E-S-QUAL: A multiple-item scale for assessing electronic service quality
Impact in
- Marketing 108
- Journal
- Carolina Digital Repository (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill)
In The Last Decade
doi.org/10.17615/1mdx-dp60 →Countries where authors are citing E-S-QUAL: A multiple-item scale for assessing electronic service quality
This map shows the geographic impact of E-S-QUAL: A multiple-item scale for assessing electronic service quality. It shows the number of citations coming from papers published by authors working in each country. You can also color the map by specialization and compare the number of citations received by E-S-QUAL: A multiple-item scale for assessing electronic service quality with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites E-S-QUAL: A multiple-item scale for assessing electronic service quality more than expected).
Fields of papers citing E-S-QUAL: A multiple-item scale for assessing electronic service quality
This network shows the impact of E-S-QUAL: A multiple-item scale for assessing electronic service quality. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the E-S-QUAL: A multiple-item scale for assessing electronic service quality.
About E-S-QUAL: A multiple-item scale for assessing electronic service quality
This paper, published in 2019, received 235 indexed citations . Written by Arvind Malhotra and Valarie A. Zeithaml. It is primarily cited by scholars working on Marketing (108 citations), Information Systems and Management (104 citations), Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management (90 citations), Sociology and Political Science (69 citations) and Demography (60 citations). Published in Carolina Digital Repository (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill).
Rankless uses publication and citation data sourced from OpenAlex, an open and comprehensive bibliographic database. While OpenAlex provides broad and valuable coverage of the global research landscape, it—like all bibliographic datasets—has inherent limitations. These include incomplete records, variations in author disambiguation, differences in journal indexing, and delays in data updates. As a result, some metrics and network relationships displayed in Rankless may not fully capture the entirety of a scholar's output or impact.
This paper is also available at doi.org/10.17615/1mdx-dp60.