Scientometric Study of the Progress and Development of e-Government Research During the Period 2000–2012

Information Technology for Development

Volumn 22, Issue 1, 2016, Pages 36-74

  Rodríguez Bolívar, Manuel Pedro ^a   Alcaide Muñoz, Laura ^a   López Hernández, Antonio M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GRANADA   (Spain)

Author keywords

developing vs. developed countries; e government research; future research; scientometric study

Indexed keywords

DEVELOPING COUNTRIES; PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION;

DEVELOPED COUNTRIES; DEVELOPED ECONOMIES; E-GOVERNMENT RESEARCH; INTERNATIONAL JOURNALS; NEW INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES; POLITICAL PROCESS; PUBLIC SECTOR MANAGEMENT; SCIENTOMETRICS;

E-GOVERNMENT;

EID: 84955758053     PISSN: 02681102     EISSN: 15540170     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/02681102.2014.927340     Document Type: Article

References (122)

1. T.B.Andersen,, J.S.Bentzen,, C.J.L.Dalgaard,, & P.Selaya, (2011). Does the internet reduce corruption? Evidence from U.S. States and across countries. World Bank Economic Review, 25(3), 387–417. doi: 10.1093/wber/lhr025
2. S.Andersson,, & P.M.Heywood, (2009). The politics of perception: Use and abuse of transparency international's approach to measuring corruption. Political Studies, 57(4), 746–767. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9248.2008.00758.x
3. S.E.Atkins, (1988). Subject trends in library and information science research 1975–1984. Library Trends, 36(4), 633–658.
4. M.T.Bailey, (1992). Do physicists use case studies? thoughts on public administration research. Public Administration Review, 52(1), 47–55. doi: 10.2307/976545
5. F.Bannister, & R.Connolly, (2012). Forward to the past: Lessons for the future of e-government from the story so far. Information Polity, 17(3–4), 211–226.
6. J.C.Bertot,, P.T.Jaeger,, & J.M.Grimes, (2010). Using ICTs to create a culture of transparency: E-government and social media as openness and anti-corruption tools for societies. Government Information Quarterly, 27(3), 264–271. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2010.03.001
7. J.C.Bertot,, P.T.Jaeger,, & D.Hansen, (2012). The impact of policies on government social media usage: Issues, challenges, and recommendations. Government Information Quarterly, 29(1), 30–40. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2011.04.004
8. R.D.Bingham,, & W.M.Bowen, (1994). Mainstream public administration over time: A topical content analysis of public administration review. Public Administration Review, 54(2), 204–208. doi: 10.2307/976531
9. A.Breuer, (2008). The problematic relation between direct democracy and accountability in Latin America: Evidence from the Bolivian case. Bulletin of Latin American Research, 27(1), 1–23. doi: 10.1111/j.1470-9856.2007.00254.x
10. A.Burns,, J.Burgess,, T.Highfield,, L.Kirchhoff,, & T.Nicolai, (2011). Mapping the Australian networked public sphere. Social Science Computer Review, 29(3), 277–287. doi: 10.1177/0894439310382507
11. C.Caba,, M.P.Rodríguez,, & A.M.López, (2008). E-government process and incentives for online public financial information. Online Information Review, 32(3), 379–400. doi: 10.1108/14684520810889682
12. M.C.Caba Pérez,, M.P.Rodríguez Bolívar,, & A.M.López Hernández, (2010). Transparency and e-government in developing countries. The case of Latin-American municipalities. Included in Citizens and e-Government: Evaluating Policy and Management, Hershey, PA: IGI Global (included in Book Citation Index) (pp. 158–183).
13. D.J.Calista,, & J.Melitski, (2007). E-government and e-governance: Converging constructs of public sector information and communications technologies. Public Administration Quarterly, 31(1), 87–120.
14. G.M.Cejudo, (2008). Explaining change in the Mexican public sector: The limits of New Public Management. International Review of Administrative Science, 74(1), 111–127. doi: 10.1177/0020852307085737
15. A.Chadwick, (2006). Internet politics: States, citizens and new communication technologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
16. A.Chadwick, (2011). Explaining the failure of an online citizen engagement initiative: The role of internal institutional variables. Journal of Information Technology and Politics, 8(1), 21–40. doi: 10.1080/19331681.2010.507999
17. H.S.Chan,, & K.W.Chow, (2007). Public management policy and practice in western China: Metapolicy, tacit knowledge, and implications for management innovation transfer. American Review of Public Administration, 37(4), 479–497. doi: 10.1177/0275074006297552
18. Y.N.Che,, H.M.Che,, W.Huang,, & R.K.H.Ching, (2005). E-government strategies in developed and developing countries: An implementation framework and case study. Journal of Global Information Management, 14(1), 23–46.
19. Y.H.Cho,, & B.-D.Choi, (2004). E-government to combat corruption: The case of Seoul metropolitan government. International Journal of Public Administration, 27(10), 719–735. doi: 10.1081/PAD-200029114
20. M.Cocosila,, A.Serenko,, & O.Turel, (2011). Exploring the management information systems discipline: A scientometric study of ICIS, PACIS, and ASAC. Scientometrics, 87(1), 1–16. doi: 10.1007/s11192-010-0331-4
21. A.Cordella,, & C.M.Bonina, (2012). A public value perspective for ICT enabled public sector reforms: A theoretical reflection. Government Information Quarterly, 29(4), 512–520. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2012.03.004
22. A.Cordella,, & F.Iannacci, (2010). Information systems in the public sector: The e-government enactment framework. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 19(1), 52–66. doi: 10.1016/j.jsis.2010.01.001
23. I.Corrêa,, & M.V.Claussen, (2011). Políticas de transparencia en la administración pública brasileña. Revista CLAD. Reforma y Democracia, 51, 129–152.
24. D.Coursey,, & D.F.Norris, (2008). Models of e-government: Are they correct? An empirical assessment. Public Administration Review, 68(3), 523–536. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2008.00888.x
25. S.S.Dawes, (2010). Stewardship and usefulness: Policy principles for information-based transparency. Government Information Quarterly, 27(4), 377–383. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2010.07.001
26. S.S.Dawes,, T.A.Pardo,, & A.M.Cresswell, (2004). Designing electronic government information access programs: A holistic approach. Government Information Quarterly, 21(1), 3–23. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2003.11.001
27. G.Delemaza,, & C.Ochsenius, (2010). Redes de participación institucional y gobernanza democrática local. El caso de los presupuestos participativos en Chile. Revista CLAD. Reforma y Democracia, 46, 215–246.
28. P.Dunleavy,, H.Margetts,, S.Bastow,, & J.Tinkler, (2006). New Public Management is dead – long live digital-era governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(3), 467–494. doi: 10.1093/jopart/mui057
29. J.Edelenbos,, E.H.Klijn,, & B.Steijn, (2011). Managers in governance networks: How to reach good outcomes? International Public Management Journal, 14(4), 420–444. doi: 10.1080/10967494.2011.656055
30. E.Erkut, (2002). Measuring Canadian business school research output and impact. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 19(2), 97–123. doi: 10.1111/j.1936-4490.2002.tb00674.x
31. J.P.Forrester,, & S.S.Watson, (1994). An assessment of public administration journals: The perspective of editors and editorial board members. Public Administration Review, 54(5), 474–482. doi: 10.2307/976433
32. D.Fraser, (2000). QSR Nvivo. NUDIST Vivo. Reference Guide. Malaysia. QSR International Pty. Ltd. Melbourne Australia.
33. S.Ganapati,, & C.G.Reddick, (2012). Open e-government in U.S. state governments: Survey evidence from Chief Information Officers. Government Information Quarterly, 29(2), 115–122. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2011.09.006
34. E.Garfield, (1972). Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation. Science, 178(60), 471–479. doi: 10.1126/science.178.4060.471
35. J.R.Gil-García,, & I.J.Martinez-Moyano, (2007). Understanding the evolution of e-government: The influence of systems of rules on public sector dynamics. Government Information Quarterly, 24(2), 266–290. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2006.04.005
36. A.Grönlund, (2010). Ten years of e-government: The end of history and a new beginning. EGOV, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 6228, 13–24. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-14799-9_2
37. A.Grönlund,, & A.Anderson, (2006, September 4–8). E-Gov research quality improvements since 2003: More rigor, but research (perhaps) redefined. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference, EGOV 2006, Kraków, Poland, (Vol. 4084, pp.1–12). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
38. P.W.Hart,, & J.T.Sommerfeld, (1998). Relationship between growth in gross domestic product (GDP) and growth in the chemical engineering literature in five different countries. Scientometrics, 42(3), 299–311. doi: 10.1007/BF02458373
39. R.Heeks,, & S.Bailur, (2007). Analyzing e-government research: Perspectives, philosophies, theories, methods, and practice. Government Information Quarterly, 24(1), 243–265. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2006.06.005
40. R.Heeks,, & C.Stanforth, (2007). Understanding e-government project trajectories from an actor-network perspective. European Journal of Information Systems, 16, 165–177. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000676
41. C.W.Holsapple, (2008). The pulse of multiparticipant systems. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 18(4), 333–343. doi: 10.1080/10919390802453617
42. S.Horsburgh,, S.Goldfinch,, & R.Gauld, (2011). Is public trust in government associated with trust in e-government? Social Science Computer Review, 29(2), 232–241. doi: 10.1177/0894439310368130
43. H.-H.Huang,, & J.S.C.Hsu, (2005). An evaluation of publication productivity in information systems: 1999 to 2003. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 15, 555–564.
44. International Statistical Institute. (2012). ISI Developing Countries (in 2012). Retrieved July 8, 2013, from http://www.isi-web.org/component/content/article/5-root/root/577-developing2012
45. P.T.Jaeger, (2005). Deliberative democracy and the conceptual foundations of electronic government. Government Information Quarterly, 22(4), 702–719. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2006.01.012
46. P.T.Jaeger, (2007). Information policy, information access, and democratic participation: The national and international implications of the Bush administration's information politics. Government Information Quarterly, 24(4), 840–859. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2007.01.004
47. P.T.Jaeger,, & J.C.Bertot, (2010). Transparency and technological change: Ensuring equal and sustained public access to government information. Government Information Quarterly, 27(4), 371–376. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2010.05.003
48. L.A.Joia, (2008). Developing government to government enterprises in Brazil: A heuristic model drawn from multiple case studies. International Journal of Information Management, 24(2), 147–166. doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2003.12.013
49. P.Julnes,, & D.Johnson, (2011). Strengthening efforts to engage the Hispanic community in citizen-driven governance: An assessment of efforts in Utah. Public Administration Review, 71(2), 221–231. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02333.x
50. J.B.Justice,, J.Melitski,, & D.L.Smith, (2006). E-government as an instrument of fiscal accountability and responsiveness: Do the best practitioners employ the best practices? American Review of Public Administration, 36, 301–322. doi: 10.1177/0275074005283797
51. R.Ketzler,, & K.F.Zimmerman, (2013). A citation-analysis of economic research institutes. Scientometrics, 95(3), 1095–1112. doi: 10.1007/s11192-012-0850-2
52. S.Kim,, H.J.Kim,, & L.Heejin, (2009). An institutional analysis of an e-government system for anti-corruption: The case of OPEN. Government Information Quarterly, 26(1), 42–50. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2008.09.002
53. D.A.King, (2004). The scientific impact of nations: What different countries get for their research spending. Nature, 430(6997), 311–316. doi: 10.1038/430311a
54. E.H.Klijn,, J.Edelenbos,, & B.Steijn, (2010). Trust in governance networks: Its impacts on outcomes. Administration and Society, 42(2), 193–221.
55. K.Krippendorff, (1980). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
56. Z.Lan,, & K.K.Anders, (2000). A paradigmatic view of contemporary public administration research: An empirical test. Administration and Society, 32(2), 138–165. doi: 10.1177/00953990022019380
57. L.-C.Lee,, P.-H.Lin,, Y.-W.Chuang,, & Y.-Y.Lee, (2011). Research output and economic productivity: A Ganger causality test. Scientometrics, 89(2), 465–478. doi: 10.1007/s11192-011-0476-9
58. J.S.Legge, Jr., & J.Devore, (1987). Measuring productivity in U.S. public administration and public affairs programs 1981–1985. Administration and Society, 19(2), 147–156. doi: 10.1177/009539978701900201
59. M.Li, (2011). Online government advisory service innovation through intelligent support systems. Information and Management, 48, 27–36. doi: 10.1016/j.im.2010.12.002
60. U.Löfstedt, (2005). E-government – assessment of current research and some proposals for future direction. International Journal of Public Information Systems, 1(1), 39–52.
61. L.F.Luna-Reyes,, & J.R.Gil-García, (2011). Using institutional theory and dynamic similation to understand complex e-government phenomena. Government Information Quarterly, 28(3), 329–345. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2010.08.007
62. L.F.Luna-Reyes,, J.R.Gil-García,, & C.B.Cruz, (2007). Collaborative digital government in Mexico: Some lessons from federal Web-based interorganizational information integration initiatives. Government Information Quarterly, 24(4), 808–826. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2007.04.003
63. L.Ma,, J.Chung,, & S.Thorson, (2005). E-government in China: Bringing economic development through administrative reform. Government Information Quarterly, 22, 20–37. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2004.10.001
64. R.Madaglia, (2012). eParticipation research. Moving characterization forward (2006–2011). Government Information Quarterly, 29, 346–360. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2012.02.010
65. A.Manoharan, (2012). A study of the determinants of county e-government in the United States. The American Review of Public Administration, 43(2), 159–178. doi: 10.1177/0275074012437876
66. M.R.Martins, (1995). Size of municipalities, efficiency, and citizens’ participation: A cross-European perspective. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 13, 441–458. doi: 10.1068/c130441
67. T.A.Maxwell, (2003). The public need to know: Emergencies, government organizations, and public information policies. Government Information Quarterly, 20(3), 233–258. doi: 10.1016/S0740-624X(03)00039-X
68. H.E.McCurdy,, & R.E.Cleary, (1984). A call for appropriate methods. Public Administration Review, 44(6), 49–55. doi: 10.2307/975661
69. M.Medoff, (2003). Collaboration and the quality of economics research. Labour Economics, 10(5), 597–608. doi: 10.1016/S0927-5371(03)00072-1
70. A.J.Meier,, D.Curtin,, & M.Hillebrandt, (2012). Open government: Connecting vision and voice. International Review of Administrative Science, 78(1), 10–29. doi: 10.1177/0020852311429533
71. A.J.Meijer,, S.Grimmelikhuijsen,, & G.J.Brandsma, (2012). Communities of public services support citizens engage in social learning in peer-to-peer networks. Government Information Quarterly, 29(1), 21–29. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2011.06.004
72. A.J.Meijer,, & M.Thaens, (2010). Alignment 2.0: Strategic use of new internet technologies in government. Government Information Quarterly, 27(2), 113–121. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2009.12.001
73. H.Moe, (2011). Mapping the Norwegian blogosphere: Methodological challenges in internationalizing internet research. Social Science Computer Review, 29(3), 313–326. doi: 10.1177/0894439310382511
74. M.J.Moon,, & D.F.Norris, (2005). Does managerial orientation matter? The adoption of reinventing government and e-government at the municipal level. Information Systems Journal, 15, 43–60. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2575.2005.00185.x
75. J.Q.Morgan, (2010). Governance, policy innovation, and local economic development in North Carolina. Policy Studies Journal, 38(4), 679–702. doi: 10.1111/j.1541-0072.2010.00379.x
76. D.D.Navarra, (2010). The architecture of Global ICT Programs: A case study of e-governance in Jordan. Information Technology for Development, 16(2), 128–140. doi: 10.1080/02681101003741681
77. D.Neufeld,, Y.Fang,, & S.Huff, (2007). The IS identity crisis. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 19, 447–464.
78. J.H.Nord,, & G.D.Nord, (1995). MIS research: Journal status and analysis. Information and Management, 29(1), 29–42. doi: 10.1016/0378-7206(95)00010-T
79. S.P.Osborne, (2010). The new public governance? Emerging perspectives on the theory and practices of public governance. Abingdon: Routledge.
80. Osborne, S. P., & Brown, L. (2011). Innovation, public policy and public services delivery in the UK: The word that would be king? Public Administration, 89(4), 1335–1350
81. N.A.Patsopoulos,, A.A.Analatos,, & J.P.A.Ioannidis, (2006). Origin and funding of the most frequently cited papers in medicine: Database analysis. BMJ, 332(7549), 1061–1064. doi: 10.1136/bmj.38768.420139.80
82. K.Paul, (2004). Business and society and business ethics journals: A citation and impact analysis. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 35(2), 103–117. doi: 10.3138/jsp.35.2.103
83. W.Peres,, & M.Hilbert, (Eds.). (2010). Information societies in Latin America and the Caribbean: Development of technologies and technologies for development. Santiago de Chile: Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC Books).
84. J.B.Pick,, M.Garcia-Murillo,, & C.J.Navarrete, (2007). Information technology research in Latin America: Editorial introduction to the special issue. Information Technology for Development, 13(3), 207–216. doi: 10.1002/itdj.20070
85. W.Pieterson,, & W.Ebbers, (2008). The use of service channels by citizens in the Netherlands: Implications for multi-channel management. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 74(1), 95–110. doi: 10.1177/0020852307085736
86. V.Pina,, L.Torres,, & S.Royo, (2007). Are ICTs improving transparency and accountability in the EU regional and local governments? An empirical study. Public Administration, 85(2), 449–472. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9299.2007.00654.x
87. V.Pina,, L.Torres,, & S.Royo, (2009). E-government evolution in EU local government: A comparative perspective. Online Information Review, 33(6), 1137–1168. doi: 10.1108/14684520911011052
88. V.Pina,, L.Torres,, & S.Royo, (2010). Is e-government promoting convergence towards more accountable local governments? International Public Management Journal, 13(4), 350–380. doi: 10.1080/10967494.2010.524834
89. T.Plümber,, & C.M.Radaelli, (2004). Publish or perish? Publications and citations of Italian political scientists in international political science journals, 1990–2002. Journal of European Public Policy, 11(6), 1112–1127. doi: 10.1080/1350176042000298138
90. C.G.Reddick, (2009). The adoption of centralized customer service systems: A survey of local governments. Government Information Quarterly, 26(1), 219–226. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2008.03.005
91. C.G.Reddick, (2011). Customer relationship management (CRM) technology and organizational change: Evidence for the bureaucratic and e-government paradigms. Government Information Quarterly, 28(3), 346–353. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2010.08.005
92. C.G.Reddick,, & M.Turner, (2012). Channel choice and public service delivery in Canada: Comparing e-government to traditional service delivery. Government Information Quarterly, 29(1), 1–11. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2011.03.005
93. M.P.Rodríguez,, L.Alcaide,, & A.M.López, (2010). Trends of e-government research. Contextualization and research opportunities. The International Journal of Digital Accounting Research, 10, 87–111. doi: 10.4192/1577-8517-v10_4
94. M.P.Rodríguez,, C.Caba,, & A.M.López, (2006). Cultural contexts and governmental digital reporting. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 72(2), 269–290. doi: 10.1177/0020852306064614
95. M.P.Rodríguez,, C.Caba,, & A.M.López, (2007). E-government and public financial reporting. The case of Spanish regional government. American Review of Public Administration, 37(2), 142–177. doi: 10.1177/0275074006293193
96. M.P.Rodríguez Bolívar,, L.Alcaide Muñoz,, & A.M.López Hernández, (2012). Studying e-government: Research methodologies, data compilation techniques and future outlook. Academia, Revista Latinoamericana de Administración, 51, 79–95.
97. M.C.Rossel, (2010). Tercer sector y prestación de servicios sociales públicos: la “caja negra” de la participación ciudadana en la gestión pública y su impacto en los regímenes de bienestar corporativos. Revista CLAD. Reforma y Democracia, 47, 191–236.
98. W.M.Seng,, S.Jackson,, & G.Philip, (2010). Cultural issues in developing e-government in Malaysia. Behaviour & Information Technology, 29(4), 423–432. doi: 10.1080/01449290903300931
99. A.Serenko,, & N.Bontis, (2009). A citation-based ranking of the top business ethics scholarly journals. International Journal of Business Governance and Ethics, 4(4), 390–399. doi: 10.1504/IJBGE.2009.023790
100. A.Serenko,, N.Bontis,, L.Booker,, K.Sadeddin,, & T.Hardie, (2010). A scientometric analysis of knowledge management and intellectual capital academic literature (1994–2008). Journal of Knowledge Management, 14(1), 3–23. doi: 10.1108/13673271011015534
101. A.Serenko,, & C.Jiao, (2012). Investigating information systems research in Canada. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 29(1), 3–24. doi: 10.1002/cjas.214
102. C.Serrano,, M.Rueda,, & P.Portillo, (2009). Factors influencing e-disclosure in local public administration. Environment and planning C: Government and Policy, 27(2), 355–378. doi: 10.1068/c07116r
103. M.Sharifi,, & A.Manian, (2010). The study of the success indicators for pre-implementation activities of Iran's e-government development projects. Government Information Quarterly, 27, 63–69. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2009.04.006
104. D.C.Shim,, & T.H.Eom, (2008). E-government and anti-corruption: Empirical analysis of international data. International Journal of Public Administration, 31(1), 298–316. doi: 10.1080/01900690701590553
105. K.Siau,, & Y.Long, (2006). Using social development lenses to understand e-government development. Journal of Global Information Management, 14, 47–62. doi: 10.4018/jgim.2006010103
106. A.Sidorova,, N.Evangelopoulos,, J.S.Valacich,, & T.Ramakrishnan, (2008). Uncovering the intellectual core of the information systems discipline. MIS Quarterly, 32(3), 467–482.
107. D.Straub, (2006). The value of scientometric studies: An introduction to a debate on IS as a reference discipline. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 7(5), 241–245.
108. J.van Tatenhove,, J.Edelenbos,, & P.J.Klok, (2010). Power and interactive policy-making: A comparative study of power and influence in 8 interactive projects in the Netherlands. Public Administration, 88(3), 609–626. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9299.2010.01829.x
109. United Nations. (2003). World public sector report 2003. E-government at the crossroads. New York: United Nations.
110. United Nations. (2012). United nations e-government survey 2012. E-government for the people. New York: United Nations.
111. A.J.A.M.Van Deursen,, & J.A.G.M.van Dijk, (2009). Improving digital skills for the use of online public information and services. Government Information Quarterly, 26(2), 33–340. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2008.11.002
112. D.Varela, (2013). The contribution of ISI indexing to a paper's citations: results of a natural experiment. European Political Science, 12(2), 245–253. doi: 10.1057/eps.2012.29
113. B.C.Velicu, (2012). Creating a citizen centric administration through eGovernment in Romania. Romanian Journal of Political Science, 12(2), 103–129.
114. P.Vinkler, (2008). Correlation between the structure of scientific research, scientometric indicators and GDP in EU and non-EU countries. Scientometrics, 74, 237–254. doi: 10.1007/s11192-008-0215-z
115. L.Waltman,, E.Yan,, & N.J.Van Eck, (2011). A recursive field-normalized bibliometric performance indicator: An application to the field of library and information science. Scientometrics, 89(1), 301–314. doi: 10.1007/s11192-011-0449-z
116. J.Webster,, & R.T.Watson, (2002). Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. MIS Quarterly, 26(2), 13–23.
117. V.Weerakkody,, M.Janssen,, & Y.K.Dwivedi, (2011). Transformational change and business process reengineering (BPR): Lessons from the British and Dutch public sector. Government Information Quarterly, 28(3), 320–328. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2010.07.010
118. Y.Welp, (2008). América Latina en la era del gobierno electrónico. Análisis de la introducción de nuevas tecnologías para la mejora de la democracia y el gobierno. Revista CLAD Reforma y Democracia, 41, 42–57.
119. S.Xue, (2005). Internet policy and diffusion in China, Malaysia and Singapore. Journal of Information Science, 31(3), 238–250. doi: 10.1177/0165551505052472
120. E.Yan,, & Q.Zhu, (2009). Hyperlink analysis for government websites of Chinese provincial capitals. Scientometrics, 76(2), 315–326. doi: 10.1007/s11192-007-1923-5
121. M.Yildiz, (2007). E-government research: Reviewing the literature, limitations, and ways forward. Government Information Quarterly, 24(3), 646–665. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2007.01.002
122. R.K.Yin, (2009). Case study research. Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.