IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jscscx/v9y2020i3p23-d326024.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Opinion Mining and Sentiment Analysis in Marketing Communications: A Science Mapping Analysis in Web of Science (1998–2018)

Author

Listed:
  • Pablo Sánchez-Núñez

    (Doctorate Program in Communication by Universidad de Cádiz, Universidad de Huelva, Universidad de Málaga and Universidad de Sevilla, 29071 Malaga, Spain)

  • Carlos de las Heras-Pedrosa

    (Department of Audiovisual Communication and Advertising, Faculty of Communication Sciences, Universidad de Málaga, 29071 Malaga, Spain)

  • José Ignacio Peláez

    (Department of Languages and Computer Sciences, Higher Technical School of Computer Engineering, Universidad de Málaga, 29071 Malaga, Spain)

Abstract

Opinion mining and sentiment analysis has become ubiquitous in our society, with applications in online searching, computer vision, image understanding, artificial intelligence and marketing communications (MarCom). Within this context, opinion mining and sentiment analysis in marketing communications (OMSAMC) has a strong role in the development of the field by allowing us to understand whether people are satisfied or dissatisfied with our service or product in order to subsequently analyze the strengths and weaknesses of those consumer experiences. To the best of our knowledge, there is no science mapping analysis covering the research about opinion mining and sentiment analysis in the MarCom ecosystem. In this study, we perform a science mapping analysis on the OMSAMC research, in order to provide an overview of the scientific work during the last two decades in this interdisciplinary area and to show trends that could be the basis for future developments in the field. This study was carried out using VOSviewer, CitNetExplorer and InCites based on results from Web of Science (WoS). The results of this analysis show the evolution of the field, by highlighting the most notable authors, institutions, keywords, publications, countries, categories and journals.

Suggested Citation

  • Pablo Sánchez-Núñez & Carlos de las Heras-Pedrosa & José Ignacio Peláez, 2020. "Opinion Mining and Sentiment Analysis in Marketing Communications: A Science Mapping Analysis in Web of Science (1998–2018)," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-20, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jscscx:v:9:y:2020:i:3:p:23-:d:326024
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/9/3/23/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/9/3/23/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. van Eck, Nees Jan & Waltman, Ludo, 2014. "CitNetExplorer: A new software tool for analyzing and visualizing citation networks," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 802-823.
    2. Wenlong Liu & Rongrong Ji, 2018. "Examining the Role of Online Reviews in Chinese Online Group Buying Context: The Moderating Effect of Promotional Marketing," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 7(8), pages 1-17, August.
    3. Donald Deb. Beaver, 2001. "Reflections on Scientific Collaboration (and its study): Past, Present, and Future," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 52(3), pages 365-377, November.
    4. Belén Álvarez-Bornstein & Fernanda Morillo & María Bordons, 2017. "Funding acknowledgments in the Web of Science: completeness and accuracy of collected data," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(3), pages 1793-1812, September.
    5. van Eck, N.J.P. & Waltman, L., 2009. "How to Normalize Co-Occurrence Data? An Analysis of Some Well-Known Similarity Measures," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2009-001-LIS, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    6. Nees Jan van Eck & Ludo Waltman, 2009. "How to normalize cooccurrence data? An analysis of some well‐known similarity measures," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 60(8), pages 1635-1651, August.
    7. Nees Jan Eck & Ludo Waltman, 2010. "Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(2), pages 523-538, August.
    8. Prabowo, Rudy & Thelwall, Mike, 2009. "Sentiment analysis: A combined approach," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 3(2), pages 143-157.
    9. Thomas L. Saaty & Luis G. Vargas, 2012. "Models, Methods, Concepts & Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," International Series in Operations Research and Management Science, Springer, edition 2, number 978-1-4614-3597-6, April.
    10. Per Ahlgren & Olle Persson & Robert Tijssen, 2013. "Geographical distance in bibliometric relations within epistemic communities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 95(2), pages 771-784, May.
    11. Félix Moya-Anegón & Vicente P. Guerrero-Bote & Lutz Bornmann & Henk F. Moed, 2013. "The research guarantors of scientific papers and the output counting: a promising new approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 97(2), pages 421-434, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Moerchel, Alexander & Tietze, Frank & Urmetzer, Florian, 2023. "Visualising dynamics in innovation ecosystems: A new method and demonstration in the commercial aircraft MRO ecosystem," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Massimiliano M. Pellegrini & Riccardo Rialti & Giacomo Marzi & Andrea Caputo, 2020. "Sport entrepreneurship: A synthesis of existing literature and future perspectives," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 795-826, September.
    2. María Pinto & Rosaura Fernández-Pascual & David Caballero-Mariscal & Dora Sales, 2020. "Information literacy trends in higher education (2006–2019): visualizing the emerging field of mobile information literacy," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(2), pages 1479-1510, August.
    3. Ying Huang & Wolfgang Glänzel & Lin Zhang, 2021. "Tracing the development of mapping knowledge domains," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(7), pages 6201-6224, July.
    4. Perianes-Rodriguez, Antonio & Waltman, Ludo & van Eck, Nees Jan, 2016. "Constructing bibliometric networks: A comparison between full and fractional counting," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 1178-1195.
    5. Jiang, Chenming & Bhat, Chandra R. & Lam, William H.K., 2020. "A bibliometric overview of Transportation Research Part B: Methodological in the past forty years (1979–2019)," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 268-291.
    6. Adrián Kovács & Bart Looy & Bruno Cassiman, 2015. "Exploring the scope of open innovation: a bibliometric review of a decade of research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 104(3), pages 951-983, September.
    7. Emilio Abad-Segura & Alfonso Infante-Moro & Mariana-Daniela González-Zamar & Eloy López-Meneses, 2021. "Blockchain Technology for Secure Accounting Management: Research Trends Analysis," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(14), pages 1-26, July.
    8. Philipp Korom, 2019. "A bibliometric visualization of the economics and sociology of wealth inequality: a world apart?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(3), pages 849-868, March.
    9. Andrej Srakar, 2017. "Prevalence of Diseases and Health Care Utilization ofthe Self-Employed Artists and TheirEmpirical Determinants: Evidence From a Slovenian Survey," ACEI Working Paper Series AWP-08-2017, Association for Cultural Economics International, revised Sep 2017.
    10. Juntao Zheng & Niancai Liu, 2015. "Mapping of important international academic awards," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 104(3), pages 763-791, September.
    11. Satish Kumar & Riya Sureka & Sisira Colombage, 2020. "Capital structure of SMEs: a systematic literature review and bibliometric analysis," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 70(4), pages 535-565, November.
    12. Marta Ortiz-de-Urbina-Criado & Juan-José Nájera-Sánchez & Eva-María Mora-Valentín, 2018. "A Research Agenda on Open Innovation and Entrepreneurship: A Co-Word Analysis," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-17, July.
    13. Francesco Paolo Appio & Fabrizio Cesaroni & Alberto Minin, 2014. "Visualizing the structure and bridges of the intellectual property management and strategy literature: a document co-citation analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(1), pages 623-661, October.
    14. Claudia Patricia Maldonado-Erazo & José Álvarez-García & María de la Cruz del Río-Rama & Amador Durán-Sánchez, 2021. "Scientific Mapping on the Impact of Climate Change on Cultural and Natural Heritage: A Systematic Scientometric Analysis," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-19, January.
    15. Letycja Sołoducho-Pelc & Adam Sulich, 2022. "Natural Environment Protection Strategies and Green Management Style: Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-25, August.
    16. Jianhua Hou & Xiucai Yang & Chaomei Chen, 2018. "Emerging trends and new developments in information science: a document co-citation analysis (2009–2016)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(2), pages 869-892, May.
    17. Patrick Röhm, 2018. "Exploring the landscape of corporate venture capital: a systematic review of the entrepreneurial and finance literature," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 68(3), pages 279-319, August.
    18. Daniel Plörer & Sascha Hammes & Martin Hauer & Vincent van Karsbergen & Rainer Pfluger, 2021. "Control Strategies for Daylight and Artificial Lighting in Office Buildings—A Bibliometrically Assisted Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-18, June.
    19. Lu, Kun & Wolfram, Dietmar, 2010. "Geographic characteristics of the growth of informetrics literature 1987–2008," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 4(4), pages 591-601.
    20. Igors Skute, 2019. "Opening the black box of academic entrepreneurship: a bibliometric analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 120(1), pages 237-265, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jscscx:v:9:y:2020:i:3:p:23-:d:326024. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.