Source: own elaboration.
doi.org/10.15198/seeci.2020.51.83-107
RESEARCH
BIBLIOMETRIC STUDY ON DIGITAL REPUTATION AND COLLABORATIVE ECONOMY (2004-2017)
ESTUDIO BIBLIOMÉTRICO SOBRE REPUTACIÓN DIGITAL Y ECONOMÍA COLABORATIVA (2004-2017)
ESTUDO BIBLIOMÊTRICO SOBRE REPUTAÇÃO DIGITAL E ECONÔMIA COLABORATIVA (2004-2017)
Marián Navarro-Beltrá1. Degree in Advertising and Public Relations (2008) from the University of Alicante and Doctor Cum Laude (2013) from the same university. She is currently a professor and researcher at the Catholic University of Murcia (UCAM) in the area of Advertising and Public Relations.
Josep Martínez-Polo1. Professor and researcher at the Catholic University of Murcia (UCAM) in the area of Advertising and Public Relations.
1Catholic University San Antonio Murcia. Spain
ABSTRACT
Digital Trust and reputation are concepts of vital importance for the collaborative consumption sector, since they allow reducing the risk of exchanges between strangers. However, and despite the importance of this economic sector, it seems to be that the intellectual contributions of the communication academy to discourse on collaborative economy are insufficient is. Given this situation, it seems to be appropriate to increase the existing academic literature related to the subject of study, but for this, it is first necessary to identify and know the research already carried out. Therefore, this paper aims at collecting, reviewing and synthesizing the existing scientific production on digital trust and reputation in the field of collaborative consumption and collaborative economy. For this, a bibliometric analysis of the articles related to the subject of study published between 2004 and 2017 in journals indexed in Webs of Science, Scopus and Dialnet is carried out. This work shows that the academic interest in this subject is recent; that the articles are of quality, that they are written mainly in English and that there is no magazine, author, or reference research center. In addition, it could be said that the articles published in journals indexed in JCR are characterized by being written in English, having a greater collaboration than those not indexed, both at the level of authors and institutions, and by having more citations in WOS.
KEY WORDS: Public Relations, trust, reputation, collaborative consumption, sharing economy, bibliometric analysis, digital reputation
RESUMEN
La confianza y la reputación digital son conceptos de vital importancia para el sector del consumo colaborativo, ya que permiten disminuir el riesgo de los intercambios entre desconocidos. Sin embargo, y a pesar de la importancia de este sector económico, parece que las contribuciones intelectuales de la academia de comunicación al discurso sobre la economía colaborativa son insuficientes. Ante esta situación parece conveniente aumentar la literatura académica existente relacionada con el tema de estudio, pero para ello primero es necesario identificar y conocer las investigaciones ya realizadas. Por tanto, con este trabajo se pretende recopilar, revisar y sintetizar la producción científica existente sobre la confianza y la reputación digital en el ámbito del consumo colaborativo y la economía colaborativa. Para ello, se realiza un análisis bibliométrico de los artículos relacionados con el tema de estudio publicados entre 2004 y 2017 en revistas indexadas en Web of Science, Scopus y Dialnet. Este trabajo muestra que el interés académico por esta temática es reciente, que los artículos son de calidad, que están redactados principalmente en inglés y que no existe una revista, un autor, ni un centro de investigación de referencia. Además, se podría afirmar que los artículos publicados en revistas indexadas en JCR se caracterizan por estar redactados en inglés, por tener una mayor colaboración que los no indexados, tanto a nivel de autores como de instituciones, y por contar con más citas en WOS.
PALABRAS CLAVE: Relaciones Públicas, confianza, reputación, consumo colaborativo, economía colaborativa, análisis bibliométrico, reputación digital
RESUME
A confiança e a reputação digital são conceitos de vital importância para o setor do consumo colaborativo, já que permitem diminuir o risco dos intercâmbios entre desconhecidos. Entretanto, e apesar da importância da academia de comunicação ao discurso sobre a econômia colaborativa são insuficientes. Diante dessa situação parece conveniente aumentar a literatura acadêmica existente relacionada com o tema de estudo, mas para isso primeiro é necessário identificar e conhecer as investigações já realizadas. Portanto, com este trabalho pretendemos recopilar, revisar e sintetizar a produção cientifica existente sobre a confiança e a reputação digital no âmbito do consumo colaborativo e a economia colaborativa. Para isso, realizamos uma análise bibliométrica dos artigos relacionados com o tema de estudo publicados entre 2004 e 2017 em revistas indexadas na Web of Science, Scopus e Dialnet. Este trabalho mostra que o interesse acadêmico por esta temática é recente, que os artigos são de qualidade, que estão redigidos principalmente em inglês e que não existe uma revista, um autor, nem um centro de investigação de referência. Ademais, pode-se afirmar que os artigos publicados em revistas indexadas em JCR caracterizam-se por estar redigidos em inglês, por ter maior colaboração que os indexados, tanto a nível de autores como de instituições, e por contar com mais consultas na WOS.
PALAVRAS CHAVE: Relações Públicas, confiança, reputação, consumo colaborativo, economia colaborativa, análises bibliométrico, reputação digital
Correspondencia:
Marián Navarro-Beltrá: Catholic University San Antonio Murcia. Spain.
mnavarro2@ucam.edu
Josep Martínez-Polo: Catholic University San Antonio Murcia. Spain.
mnavarro2@ucam.edu
Received: 28/05/2019
Accepted: 04/07/2019
Published: 15/03/2020
How to cite the article:
Navarro-Beltrá, M. & Martínez-Polo, J. (2020). Bibliometric study on digital reputation and collaborative economy (2004-2017). [Estudio bibliométrico sobre reputación digital y economía colaborativa (2004-2017)]. Revista de Comunicación de la SEECI, 51, 83-107. doi: http://doi.org/10.15198/seeci.2020.51.83-107
Recovered from http://www.seeci.net/revista/index.php/seeci/article/view/596
1. INTRODUCTION
It could be considered that public relations is a discipline linked to a professional activity that is constantly evolving (Castillo, 2009, p. 51), since it has been closely linked to the advances of the technique since the appearance of the printing press (Grunig and Hunt, 2000, p. 65) and the new Information and Communication Technologies (Zapata-Palacios, 2016, p. 105). This way, the existence of new digital media and its management has led to the emergence of a new paradigm in the public relations sector: Public Relations 2.0 (Fuentes, 2018, p. 18). Thus, it can be affirmed that in the last decades this profession has been undergoing an important transformation caused by the frequent use that the population makes of internet-based technologies (Sellas, 2014, p. 197).
With the emergence of the network society (Castells, 2005, p. 505) and the emergence of the Internet, people begin to interact and carry out transactions with strangers, since at the beginning of this medium, in most cases the identity of the users was unknown. Given this situation, that the consumer can overcome the lack of trust was essential for the development of the Internet as a channel for commercial relations (Flavián and Guinalíu, 2006, p. 151).
In this context, public relations acquire a great relevance, as they help build reputation, credibility and, above all, trust (Valdez, Borrayo and Muñoz, 2018, p. 456). Specifically, gaining the trust of users, which is a subjective element that depends on the references received and personal experience (Sánchez-Alzate and Montoya, 2016, p. 170), was the basis for building a positive digital reputation (Aced, 2010, p. 84). Circumstance that is of vital importance when considering that the good reputation of the seller increases the perception of quality of its services and products in the people who acquire them through the internet (Sánchez-Alzate and Montoya, 2017, p. 12). Hence public relations work to “achieve the such longed reputation” (Rivero, 2017, p. 162) and strategic plans related to this discipline try to result in a favorable reputation (Miyashiro, 2017, pp. 97-98).
However, the abundant use of social media by society allowed the stakeholders to communicate with others and spread their own messages on organizations, a situation that leads to the appearance of threats to reputation (Master, Lace and Abuín, 2018, p. 212) when considering that this depends not only on what institutions say about themselves (managed by the department of public relations and communication), since it also depends on what the others say about them (Aced, 2018, p. 32). Indeed, the penetration of social media has led certain people to send messages that are likely to reach an impact and visibility that were unthinkable in conventional environments (Piñeiro-Otero and Martínez-Rolán, 2016, p. 18). In this context, it can be affirmed that both trust and reputation then become fundamental elements in the success of transactions through the internet (Kollock, 1999).
Given its importance, in virtual environments trust has been widely studied (Childers, Carr, Peck and Carson, 2001; Flavián and Guinalíu, 2006; Luna and Velasco, 2005; Sanz, Ruiz and Pérez, 2009; Sundararajan, 2016; Van der Heijden, Verhagen and Creemers, 2003). As it has happened with the e-reputation (Benítez-Eyzaguirre, 2016; Márquez-González y Caro, 2017; Medina, 2017; Moya, and Majó, 2017; Pulido and Benítez- Eyzaguirre, 2016), that is, with that reputation element that is derived specifically from electronic contacts (Chun and Davies, 2001, p. 316). From these studies, it follows that the concept of reputation is usually applied to very diverse fields, such as university institutions, countries, cities, and companies... (Ortiz, Villafañe and Caffarel-Serra, 2018, p. 846). However, both digital trust and digital reputation are essential in the field of collaborative consumption, since they allow reducing the risk of exchanges among strangers (Brändle, 2017, p. 135).
This way, collaborative consumption can be defined as peer activity (P2P) based on obtaining, giving or sharing access to goods and services, coordinated through collaborative online communities (Hamari, Sjöklint and Ukkonen, 2016, p. 4). Collaborative consumption is praised by its supporters as a tool for social transformation that reinforces cohesion, enhances the purchasing power of consumers and improves the environment, while its detractors condemn it because it supposedly introduces unfair competition, promotes tax fraud and distorts the labor market (Organization of Consumers and Users, 2017, p. 1).
For its part, collaborative economy is defined by the European Commission (2016) as “business models in which online platforms facilitate the creation of open market spaces for the temporary use of goods or services often offered by individuals”. However, for Slee (2016, p. 32) collaborative economy is based on a small number of technology companies that are backed by large amounts of venture capital. In short, collaborative economy would be part, together with other modalities (gig economy, circular economy, etc.) of collaborative consumption (Belk, 2014, p. 1598; Frenken, 2017, p. 13; Hamari et al., 2016, p. 1; Möhlmann, 2015, p. 195).
It cannot be forgotten that the rise of collaborative consumption platforms and the so-called collaborative economy is thanks to the generalization of internet access and the development of Information and Communication Technologies (Patiño, Gómez-Álvarez and Plaza, 2017, p. 53). This way, it should be noted that collaborative economy and collaborative consumption are based on the exchange of goods and services that use technology as a channel “to put people in contact and guarantee their reputation” (Luis, 2015, p. 67), hence the interest in their study from the field of communication.
Both phenomena have experienced a boom (Noguera et al., 2014) from articles (Algar, 2007), books (Botsman and Rogers, 2010) or talks TED (https://www.ted.com/talks/rachel_botsman_the_case_for_collaborative_consumption). In 2012, collaborative economy presented itself as an unstoppable sociocultural tide (Botsman and Rogers, 2012, p. 224) that transformed society, and therefore causing a true collaborative revolution (Cañigueral, 2014, p. 40) and that could become as important as the Industrial Revolution (Belk, 2014, p. 1599). Thus, although the collaborative economic activity between equals is already much consolidated, it is expected that it will become even more entrenched with the gradual introduction of the internet of things (Rifkin, 2014, p. 313).
Despite the importance of this economic sector and its link with trust and digital reputation for its survival, it could be affirmed that the intellectual contributions of the communication academy to the discourse on collaborative economy are insufficient (Gregory and Halff, 2017, p. 4). Given this situation, it seems appropriate to increase the existing academic literature related to the subject of study, but in order to do this, it is first necessary to identify and know the research projects already carried out.
2. OBJECTIVES
The main objective of this work is based on collecting, reviewing and synthesizing the existing scientific literature on trust and digital reputation in the field of collaborative consumption and collaborative economy. Specifically it is intended:
– To know productivity by years, magazines, authors, organizations, countries and languages;
– To examine the terms and concepts used;
– To analyze the scientific quality of the texts and;
– Find out if there are differences among documents based on their quality.
3. METHODOLOGY
In order to achieve the objectives indicated above, a bibliometric analysis of scientific production related to trust and digital reputation in the field of collaborative consumption and collaborative economy was carried out. The universe under study was made up of academic articles published between 2004 and 2017 in scientific journals indexed in Webs of Science (WOS), Scopus and Dialnet. The scientific articles were chosen as a source of information to conduct this research because historically they have been considered essential for the communication of science (Melero and Hernández-San-Miguel, 2014).
The year 2004 was chosen as a starting point to conduct the search because, although there is no standard definition for the concept of collaborative economy (sharing economy in English), the term sharing applied to the economic discipline was first used in the academic scope in an article published in 2004 by Yochai Benkler in The Yale Law Journal (Katz, 2015, p. 1068). It should be noted that this article already established the exchange as an economic phenomenon dependent on technology (Benkler, 2004, p. 358). Thus, although this type of economy, which is based on the fact that consumers guarantee temporary access to their physical assets, possibly underutilized for money (Frenken, 2017), has occured since the existence humankind, the key change originates from the appearance of platforms on the Internet where people begin to share with strangers, compared to what was usual until now that was only done in families, among friends and neighbors (Schor, 2014). Likewise, articles published until 2017 were located because the data collection took place on January 7, 2018.
On the other hand, Scopus and WOS were chosen as the two multinational and international databases of reference in the academic field (Navarro-Beltrá and Martín-Llaguno, 2013, p. 113). However, these foundations have certain biases. With reference to the language, it is noteworthy that in Scopus, Spanish is one of the languages with the least representation if one considers the number of scientific journals worldwide that publish in this language (Scimago Group, 2006, p. 145). In turn, the scientific journals indexed in WOS are written mainly in English (Franco-López, Sanz-Valero and Culebras, 2016, p. 65). In addition, the representation of Social Sciences in both databases is modest (Navarro-Beltrá and Martín-Llaguno, 2013, p. 113). Thus, and in order to overcome these biases, Dialnet was included when conducting this study because it “is one of the major bibliographic portals in the world, whose main task is to give greater visibility to Hispanic scientific literature” and It mainly focuses on the Legal, Human and Social Sciences (https://dialnet.unirioja.es/info/ayuda/qe).
The main search strategy was to use the WOS, Scopus and Dialnet databases to locate certain keywords in its articles. Specifically, these documents should contain, in the title, in the summary and / or in the keywords, at least one concept of each of the areas of study considered for the carrying out of this study, namely: a) collaborative economy and collaborative consumption , b) trust and reputation and c) internet, e-commerce, online, digital and web.
Table 1 shows the search equations used in each of the databases. These searches reported 47 articles in WOS, 22 in Scopus and 1 in Dialnet. After eliminating the repetitions, a total of 49 texts were obtained. In order to select the documents related to the subject of study, the title, the summary, the keywords and, sometimes, the full text were read. This way, the writings that met certain inclusion criteria were selected: academic articles published in scientific journals that took into account trust or reputation in the collaborative consumption and collaborative economy sector. This selection, which was made by two researchers, identified a total of 44 texts, all of them were coded and analyzed for the carrying out of the present investigation.
Therefore, it can be said that the percentage of noise found (articles not related to the subject of the study) is adequate, since it is less than 20% (López-Berna, Papí-Gálvez and Martín-Llaguno, 2011, p. 216). In order to know the documents finally examined, see Annex 1. Thus, it should be noted that 59.1% of these writings were located in a single database (52.3% in WOS, 4.5% in Scopus and 2 , 3% in Dialnet), while 40.9% was found in two databases (Scopus and WOS).
Table 1. Or search operations based on the database.
Source: own elaboration.
The coding protocol used to examine the selected articles consisted of three large blocks covering a total of 35 variables. Specifically, information was collected on: characteristics of the article (doi, title, keywords, language, journal of publication, number and / or volume of the journal, year of publication and database), authors and their organizations (name and Surname of each of the signatories, number and sex of the authors, institution to which they belong, number of organizations involved in each article and country of the organization) and quality of the document (number of quotations and indexing in SJR and JCR).
In order to analyze the information collected, a database was created in the software SPSS version 24. Specifically, descriptiveness, frequencies, line graphs, tables were used to describe the variables. Multiple response and contingency tables. In addition, to find out the association between variables, the Mann-Whitney U test was used when the dependent variable was quantitative and the Pearson Chi-square test when the dependent variable was qualitative. In both cases the level of significance set for the statistical analysis was α=0,05.
4. RESULTS
Although the data collection begins in 2004, the first document found dates from 2012. From that moment, and as it can be seen in Figure 1, the scientific production related to the subject of study increases over time. This way, the last year examined (2017) calls especially attention, since it has more than half of the documents studied (54.5%). In addition, this is located at a great distance from the second most prolific year (2016), since it only owns 18.2% of the articles. Given these data, it could be said that this is a topic of recent scientific interest.
Source: own elaboration.
Figure 1. Year of publication of the article.
With reference to the keywords, it should be noted that a total of 429 terms have been found in the articles analyzed. As it can be seen in Image 1, which was carried out on the website https://www.nubedepalabras.es /, the most used are economy (9.09% of the total), sharing (8.16%), consumption (3.03%), collaborative (2.56%), trust (2.56%), digital (1.86%) and social (1.86%). The priority use of these words corresponds to the three fields of study considered for the carrying out of this research -a) collaborative economy and collaborative consumption, b) trust and reputation and c) Internet, e-commerce, online, digital and web -. The rest of the terms found appear less than 1.4% of the time.
Source: own elaboration.
Image 1. TERMS used in the keywords of the articles discussed.
On the other hand, the 44 writings analyzed have been found in a total of 34 scientific journals, therefore most of them (56.82%) publish only one article. Thus, the average of documents per magazine is 1.3. This situation shows the variety of headers that show interest in the subject of study and the lack of existing specialization. However, it is worth noting the case of the International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, as it publishes three of the texts examined (6.8% of the total). On the other hand, the journals that have two articles (4.5%) are: Journal of Consumer Behavior, Tourism Management, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Journal of Services Marketing, Journal of Marketing Channels, Annals of Tourism Research, Journal of Law & Economic Regulation and Journal of Consumers Studies.
As expected, the publication of articles in the English language predominates (77.3% of the total). Then, although at a great distance, Korean is located (15.9%), while the rest of the languages found (French, Hungarian and Spanish) have only been observed in a writing (2.3%).
The set of articles examined reports a total of 99 authors and the co-authorship index, that is, the average number of authors per article, is 2.25. This way, most of the documents (34.1% of the total) have only one signatory, then there are articles written by three authors (31.8% of the total) and then you can see those that have been written by two (20.5%). Only 13.6% of the texts have four signatories. Therefore, and because 65.9% of the articles have been co-authored, it could be said that researchers frequently work on this issue together.
In this regard, it should be noted that most authors publish only one document. However, the presence of Karen Xie stands out, since she signs three of the items examined (in one of them she is the lead author and in the other two she is in second place). Meanwhile, Stuart J. Barnes, Jiang Wu, Jan Mattsson, Alok Gupta, Paolo Parigi and Karen Cook sign two articles, all co-authored.
When considering the sex of the authors, it should be noted that in 20.5% of the documents, no woman appears if compared to a 29.5%, in which no man can be observed. However, when examining the sex of the main signatory, these percentages are reversed, since it is more common to find men who hold this position than women (52.3% vs. 45.5%. In the remaining 2.3%, this information is unknown).
With reference to the Institutions to which the authors belong, it should be noted that in the study conducted, institutional relationships are frequent. Thus, when considering the 28 documents (1) in which this type of relationship could exist because there are more than one signatory, these ones occur in 64.3% of cases. Thus, the average number of institutions involved in articles with more than one signatory is 1.82, with a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 3.
(1) There could be one more document in which institutional relations were produced, but this calculation has not been taken into account because the institutional linkage of its authors is unknown.
For its part, the most prolific institution is Stanford University, as it can be observed 8 times out of 99 (8.08% of the total). Next, Vienna University of Technology, Sejong University and Wuhan University are located, since each one appears 4 times (4.04%). In addition, there are 7 universities that are shown 3 times (3.03%) (2) and 12 that can be seen in 2 (2.02%) (3). The rest of the institutions are only observed on one occasion (1.01%). Therefore, and given these data, it could be affirmed that there is no reference center specialized in the subject of study.
(2) Sapienza Università di Roma, Dongguk University, Hanyang University, Queensland University of Technology, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, University of Denver y Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
(3) University of Applied Sciences Utrecht, Utrecht University, Roskilde University, King’s College London, Wuhan University, Korea University, Université Paris Nanterre, Donghua University, The University of Queensland, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hongik University y Sookmyung Women’s University.
However, this situation does not occur when observing the geographical areas to which the authors belong. Thus, the study of trust and online reputation in the field of collaborative consumption and the collaborative economy seems to be a topic that arouses the interest of researchers in the United States, since it has been possible to see authors up to 20 occasions of institutions based in this country (20.2%). It could also be considered as a relevant study area in South Korea and the Republic of China, as signatories of these areas have been found on 18 and 11 occasions respectively (18.18% and 11.11%). On the other hand, Austria, Australia and the United Kingdom appear 6 times (6.06%), Spain and the Netherlands are shown 5 times (5.05%), Italy can be seen in 4 (4.04%), Israel and Germany in 3 (3.03%) and Denmark and France in 2 (2.02%). The rest of the countries only appear once (1.01%).
The quality of the articles is frequently evaluated according to whether or not the publication journal is indexed in certain databases. Thus, it should be noted that the documents analyzed could be considered of quality, since a 61.4% belongs to journals that were indexed in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) the year of publication of the article, a figure that increases to 72.7% when observing the Scimago Journal&Country Rank (SJR) database.
The quality of these articles is further evidenced when considering the quartile of these publications. Thus, and because a quartile is assigned for each of the thematic categories in which the journal is inserted, a total of 47 cases are examined in the JCR database. Thus, 55.3% is part of Q1, 27.7% is in Q2, 12.8% in Q3 and 4.3% in Q4. On the other hand, when studying the 65 cases of SJR, a situation very similar to the previous one can be observed, since the most frequent quartile turns out to be 1 again (64.6%), then Q2 is placed (27.7 %), Q4 (4.6%) and Q3 (3.1%).
It is also usually considered that the number of quotations is an indicator of the quality of the articles. However, the documents examined are not quoted frequently, since 56.8% do not have any quotation in WOS, although this figure is reduced to 27.3% when observing the Scopus database. Perhaps this situation can be explained by the recent publication of most of the texts studied, so it is likely that they have not had enough time to obtain a better result in this quality indicator.
In this regard, it should be noted that the average number of quotations per article according to WOS is 3.69 (with a minimum of 0 and a maximum of 45), while in Scopus this value is 6.56 (with a minimum of 0 and a maximum of 56) (see Table 2). In both databases, the most quoted document is the one made by Möhlmann in 2015.
Table 2. Citations of the articles examined.
Source: own elaboration.
In spite of all these data, it cannot be forgotten that the academy usually considers documents indexed in JCR as the ones with the greatest impact and quality. Given this situation, it seems relevant to know if there are differences between the articles indexed in this database and those that are not.
In this regard, it should be noted that there are usually no statistically significant differences in the articles depending on whether or not they are indexed in the JCR database. In fact, there are no dissimilarities in the years, in the authors, in the number of signatories, in the sex of the first signatory, in the institutions to which they belong, in the countries or in the quotations received in Scopus.
However, there are differences in the language, therefore all documents collected in the JCR database are written in English (x2= 20,554; p = 0.000). In addition, the average range of total authors per article is greater in documents indexed in JCR than in non-indexed documents (25.57 versus 1 7.6 2) (U = 146,500; sig. = 0.037), a situation that can also be observed in the male signatories (25.94 vs. 15.34 ) (U = 109.500;. sig = 0.005) in the number of institutions (25.59 VS 15.94) (U = 119.000; sig.= 0.006) and in the number of quotations the texts receive in the database of the Web of Science (26.00 and 14.19) (U=91,000; sig.=0.001). Therefore, it could be affirmed that the articles published in journals indexed in JCR are characterized by being written in English, having a greater collaboration, both at the level of authors and institutions, and for having more quotations in WOS.
5. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS
The data obtained in this work show that the academic interest in trust and digital reputation in the collaborative consumption and collaborative economy sector is recent. This situation was to be expected, since it cannot be forgotten that both e-reputation (Mababu Mukiur, 2016, p. 148) and collaborative economy (Pimentel, 2017, pp. 108-109) are new phenomena. Despite its recent appearance, digital reputation is a concept that has acquired great relevance, especially since the internet and social media are important sources of information for society (Madrigal-Moreno, Arroyo-Cañada and Gil-Lafuente, 2017, p. 47). Therefore, and given this situation, the scientific production related to the subject of study is expected to continue to increase in the coming years.
Given the importance of the subject, it seems relevant to highlight that in addition, the academic literature related to the subject of study is of quality, since most of the articles examined are published in journals indexed in quartiles (Q) preferential of JCR and SJR. Although the quartile to which the magazine belongs, is an important element that helps to determine its quality (Ordonez and Sierra, 2018, p. 49), it cannot be forgotten that this assignment depends on the impact factor, which is calculated at from the total quotations obtained by a publication and not all articles receive the same amount (Sobrido y Sobrido, 2013, p. 266). Therefore, there are authors who affirm that the impact factor should only be used to assess the quality of journals, not of specific articles (Aleixandre-Benavent, Valderrama-Zurián, González de Dios and de Granda-Orive, 2004); in order to do this, one should refer to the quotation index (Sobrido and Sobrido, 2013, p. 266). Although the number of quotations of the articles examined is small, this situation could be easily explained by their recent publication.
On the other hand, it should be noted that it has not been possible to find a magazine, an author, or a reference research center. However, there is a geographical area that pays special attention to the subject of study, since the signatories of the documents studied usually belong to institutions based in the United States. This situation was also to be expected, since it is “the main scientific power” (Castañeda and Jiménez, 2017, p. 29). In addition, most of the articles are written in English, which is considered the scientific language par excellence (Téllez-Zenteno, Morales-Buenrostro and Estañol, 2007, pp. 485, 487).
The data collected in the present study coincide with the results obtained in previous research that analyze the scope of the collaborative economy in general, therefore, we could conclude by stating that it is a topic that has recently captured the interest of researchers (Chen, 2016, p. 62; Durán-Sánchez, Álvarez-García, del Río-Rama and Malonado-Erazo, 2016, pp. 11-13), that there are no journals specialized in the subject of study, that the United States is the most prolific country and that the most common is to find an author by publication (Durán-Sánchez, Álvarez-García, del Río-Rama and Malonado-Erazo, 2016, pp. 11-13).
Finally, it should be noted that the main limitation of this research is based on having examined only academic articles related to the subject of study indexed in Scopus, WOS and Dialnet. Despite having analyzed only a sample of the existing academic literature, the data obtained contribute to expanding the existing knowledge about scientific production related to trust and digital reputation in the field of economy and collaborative consumption. This way, a possible line of future research focused on examining journals included in other databases is opened. It would also be interesting to check the academic interest in trust and online reputation in other disciplines.
REFERENCES
AUTHORS
Marián Navarro-Beltrá: Degree in Advertising and Public Relations (2008) from the University of Alicante and Doctor Cum Laude (2013) from the same university. She is currently a professor and researcher at the Catholic University of Murcia (UCAM) in the area of Advertising and Public Relations.
mnavarro2@ucam.edu
Orcid ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6898-569X
Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.es/citations?hl=es&user=_UxZ0hAAAAAJ
Josep Martínez-Polo: Professor and researcher at the Catholic University of Murcia (UCAM) in the area of Advertising and PR.
jmmartinez@ucam.edu
Orcid ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0262-0257
Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.es/citations?user=nxaiYpMAAAAJ&hl=es
ANNEXED 1
Abrahao, B., Parigi, P., Gupta, A., & Cook, K. S. (2017). Reputation offsets trust judgments based on social biases among Airbnb users. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(37), 9848-9853. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1604234114
Balnaves, M. (2012). The Australian finance sector and social media: Towards a history of the new banking. Media International Australia, 143(1), 132-145. https://doi.org/10.1177/1329878X1214300115
Barnes, S. J., & Mattsson, J. (2016). Building tribal communities in the collaborative economy: an innovation framework. Prometheus, 34(2), 95-113. https://doi.org/10.1080/08109028.2017.1279875
Barnes, S. J., & Mattsson, J. (2017). Understanding collaborative consumption: Test of a theoretical model. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 118, 281-292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.02.029
Calo, R., & Rosenblat, A. (2017). The taking economy: Uber, information, and power. Columbia Law Review, 117(6), 1623-1690. Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/faculty-articles/47
Celata, F., Hendrickson, C. Y., & Sanna, V. S. (2017). The sharing economy as community marketplace? Trust, reciprocity and belonging in peer-to-peer accommodation platforms. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 10(2), 349-363. https://doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rsw044
CheonHyejung, K., Siwuel, L., & Dong, I. (2014). Creating shared value: Redefining the role of the corporation and consumer. Journal of Consumer Studies, 25(3), 1-20. Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/y6pb28w5
de Rivera, J., Gordo, Á., Cassidy, P., & Apesteguía, A. (2017). A netnographic study of P2P collaborative consumption platforms’ user interface and design. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 23, 11-27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2016.09.003
Einav, L., Farronato, C., & Levin, J. (2016). Peer-to-peer markets. Annual review of economics, 8, 615-635. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-economics-080315-015334
Ert, E., Fleischer, A., & Magen, N. (2016). Trust and reputation in the sharing economy: The role of personal photos in Airbnb. Tourism Management, 55, 62-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2016.01.013
Hofmann, E., Hartl, B., & Penz, E. (2017). Power versus trust–what matters more in collaborative consumption?. Journal of Services Marketing, 31(6), 589-603. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-09-2015-0279
Gamito, M. C. (2016). Regulation. com. self-regulation and contract governance in the platform economy: A research agenda. European Journal of Legal Studies, 9(2), 53-67. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1814/46068
Garrett, A., Straker, K., & Wrigley, C. (2017). Digital channels for building collaborative consumption communities. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 11(2), 160-184. https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIM-08-2016-0086
Gonzalez-Padron, T. L. (2017). Ethics in the sharing economy: Creating a legitimate marketing channel. Journal of Marketing Channels, 24(1-2), 84-96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1046669X.2017.1347005
Gregory, A., & Halff, G. (2017). Understanding public relations in the ‘sharing economy’. Public Relations Review, 43(1), 4-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2016.10.008
Heylighen, F. (2017). Towards an Intelligent Network for Matching Offer and Demand: from the sharing economy to the Global Brain. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 114, 74-85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.02.004
Kaloz, E. (2015). A közösségi gazdaság: elméleti megfontolások és a gyakorlat jellemz?i [The community economy - Theoretical considerations and practice characteristics]. Információs Társadalom, 15(1), 44-67. Retrieved from https://matarka.hu/klikk.php?cikkmutat=2374793
Kang, B. J., & Choi, M. H. (2013). An exploratory study on the prospect and challenges of the sharing economy. Journal of Policy Development, 13(1), 143-170. Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/y2alqloh
Karlsson, L., Kemperman, A., & Dolnicar, S. (2017). May I sleep in your bed? Getting permission to book. Annals of Tourism Research, 62, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2016.10.002
Key, T. M. (2017). Domains of digital marketing channels in the sharing economy. Journal of Marketing Channels, 24(1-2), 27-38. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046669X.2017.1346977
Kim, J. H., (2017). The effect of AirBnB host characteristics on host trust and reuse intention. Korean Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 26(7), 55-70. Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/y64xy5x9
Kim, S., Tsolmon, B., & Kim, N. (2017). Users’ selection attributes of accommodation sharing platform: Focusing on users of airbnb. Journal of Tourism Studies, 29(2), 51-69. Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/y426jpu3
Lampinen, A., Huotari, K. J. E., & Cheshire, C. (2015). Challenges to participation in the sharing economy: the case of local online peer-to-peer exchange in a single parents’ network. Interaction Design and Architecture(s) Journal, (24), 16-32. Retrieved from http://mobilelifecentre.org/sites/default/files/24_1.pdf
Lee, H. J. (2017). The nature of innovation in digital platform industry and the proper regulatory response. Administrative Law Journal, 49, 53-74. Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/yxnx7c4b
Lee, J. Y. (2015). Trust and social commerce. University of Pittsburgh Law Review, 77(2), 137-181. https://doi.org/10.5195/lawreview.2015.395
Liang, S., Schuckert, M., Law, R., & Chen, C. C. (2017). Be a “Superhost”: The importance of badge systems for peer-to-peer rental accommodations. Tourism management, 60, 454-465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2017.01.007
Luckner, N., Fitzpatrick, G., Werner, K., & Subasi, Ö. (2015). Setting up and running a sharing service: an organisational perspective. Interaction Design and Architecture(s) Journal, (24), 63-80. Retrieved from http://www.mifav.uniroma2.it/inevent/events/idea2010/doc/24_4.pdf
Luis, M. (2015). Innovación social: el porqué de un fenómeno emergente [Social Innovation and how it is arriving into society]. Oikonomics: Revista de Economía, empresa y Sociedad, (3), 66-72. Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/y5z2lnlv
Marais, B. (2016). Uberizing Regulators?. Journal of Law & Economic Ragulation, 9(2), 110-127. Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/y65od2rc
Marais, B., Yoon, S. P., Lim, J. H., & Kwon, H. Y. (2016). Uberizing Regulators?. Journal of Law & Economic Regulation, 9(2), 128-142. Retrieved from http://www.dbpia.co.kr/Journal/ArticleDetail/NODE07157994
Möhlmann, M. (2015). Collaborative consumption: determinants of satisfaction and the likelihood of using a sharing economy option again. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 14(3), 193-207. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.1512
Molz, J. G. (2013). Social networking technologies and the moral economy of alternative tourism: The case of couchsurfing. org. Annals of tourism research, 43, 210-230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2013.08.001
Parigi, P., Santana, J. J., & Cook, K. S. (2017). Online field experiments: studying social interactions in context. Social Psychology Quarterly, 80(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1177/0190272516680842
Park, M. H. (2016). Consumers’ experiences of collaborative consumption based on sharing economy service. Journal of Consumer Studies, 27(27), 175-205. Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/yycnf7al
Pauwels, M. C. (2015). Collaborative consumption in the United States. Revue Lisa-Lisa e-Journal, 13(2). https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137473905_5
Pera, R., Viglia, G., & Furlan, R. (2016). Who am I? How compelling self-storytelling builds digital personal reputation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 35, 44-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2015.11.002
Santoso, A. S., & Erdaka, A. (2015). Customer loyalty in collaborative consumption model: empirical study of CRM for product-service system-based e-commerce in Indonesia. Procedia computer science, 72, 543-551. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2015.12.162
Seo, A., Jeong, J., & Kim, Y. (2017). Cyber physical systems for user reliability measurements in a sharing economy environment. Sensors, 17(8). https://doi.org/10.3390/s17081868
Svetlana, K., & YongIk, Y. (2016). Recommendation system for sharing economy based on multidimensional trust model. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 75(23), 15297-15310. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-014-2384-5
Teubner, T., & Flath, C. M. (2015). The economics of multi-hop ride sharing. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 57(5), 311-324. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-015-0396-y
ter Huurne, M., Ronteltap, A., Corten, R., & Buskens, V. (2017). Antecedents of trust in the sharing economy: A systematic review. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 16(6), 485-498. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.1667
Weber, T. A. (2014). Intermediation in a sharing economy: insurance, moral hazard, and rent extraction. Journal of Management Information Systems, 31(3), 35-71. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2439110
Wu, J., Ma, P., & Xie, K. L. (2017). In sharing economy we trust: the effects of host attributes on short-term rental purchases. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 29(11), 2962-2976. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-08-2016-0480
Wu, J., Zeng, M., & Xie, K. L. (2017). Chinese travelers’ behavioral intentions toward room-sharing platforms: The influence of motivations, perceived trust, and past experience. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 29(10), 2688-2707. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-08-2016-0481
Yang, S., Song, Y., Chen, S.X., & Xia, X. (2017). Why are customers loyal in sharing-economy services? A relational benefits perspective. Journal of Services Marketing, 31(1), 48-62. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-01-2016-0042
Xie, K., & Mao, Z. (2017). The impacts of quality and quantity attributes of Airbnb hosts on listing performance. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 29(9), 2240-2260. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-07-2016-0345