SynthesisEnvironmental science and pollution research international2021
A bibliometric analysis of comparative research on the evolution of international and Chinese green supply chain research hotspots and frontiers.
Synthesis in Environmental science and pollution research international, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Improving the greenness of enterprise supply chains by designing government subsidy mechanisms: based on prospect theory and evolutionary games.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
- Research on the Mechanism of Government-Industry-University-Institute Collaborative Innovation in Green Technology Based on Game-Based Cellular Automata.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Green supply chain (GSC), one of the most vital sub-topics of sustainable development, indicates people provoking on the rationality of business practices and resource consumption patterns. Under the background of economy globalization, developing countries, especially China, severely affected by green barriers became the global focus. A systematic review of articles about GSC which published in leading journals of Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC) and China Knowledge Resource Infrastructure (CNKI) is proposed for exploring publishing trends, the distribution of authors and journals, research topics, and hotspots and predicting frontiers by utilizing VOSviewer, Sci2, and CiteSpace. The results show that (1) there are differences in the attention of GSC between international and Chinese academia. (2) "Green" is referred to environmental friendly practices in international academia. Scholars advocate to promote management to strengthen cooperation among GSC members and boost technology investment to improve the comprehensive performance; however, specific practices such as "low-carbon," "emission reduction," "recycling," and "remanufacture" are referred to environmental friendly behaviors in Chinese academia. Scholars expect to avoid enterprises' short-term profit compression relying on government subsidies and make contracts to share environment protection cost equally out for ensuring GSC stable operation. (3) Exploring collaboration among GSC members using complex operation research and artificial intelligence will be international research frontier. Relevant papers are to provide Chinese research with merely innovation in methodology. Besides, the "government-enterprise-university-research institute-customer-economy" management mode proposed by development countries like China will enrich the international GSC research scope, leading international GSC knowledge structure to change. The contribution of this study is to afford reference for future research on GSC.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33389578What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.