Document Type : Articles


1 Shahid Beheshti University

2 Tehran University

3 Shahid beheshti university


The present study was conducted with a scientometric approach and using the social network analysis method to investigate the relationships in the field of intangible assets. In this regard, the data of 2998 documents conducted between 1979 and 2019 based on the articles indexed in the Scopus database on intangible assets were analyzed using Gephi and Publish or Perish software. The status of scientific productions in this field and the most influential concepts and keywords, researchers, and journals were examined. Research findings show that knowledge management and intellectual capital are essential concepts in this field. Also, value creation, value chain, social responsibility, and trademark are the most valuable subject areas based on the networks. The co-authorship network is discrete, with low density and 58945 citations in all articles. Also, Emerald Publications has published the most significant number of articles in this field. Entering the era of a knowledge-based economy, a large part of organizations' assets is intangible, which confirms the identification and investment in these types of assets. This study shows that intangible assets are closely related to critical social issues such as intellectual capital, knowledge management, and competition. The present study helps researchers in this field explain the investigation process and policies based on the identified areas of influence. 


  1. Aistleitner Matthias , K. J. S. S. (2018). "The Power of Scientometrics and the Development of Economics". Journal of Economic Issues.
  2. Andres, A. (2009). Measuring academic research: How to undertake a bibliometric study: Elsevier.
  3. Anghel, I. (2008). Intellectual capital and intangible assets analysis and valuation. Theoretical and Applied Economics, 3(3), 75.
  4. Bellucci, M., Marzi, G., Orlando, B., & Ciampi, F. (2020). Journal of Intellectual Capital: a review of emerging themes and future trends. Journal of Intellectual Capital.
  5. Bhatia, A., & Aggarwal, K. (2018). Impact of investment in intangible assets on corporate performance in India. International Journal of Law and Management, 60(5), 1058-1073.
  6. Boekestein, B. (2006). The relation between intellectual capital and intangible assets of pharmaceutical companies. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 7(2), 241-253.
  7. Bookstein, A. (1994). Scientometrics: new opportunities. Scientometrics, 30(2-3), 455-460.
  8. Branswijck, D. and Everaert, P. (2012), "Intellectual capital disclosure commitment: myth or reality?", Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 39-56.
  9. Brodka, P., Skibicki, K., Kazienko, P., & Musiał, K. (2011). A degree centrality in multi-layered social network. Paper presented at the 2011 International Conference on Computational Aspects of Social Networks (CASoN).
  10. Castilla-Polo, F., & Gallardo-Vazquez, D. (2016). The main topics of research on disclosures of intangible assets: a critical review. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal.
  11. Castilla-Polo, F., & Ruiz-Rodriguez, C. (2017). Content analysis within intangible assets disclosure: a structured literature review. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 18(3), 506-543.
  12. Cheong, F., & Corbitt, B. J. (2009). A social network analysis of the co-authorship network of the Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems from 1993 to 2008. PACIS 2009 Proceedings, 23.
  13. Cohen, M. B. (2009). Hedonistic pricing models and the valuation of intangible assets. Theses, 83.
  14. Corporation, T. C. (1999). Introduction to data mining and knowledge discovery: Two Crows Corporation.
  15. Crucitti, P., Latora, V., & Porta, S. (2006). Centrality in networks of urban streets. Chaos: an interdisciplinary journal of nonlinear science, 16(1), 015113.
  16. Degenne, A., & Forse, M. (1999). Introducing social networks: Sage.
  17. Dias, M. A. H., Zarelli, P. R., & Selig, P. M. (2014). Intellectual capital and public management: a bibliometric analysis. Journal of US-China Public Administration, 11(2), 108-120.
  18. Estrada, E., & Rodriguez-Velazquez, J. A. (2005). Subgraph centrality in complex networks. Physical Review E, 71(5), 056103.
  19. Faust, K. (2006). Comparing social networks: size, density, and local structure. Metodoloski zvezki, 3(2), 185.
  20. Frank, O. (2002). Using Centrality Modeling in Network Surveys. Social networks 24(4):385-94.
  21. Franks, D. W., Noble, J., Kaufmann, P., & Stagl, S. (2008). Extremism propagation in social networks with hubs. Adaptive Behavior, 16(4), 264-274.
  22. Giju, G. C., Badea, L., Ruiz, V. R. L., & Peña, D. N. (2010). Knowledge Management-the Key Resource in the Knowledge Economy. Theoretical & Applied Economics, 17(6).
  23. Gnanasekaran, D., & Balamurugan, S. (2016). Scientometrics profile of global intellectual property rights research. Journal of Information Science Theory and Practice, 4(2), 53-65
  24. Gumelar, M., & Herwany, A. (2018). Benchmarking Intangible Assets in the Water Sector: an Evidence from Indonesia. Montenegrin Journal of Economics, 14(3), 155-161.
  25. Hamidi, A., Asnafi, A., & ASAREH, F. (2008). Analytical survey and mapping structure of scientific publications in the Bibliometrics, Scientometrics, Infometrics and Webometrics fields in Web of Science database during 1990-2005.
  26. Harris, R., McAdam, R., McCausland, I., & Reid, R. (2013). Knowledge management as a source of innovation and competitive advantage for SMEs in peripheral regions. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 14(1), 49-61.
  27. Holland, J. (2001), "Financial institutions, intangibles and corporate governance", Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 497-529.
  28. Hu, C.-P., Hu, J.-M., Deng, S.-L., & Liu, Y. (2013). A co-word analysis of library and information science in China. Scientometrics, 97(2), 369-382.
  29. HUBERT, B.-H. (2013). Social Network Analysis and Critical Realism. Wiley.
  30. Ito, K., Umeda, S., & Sekiya, H. (2020). Impact of Intangibles on Corporate Value. Journal of Human Resource and Sustainability Studies, 8(02), 131
  31. Jain, A. K., Murty, M. N., & Flynn, P. J. (1999). Data clustering: a review. ACM computing surveys (CSUR), 31(3), 264-323.
  32. Kaufmann, L., & Schneider, Y. (2004). Intangibles: a synthesis of current research. Journal of intellectual capital.
  33. Keong Choong, K. (2008). Intellectual capital: definitions, categorization and reporting models. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 9(4), 609-638.
  34. Kohler, H.-P., Behrman, J. R., & Watkins, S. C. (2001). The density of social networks and fertility decisions: Evidence from South Nyanza District, Kenya. Demography, 38(1), 43-58.
  35. Lane, J. (2010). Let's make science metrics more scientific. Nature, 464(7288), 488.
  36. Lev, B. (2001). Baruch Lev, Intangibles: Management, Measurement and Reporting, Bookings Institution Press, 2001.
  37. Lev, B., Sarath, B., & Sougiannis, T. (2005). R&D reporting biases and their consequences. Contemporary Accounting Research, 22(4), 977-1026.
  38. Leydesdorff Loet , M. S. (2015). Scientometrics. International Encyclopedia of Social and Behavioral Sciences,.
  39. Liu, G.-Y., Hu, J.-M., & Wang, H.-L. (2011). A co-word analysis of digital library field in China. Scientometrics, 91(1), 203-217.
  40. Massa, S., & Testa, S. (2009). A knowledge management approach to organizational competitive advantage: Evidence from the food sector. European Management Journal, 27(2), 129-141.
  41. Miguel, S., Chinchilla-Rodriguez, Z., Gonzalez, C. M., & Moya Anegon, F. d. (2012). Analysis and visualization of the dynamics of research groups in terms of projects and co-authored publications: A case study of library and information science in Argentina. information Research, 17(3).
  42. Mooghali A, A. R., Karami N ,Khasseh A. (2011). Scientometric Analysis of the Scientometric Literature
  43. International Journal of Information Science and Manage.
  44. Mrvar, A., & Batagelj, V. (2016). Analysis and visualization of large networks with program package Pajek. Complex Adaptive Systems Modeling, 4(1), 6.
  45. Nakamura, L. I. (2010). Intangible assets and national income accounting. Review of Income and Wealth, 56, S135-S155.
  46. Newman, M. E. (2005). A measure of betweenness centrality based on random walks. Social networks, 27(1), 39-54.
  47. Okamoto, K., Chen, W., & Li, X.-Y. (2008). Ranking of closeness centrality for large-scale social networks. Paper presented at the International Workshop on Frontiers in Algorithmics.
  48. Omran, M. G., Engelbrecht, A. P., & Salman, A. (2007). An overview of clustering methods. Intelligent Data Analysis, 11(6), 583-605.
  49. Opsahl, T., Agneessens, F., & Skvoretz, J. (2010). Node centrality in weighted networks: Generalizing degree and shortest paths. Social networks, 32(3), 245-251.
  50. Petty, R. and Guthrie, J. (2000), "Intellectual capital literature review : Measurement, reporting and management", Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 155-176.
  51. Pike, S., & Roos, G. (2011). Measuring and valuing knowledge-based intangible assets: real business uses. In Identifying, measuring, and valuing knowledge-based intangible assets: New perspectives (pp. 268-293). IGI Global
  52. Posner, R. A. (2009). Public intellectuals: Harvard University Press.
  53. Quintero-Quintero, W., Blanco-Ariza, A. B., & Garzon-Castrillon, M. A. (2021). Intellectual Capital: A Review and Bibliometric Analysis. Publications, 9(4), 46.
  54. Scott john , C. P. J. (2011). The SAGE handbook of social network analysis. SAGE Publications Ltd.
  55. Steenkamp, N., & Kashyap, V. (2010). Importance and contribution of intangible assets: SME managers' perceptions. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 11(3), 368-390.
  56. Visualizer, S. (2009). Social network analysis (SNA). Retrieved July, 27, 2010.
  57. Volkov, D., & Garanina, T. (2007). Intangible Assets: Importance in the Knowledge-Based Economy and the Role in Value Creation of a Company. Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 5(4).