More than a Quarter Century of Creativity and Innovation Management: The Journal's Characteristics, Evolution, and a Look Ahead

When this journal was founded in 1992 by Tudor Rickards and Susan Moger, there was no academic outlet available that addressed issues at the intersection of creativity and innovation. From zero to 1,163 records, from the new kid on the block to one of the leading journals in creativity and innovation management has been quite a journey, and we would like to reflect on the past 28 years and the intellectual and conceptual structure of Creativity and Innovation Management (CIM). Specifically, we highlight milestones and influential articles, identify how key journal characteristics evolved, outline the (co&#8208;)authorship structure, and finally, map the thematic landscape of CIM by means of a text&#8208;mining analysis. This study represents the first systematic and comprehensive assessment of the journal's published body of knowledge and helps to understand the journal's influence on the creativity and innovation management community. We conclude by discussing future topics and paths of the journal as well as limitations of our approach.


| INTRODUCTION
In the very first editorial of this journal, its two founders, Susan Moger † and Tudor Rickards, argued that the management of creativity and innovation will be of "vital importance in the next few decades of societal and industrial changes" (Moger & Rickards, 1992, p. 1). Nearly three decades later, this prediction has certainly reached popular consensus, but also eventually found acknowledgement in the scholarly community to be a crucial issue in management and organization studies (e.g., Anderson, Potočnik, & Zhou, 2014). Creativity and Innovation Management (CIM) currently ranks fifth among 33 journals in the 'innovation' category of the Academic Journal Guide (Chartered Association of Business Schools, 2018) and has been actively participating in and promoting this discourse to its present-day maturity. Since its inception, CIM has consistently published novel and relevant research at the intersection of creativity and innovation and the management thereof for both academics as well as research-interested practitioners. The multitude of special issues and sections in CIM testify to this editorial policy, which encourages submissions on nascent research topics of exploratory nature (see Table A1 in Appendix)-for example, recently on the relationship of 'Big Data and Open Innovation' (Del Vecchio, Di Minin, Petruzzelli, Panniello, & Pirri, 2018).
The critical and defining feature of an academic outlet is its community-i.e., associate editors, guest editors, editorial board members, reviewers, administrative support, author-and readership. As community development is considered to be more challenging for Not with standing the co-authorship of the editors-in-chief, this manuscript has fully undergone the regular double-blind peer-review process and therefore adheres to the same rigorous standards which apply to all articles published in Creativity and Innovation Management. independent journals (Clark & Wright, 2008), CIM built and maintained an engaged and diverse group of scholars and practitioners. This is evident, for example, in the frequent CIM community workshops that have taken place regularly since 2005. Furthermore, CIM has closely cooperated with the 'Continuous Innovation Network' (CINet) and the European Institute for Advanced Studies in Management's (EIASM) 'Innovation and Product Development Management' (IPDM) conference series. These engagements have not only resulted in several special issues from these conferences but also a steady influx of young researchers from these communities.
Inspired by CIM's recent 25th anniversary in 2018, we take the opportunity to characterize the full knowledge base of the journal. This article is organized as follows. We outline our methods and data procedures in the next section and follow with a descriptive analysis of bibliographic information, i.e., publication trends, authorship, citations and journal reputation. We then visually analyse CIM's main concepts and conclude with a discussion of limitations and an outlook on future trends and areas for creativity and innovation management.

| METHODS
Bibliometrics-the quantitative analysis of bibliographical data (Broadus, 1987)-has become a well-established research approach in management and organization studies (e.g., Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Bachrach, 2008;Vogel, 2012). The application of bibliometric methods can facilitate a "systematic, transparent, and reproducible review process" (Zupic & Čater, 2015, p. 430). To assess the conceptual and intellectual structure of works published in CIM, we employ bibliometric methods by the analytic procedure of science mapping, that is, the representation of structure and dynamics of scientific bodies of knowledge (Zupic & Čater, 2015).
Journal-specific reviews in this discipline frequently apply bibliometric methods as well-see, for example, the most recent reviews in the Journal of Product Innovation Management (Antons, Kleer, & Salge, 2016;Sarin, Haon, & Belkhouja, 2018), R&D Management (Rigby, 2016), Technovation (Merino, do Carmo, & Alvarez, 2006), or Research-Technology Management (Shum, Park, Maine, & Pitt, 2019). Similarly, we consider a bibliometric, science mapping study as appropriate to analyse the scientific corpus published in CIM to enhance the objectivity of results.

| Analytical procedure
In an initial step, we run a descriptive analysis of bibliographic data to identify influential articles as well as trends in authorship and research strategies, which provides insight into CIM's intellectual structure. In a second step, we conduct a text-mining analysis using the computer-assisted qualitative data software 'Leximancer' (version 4.5;, 2018. The software analyses lexical co-occurrence information in large amounts of text data to create visually mapped networks of semantic relations between automatically detected keywords, concepts and higher-order themes (Smith & Humphreys, 2006). The use of Leximancer has become increasingly popular in management and organization studies, both topic-specific (e.g., Erichsen & Christensen, 2013;Randhawa, Wilden, & Hohberger, 2016) and journal-specific (e.g., Kozlowski, Chen, & Salas, 2017;Volery & Mazzarol, 2015). Our rationale for conducting a text-mining analysis with Leximancer is to visually map CIM's conceptual structure for an interpretation of its topical foci and their relationship to each other, thereby uncovering path dependencies and proximities of topics to better understand and interpret past and potential future trajectories.  Table 1), whereas conceptual work, which characterized the journal in its early years, has become less common in recent volumes.

| Data collection
Several other trends among article characteristics are noticeable.
First, the mean length of articles (number of pages) developed from 7.4 pages in 1992 (SD = 3.2) to 13.7 pages in 2019 (SD = 2.8).
Although the mean article length varies in recent years, a general trend to longer articles is evident. This development mirrors the general increase in article length in management journals (Ronda-Pupo, 2017). Second, the length of titles and abstracts (number of characters) has grown as well. The mean title length steadily increased from 60 characters in 1992 (SD = 29) to 94 characters in 2019 (SD = 26).
Mean abstract length has more than doubled from 548 characters in 1992 (SD = 244) to 1,169 characters in 2019 (SD = 220). Although a mere count of article features precludes equally important contextual considerations, the overall increment of article, title,and abstract length is apparent and not unique to CIM-a development that has implications for citation rates (Tahamtan, Afshar, & Ahamdzadeh, 2016), and more generally, for the user-centricity of scientific communication.
Finally, the number of references cited per article has increased as well. The incomplete availability of bibliographic data for references cited by CIM articles only allowed us to consider the last 17 years.  (Marx & Bornmann, 2016), but also because of evolving citation behaviours (Tahamtan & Bornmann, 2018).

| Authorship
Over the course of 28 years, a total of 1,028 individual authors have published in CIM. In line with the trend towards team-based authorship in management and organization studies (Acedo, Barroso, Casanueva, & Galán, 2006) and all other academic disciplines (Wuchty, Jones, & Uzzi, 2007), the ratio of co-authored articles at CIM

| Citations
Citation analysis is the traditional bibliometric method for evaluating scholarly impact, providing insight about the relative importance of published work (Tahamtan & Bornmann, 2018;Zupic & Čater, 2015), and in the context of our journal-specific science mapping approach, helps to identify influential articles and topics which are characteristic of CIM.
Based on Scopus data, CIM has received a total of 15,250 citations at present (98.5 per cent for articles, 1.4 per cent for editorials,  Table 2 were conducted equally with qualitative and quantitative research designs. In Table 3, we display the ten most downloaded articles from Wiley Online Library during 2018. In reviewing Table 3, the recency of articles becomes apparent (two articles from 2018 already included), especially in comparison to the most cited articles (see Table 2 with a median at 2007). Of downloads of the displayed articles, 27 per cent can be assigned to the topic of Design Thinking, a concept which experienced substantial recent attention in both academia and practice, and is a continuously featured topic in CIM (e.g., Carlgren, Rauth, & Elmquist, 2016;Johansson-Sköldberg et al., 2013;Kummitha, 2019). Furthermore, the topic of Open Innovation is also high on the list (28 per cent of the top ten downloads based on Table 3).
To gauge the general impact of CIM publications, we further analysed alternative metrics. The so-called 'Altmetrics' can be broadly       highlights the curiosity for cross-disciplinary collaboration in the light of today's technology-driven innovation challenges. Lastly, a substantial 11.7 per cent of all records which are citing CIM are classified in Scopus as (chapters of) books, handbooks, or textbooks. Following a rationale of external scholarly impact recently outlined by Aguinis, Ramani, Alabduljader, Bailey, and Lee (2019), this can be interpreted as a knowledge transfer to students, and eventually, future practitioners.

| Journal reputation
Despite factor has steadily increased since (see Table 1) towards 2.015 in 2018 (5-year JIF = 2.866), which ranks CIM as the 123rd of 217 journals in the management category (third quartile).
Another citation-based measure is Hirsch's h-index (2005), which has found widespread dissemination (Waltman, 2016). The h-index has been described as a "robust measure of sustained and durable performance," also when applied to journals (Harzing & van der Wal, 2009, p. 42  It should be noted that the incomplete indexing of CIM articles on major academic search engines and databases potentially could impede its metrics. As reviews increasingly rely on systematic retrieval procedures, unindexed CIM items would be omitted in such reviews, also from further citation chains. Based on the 814 items we coded as articles, the respective coverage on popular academic search engines and databases is at 40.3 per cent (Web of Science), 79.4 per cent (EBSCOhost), 98.5 per cent (Google Scholar), and 99.9 per cent (Scopus). Missing items, however, are mostly published in early volumes of the journal with higher availabilities for recent volumes.
Given that, first, the mentioned publisher report states article access statistics for CIM above average in the 'Business & Management' category, and second, accessibility and visibility have been found to be positively related to citations (Tahamtan et al., 2016;Tahamtan & Bornmann, 2018), we presume further improvement in CIM journal metrics in the future.

| TEXT-MINING ANALYSIS
To assess the conceptual structure of CIM's body of knowledge, we use the software Leximancer (2016). We refer to our methods section as well as the introductory article by Smith and Humphreys (2006) and further methodological literature (Angus, Rintel, & Wiles, 2013;Stockwell, Colomb, Smith, & Wiles, 2009)  The earliest temporal segment from 1992 to 1998 is associated with the theme of 'creativity' which is closely connected to the theme of 'teams'. The relative prominence of creativity at CIM was recently also highlighted by Slavich and Svejenova (2016) in a bibliometric study on this topic. Article titles and abstracts in early CIM volumes are significantly shorter in length (see Table 1), and 20 of the 218 articles do not contain abstracts, which results in the lowest overall count of text blocks of this period (488) and becomes further visible by the relative distance of this segment node to the main themes.
The second temporal segment (1999)(2000)(2001)(2002)(2003)(2004)(2005) relates to a count of 643 text blocks. This period is closely associated with the theme 'TRIZ'. Three special issues of this period are dedicated solely to TRIZ (see Table A1 in the Appendix), which is a frequently reoccurring topic throughout CIM's history; for example, it was recently addressed by Schöfer, Maranzana, Aoussat, Bersano, and Buisine (2018). Other nearby located themes involve 'change', constituting a domain of specific relevance to organizational practitioners (e.g., Vanhaverbeke & Peeters, 2005). The third temporal segment (2006-2012) accumulates a count of 817 text blocks, located close to the themes 'teams', 'generation' and 'ideas.' The latter themes likely concern 'idea generation', a frequent topic of interest in CIM, with foci on various stages of the idea process (e.g., Frederiksen & Knudsen, 2017).

| LIMITATIONS
Our bibliometric study is subject to some limitations. First, bibliographic data for CIM at academic search engines and databases is still partially incomplete (e.g., references) or inaccurate (e.g., institutional affiliations), which required us to impute by compiling multiple data sources. On the one hand, this added layer of manual data review ensures consistency of our dataset, but on the other hand, also introduces room for error. Second, for data restriction reasons, we had to refrain from analyses of co-citations, bibliographic couplings or F I G U R E 4 Leximancer concept map for CIM's article titles and abstracts (1992-2019). Note: Initial result for topical clustering algorithm is displayed (Leximancer, 2016). N = 814 records. Theme size = 24%. If themes are parenting identically named concepts, the latter are not labeled [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com] author-supplied keyword co-occurrences, which would have provided a more comprehensive picture of the journal. Lastly, citations, coauthorships and lexical co-occurrences are context-sensitive, e.g., citation behaviour and collaboration decisions can be motivated by non-science-related factors (Bornmann & Daniel, 2008;Liu et al., 2016;Tahamtan et al., 2016;Tahamtan & Bornmann, 2018), and lexical features of article abstracts can vary substantially (e.g., Hartley & Betts, 2009).

| OUTLOOK
When the present editors took over the journal editorship at the beginning of 2016, they added a quote to every editorial. Looking at the past three years, the following quotes can be seen as representative to express the vision and nature of the journal. readers to think about new ways to deal with these challenges and provide impulses. All of us are not only part of the scientific community but also shape with our work the way organizations and societies think and act creatively and innovatively. The following corresponding potential future foci emerge based on the present study.
Combining technology and creativity. Technologies challenge the current view on strategy, management and entrepreneurship. While it is not sure yet when ubiquity will be reached, technology is at the core of most companies, organizations and societies. Therefore, more research on technology and creativity in the areas of Creativity Support Systems (CSS), Computer-supported Collaborative Work (CSCW), data-driven creativity enhancement, and virtual work in general, is needed.
Fostering disruptive innovation. Furthermore, we have to think about how technologies (e.g., artificial intelligence, blockchain, cloud technology, and others) create or enhance business value. Not all technologies will result in disruptive innovation, but companies have to find innovative business models and processes to transform technology in use. Moreover, to solve current and future wicked problems, we need to move beyond our current understanding of Design Thinking and Open Innovation to develop truly disruptive ideas and solutions.
Driving social innovation. We need to broaden our perspective on innovation. Not only technologies drive innovation but rather users' or societies' needs. Research on social innovation is often linked to specific problems with a local focus, which makes it hard to generalize insights. In fact, social innovation involves many different aspects and stakeholders, making interdisciplinary innovation research mandatory.
Applying innovative methods. So far, CIM has seen an almost equal split between quantitative and qualitative methods. For the future, we encourage authors to continue to look for methodological advancements and novel research methods for more in-depth studies on creativity and innovation. Case studies, experiments, big data analysis, ethnography and observation could be appropriate means to broaden and enhance our understanding of why and how creativity and innovation happens.
Publishing innovative formats. We as a journal will also experiment with new formats, aiming at publishing thought-provoking, novel and unique pieces that might not follow the regular article format but encourage ongoing discussions on trends and topics in CIM. The voice of the practitioner needs to further echo through practice-oriented pieces, combining academia and practice in novel ways.
Bridging disciplines. It is astonishing to see that there is not more overlap between disciplines, for example, between project and innovation management or traditional behavioural and organizational science and creativity and innovation. The growing impact of design research on innovation reflects the potential of creating joint research paths. While different disciplines speak different languages and build on different knowledge repositories, much is to be gained by crossing the divide and addressing problems with interdisciplinary research efforts. As the nature of innovation becomes increasingly cross-disciplinary, we expect to see a lot more research on multidisciplinary, entrepreneurial and design-driven approaches for innovation.
Widening the geographical and cultural scope. Our (co-)authorship analysis indicates a strong (historical) focus on Europe and the Anglosphere for institutional affiliations. A broader future geographical scope of the journal-potentially supported by the composition of the editorial board-is aimed for. This is in line with increasing international collaborations in management scholarship, also given the pressing need to understand creativity and innovation across different cultures. CIM is receiving more and more submissions from emerging countries, notably China, while the overall quality of the submitted manuscripts is to date still lower compared to such from traditional regions. CIM has, at its latest workshop, made the commitment to focus on these regions by enlarging and working closely with the authors' and reviewers' base, adding new editorial board members, and fostering collaborations with (networks of) researchers.
CIM has evolved over the last 28 years to become a unique outlet