Practical relevance of theory-driven supply chain management research

Investigating the relationships between uncertainty types and risk management strategies in cross-border e-commerce logistics

Purpose

Due to its fast growth, cross-border e-commerce (CBEC) is becoming a popular internationalization model, especially in those destination markets with impressive e-commerce development like China. However, CBEC also brings new logistics challenges and uncertainty. This paper aims to understand how companies cope with logistics uncertainty in this field and whether the different types of uncertainty influence the risk management strategies adopted to face them.

Design/methodology/approach

A survey targeting online exporters to China and third-party forwarding logistics service providers (3PFLs) is conducted. A structural equation model (SEM) analysis is performed to test the possible relationship between the adopted risk management strategies and the types of uncertainty. The type, industry and size of the company, as well as the distance between the company's home country and China, are used as control variables in the study. Survey results are enriched via interviews with some of the respondents.

Findings

The risk management strategies adopted are dependent on the type of logistics uncertainty that the companies face and, to a minor extent, on the industry the company operates in. Conversely, no significant influence is exerted by other types of control factors, i.e. home country, company size or company type.

Originality/value

The paper investigates logistics uncertainty and risk management approaches in the novel context of CBEC. A systematic review of relevant sources of uncertainty is offered to help both scholars and practitioners understand the current complexities of CBEC. From a theoretical perspective, the paper models the investigated concepts in light of the contingency approach. From a practical perspective, results can be of interest since the list of proposed items can support risk identification and evaluation while the interviews with managers can provide insights on risk management practices.

Guidelines for establishing practical relevance in logistics and supply chain management research

Purpose

Rigor and practical relevance are the foundations for logistics and supply chain management (LSCM) as an applied discipline. Whereas there are well-founded criteria for establishing methodological rigor, researchers must provide their own credible logic as to why their papers can influence practice. Accordingly, this paper aims to develop guidelines for establishing practical relevance in research papers.

Design/methodology/approach

A literature review of LSCM, marketing, operations management and management journals forms the foundation for these guidelines.

Findings

Relevance criteria are identified; research should be problem-driven, timely and important, and findings should be implementable, nonobvious, novel and not too costly. Measures for researchers demonstrating the fulfillment of these criteria are identified as practitioner input, gray literature, funding, practitioner involvement and feedback. Researchers should also clearly articulate both problem relevance and the relevance of their findings.

Research limitations/implications

A lack of practical relevance is among the reasons for the rejection of papers by LSCM journals, but researchers can overcome this obstacle using these guidelines.

Practical implications

At a metalevel, this paper contributes to research with greater practical relevance.

Originality/value

Practical relevance is emphasized in the editorials of LSCM journals but has not yet been fully conceptualized from the authors' perspective.

An evaluation of Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar citations in operations management

Purpose

Ongoing deliberation about how research productivity should be measured is exacerbated by extensive disparity between the number of citations for scholarly works reported by commercial academic search engines and Google Scholar (GS), the premier web crawling service for discovering research citations. Disparities identified in citation comparison studies have also led to disagreement about the value of the higher number of citations for social sciences and business scholarly articles consistently reported by GS. The purpose of this paper is to extend previous database citation comparison studies by manually analyzing a sample of unique GS citations to a leading operations management journal (i.e. citations found only in GS and not the commercial search engines) to reveal just where these additional citations are coming from.

Design/methodology/approach

In addition to comparing citation counts for the three databases, unique GS citation data for the sample of journal articles was manually captured and reviewed. The authors’ approach provides a much more in-depth examination of the provenance of GS citations than is found in previous studies.

Findings

The findings suggest that concerns about the value of unique GS citations may not be warranted since the document types for the unique GS citing documents identified in the analysis are dominated by familiar scholarly formats. Predominantly authentic and validated journal publications, dissertations, conference papers, and book and book chapters accounted for the large majority of the unique GS citations analyzed.

Practical implications

The study lends further credence to contentions that the use of citations reported in GS is appropriate for evaluating research impact in disciplines where other formats beyond the English-language journal article are valued.

Originality/value

Developing a more informed understanding of the provenance of unique GS citations in the authors’ field is important because many scholars not only aspire to publish in elite journals with high impact factors based on citation counts provided by commercial databases to demonstrate quality, but also report the larger number of citations for their publications that are reported by GS to demonstrate impact. The in-depth manual analysis suggests that GS provides a more nuanced and comprehensive representation of research impact and international scope than the commercial databases.