Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2024 Jun 21;14(7):514.
doi: 10.3390/bs14070514.

"What about Military Decision-Making?": A Bibliometric Review of Published Articles

Ivan D'Alessio  1 , Umberto Aitella  1 , Anna Maria Giannini  1 , Jessica Burrai  1
Affiliations
Review

"What about Military Decision-Making?": A Bibliometric Review of Published Articles

Ivan D'Alessio et al. Behav Sci (Basel). .

Abstract

Decision-making processes in the military domain constitute a strategic field of research in cognitive psychology, although there are currently few scientific publications addressing the topic. Professionals in the field and interested parties need access to data on military decision-making processes to understand where and how the scientific community is directing its investigations on the issue. Military decision-making is a strategic field of study because the military is crucial to the security and defense of a country or community. This work aims to be a point of reference for those involved in various capacities in military decision-making, providing key data regarding research trends over the years, the geographical distribution of scientific productivity, methodologies employed, annual statistics, and the prevalence of the most-investigated terms and topics. Therefore, this study serves as a bibliometric analysis of the literature on military decision-making publihed from 1992 to 2023 on the Scopus and Web of Science databases.

Keywords: army decision making bibliometric review; bibliometric analysis; defence decision-making analysis; military decision-making; military decision-making review.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Article-selection process.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Number of articles focused on MDM published between 1992 and November 2023 (data collected on Scopus and Web of Science).
Figure 3
Figure 3
Graphical representation of the most productive countries for scientific articles.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Co-citation, cited authors, minimum number of citations of an author: 2. Most interconnected authors.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Co-occurrence analysis on the topic of MDM. The units of analysis were index keywords, with a total of 2854 index keywords identified. The analysis employed a binary count with a minimum occurrence threshold set at 30. In total, 15 keywords were identified.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. D’alessio I., Quaglieri A., Burrai J., Pizzo A., Mari E., Aitella U., Lausi G., Tagliaferri G., Cordellieri P., Giannini A.M., et al. “Leading through Crisis”: A Systematic Review of Institutional Decision-Makers in Emergency Contexts. Behav. Sci. 2024;14:481. doi: 10.3390/bs14060481. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Guitouni A., Wheaton K., Wood D. An Essay to Characterise Models of the Military Decision-Making Process; Proceedings of the 11th ICCRT Symposium; Cambridge, UK. 26–28 September 2006.
    1. Pravettoni G., Leotta S.N., Russo V. In: Psicologo: Verso la Professione. Moderato P., Rovetto F., editors. McGraw-Hill; New York, NY, USA: 2015.
    1. Janis I.L., Mann L. Decision Making: A psychological Analysis of Conflict, Choice, and Commitment. Free Press; Los Angeles, CA, USA: 1977.
    1. Von Neumann J., Morgenstern O. Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton University Press; Princeton, NJ, USA: 2007. Theory of Games and Economic Behavior: 60th Anniversary Commemorative Edition.

LinkOut - more resources