, out of 1,083 papers published, 817 (75.2%) received at least five citations, 81 (7.5%) surpassed 50 citations, 25 (2.3%) exceeded 100, and just 7 (0.6%) crossed the 200-citation threshold. This highly skewed distribution illustrates a ‘long-tail’ pattern, where a small minority of articles account for a disproportionate share of the journal’s overall visibility. It highlights both JMO’s capacity to occasionally produce landmark contributions and its ongoing vulnerability to uneven impact when such articles are absent. This structural pattern mirrors the trajectories of other mid-tier journals, such as the Asia Pacific Journal of Management that relied on irregular breakthrough articles before achieving broader and more consistent recognition (Wang, Cheah, Lim & Chang, Reference Wang, Cheah, Lim and Chang2024).

Citation dynamics in Fig. 2 add further nuance (Hussain et al., Reference Hussain, Merigó, Rahimi and Lev2025; Tukey, Reference Tukey1977). In the journal’s early years (1995–2004), median citations were minimal, and distribution was narrow, underscoring limited international reach. A sharp inflection occurred between 2005 and 2010, when several papers emerged as highly influential outliers, surpassing 200 citations and in some cases exceeding 300. These landmark contributions demonstrate that even in years with moderate publication volumes, JMO was capable of producing agenda-setting research that amplified its profile within the field. The period from 2011 to 2016 shows more even distributions with stable medians but fewer extreme peaks, suggesting consolidation rather than breakthrough. This stabilisation reflects a journal that had established credibility and was consistently producing work of solid impact, even if fewer articles dominated the citation landscape. The most recent period (2018–2020) is striking in that several papers already demonstrate exceptional early citation performance, with some surpassing 300 citations within just a few years. This acceleration reflects JMO’s alignment with high-demand topics such as artificial intelligence, inclusive leadership, and crisis management, where global scholarly interest translated into rapid uptake. In contrast, the most recent cohorts from 2023 and 2024 naturally exhibit compressed citation ranges, a temporal artefact of limited time for accumulation, but nonetheless highlight the lag between publication growth and measurable scholarly impact. Another contextual factor shaping recent citation dynamics is JMO’s increasing engagement with open-access publishing. Since transitioning to a Gold Open Access model, the journal has benefited from enhanced global discoverability, particularly through institutional repositories and digital indexing systems. This visibility aligns with broader evidence that open-access availability often correlates with faster early-stage citation accumulation (Piwowar et al., Reference Piwowar, Priem, Larivière, Alperin, Matthias, Norlander and Haustein2018). While such effects may partly explain the strong citation performance of papers published after 2020, especially those addressing COVID-19 and sustainability, future research should examine whether this accessibility advantage translates into long-term impact stability.

Figure 2.

Annual box-whisker plot citation structure of all papers published in JMO.

Taken together, the evidence from Figs. 1 and 2 underscores that JMO’s trajectory has not been one of linear growth but rather one punctuated by pivotal moments where influential publications amplified the journal’s standing. The capacity to generate highly cited outliers has been crucial in elevating JMO beyond its regional base, yet the instability in both output and citation structures reveals the inherent challenges of balancing productivity, selectivity, and long-term scholarly influence.

Impact indicators and ranking evolution of JMO

Table 3 traces JMO’s trajectory from peripheral status to mid-tier consolidation. In 2009–2013, the journal’s position was weak: impact factor (IF) (Bensman, Reference Bensman2007; Garfield, Reference Garfield1955) consistently below 0.6, 5YIF under 1.0, AIS (Bergstrom, West & Wiseman, Reference Bergstrom, West and Wiseman2008) negligible, and category rankings in the lowest quartiles (e.g., RM 163/173 in 2013). These metrics reflected limited visibility and weak international uptake. Between 2014 and 2018, gradual improvement emerged, citations increased, IF fluctuated between 0.4 and 1.0, and CiteScore rose modestly to 2.1, yet instability suggested reliance on a narrow base of cited articles rather than systemic growth.

Table 3.

Analysis of JMO in the JCR of the WoS and Scopus (Clarivate, 2025; Scopus, 2025)

Abbreviations: TCJ = Total citations in the JCR; IF = Impact factor; 5YIF = 5-year impact factor; AIS = Article Influence Score (Bergstrom, West et al., 2008); RM = Ranking in the WoS category of Management; PM = Journal impact factor percentile in Management; CS = CiteScore (Scopus); PBIM = Scopus Percentile in Business and International Management; POB = Scopus Percentile in Organizational Behaviour and Human Resource Management.

The turning point occurred in 2019–2020, when citations nearly doubled and IF grow from 1.93 to 4.13, accompanied by a parallel rise in CiteScore (3.6) and percentile improvements across Scopus categories (Percentile in Business and International Management (PBIM) = 73; Percentile in Organizational Behaviour and Human Resource Management (POB) = 74). This leap coincided with thematically resonant publications on leadership, resilience, and digital transformation, topics accelerated by the COVID-19 crisis, and an editorial strategy emphasising special issues and international diversification.

Since 2020, indicators have stabilised at a higher level: IF between 3.1 and 3.6, 5YIF above 3.8, AIS rising to 0.81, and CiteScore reaching 6.6 (2022–2023), with Scopus percentiles consistently above 75. This confirms JMO’s consolidation as a top journal. However, the plateau after 2021 signals the structural challenge of sustaining period of elevated citation performance in a crowded field. Output grows, such as the 2024 anniversary spike, may not translate into proportional impact without continued production of citation outliers.

Influential papers in JMO

Following the analysis of JMO’s journal-level indicators, it is equally important to examine the intellectual contributions that have defined the journal’s citation profile. Table 4 presents the 50 most cited documents in JMO, offering a window into the themes, theories, and contexts that have propelled the journal’s visibility within management and organisational scholarship.

Table 4.

The 50 most cited documents in JMO

Abbreviations: R = Rank; TC = Total citations; C/Y = Cites per year.

The dominance of recent contributions at the top of Table 4 is notable. Brougham and Haar’s (Reference Brougham and Haar2018) paper on Smart Technology, Artificial Intelligence, Robotics, and Algorithms (STARA) leads with 476 citations (68 per year), followed closely by Teece’s (Reference Teece2018) Dynamic capabilities as (workable) management systems theory with 352 citations (50 per year). These figures demonstrate how JMO has successfully aligned itself with high-demand topics such as artificial intelligence and dynamic capabilities, areas that cut across disciplines and have attracted global scholarly attention. Their rapid citation accumulation illustrates JMO’s capacity to publish pieces that resonate far beyond its traditional readership.

Other highly cited works highlight the journal’s ability to intersect organisational research with socially relevant issues. Kalliath and Brough’s (Reference Kalliath and Brough2008) review of work–life balance (331 citations) and Galbreath’s (Reference Galbreath2011) study of women on boards (299 citations) show that JMO has been influential in debates around employee well-being, sustainability, and gender in corporate governance. More recent examples include Javed et al.’s (2019) article on inclusive leadership (249 citations) and Hamouche’s (Reference Hamouche2023) work on human resource management (HRM) during COVID-19 (195 citations), both of which demonstrate how JMO has become a responsive outlet for emergent global challenges. The COVID-19 paper is especially striking, achieving nearly 49 citations per year in just three years, reflecting both the timeliness and intensity of scholarly engagement with crisis-related management research.

The mid-ranked articles in Table 4 broaden the thematic scope, covering family business (Nordqvist, Hall & Melin, Reference Nordqvist, Hall and Melin2009; 156 citations), organizational resilience (Kantur & İşeri-Say, Reference Kantur and İşeri-Say2012; 237 citations), workplace spirituality (Fernando & Jackson, Reference Fernando and Jackson2006; 154 citations), and neurodiversity employment (Krzeminska, Austin, Bruyère & Hedley, Reference Krzeminska, Austin, Bruyère and Hedley2019; 103 citations). While their citation rates per year are lower than the top-ranked outliers, they demonstrate JMO’s openness to interdisciplinary and underexplored themes that are often overlooked in mainstream management journals. This eclecticism reinforces the journal’s distinctive positioning as a venue willing to publish novel, socially embedded, and sometimes unconventional research.

Geographic and authorship patterns further underline JMO’s dual identity. Several of the most cited contributions come from Australasian scholars (e.g., Brougham, Haar, Galbreath, Ratten), consistent with the journal’s ANZAM heritage, yet the increasing presence of international co-authorship (e.g., Javed, Zhou, Krzeminska) illustrates the journal’s progressive internationalisation. This balance between regional grounding and global reach has been crucial in expanding JMO’s citation footprint.

Critically, the table also exposes structural vulnerabilities. JMO’s citation profile is disproportionately dependent on a handful of recent high-performing articles, raising the risk that future metrics may plateau if subsequent issues fail to attract similarly resonant contributions. Furthermore, the strong performance of trend-driven topics such as COVID-19 demonstrates the journal’s responsiveness, but these works may have shorter citation half-lives compared to theoretical classics in dynamic capabilities or work–life balance. The challenge lies in sustaining both timeliness and long-term theoretical depth.

Intellectual foundations of JMO through external citations

Table 5 identifies the works most frequently cited within JMO’s publications, effectively mapping the intellectual scaffolding upon which the journal’s research rests. The dominance of classic methodological and theoretical contributions is striking. Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee and Podsakoff (Reference Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee and Podsakoff2003) paper on common method bias leads with 159 citations, followed by Fornell and Larcker’s (Reference Fornell and Larcker1981) Journal of Marketing Research article on validity (86 citations), Aiken and West’s (Reference Aiken and West1991) work on multiple regression (80), and Baron and Kenny’s (Reference Baron and Kenny1986) mediation framework (69). These papers reflect the heavy reliance on psychometric, regression, and structural equation modelling foundations, confirming that JMO authors, like those in other management journals, anchor their research in well-established methodological standards.

Table 5.

Top 40 most cited documents in JMO publications (Web of Science 2007–2024)

Abbreviations: TC = Total citations; A = Article; B = Book.

Beyond methods, canonical theories are also highly cited. Barney’s (Reference Barney1991) resource-based view (64), Teece, Pisano and Shuen’s (Reference Teece, Pisano and Shuen1997) dynamic capabilities framework (52, 26), and Eisenhardt and Martin’s (Reference Eisenhardt and Martin2000) strategy and organizational theory contributions (35, 30) show that JMO papers align with mainstream strategy and organizational research. At the same time, references to broader social science classics, DiMaggio & Powell (Reference DiMaggio and Powell1983) (institutional theory, 33), Hofstede (Reference Hofstede1980) (culture, 23), and Penrose (Reference Penrose1959) (firm growth, 23), reveal how JMO integrates macro-level perspectives into management debates.

A critical observation is the balance between methodological and theoretical sources. Nearly half of the top references are statistical or methodological texts (Podsakoff, Aiken, Preacher, Hayes, Nunnally), while the remainder cluster around organisational theory, strategic management, and social psychology. This demonstrates JMO’s methodological conservatism, research is expected to be empirically rigorous, borrowing heavily from mainstream psychology and strategy traditions. However, the relatively low citation counts (none exceeding 200) suggest that while JMO relies on the same foundational works as higher-ranked journals, its referencing intensity is more dispersed. This reinforces the view of JMO as a journal embedded in global standards but without a distinctive methodological canon of its own.

Knowledge diffusion and citing communities of JMO

Table 6 provides a picture of JMO’s influence by examining who cites the journal, where, and in what outlets. The dataset indicates that JMO’s reach is increasingly international but concentrated in certain author networks and publication venues. De Clercq (76 citing papers), Kantabutra (28), and Azeem (25) emerge as the most frequent citers, pointing to a strong cluster of scholars repeatedly drawing on JMO’s content. Institutions like Griffith University (131 citing papers), Queensland University of Technology (117), and Brock University (114) reinforce the Australasian and Commonwealth roots of JMO’s influence.

Table 6.

Citing articles of the 10,000 most cited articles of AE: Years, authors, universities, countries, and journals

Abbreviations: R = Rank; TP = Total papers.

Geographically, the United States dominates with 2,043 citing papers, followed by China (1,981) and Australia (1,529). This indicates that while JMO’s historical base in Australasia remains strong, its intellectual reach now extends deeply into both Western and Asian contexts. This dual orientation is valuable: it reflects both Western theoretical grounding and Asian engagement with applied management research.

The citing journals further clarify JMO’s diffusion pathways. Sustainability leads with 437 citing articles, followed by Journal of Management & Organization itself (431, largely author self-citation or reciprocal citing within the community), Frontiers in Psychology (334), and Journal of Business Research (134). The prominence of interdisciplinary journals such as Sustainability and Frontiers in Psychology suggests that JMO articles are not confined to core management outlets but diffuse across adjacent disciplines, psychology, environmental studies, and ethics. This breadth enhances JMO’s visibility but also raises the question of whether its influence is deeper within management or more peripheral, feeding into interdisciplinary debates rather than shaping core management theory.

The analysis of citing patterns in Table 6 reveals both opportunities and vulnerabilities for JMO. Its influence is undeniably global, with citations extending across regions and disciplines, yet much of this visibility is concentrated in a relatively small group of authors, institutions, and journals. The strong presence of outlets such as Sustainability and Frontiers in Psychology indicates that JMO’s reach is often driven by topical interest in areas like social responsibility, leadership, and well-being, rather than systematic integration into the core of management theory. When we viewed together with the intellectual foundations outlined in Table 5, this profile underscores JMO’s dual identity: internally, the journal relies heavily on mainstream methodological and theoretical anchors from psychology, organisational behaviour, and strategy, while externally it is cited most often in interdisciplinary and socially oriented outlets. This positioning reflects JMO’s strength as both a consumer of established frameworks and a producer of applied, cross-disciplinary insights, though its long-term challenge remains to deepen its influence within core management debates while maintaining the interdisciplinary reach that currently fuels much of its visibility.

Leading authors, institutions and countries

The distribution of productivity and influence across authors, institutions, and countries reveals the structural foundations of JMO’s scholarly community. Examining these layers shows how impact is generated not only by a few highly cited individuals but also by the institutional networks and national research systems that sustain them. Table 7 provides the starting point, highlighting the most productive authors whose contributions illustrate both the concentration of influence within a small group and the emergence of globally relevant scholarship beyond JMO’s Australasian core.

Table 7.

Most productive authors in JMO

Abbreviations: R = Rank; TP = Total papers; TC = Total citations; H = h-index; C/P = Cites per paper; D1 = Total Publication during first decade i.e. between 1995 and 2004; D2 = Total Publication during second decade i.e. between 2005 and 2014; D3 = Total Publication during third decade i.e. between 2015 and 2024.

The profile of JMO’s most productive authors demonstrates a highly concentrated but thematically diverse community. At the productivity end, Härtel (Monash University) leads with 11 papers and 241 citations, showing steady contributions over three decades, particularly in organisational behaviour and leadership. Ayoko (University of Queensland, 9 papers, 161 citations) similarly exemplifies the continuity of the Australian research base in leadership and conflict management. De Clercq (Brock University, 10 papers, 210 citations), however, represents the most visible international contributor, with his entire output concentrated in the last decade (D3). His productivity underscores JMO’s growing integration into North American research networks. Yet, the most striking influence comes from authors with fewer but more impactful contributions. Brougham (Massey University) has only four papers but 626 citations (156.5 per paper), largely driven by her 2018 STARA article, JMO’s single most cited paper. Galbreath (Curtin University, 350 citations from 4 papers) and Khan (Central Queensland University, 297 citations from 4 papers) also exemplify this selective impact, where a handful of strategically positioned articles drive visibility. Ratten (La Trobe University, 259 citations from 5 papers) further illustrates niche influence, with entrepreneurship and sports management research carving out distinct recognition. These cases reinforce the ‘long-tail’ citation structure identified in Table 2, where JMO’s impact depends heavily on a small number of outliers rather than broad uptake across all publication.

Geographically, the author base is dominated by Australasia, two-thirds of the top 40 are affiliated with Australian or New Zealand universities, yet international diversification is evident. De Clercq (Canada), Belausteguigoitia (Mexico), Qian (China), Haq (Pakistan), Caputo and Tang (UK), and Naumann (US) show that JMO has succeeded in attracting authors from multiple regions. This internationalisation reflects the bibliographic coupling results (Figs. 8–9), where Australia remained the hub but strong linkages with Asia, North America, and Europe emerged. Thematically, leading authors cluster around three core domains: leadership and HRM (Härtel, Ayoko, Brunetto, Haar), sustainability and governance (Galbreath, Khan), and newer workplace dynamics and organisational behaviour streams (De Clercq, Haq). These align closely with the dominant keyword clusters identified in Fig. 10.

While Table 8 highlights the role of individuals, institutional ecosystems provide the structural support for such contributions. To assess whether JMO’s growth reflects the efforts of a few star authors or broader academic communities, it is necessary to examine institutional productivity.

Table 8.

The 40 most productive and influential institutions in JMO

Abbreviations are available in Table 7.

Institutional patterns confirm JMO’s Australasian foundation, with Griffith University (40 papers, 1,340 citations, H = 18) leading, followed by the University of Queensland (33 papers, 804 citations) and Queensland University of Technology (29 papers, 469 citations). These institutions have played a central role in sustaining JMO’s identity as the official ANZAM journal, providing a steady pipeline of research across leadership, HRM, and organisational studies. Auckland University of Technology (27 papers, 1,112 citations, C/P = 41.2) stands out for its higher citation efficiency, reflecting influential contributions in digital work and applied psychology. Massey University (17 papers, 893 citations, C/P = 52.5) also demonstrates exceptional impact per paper, primarily due to Brougham and Haar’s contributions. The Australian National University (C/P = 58.5, 10 papers) exemplifies another model: lower volume but disproportionately high influence, reflecting targeted contributions in governance and sustainability. In contrast, larger institutions such as RMIT (27 papers, C/P = 10.1) or Western Sydney (17 papers, C/P = 8.6) reveal high productivity but limited citation reach, suggesting breadth rather than influence.

Beyond Australasia, Brock University (Canada, 18 papers, 361 citations) has risen to prominence, largely reflecting De Clercq’s productivity, while Xiamen University (China, 9 papers, 166 citations) and Harbin Institute of Technology (9 papers, 134 citations) illustrate the growing role of Chinese institutions. European universities such as University of Trento (9 papers) and University Jaume I (7 papers, C/P = 29.4) also signal diversification, though their contributions remain peripheral compared to the Australasian core. Overall, the institutional data confirm that JMO’s visibility is still disproportionately anchored in a small cluster of Australian and New Zealand universities, but international nodes are beginning to reshape its global footprint.

To place these patterns in a broader perspective, it is necessary to examine country-level contributions, which reveal how national research systems and scholarly traditions shape JMO’s influence. Table 9 presents the most productive countries in JMO. Country-level analysis reinforces JMO’s Australasian anchoring but also highlights a striking divergence between volume and impact. Australia leads in total publications (370, 34% of JMO’s output), reflecting its role as host country, yet the United States surpasses Australia in citations (3,529 vs. 3,454) despite producing less than half the volume (173 papers). This disparity shows that US-based contributions achieve far higher citation efficiency (20.4 per paper vs. Australia’s 9.3). New Zealand demonstrates even greater efficiency, with 115 papers generating 2,328 citations (20.2 per paper) and the highest per capita impact (443 citations per million inhabitants), underscoring the global resonance of contributions from scholars such as Brougham, Haar, and Pavlovich.

Table 9.

The most productive and influential countries in JMO

Abbreviations are available in Table 7 except for: P/Po and C/Po = Papers and cites per million inhabitants.

China (112 papers, 2,045 citations) emerges as the fastest-growing contributor in the last decade (101 of its papers in D3). Its per-paper impact (18.3) is competitive with Western benchmarks, reflecting its growing strength in HRM, leadership, and organisational behaviour. The UK (80 papers, 1,647 citations, 20.6 per paper) and Taiwan (71 papers, 1,345 citations, 18.9 per paper) illustrate consistent mid-tier contributors, while Spain (C/P = 24.1) and Finland (C/P = 21.7) highlight smaller but influential research communities.

Notably, several emerging economies demonstrate outsized influence relative to scale. Pakistan (28 papers, 935 citations, 33.4 per paper), UAE (12 papers, 694 citations, 57.8 per paper), and Sweden (8 papers, 413 citations, 51.6 per paper) achieve world-class citation efficiencies, largely through focused contributions in leadership, ethics, and sustainability. By contrast, countries such as India (20 papers, 519 citations) and Japan (7 papers, 31 citations) remain under-integrated into JMO’s thematic niches, with low per-paper impact.

When we look at Tables 7–9 collectively, it reveals that JMO’s scholarly community is anchored in a strong but regionally concentrated author and institutional base, complemented by an increasingly diverse set of international contributors. At the author level, a handful of highly cited individuals (e.g., Brougham, Galbreath, De Clercq) account for disproportionate impact. At the institutional level, Australian and New Zealand universities dominate, but high-impact nodes in Canada, China, and selected European institutions are expanding JMO’s reach. At the country level, while Australia provides the volume, the United States and New Zealand provide the greatest influence per paper, and emerging economies such as Pakistan and UAE show the potential of targeted, high-impact research. These findings connect with the earlier analyses in Table 2 and with the later analyses presented in Figs. 6–9, confirming that JMO’s global influence has been shaped less by uniform productivity and more by concentrated networks and breakthrough contributions. The challenge ahead lies in reducing dependence on a narrow set of authors and institutions, broadening its international author base, and consolidating thematic niches in leadership, HRM, and sustainability into a more cohesive and durable identity.

Synthesizing these layers of authorship, institutional, and country-level analysis reveals a distinctive duality in JMO’s structure. Its intellectual production remains concentrated within established Australasian institutions that sustain methodological and disciplinary continuity, yet its citation base and author collaborations increasingly link with diverse international communities. This configuration positions JMO as an intermediary platform that balances institutional continuity with boundary-spanning openness, an orientation typical of journals occupying semi-core positions within global knowledge networks (Whitley, Reference Whitley2000). Such a pattern underscores JMO’s function as a translational conduit between regional and global knowledge systems.

Viewed through the lens of Bourdieu’s notion of ‘scientific capital’ (Bourdieu, Reference Bourdieu1988) and Abbott’s perspective on ‘professional systems’ (Abbott, Reference Abbott2010), this semi-core configuration reflects JMO’s evolving strategy of relational visibility within the global management research field. Rather than competing directly with elite, highly central outlets, JMO consolidates influence by accumulating symbolic capital, through citation linkages, regional legitimacy, and cross-national collaborations, that enables it to act as a mediating arena between established and emerging research communities. This position carries strategic advantages that allows JMO to translate regionally grounded scholarship into globally relevant debates, while cultivating an inclusive author network that strengthens its institutional legitimacy. Sustaining this balance of local credibility and global recognition will be central to JMO’s future growth within the stratified ecology of management journals

Annual distribution of papers by countries and institutions

Table 10 provides a longitudinal view of JMO’s output across countries and institutions, highlighting both its Australasian foundation and its gradual internationalization. At the country level, Australia dominates with 370 papers, maintaining consistent output since the early 2000s. Yet while volume remains high, its relative share has declined as other countries have expanded. The United States, initially marginal, became a regular contributor after 2007, now averaging 10–20 papers annually. Despite fewer publications, its higher per-paper citation rate (Table 9) confirms that US contributions are selective and strategically aligned with high-impact themes such as leadership and HRM.

Table 10.

Annual number of papers classified by top countries and institutions

Abbreviations: R = Rank; TP = Total publications; Q1 = Number of documents (TP) between 1995 and 1999; Q2 = TP between 2000 and 2004; 05–24 = Annual number of documents published between 2005 and 2024.

New Zealand illustrates another distinctive pattern: modest output (115 papers) but steady contributions across all decades, with disproportionate global influence through landmark works such as Brougham’s STARA paper. China represents the most dramatic change: virtually absent before 2010, it has become one of the largest contributors in the last decade, culminating in 23 papers in 2024. This increase reflects both China’s expanding management research capacity and JMO’s growing role as a bridge between Western and Asia-Pacific scholarship. Other countries such as the UK, Taiwan, and Spain show steady mid-level contributions, while emerging economies like Pakistan and Turkey have increased participation since 2015, mirroring their rising citation influence. By contrast, India and Japan remain underrepresented, with limited integration into JMO’s thematic clusters.

Institutional patterns reinforce this picture. Griffith University (40 papers), University of Queensland (33), and QUT (29) remain the backbone of JMO, with sustained contributions across decades. Auckland University of Technology (27 papers) demonstrates consistent participation with relatively high citation efficiency, while Monash (23) and RMIT (27) illustrate the continuity of Australia’s institutional ecosystem. Brock University (18 papers), in contrast, reflects JMO’s international diversification, its visibility is almost entirely driven by De Clercq’s authorship in the last decade, showing how internationalisation often relies on individual rather than institutional presence.

Taken together, the evidence indicates that JMO’s trajectory has shifted from regional concentration (1995–2004) to international diversification (2005–2015), and in the past decade, to broader global participation with strong growth from Asia, particularly China and Pakistan. However, the journal’s influence still depends on a limited set of institutions and high-performing authors, echoing earlier findings from Tables 7–9 and Table 2. The challenge going forward is not just sustaining international participation but ensuring that newer contributors match the global impact historically driven by Australasian and US-based networks.

International collaboration patterns in JMO

Building on the country – and institution-level distribution in Tables 8–10, Fig. 3 highlights the collaborative networks that underpin JMO’s global visibility.

Figure 3.

Country collaboration map in JMO.

The map makes clear that while JMO has broadened its reach in terms of authorship, its collaborative backbone remains anchored in Australia. The most frequent partnerships are with the UK (24 co-authored papers) and New Zealand (19), reflecting both historical ties within the Commonwealth and the close integration of Australasian scholarship. The Australia–USA and Australia–China collaborations (17 each) further underscore the journal’s dual strategy of engaging with established Western management research hubs and rapidly growing Asian research communities. Interestingly, China–USA collaboration (18) also emerges as a key axis independent of Australia, suggesting that JMO is beginning to attract scholarship at the intersection of two of the world’s largest research systems. However, the map also reveals unevenness: collaboration lines are concentrated among a handful of countries, with limited cross-linkages across Europe, South America, Africa, or the Middle East. This reflects JMO’s partial globalization, expanding geographically, but still reliant on a narrow set of bilateral partnerships.

Placed alongside Table 10, the map illustrates a critical tension: while publication counts show a widening international base, collaboration patterns remain clustered around Australia and a few strategic partners. This concentration helps explain both the journal’s citation strength (via high-impact co-authorship with the USA, UK, and China) and its vulnerabilities, as dependence on a limited network risks constraining broader integration into global management research. Going forward, JMO’s international standing will likely hinge on its ability to expand these collaborative ties beyond its traditional Australasian core into more diverse and less represented regions.

Figure 4.

Co-citation of journals cited in JMO: minimum citation threshold of 40 and 100 links (Web of Science 2007–2024).