Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35530441›Full record

ReviewEnvironment, development and sustainability2023

A bibliometric analysis of circular economy in the fields of business and economics: towards more action-oriented research.

Miha Dominko, Kaja Primc, Renata Slabe-Erker, Barbara Kalar

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Environment, development and sustainability, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. 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

4 authors.

Miha DominkoInstitute for Economic Research, Kardeljeva ploščad 17, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Kaja PrimcInstitute for Economic Research, Kardeljeva ploščad 17, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Renata Slabe-ErkerInstitute for Economic Research, Kardeljeva ploščad 17, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Barbara KalarInstitute for Economic Research, Kardeljeva ploščad 17, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this paper, we reveal and systemize development trends in the scientific field of the circular economy (CE). Our results imply that academic research on the CE focuses heavily on theoretical conceptualizations and technological solutions. However, these advancements alone are unlikely to help prevent from ecological collapse. With this observation in mind, we explore the potential held by a more relational, action-based approach to support a faster and more efficient transition from the linear economy to the CE. A useful combination of several bibliometric techniques gave us valuable references for re-focusing this area of science to adopt action-oriented research where a group of stakeholders collaborates and co-creates solutions. An analysis of valuable action-oriented CE studies reveals that scholars focus on the techno-economic aspect, where they develop ways to create optimal circular material and energy flows and co-design processes for products/services, as well as the organizational aspect, where they study self-sustainable community networks and participatory governance. We identify three research streams that would benefit from such action-oriented research for a faster practical implementation: sustainable supply chains, waste management, and business model innovation. A practice-based agenda is proposed to stimulate the scientific community to conduct future research on a CE that better supports companies.

Indexed as

Bibliometric analysisCircular economyClosed-loop systemFuture researchSustainability

Identifiers

PMID35530441
PMCPMC9059686

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.