Editorial

Citation

Kumar, P., Shetty, K., Fitzsimmons, J.R. and Hayes, S.G. (2022), "Editorial", Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 197-220. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFMM-03-2022-290

The Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: a bibliometric overview since its inception

1. Introduction

The Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management (JFMM) calls for novel and imperative research in fashion management. The journal was first published in 1996 to provide insights and viewpoints to address key management and marketing issues facing the fashion production and retailing sectors. Along with publishing new concepts, the journal also provides a regular review of trade, production, consumption and employment trends, identifies best managerial and marketing techniques internationally and advocates their wider implementation in the industry. The journal is currently helmed by Editor-in-Chief Dr Steven Hayes from The University of Manchester. According to the Journal Citation Reports of the Web of Science Core Collection of Clarivate Analytics, the journal has a two-year impact factor of 3.329 and a five-year impact factor of 4.012 which confirms the increasing influence of the journal over the years.

Given that JFMM has just had its 25 years anniversary, it seems appropriate to do a retrospective review of the publication (Schwert, 1993). As a result, the goal of this research is to provide a comprehensive bibliometric overview of JFMM dating back to its inception in order to identify the journal's key players in terms of authors, institutions, nations and documents. In addition, the project will look at how JFMM compares to other journals in terms of citations and identify the most popular topics. This article uses co-citation analysis (Small, 1973), co-occurrence of author keywords (Wang et al., 2018), in addition to bibliographic coupling (Kessler, 1963). The visualization of similarities (VOS) viewer program is used to create these maps (Van Eck and Waltman, 2010).

2. Methodology

The aim of this study is to visualize the status of the JFMM at its 25th anniversary. This study deploys bibliometric methodology, a research area of library and information sciences to apply quantitative methods to bibliometric information of published documents (Pritchard, 1969). In a journal, this approach reveals the trends in publications, citations, authors, keywords, institutions and countries. Recent studies in marketing have deployed bibliometric methods either to study evolution of journals (i.e. Donthu et al., 2021 for the Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics; Paul and Bhukya, 2021 for the International Journal of Consumer Studies; Martínez-López et al., 2018 for the European Journal of Marketing) or research fields (e.g. Husain et al., 2021 for luxury brands; Fouroudi et al., 2020 for service failure literature; Kumar and Polonsky, 2017 for green consumption).

This study uses the Scopus database to extract bibliometric data of the articles published in the JFMM since inception to 2021. For analysis, this study has two parts, namely profiling analysis and graphical analysis. In profiling analysis, this study analyses bibliometric data (i.e. documents, journals, authors, institutions and countries) using relevant bibliometric indicators such as frequency of publications across years that measures productivity and citations across years, citations per year, citations per paper, weighted citations and citation threshold that measure influence (Kumar and Polonsky, 2017; Ding et al., 2014; Svensson, 2010). The number of documents published every year since inception presents the trends in productivity (Figure 1) and coupling them with number of annual citations presents the impact of the journal and its documents (Table 1). Total citation and citation per year present most-impactful documents in the journal (Table 2), and citation counts for the cited documents present the foundation of fashion marketing (Table 3). Authors' total documents and sum of citations of their papers published in JFMM present most contributing authors in the journal (Table 4). Tables 5 and 6 present similar analyses for institutions and countries, respectively.

Through graphical analysis, this study applies co-citation analysis using VOS Viewer software (Van Eck and Waltman, 2010) to analyze bibliometric data (i.e. cited documents, cited journals, coupling of institutions, coupling of countries and co-occurrence of author keywords in abstracts). Using the data, VOS viewer produces graphical maps for co-citations, bibliographic coupling and co-occurrence of author keywords. Co-citation appears when two documents/journals/authors receive a citation from the same third document/journal/author, bibliographic coupling occurs when two documents/authors/institutions/countries cite the same third document/author/institution/country and co-occurrence of author keywords analyses keywords in documents to reveal groups of keywords that appear together (Small, 1973; Kessler, 1963). The graphical maps were produced for the time period 1996–2020 to present the holistic insights as well as across three time-periods, namely 1996–2004, 2005–2012 and 2013–2020 to understand the changes across the time periods. The graphical maps for cited journals and documents present diversity in management domains that serve as foundation for JFMM publications. Bibliographic coupling of institutions and countries present collaboration across the world. Co-occurrence of author keywords of documents published presents focus of JFMM publications and diverse interests in research themes across time-periods.

3. Results

3.1 Part 1: profiling analysis of JFMM

Between 1996 and 2021, JFMM has published 825 documents. In April 2021, the journal has received 13,421 citations. The citations per document ratio is 16.27 and the h-index is 47 [1].

3.1.1 Annual number of documents published in JFMM

JFMM has published many articles since inception. Figure 1 presents the annual evolution of the number of publications. During the initial years (except 1996), the journal published 20–30 articles that increased to 35–45 articles after 2005. Though this number decreased to 28–32 articles, this increased from 2016 onwards to 30–40 articles that steeply rose to 62 articles in 2020.

3.1.2 Annual citation structure

A close view on the citation structure analysis with several citation thresholds is presented in Table 1. Similar to other journals (i.e. EJM), the documents in initial years in the journal did not receive significant number of citations but the documents received considerable citations since 2001 and ≥100 as per April 2021. In recent years, 29 documents published in 2016 received ≥50 citations and 9 documents received ≥10 citations, indicating the evolved popularity and significance of JFMM.

3.1.3 The 50 most-cited documents in JFMM

Table 2 presents the 50 most-cited JFMM documents out of 825 documents published in JFMM between 1996 and 2020. The two most-cited documents of the journal were published in 2006 by Catrin Joergens on ethical fashion to assess whether it was a myth or the future trend and by Liz Barnes and Gaynor Lea-Greenwood reviewing fast fashion to shape the research agenda. These documents received more than 150 citations.

3.1.4 The most-cited documents in JFMM

Out of 29,609 documents that were cited in JFMM articles between 1996 and 2020, the most-cited publications are presented in Table 3. The most-cited publication is the work of Joergens (2006) which was published in 2006. While majority of these publications belong to the marketing theme, it is worth noting that many of them belong to the diverse fields of business and management such as organization behavior, psychology, strategy, sustainability and management science.

3.1.5 The most frequently contributing authors in JFMM

Out of 1,180 authors who published in JFMM between 1996 and 2020, Table 4 presents the authors and their details who contributed five or more articles in the journal. Richard M. Jones from the Manchester Metropolitan University UIK is the most-productive author in JFMM, followed by Steven G. Hayes from the Manchester Metropolitan University UK. As the list contains authors from diverse countries and continents, namely Europe (France, Italy and the UK), North America (Canada and the USA) and Asia (Hong Kong and Korea), this indicates the global reception of the journal. The citation pattern of the articles indicates that Liz Barnes, Gaynor Lea Greenwood and Marsha A. Dickson have one article each that received ≥100 citations as per April 2021.

3.1.6 The most frequently contributing institutions in JFMM

The affiliations of the 1,180 authors who published in JFMM were analyzed and Table 5 presents most contributing institutions out of 469 university affiliations. Manchester Metropolitan University UK is the most-productive institution, followed by North Carolina State University USA. As well, 31 affiliations of JFMM publishing authors were non-university and commercial organizations; this indicates popularity of the journal in non-academic institutions as well. The citation pattern of the articles indicates that articles from Manchester Metropolitan University, UK; North Carolina State University, USA and University of Georgia, USA have received ≥100 citations as per April 2021.

3.1.7 The highest contributing countries in JFMM

Table 6 presents an analysis of country of the affiliations of the authors published in JFMM. Out of 53 countries, the USA is the most-contributing country, followed by the UK Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, India, Italy, Portugal and South Korea and Sweden in the ten most-contributing countries show the global dispersion of the journal. The citation pattern of the articles indicates that articles from the USA, the UK, South Korea, Malaysia and Bosnia and Herzegovina have received ≥100 citations as per April 2021.

3.2 Part 2: graphical analysis of JFMM

3.2.1 Co-citations of the most influential journals in JFMM

First, let us examine co-citation of journals cited in JFMM. Co-citation of journals refers to number of times a pair of journals is cited together in an article (Small, 1973). Out of 131 cited journals in JFMM articles for the 1996–2020 time period, the JFMM, the Journal of Retailing, the Journal of Business Research, the Journal of Consumer Research, the Journal of Marketing and the Clothing and Textile Journal were most predominantly cited. We also compare the co-citation of JFMM-cited journals (a citation threshold of 20) across three time periods: 1996–2004 (Figure 2), 2005–2012 (Figure 3) and 2013–2020 (Figure 4). Four journals that were predominantly cited across the three time periods are the JFMM, the Journal of Retailing, the Journal of Marketing and the Clothing and Textile Journal (Figure 5). While in the 1996–2004 time period, the JFMM articles predominantly cited marketing, business, ethics, management, operations and psychology journals in the later time periods. Recent articles in JFMM (i.e. 2013–2020) cited information science, strategy and sustainability journals as well. This indicates that JFMM has progressively drawn on the knowledge from diverse fields of management and business and thus has broadened its contributions to the wider horizon of knowledge.

3.2.2 Co-citations of the most influential documents in JFMM

Second, let us illustrate the co-citations of the most influential works cited in JFMM. Out of 29,609 cited documents, 37 were cited in 8 JFMM articles or more. Figure 6 presents the co-citation of these 37 most-cited documents with a threshold of 8 citations. The co-citation analysis from VOSviewer identified four clusters of these documents. These clusters indicate the intellectual foundation of JFMM articles and JFMM per se. Cluster 1, denoted in red in the figure relates to fashion perceptions; Cluster 2, denoted in green, relates to fashion and sustainability; Cluster 3, denoted in blue in the figure, relates to consumer engagement and Cluster 4, denoted in yellow in the figure, relates to consumption theory. Cluster 1 is the most dispersed and overlaps with the other three clusters which indicate proximity of fashion perceptions concepts with concepts in the other three clusters. Similarly, the proximity of Clusters 3 and 4 indicates closer association between consumer engagement and consumption theory concepts. The central position of Cluster 4 in the figure shows that consumption theory is a core foundation of JFMM articles which has emerged over time.

3.2.3 Bibliographic coupling of institutions

Third, let us map the most productive institutions that published in JFMM. This examines the bibliographic coupling of institutions where coupling happens when two documents from the different institutions cite the same third document (Kessler, 1963). Figure 7 shows the results of bibliographic coupling of institutions between 1996 and 2021 with a threshold of five documents and minimum link strength of 100. The results indicate universities from the USA, the UK, Korea and Hong Kong as most influential. We also examined the bibliographic coupling of institutions across three time periods: 1996–2004, 2005–2012 and 2013–2021 with a threshold of 5 documents and minimum link strength of 100. In the first time period, USA and UK universities were found as most influential (Figure 8) while universities from Hong Kong added to the list of influential universities in the second time period (Figure 9) and Korean universities in the third time period (Figure 10).

3.2.4 Bibliographic coupling of countries

Fourth, let us map the most productive countries that published in JFMM. This examines the bibliographic coupling of countries. Figure 11 shows the results of bibliographic coupling of countries between 1996 and 2021 with a threshold of 5 documents and minimum link strength of 200. The results indicate universities from USA are the most productive, a country with largest network in the map, followed by the UK. The USA is seen to have influential collaborations with Australia, India, South Korea and the UK, indicating inter-country and inter-continental collaborations. Interestingly, the USA found its collaborators in Australasian countries (Australia, China, Hong Kong, India and South Korea) more than European countries (e.g. Portugal and Turkey), and UK found its collaborators mainly in European countries (e.g. Denmark, France, Germany, Italy and Sweden) as well as American countries (e.g. Brazil).

We also examined the bibliographic coupling of countries across three time periods, namely 1996–2004, 2005–2012 and 2013–2020 with a threshold of 5 documents and minimum link strength of 100. In all of the three time periods, the USA and the UK were found as most influential countries (Figure 12–14). The USA shared strongest bond with South Korea in the second time period, while the bond strengthened with Australia, India and the UK in the third time period. The UK strengthened the bond with Australia in the third time period. In the third time period, the USA was found to collaborate mainly with Australasian countries (i.e. Australia, China, Hong Kong, India, New Zealand and South Korea) and the UK was found to collaborate mainly with European and American countries (Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Italy, Spain and Sweden). However, inter-country collaborations and inter-continental collaborations were observed from the beginning in JFMM.

3.2.5 Co-occurrence of author keywords

Next, let us analyze the co-occurrence of author keywords for documents published in JFMM between 1996 and 2021 with a threshold of 10 occurrences (Figure 15). Fashion, consumer behavior and clothing were the most common keywords with largest networks. Other significant keywords were country specific (i.e. USA and China) and industry specific (i.e. textile industry and garment industry).

We also examined the co-occurrence of author keywords across three time-periods, namely 1996–2004 (Figure 16), 2005–2012 (Figure 17) and 2013–2021 (Figure 18) with a threshold of five documents. In the first and second time periods, fashion, clothing and consumer behavior were the most common keywords with the largest networks, while fashion and consumer behavior were the most common keywords in the third time period. Industry- and country-specific keywords were identified in the first and second time periods. While retailing, globalization, supply chain management and Internet were other popular keywords in first time period, the author keywords added in the second time period were electronic commerce, ethics and women. The other popular author keywords in the third time period were branding, luxury, social media and sustainability. This shows a broadening focus of JFMM over the time periods, reflecting the transition from manufacturing to consumption within the most-contributing nation

4. Conclusion

The JFMM is now 25 years old. To recognize this journey, this study presents a bibliometric evaluation of the journal, the leading trends and changes in these trends. The study presents a holistic overview of JFMM's journey. From the results, we conclude that the annual number of documents published in JFMM demonstrates an uneven increasing trend and the highest impact of JFMM publications is up to 150 citations approximately while most of the JFMM publications gained up to 25 citations approximately, indicating moderate impact as against leading marketing journals such as 1% articles of European Journal of Marketing having >250 citations (Martínez-López et al., 2018). The most of the impactful JFMM publications are not the oldest published but between 2006 and 2009 and some of them were published in 2012, indicating popularity of JFMM's recent articles. JFMM publications derive their foundations not only from fashion and marketing publications (peer-reviewed journals and books, both) but also from organization behavior, psychology and sustainability while sustainability is the new brick in the foundation. Similar to other journals in marketing and allied business domains, most of the highly contributing authors in JFMM are affiliated to the USA and European countries (e.g. France and UK), JFMM has substantial representation from Asian countries (e.g. Hong Kong, South Korea and India), indicating more widespread acceptance of JFMM worldwide. As well, JFMM remains one of the top choices for authors affiliated to QS-200-ranked universities worldwide. Unlike other marketing journals, JFMM articles observed cross-country, cross-continental and multi-institute collaboration in its publications since the beginning, and Asian universities have actively published in JFMM since the beginning. Initially, JFMM publications focused mainly on fashion and clothing, themes related to supply chain and Internet were added later, and themes such as sustainability, collaborative consumption, materialism and corporate social responsibility were added recently, indicating relevance of JFMM in diverse fields such as business management research. Thus, JFMM has secured a unique positioning and wider, faster acknowledgment in the academic community worldwide.

Figures

Figure 1

Annual number of documents published in JFMM

Figure 2

Co-citation of cited journals for time period 1996–2004

Figure 3

Co-citation of cited journals for time period 2005–2012

Figure 4

Co-citation of cited journals for time period 2013–2020

Figure 5

Co-citation of cited journals for time period 1996–2020

Figure 6

Co-citation of cited documents for time-period 1996–2020

Figure 7

Bibliographic coupling of institutions that publish in JFMM for time period 1996–2020

Figure 8

Bibliographic coupling of institutions that publish in JFMM for time period 1996–2004

Figure 9

Bibliographic coupling of institutions that publish in JFMM for time period 2005–2012

Figure 10

Bibliographic coupling of institutions that publish in JFMM for time period 2013–2021

Figure 11

Bibliographic coupling of countries that publish in JFMM for time period 1996–2020

Figure 12

Bibliographic coupling of countries that publish in JFMM for time period 1996–2004

Figure 13

Bibliographic coupling of countries that publish in JFMM for time period 2005–2012

Figure 14

Bibliographic coupling of countries that publish in JFMM for time period 2013–2020

Figure 15

Co-occurrence of author keywords of documents published in JFMM for 1996–2021 time period

Figure 16

Co-occurrence of author keywords of documents published in JFMM for 1996–2004 time period

Figure 17

Co-occurrence of author keywords of documents published in JFMM for 2005–2012 time period

Figure 18

Co-occurrence of author keywords of documents published in JFMM for 2013–2021 time period

Table 1

Annual citation structure of JFMM 1996–2021

Year	Total papers	≥250	≥200	≥150	≥100	≥50	≥25	≥10
2021	48	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
2020	63	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
2019	39	0	0	0	0	0	1	9
2018	35	0	0	0	0	0	1	8
2017	33	0	0	0	0	0	3	11
2016	29	0	0	0	0	29	29	17
2015	29	0	0	0	0	2	9	18
2014	28	0	0	0	0	0	4	16
2013	33	0	0	0	0	2	12	25
2012	31	0	0	0	1	6	17	24
2011	32	0	0	0	0	3	9	21
2010	40	0	0	0	0	2	11	24
2009	40	0	0	0	2	3	10	20
2008	38	0	0	0	1	5	15	26
2007	42	0	0	0	0	2	10	26
2006	36	0	0	2	5	9	16	23
2005	46	0	0	0	0	8	12	23
2004	32	0	0	0	0	2	11	21
2003	32	0	0	0	1	6	12	19
2002	30	0	0	0	0	5	8	18
2001	25	0	0	0	1	1	5	11
2000	27	0	0	0	0	0	1	7
1999	27	0	0	0	0	0	4	9
1998	23	0	0	0	0	0	0	3
1997	29	0	0	0	0	0	1	2
1996	6	0	0	0	0	0	1	2
Total	825	0	0	2	11	85	202	383
Percentage (%)	100.00	0.00	0.00	0.24	1.33	10.30	24.48	46.42

Table 2

50 most-cited documents published in JFMM 1996–2021

R	TC	Title	Authors	Year	C/Y
1	186	Ethical fashion: myth or future trend?	Joergens C.	2006	12.40
2	177	Fast fashioning the supply chain: shaping the research agenda	Barnes L., Lea-Greenwood G.	2006	11.80
3	142	Purchasing global luxury brands among young Korean consumers	Park H.-J., Rabolt N.J., Sook K.J.	2008	10.92
4	137	A structural model of fashion-oriented impulse buying behavior	Park E.J., Kim E.Y., Forney J.C.	2006	9.13
5	133	Luxury consumption factors	Husic M., Cicic M.	2009	11.08
6	128	Gender differences in cognitive and affective impulse buying	Coley A., Burgess B.	2003	7.11
7	124	Consumer likelihood of purchasing organic cotton apparel: influence of attitudes and self-identity	Hustvedt G., Dickson M.A.	2009	10.33
8	124	3D body scanning systems with application to the apparel industry	Istook C.L., Hwang S.-J.	2001	6.20
9	123	Buyer behaviour for fast fashion	Bruce M., Daly L.	2006	8.20
10	104	UK Generation Y male fashion consciousness	Bakewell C., Mitchell V.-W., Rothwell M.	2006	6.93
11	100	Effects of brand love, personality and image on word of mouth: the case of fashion brands among young consumers	Rageh Ismail A., Spinelli G.	2012	11.11
12	94	A consumer shopping channel extension model: attitude shift toward the online store	Kim J., Park J.	2005	5.88
13	91	Some psychological motivations for fashion opinion leadership and fashion opinion seeking	Bertrandias L., Goldsmith R.E.	2006	6.07
14	90	Predicting purchase intention of a controversial luxury apparel product	Summer T.A., Belleau B.D., Xu Y.	2006	6.00
15	88	Body measurement techniques: comparing 3D body-scanning and anthropometric methods for apparel applications	Simmons K.P., Istook C.L.	2003	4.89
16	86	Luxury customer value	Choo H.J., Moon H., Kim H., Yoon N.	2012	9.56
17	84	Are fashion-conscious consumers more likely to adopt eco-friendly clothing?	Gam H.J.	2011	8.40
18	83	Profiling fashion innovators. A study of self-concept, impulse buying and Internet purchase intent	Phau I., Lo C.-C.	2004	4.88
19	82	Consumer profiles of apparel product involvement and values	Kim H.-S.	2005	5.13
20	81	Luxury fashion consumption and Generation Y consumers: self, brand consciousness, and consumption motivations	Giovannini S., Xu Y., Thomas J.	2015	13.50
21	81	Hedonic and utilitarian shopping motivations of fashion leadership	Kang J., Park-Poaps H.	2010	7.36
22	80	Consumer shopping value, satisfaction, and loyalty for retail apparel brands	Carpenter J.M., Fairhurst A.	2005	5.00
23	80	Consumer shopping value for retail brands	Carpenter J.M., Moore M., Fairhurst A.E.	2005	5.00
24	79	The impact of ethical fashion on consumer purchase behavior	Shen B., Wang Y., Lo C.K.Y., Shum M.	2012	8.78
25	79	Japanese consumers' need for uniqueness: effects on brand perceptions and purchase intention	Knight D.K., Kim E.Y.	2007	5.64
26	78	The consumption side of sustainable fashion supply chain: understanding fashion consumer eco-fashion consumption decision	Chan T., Wong C.W.Y.	2012	8.67
27	78	A consumer-driven model for mass customization in the apparel market	Anderson-Connell L.J., Ulrich P.V., Brannon E.L.	2002	4.11
28	74	Gender, fashion innovativeness and opinion leadership, and need for touch: effects on multi-channel choice and touch/non-touch preference in clothing shopping	Cho S., Workman J.	2011	7.40
29	73	Consumer co-design of apparel for mass customization	Ulrich P.V., Anderson-Connell L.J., Wu W.	2003	4.06
30	69	Apparel shopping on the internet: information availability on US apparel merchant Web sites	Park J.H., Stoel L.	2002	3.63
31	68	Collaborative consumption: business model opportunities and barriers for fashion libraries	Pedersen E.R.G., Netter S.	2015	11.33
32	68	Knowledge sharing among green fashion communities online: lessons for the sustainable supply chain	Cervellon M.-C., Wernerfelt A.-S.	2012	7.56
33	68	Determinants of purchasing intention for fashion luxury goods in the Italian market: a laddering approach	Amatulli C., Guido G.	2011	6.80
34	67	An analysis of factors affecting fashion opinion leadership and fashion opinion seeking	Goldsmith R.E., Clark R.A.	2008	5.15
35	65	Marketing capabilities and firm performance in fashion retailing	Moore M., Fairhurst A.	2003	3.61
36	64	Consumer-based brand equity: comparisons among Americans and South Koreans in the USA and South Koreans in Korea	Jung J., Sung E.-Y.	2008	4.92
37	64	Telepresence and fantasy in online apparel shopping experience	Song K.S., Fiore A.M., Park J.	2007	4.57
38	63	What is sustainable fashion?	Henninger C.E., Alevizou P.J., Oates C.J.	2016	12.60
39	63	Generation X, baby boomers, and swing: marketing fair trade apparel	Littrell M.A., Ma Y.J., Halepete J.	2005	3.94
40	62	Young Generation Y consumers' perceptions of sustainability in the apparel industry	Hill J., Lee H.-H.	2012	6.89
41	61	An exploratory study of the decision processes of fast versus slow fashion consumers	Barnes L., Lea-Greenwood G., Zarley Watson M., Yan R.-N.	2013	7.63
42	61	E-atmosphere, emotional, cognitive, and behavioral responses	Kim H., Lennon S.J.	2010	5.55
43	60	Are US consumers ready to adopt mobile technology for fashion goods?: an integrated theoretical approach	Kim J., Ma Y.J., Park J.	2009	5.00
44	60	Perceptions of countries as producers of consumer goods: a T-shirt study in China	Ahmed S.A., d'Astous A.	2004	3.53
45	59	Fashion innovativeness, fashion diffusion and brand sensitivity among adolescents	Beaudoin P., Lachance M.J., Robitaille J.	2003	3.28
46	58	Age, gender and national factors in fashion consumption	Rocha M.A.V., Hammond L., Hawkins D.H.	2005	3.63
47	56	Buying behaviour of “tweenage” girls and key societal communicating factors influencing their purchasing of fashion clothing	Grant I.J., Stephen G.R.	2005	3.50
48	56	Exploring differences between Internet apparel purchasers, browsers and non-purchasers	Lee M., Johnson K.K.P.	2002	2.95
49	55	Supply chain influences on new product development in fashion clothing	Tyler D., Heeley J., Bhamra T.	2006	3.67
50	55	College students' attitudes toward shopping online for apparel products. Exploring a rural versus urban campus	Xu Y., Paulins V.A.	2005	3.44

Note(s): R = rank; TC = total citations and C/Y = citation per year

Table 3

The most-cited publications in JFMM documents 1996–2020

R	Cited reference	Type	Citations	Total link strength
1	Joergens, C. (2006). Ethical fashion: myth or future trend? Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 10 (3), 360-371	A	21	32
2	Vigneron, F. and Johnson, L.W. (2004). Measuring perceptions of brand luxury. Journal of Brand Management, 11, 484-506	A	19	60
3	Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behaviour. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 50 (2), 179-211	A	17	31
4	Husic, M. and Cicic, M. (2009). Luxury consumption factors. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 13 (2), 231-245	A	16	37
5	Keller, K.L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring and managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 57 (1), 1-22	A	16	47
6	Aaker, J.L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34 (3), 347-356	A	15	28
7	Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behaviour. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliff	B	14	19
8	Mehrabian, A. and Russell, J.A. (1974). An approach to environmental psychology. MIT press	B	14	21
9	Belk, R.W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (2), 139-168	A	13	28
10	Nueno, J.L. and Quelch, J.A. (1998). The mass marketing of luxury. Business Horizons, 41 (6), 61-68	A	13	43
11	O'cass, A. (2004). Fashion clothing consumption: antecedents and consequences of fashion clothing involvement. European Journal of Marketing, 38 (7), 869-882	A	13	22
12	Niinimaki, K. (2010). Eco-clothing, consumer identity and ideology. Sustainable Development, 18 (3), 150-162	A	12	23
13	Babin, B.J., Darden, W.R. and Griffin. M. (1994). Work and/or fun: measuring hedonic and utilitarian shopping value. Journal of Consumer Research, 20 (4), 644-656	A	11	31
14	Barnes. L. and Lea-greenwood, G. (2006). Fast fashioning the supply chain: shaping the research agenda. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 10 (3), 259-271	A	11	9
15	Tynan, C., Mckechnie, S. and Chhuon, C. (2010). Co-creating value for luxury brands. Journal of Business Research, 63 (11), 1156-1163	A	11	31
16	Zaichkowsky, J.L. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of Consumer Research, 12 (3), 341-352	A	11	19
17	Kang, J. and Park-poaps, H. (2010). Hedonic and utilitarian shopping motivations of fashion leadership. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 14 (2), 312-328	A	10	27
18	Bulter, S.M. and Francis, S. (1997). The effects of environmental attitudes on apparel purchasing behaviour. Clothing and Textile Research Journal, 15 (2), 76-85	A	9	13
19	Cachon, G.P. and Swinney, R. (2011). The value of fast fashion: quick response, enhanced design and strategic consumer behaviour. Management Science, 57 (4), 778-795	A	9	17
20	Christopher M., Lowson, R. and Peck, H. (2004). Creating agile supply chains in the fashion industry. International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 32 (8), 367-376	A	9	7
21	Fletcher, K. (2008). Sustainable fashion and textiles: design journeys. Earthscan, London	B	9	4
22	Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and their brands: developing relationship theory in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (4), 343-373	A	9	21
23	Hirschman, E.C. and Holbrook, M.B. (1982). Hedonic consumption: emerging concepts, methods and propositions. Journal of Marketing, 46 (3), 92-101	A	9	24
24	Holbrook, M.B. and Hirschman, E.C. (1982). The experiential aspects of consumption: consumer fantasies, feelings and fun. Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (2), 132-140	A	9	16
25	Phau. I. and Prendergast, G. (2000). Consuming luxury brands: the relevance of the rarity principle. Journal of Brand Management, 8, 122-138	A	9	27
26	Rowley, J. (2009). Online branding strategies of UK fashion retailers. Internet Research, 19 (3), 348-369	A	9	10
27	Wong, N.Y. and Ahuvia, A.C. (1998). Personal taste and family face: luxury consumption in Confucian and western societies. Psychology and Marketing, 15 (5), 423-441	A	9	16
28	Arnold, M.J. and Reynolds, K.E. (2003). Hedonic shopping motivations. Journal of Retailing, 79 (2), 77-95	A	8	10
29	Arrigo, E. (2013). Corporate responsibility management in fast fashion companies: the gap inc. case. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 17 (2), 175-189	A	8	14
30	Donovan, R.J. and Rossiter, J.R. (1982). Store atmosphere: an environmental psychology approach. Journal of Retailing, 58 (1), 34-57	A	8	18
31	Evans, M., (1989). Consumer behaviour towards fashion. European Journal of Marketing, 23 (7), 7-16	A	8	12
32	Gam, H.J. (2011). Are fashion-conscious consumers more likely to adopt eco-friendly clothing? Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 15 (2), 178-193	A	8	6
33	Hollebeek, L.D. (2011). Demystifying customer brand engagement: exploring the loyalty nexus, Journal of Marketing Management, 27 (7-8), 785-807	A	8	18
34	Kaplan, A.M. and Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of social media. Business Horizons, 53 (1), 59-68	A	8	9
35	Kim, A.J. and Ko, E. (2012). Do social media marketing activities enhance customer equity? An empirical study of luxury fashion brand. Journal of Business Research, 65 (10), 1480-1486	A	8	21
36	Yoo, B. and Donthu, N. (2001). Developing and validating a multidimensional customer-based brand equity scale. Journal of Business Research, 52 (1), 1-14	A	8	24
37	Zeithaml, V.A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a means-end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52 (3), 2-22	A	8	13

Note(s): R = rank; A = article and B = book

Table 4

Most-contributing authors in JFMM

R	Author	≥100	≥50	≥25	≥10	≥5	≥1	University	Country	TP	w-TP	TC	w-TC	C/P
1	Jones R.M.	0	0	0	3	4	13	Manchester Metropolitan University	UK	28	23.50	72	38.80	2.57
2	Hayes S.G.	0	0	1	3	4	6	Manchester Metropolitan University	UK	21	16.75	88	40.50	4.19
3	Johnson K.K.P.	0	1	3	7	9	14	University of Minnesota	USA	14	5.70	203	86.60	14.50
4	Jin B.E.	0	0	5	8	8	10	North Carolina State University	USA	12	6.16	235	128.70	19.58
5=	Taylor G.	0	0	0	2	4	6	Hong Kong Polytechnic University	Hong Kong	10	6.92	41	18.10	4.10
5=	Ha-Brookshire J.E.	0	0	0	1	3	6	University of Missouri	USA	10	5.00	35	17.00	3.81
5=	Kim J.	0	3	3	5	6	7	University of North Texas	USA	10	4.00	247	112.20	26.12
6	Moore C.M.	0	0	2	6	6	9	Heriot-Watt University	UK	9	5.16	173	88.00	19.22
6	Phau I.	0	2	5	8	8	8	Curtin University	Australia	10	3.72	269	108.00	28.80
10=	Barnes L.	1	2	2	3	4	6	Manchester Metropolitan University	UK	8	3.33	263	114.10	32.88
10=	Cassill N.L.	0	0	1	2	5	7	North Carolina State University	USA	8	2.66	63	21.10	7.88
10=	Hodges N.N.	0	0	2	5	6	7	University of North Carolina	USA	8	3.25	131	53	16.38
10=	Kim H.-S.	0	1	6	6	6	8	University of Delaware	USA	8	5.17	250	171.80	31.25
10=	Lea Greenwood G.	1	2	2	2	2	5	Manchester Metropolitan University	UK	8	4.58	246	108.30	30.75
10=	Lee Y.	0	0	1	5	6	8	University of North Carolina	USA	8	3.03	108	39.80	13.50
10=	Lennon S.J.	0	1	5	6	7	8	Indiana University	USA	8	3.42	235	106.60	29.38
10=	Park J.H.	0	4	4	5	7	8	Ohio State University	USA	8	3.20	320	134.00	40.00
18=	Goldsmith R.E.	0	2	4	7	7	7	Florida State University	USA	7	3.50	290	145.50	41.43
18=	Kim H.	0	2	4	7	7	7	Seoul National University	Korea	7	3.08	262	108.30	37.43
18=	Otieno R.	0	0	1	3	4	5	Manchester Metropolitan University	UK	7	4.50	73	37.70	10.43
18=	Ruckman J.-Y.E.	0	0	0	0	2	6	Leeds University	UK	7	3.33	30	16.70	4.29
22=	Curran L.	0	0	0	0	3	5	Toulouse Business School	France	6	5.00	24	21.00	4.00
22=	Jeffrey M.	0	0	0	0	1	4	Manchester Metropolitan University	UK	6	3.75	16	5.50	2.67
22=	Kang J.-Y.M.	0	0	1	3	6	6	University of Hawaii	USA	6	3.28	72	38.30	12.00
22=	Karpova E.E.	0	0	0	5	6	6	Iowa State University	USA	7	2.56	94	32.90	14.22
22=	Kincade D.H.	0	0	1	3	5	6	Virginia Tech	USA	6	2.58	82	38.20	13.67
22=	Leung C.S.	0	0	0	2	4	5	Hong Kong Polytechnic University	Hong Kong	6	2.42	55	21.80	9.17
22=	Littrell M.A.	0	1	3	5	6	6	Iowa State University	USA	6	2.25	160	60.90	26.67
22=	Moore M.M.	0	2	3	4	4	5	North Carolina State University	USA	6	2.25	201	83.70	33.50
22=	Norum P.S.	0	0	1	2	3	6	University of Missouri	USA	6	3.16	65	31.90	10.83
22=	Thomas J.B.	0	0	1	3	5	6	Winthrop University	USA	6	1.83	125	40.30	20.83
22=	Tyler D.	0	1	1	2	3	6	Manchester Metropolitan University	UK	6	3.50	82	31.20	13.67
22=	Wu J.	0	0	3	3	5	6	University of Minnesota	USA	6	1.82	115	38.10	19.17
22=	Xu Y.	0	3	3	3	4	4	North Carolina State University	USA	6	2.33	232	87.50	38.67
35=	Au K.F.	0	0	1	1	3	5	Hong Kong Polytechnic University	Hong Kong	5	2.33	40	15.8	8
35=	Campaniaris C.	0	0	0	0	1	3	George Brown College	Canada	5	2.25	14	3.5	2.8
35=	Chi T.	0	0	0	2	4	5	Washington State University	USA	5	2.33	44	21.8	8.8
35=	Choi T.-M.	0	0	1	4	5	5	Hong Kong Polytechnic University	Hong Kong	5	1.75	104	40.2	20.8
35=	Damhorst M.L.	0	0	2	3	3	3	Iowa State University	USA	5	2.17	72	30.8	14.4
35=	Dickson M.A.	1	1	3	4	4	5	University of Delaware	USA	5	3.00	209	120.5	41.8
35=	Fiore A.M.	0	1	2	4	4	5	Iowa State University	USA	5	2.17	154	60.8	30.8
35=	Guercini S.	0	0	3	3	3	5	University of Florence	Italy	5	4.00	97	79.5	19.4
35=	Henninger C.E.	0	1	1	2	3	4	University of Manchester	UK	5	1.62	89	28.6	17.8
35=	Kilduff P.P.D.	0	0	0	3	5	5	California State Polytechnic University	USA	5	3.00	62	40.5	12.4
35=	Lee S.-E.	0	0	0	4	4	5	Central Michigan University	USA	5	2.08	66	25.8	13.2
35=	McCormick H.	0	1	2	3	4	4	University of Manchester	UK	5	2.25	118	59.0	23.6
35=	Seock Y.-K.	0	0	2	5	5	5	University of Georgia	USA	5	2.33	106	50.2	21.2
35=	Taplin I.M.	0	0	0	2	3	3	North Carolina State University	USA	5	4.50	41	31.0	8.2
35=	Watchravesringkan K.	0	0	1	3	4	4	University of North Carolina	USA	5	1.45	66	19.2	13.2
35=	Yan R.-N.	0	1	1	3	5	5	Colorado State University	USA	5	1.58	107	30.6	21.4
35=	Yu H.	0	0	2	3	4	5	Ryerson University	Canada	5	2.00	86	26.0	17.2

Note(s): R = rank; TP = total paper; w-TP = weighted total paper; TC = total citations; w-TC = weighted total citations and C/P = citations per paper

Table 5

The most contributing institutions in JFMM

R	Institutions	QS	ARWU	≥100	≥50	≥25	≥10	≥5	TP	w-TP	TC	w-TC	C/P
1	Manchester Metropolitan University	–	–	2	3	5	14	18	59	48.30	670	528	11.36
2	North Carolina State University	360	201–300	1	2	3	5	10	40	22.67	573	381.5	13.96
3	Hong Kong Polytechnic University	79	201–300	0	3	7	17	24	40	35.99	601	556	14.80
4	Iowa State University	451–500	201–300	0	2	4	11	14	34	20.92	658	433.25	18.08
5=	University of Missouri	334	151–200	0	1	3	5	8	31	19.00	303	166.5	9.10
5=	University of North Carolina	91	30	0	0	4	13	16	31	19.23	394	247.5	13.15
7=	University of Manchester	45	36	0	2	5	10	14	23	15.37	349	264	15.17
7=	University of Minnesota	111	40	0	0	3	7	11	24	13.33	306	175	13.23
9=	Glasgow Caledonian University	–	–	0	0	3	7	9	19	14.25	280	219	14.74
10=	Florida State University	189	201–300	0	1	3	8	9	18	11.50	400	242	22.22
10=	University of Delaware	–	201–300	0	2	7	9	10	18	11.50	650	407	36.11
10=	University of North Texas	–	401–500	0	1	5	9	11	20	13.58	428	289.33	23.15
13=	Auburn University	–	501–600	0	3	7	8	9	20	12.74	420	312.5	26.31
13=	Seoul National University	31	101–150	0	1	2	9	11	16	6.92	350	151	21.88
15=	Texas A&M University	137	151–200	1	1	2	5	7	15	7.87	245	128	16.33
15=	Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University	273	201–300	0	1	1	4	4	15	7.34	316	155	21.07
17	University of Georgia	202	201–300	1	1	3	8	9	14	8.33	324	240	23.14
18	Louisiana State University	–	301–400	0	2	2	4	6	13	10.00	234	177	18.00
19=	Colorado State University	–	201–300	0	2	2	6	10	12	8.50	223	163	20.27
19=	University of Tennessee	451–500	201–300	0	1	1	2	2	11	4.83	330	143	30.00
21=	California State University	–	–	0	0	0	3	4	9	4.75	69	34	7.67
21=	Copenhagen Business School	54	801–900	0	2	4	9	9	9	5.67	260	167	28.89
21=	Kansas State University	–	401–500	0	0	0	5	5	9	5.83	88	50	9.78
21=	Ryerson University	451–500	901–1000	0	0	2	4	6	10	5.33	118	55	13.11
21=	University of South Carolina	328	301–400	0	2	4	5	7	9	5.50	327	173	36.33
21=	Winthrop University	–	–	0	1	3	4	5	9	6.33	226	116	25.11
27	Oklahoma State University	–	501–600	0	0	3	4	4	8	4.33	205	114	25.63
28=	Curtin University	265	201–300	0	2	5	5	5	9	6.80	254	224	37.3
28=	East Carolina University	–	901–1000	0	0	0	1	1	7	4.83	97	52	13.86
28=	Ohio State University	90	101–150	0	2	5	5	5	8	4.80	300	200.3	41.33
28=	Ohio University	–	601–700	0	1	2	4	4	7	4.33	231	147	33.00
28=	University of Hawaii	–	301–400	0	0	1	3	7	7	4.33	80	49	11.43
28=	Washington State University	360	301–400	0	0	3	3	3	7	3.83	101	50	14.43
34=	Heriot-Watt University	381	701–800	0	0	1	4	5	7	5.25	126	110	21.00
34=	Illinois State University	–	–	0	1	2	2	4	6	3.33	227	146	37.83
34=	Nottingham Trent University	451–500	701–800	0	0	1	3	5	6	3.70	68	53	11.33
34=	Oregon State University	–	201–300	0	0	2	2	2	6	3.17	159	90	26.50
34=	Queensland University of Technology	202	301–400	0	0	0	1	2	8	5.33	36	32	6.00
34=	University of Florence	375	301–400	0	0	2	2	2	6	4.33	94	60	15.67
34=	University of the Arts London	–	–	0	0	0	2	4	6	2.83	54	25	9.00
41=	California State Polytechnic University	–	–	0	0	1	3	4	5	2.83	68	39	13.60
41=	Donghua University	–	501–600	0	0	0	0	1	5	2.00	53	25	10.60
41=	Kent State University	–	501–600	0	0	1	2	4	6	5.50	72	68	14.40
41=	North Carolina A & T State University	–	–	0	0	0	0	1	5	2.17	27	12	5.40
41=	University of Alabama	451–500	301–400	0	0	1	4	4	5	2.50	84	42	16.80
41=	University of Borås	–	–	0	0	0	1	3	5	3.03	27	18	5.40
41=	University of Nebraska	–	201–300	0	0	0	1	2	5	2.50	64	32	12.80
41=	Wageningen University	331	151–200	0	0	0	1	2	5	3.50	49	32	9.80

Note(s): R = rank; TP = total paper; w-TP = weighted total paper; TC = total citations; w-TC = weighted total citations; C/P = citations per paper; ARWU and QS = ranking in the general ARWU and QS university rankings

Table 6

Contributing countries in JFMM

R	Affiliations	≥100	≥50	≥25	≥10	≥5	≥1	TP	w-TP	TC	w-TC
1	The USA	12	63	173	377	480	673	569	338.0	10,130	6135.53
2	The United Kingdom	6	16	37	86	105	168	213	1486.3	3,127	2162.85
3	South Korea	3	9	18	41	47	55	59	28.0	1541	695.67
4	Hong Kong	0	3	8	20	28	40	45	40.0	656	589.33
5	Australia	0	2	10	22	29	40	49	33.0	662	548.42
6	India	0	0	8	18	25	33	36	22.2	473	318.33
7	Italy	0	3	16	18	22	32	36	24.5	676	464.67
8	Canada	0	4	8	16	22	27	30	15.3	573	294.28
9=	Portugal	0	0	0	5	12	16	21	11.0	107	48.00
9=	Sweden	0	0	1	5	8	19	19	12.2	153	126.33
11=	Germany	0	0	1	5	13	17	18	9.9	157	105.95
11=	Spain	0	0	1	5	15	19	27	14.3	167	131.75
13	China	0	0	1	4	9	14	18	8.4	118	52.00
14	France	0	2	2	6	10	12	13	6.7	269	135.00
15	Finland	0	1	7	9	12	12	13	7.0	297	157.00
16	Denmark	0	2	4	9	10	11	11	7.7	269	175.67
17	Brazil	0	1	2	3	3	6	13	6.7	128	79.00
18=	The Netherlands	0	0	2	2	5	8	8	5.5	103	56.00
18=	New Zealand	0	0	1	4	8	8	8	4.8	118	74.50
20=	Bangladesh	0	0	0	1	1	7	7	3.1	22	14.75
20=	Malaysia	1	1	2	2	2	4	8	4.0	149	91.00
22=	Taiwan	0	0	0	2	5	6	6	5.0	55	50.00
22=	Turkey	0	0	1	3	4	7	7	4.1	99	64.50
24=	Belgium	0	0	0	3	5	5	6	3.3	60	30.00
24=	Japan	0	0	0	0	1	4	5	3.0	15	11.00
24=	South Africa	0	0	2	3	3	3	5	4.5	97	97.00
24=	Thailand	0	0	0	1	1	5	5	2.7	54	34.33
28	Iran	0	0	1	2	4	4	4	3.0	69	60.00
29=	Ecuador	0	0	0	0	0	3	4	2.3	7	5.00
29=	Egypt	0	0	0	0	0	2	3	0.9	6	2.00
29=	Greece	0	0	0	3	3	3	3	0.9	48	16.00
29=	Nigeria	0	0	0	0	2	2	3	2.5	6	6.00
29=	Puerto Rico	0	0	0	0	3	3	3	0.9	15	5.00
34=	Bosnia and Herzegovina	1	1	1	1	2	2	2	1.3	142	136.00
34=	Indonesia	0	0	0	0	0	2	2	2.0	5	5.00
34=	Slovenia	0	0	2	2	2	2	2	1.0	64	32.00
34=	Sri Lanka	0	0	0	0	0	0	2	0.6	0	0.00
34=	United Arab Emirates	0	0	1	1	1	4	4	2.5	31	28.16
39=	Albania	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	0.5	1	0.50
39=	Austria	0	0	0	0	1	1	1	0.3	9	2.25
39=	Bolivia	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	0.5	2	1.00
39=	Colombia	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0.5	0	0.00
39=	Cyprus	0	0	0	1	1	1	1	0.5	15	7.50
39=	Ethiopia	0	0	1	1	1	1	2	0.6	28	9.33
39=	Ireland	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	0.5	2	1.00
39=	Kuwait	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	1.0	3	3.00
39=	Lebanon	0	0	0	1	1	1	2	1.5	14	14.00
39=	Monaco	0	1	1	1	1	1	1	1.0	68	68.00
39=	Morocco	0	0	0	0	1	1	1	1.0	5	5.00
39=	Poland	0	0	0	0	0	1	3	2.5	2	1.00
39=	Qatar	0	0	0	0	0	1	2	0.8	2	0.50
39=	Romania	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	0.3	3	1.00
39=	Trinidad and Tobago	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	1.0	1	1.00

Note(s): R = rank; TP = total paper; w-TP = weighted total paper; TC = total citations and w-TC = weighted total citations

Note

1. Source: https://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=22920&tip=sid (accessed 17 April 2021).