Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34934847›Full record

ReviewHeliyon2021

The development of internet financial reporting publications: A concise of bibliometric analysis.

Yunika Murdayanti, Mohd Noor Azli Ali Khan

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Heliyon, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Bibliometric Analysis of Granger Causality Studies.Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Yunika MurdayantiAzman Hashim International Business School, University of Technology, Malaysia.
Mohd Noor Azli Ali KhanAzman Hashim International Business School, University of Technology, Malaysia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This paper identifies the main areas and the development of the field of internet financial reporting publications and to suggest future research directions. Internet use for corporate financial reporting represents a voluntary approach to consolidate printed sustainability reports which have increasingly been published by large companies in recent years. Using a bibliometric analysis, this paper examined a sample of 246 studies from Web of Science, Scopus, Emerald, Springer, Proquest, Ebsco, and Science Direct databases and only accepted articles and review paper were published in open access to identify research activity on internet financial reporting between 1998 until 2020. This review provides the most influential articles and authors based on their citations and publications as well as their importance within the network through network visualization, overlay visualization, and density visualization. The co-authorship analysis shows 208 authors who have connected each other, the co-organization analysis resulted 76 organizations which write article about internet financial reporting and co-occurrence analysis of keywords, the results found that 669 keywords divided into 11 clusters. The analysis which uses bibliometric analysis develops the status of internet financial reporting, this is a research field in a precise way through the visualization of emerging trend and currently focused on topics. The results of analysis also have recommended some variables which can be used in further research, and it is very helpful to find knowledge basis and detect the future research directions in this area.

Indexed as

Bibliometric analysisInternet financial reportingVOSviewer

Identifiers

PMID34934847
PMCPMC8654794

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.