Digital Leadership in Education: A Bibliometric Analysis of Research Trends from 1993 to 2024

John Olayemi OKunlola; Suraiya Rathankoomar Naicker

doi:10.12688/f1000research.166667.2

. 2025 Sep 19;14:687. Originally published 2025 Jul 11. [Version 2] doi: 10.12688/f1000research.166667.2

Digital Leadership in Education: A Bibliometric Analysis of Research Trends from 1993 to 2024

John Olayemi OKunlola ^1,^a, Suraiya Rathankoomar Naicker ¹

PMCID: PMC12475901 PMID: 41019349

Version Changes

Revised. Amendments from Version 1

The study applies a bibliometric approach, offering both methodological and conceptual grounding. Since bibliometric analysis itself functions as a theoretical lens, additional frameworks may not be strictly necessary. We acknowledge the comment and have expanded the implications of the study section. The inaccuracy in the usage of the years 1993 and 2010 has been corrected. Identified gaps in the abstracts have been re-examined and catered for. We note the comment on software packages and analysis thresholds have now been explicitly added to the methodological section as suggested. Figure 4: The Sankey Citation Flow Map was appropriately integrated into the main manuscript. Perhaps a mismatch occurred during copy-editing. In this study, maturity denotes thematic coherence and growing intellectual cohesion, not conceptual closure. The findings show sustained evolution, as emerging themes like AI integration and institutional digital capacity continue to expand the field’s boundaries. The manuscript drew on prolific authors such as Karakose and Altinay due to their high visibility in the bibliometric dataset; as a bibliometric-driven study, the analysis is bounded by Scopus data, which foregrounds the most cited authors. We thank the reviewer for this observation. The manuscript did state the use of RStudio and bibliometrix , though not explicitly. For clarity, we now specify that the analysis was conducted using the biblioshiny interface of bibliometrix, with thresholds and clustering parameters applied accordingly. The manuscript has been revised to include the search strings, field tags, Boolean operators used in RStudio. We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion; however, this study is intentionally confined to digital leadership in education, while future research may extend the methodology to broader public-sector contexts. As suggested, the impact of COVID-19 on digital transformation in education has now been incorporated and supported with references to Kang (2021), Deroncele-Acosta et al. (2023), and Mhlanga & Moloi (2020).

Abstract

The Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR), the COVID-19 pandemic, and the rapidly digitising educational system due to advances in artificial intelligence (AI) have made a change in leadership imperative. A key framework for improving organisational effectiveness in handling these changes is digital leadership. It combines technological competencies with traditional leadership. Even with increased scholarly interest, there remains a gap in the thorough analysis of the field’s intellectual framework, thematic evolution, and collaborative dynamics. This study addresses this gap by conducting a bibliometric analysis of digital leadership research in education from 1993 to 2024, employing RStudio to map publication trends, influential sources, author productivity, conceptual themes, and social structures. Data from 338 Scopus-indexed documents reveal a significant rise in publications post-2010, peaking in 2023, with core journals such as Education and Information Technologies and Cogent Education dominating the field. However, the notable decline observed in 2024 indicates that the decline in publications may be due to research saturation, a change in research priorities, or funding. Prolific authors like Karakose T., Altinay F., and Z. underscore the centrality of collaborative research, while thematic mapping identifies key clusters: digital competence, virtual leadership, and institutional innovation. Thematic evolution highlights a post-pandemic pivot toward digital transformation and AI integration, though niche areas like K-12 digital leadership remain underdeveloped. Social network analysis reveals dispersed yet growing global collaborations, with the United States, Turkey, and the United Kingdom as dominant hubs, while disparities persist in Global South participation. The study’s implications emphasize the need for interdisciplinary research, equitable global partnerships, and policy frameworks that prioritize digital leadership training for educators. Practitioners are encouraged to implement adaptive strategies to leverage emerging technologies, ensuring sustainable learning outcomes. This analysis provides a foundation for future research and practice in digital leadership by delineating the field’s conceptual and social networks, thereby bridging the divides between theory, policy, and institutional practice.

Keywords: digital leadership, educational technology, bibliometric analysis, AI in education, leadership 4.0, thematic evolution, collaboration network

Introduction

The Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) is characterised by its transformative impact on sectors including health, education, the economy, engineering, and defence through digitisation, significantly improving human life and the environment. It appears to have surpassed other successive industrial revolutions (IR) in adding value and virtues to the globe ( Okunlola et al., 2024). Hence, digitalization is profoundly revolutionizing various aspects of everyday life across sectors and industries, requiring leaders to integrate digital competencies into traditional leadership approaches for organizational feat ( Karakose et al., 2022; Oberer, B. and Erkollar, 2018). Due to this paradigm shift triggered by technological advancements, digital technologies have quickly transformed how societies function; hence, digital leadership has emerged as a new necessity for organizations to operate effectively ( Karakose et al., 2024; Okunlola, 2024a, 2024b). The wave of digitalization seems pervasive and is changing all workplaces into digital ones ( Arham et al., 2023; Ghavifekr & Pei, 2023; Karakose et al., 2023). As a result, research on digital leadership has drawn interest from scholars around the globe, and numerous studies have been carried out on the subject ( Hamzah et al., 2021; Karakose et al., 2022).

The nexus of information technology and human resources has given rise to digital leadership, which focuses on how both technical and human factors impact corporate digital transformation and supports an organization’s socio-technical aspects ( Gierlich-Joas et al., 2020; Yulianto et al., 2023). Digital leadership encompasses a variety of elements, including relationships, technology leadership, virtual teams, globalization, learning, e-leadership, leadership 4.0, and organizational performance. The umbrella term describes the role and abilities of digital leaders in the digital age ( Karakose et al., 2022; Yulianto et al., 2023). Research on digital leadership roles has increased as a result of the substantial impact that digital trends have on educational institutions. Digital leadership requires models centered on technology that support school operations ( Zhong, 2017). Education is changing due to digital technologies, and these transformative trends have necessitated the re-evaluation of leadership paradigms to effectively navigate the complexities of the digital era ( Cabellon & Ahlquist, 2016; Connolly et al., 2023). In particular, the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted traditional schooling and accelerated the transformation of technology use in education globally, compelling rapid adoption of digital technologies for teaching, learning, and leadership. This disruption reshaped educational leadership practices and highlighted the critical role of digital leadership in ensuring continuity, resilience, and innovation ( Deroncele-Acosta et al., 2023; Kang, 2021; Mhlanga, D., & Moloi, 2020).

The advances in Artificial Intelligence (AI) and COVID-19 have also led to a surge in research on digital leadership in education, underscoring the need for more studies on digitalization in education ( Karakose et al., 2024).

The research on digital leadership in education is expanding and growing in leaps and bounds. Hence, this study employs a bibliometric analysis due to its capacity for science mapping and visualization in processing and analyzing large volumes of scientific data. Bibliometric analysis has now become an essential component of research evaluation methodology, which enables the unpacking of evolutionary and emerging trends in several fields of research domains ( Donthu et al., 2021; Ellegaard & Wallin, 2015; Patra et al., 2006; Smyrnova-Trybulska et al., 2017). Thus, this study offers researchers and practitioners many benefits, including illuminating the digital leadership field’s evolving development and highlighting new areas of study within it ( Donthu et al., 2021; Tigre et al., 2023). This perceived gap in understanding how the field has conceptually evolved necessitates using the bibliometric method. This study, therefore, aims to address this gap by conducting a bibliometric analysis of digital leadership research in education published between 1993 and 2024. Through the mapping of the field’s conceptual structure and thematic evolution, this research provides a deeper understanding of the dominant themes, their development, and areas that may require further investigation to guide the effective practice of digital leadership in educational institutions. Hence, the study is guided by the following research questions:

1.
What is the trend in the number of publications on digital leadership in education from 1993 to 2024?
2.
What are the sources of publications on digital leadership in education from 1993 to 2024?
3.
What is the information about the authors with publications from 1993 to 2024?
4.
What are the most common themes, keywords, and concepts on digital leadership in education from 1993 to 2024?
5.
What is the social structure of the publications on digital leadership in education from 1993 to 2024?

Literature review

Digital leadership in education

Digital leadership in education entails adopting and utilizing new technologies to change the roles and responsibilities of principals and turn schools into digital learning environments ( Flanagan & Jacobsen, 2003; Karakose et al., 2024; Zhong, 2017). A key component of learning and leading in the pandemic and post-pandemic era appears to be incorporating digital technologies into the educational landscape ( Okunlola, 2024a). Hence, as the world changes in the post-pandemic era, school leaders need to remain current on digital transformations by keeping up with the emerging tools of the digital revolution to foster growth and development in the educational ecosystem ( Okunlola et al., 2024). However, Sheninger (2014) points out that some school administrators lack digital technology competencies and are reluctant to embrace digital technologies. Meanwhile, integrating digital leadership into education is no longer negotiable in the current age, as studies have affirmed a correlation between principals’ knowledge of technology integration and motivation to lead school-wide changes ( Hamzah et al., 2021; Leong et al., 2016; Okunlola, 2024a). The position of Van Niekerk and Van Wyk (2014) is highly instructive, and the principal is a pivotal player in bringing technology into the classroom through daily management and administrative processes.

Moreso, a digital education leader, as Sheninger opined, must demonstrate some attributes, including proficiency in communication, public relations, branding, student engagement, professional development, and innovative learning environments. Nugroho (2015) also contends that digital leadership in education requires access to high-quality resources and digital technology, and teachers who are proficient in using it ( Ridho et al., 2023). In addition, digital leadership in education places a strong emphasis on using technology effectively, reflecting critically on it, and taking steps to address how it affects school transformation ( Brown et al., 2016; Ridho et al., 2023; Rusnati & Gaffar, 2020). The current wave of digital transformations has shown that the pandemic imposed unique obligations on digital leaders. The post-pandemic era has thrust extra digital roles and responsibilities on school leaders. Leaders may follow the trend or fall behind ( Okunlola, 2024a). In other words, school leaders and teachers can no longer ignore a defining factor of current students’ exposure to technology. This makes it more imperative to adopt and apply digital leadership in education in the learning environment.

Materials and methods

The current study employs a bibliometric methodology with the application of RStudio software (R version 4.5.0, 2025-04-11 ucrt) ( Aria & Cuccurullo, 2017). A bibliometric study is a methodical, objective, and quantitative way to map the research field and examine the bibliographic material ( Tigre et al., 2023; Zupic & Čater, 2015). The analysis was conducted in RStudio using the bibliometrix package and its graphical interface, biblioshiny ( Aria & Cuccurullo, 2017). A minimum citation threshold of five was applied for co-citation and co-word clustering to ensure robustness. Thus, a thorough grasp of the evolution of digital leadership in education is possible through bibliometric tools and network analysis, which analyze unstructured data and make significant contributions to the field ( Donthu et al., 2021). The bibliometric analysis was used to map the research growth and development of digital leadership in education from 1993 to 2024. The software can map and analyze research trends, cited references, and cited documents, publication sources, authors’ information, and conceptual, social, and intellectual structures.

Data search strategy, extraction, and analysis procedure

The metadata was conducted on the Scopus database to identify and map relevant publications on digital leadership in education. Scopus is often preferred in bibliometric studies due to its broader journal coverage, reducing the risk of missing relevant articles compared to Web of Science and other databases ( Karakose et al., 2022; Mongeon & Paul-Hus, 2016). We employed search terms such as “digital leadership*” OR “schools” OR “education” OR “institution” OR “college” and 416 documents appeared in the Scopus database. The inclusion criteria benchmark requires that the document be a journal article, conference paper, book chapter, or review article published in English and at the final publication stage from 1993 to 2024. All articles in the press and not written in English were excluded, and the remaining publications that met this standard threshold were 338 documents. The document types comprise 209 journal articles, 63 conference papers, 49 book chapters, and 17 review papers. Consequently, the data analysis was conducted using the RStudio software (R version 4.5.0, 2025-04-11). Figure 1 below presents a flowchart of data search and extraction procedures based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) ( Liberati et al., 2009).

Results

Bibliometric analysis

The bibliometric analysis revealed 338 documents published between 1993 and 2024, sourced from 249 journals, books, and other outlets. These documents have accumulated 13,724 references and exhibit an average citation count of 8.932 per document, with an annual growth rate of 10.72% and an average age of 4.84 years. The document types comprise 209 journal articles, 63 conference papers, 49 book chapters, and 17 review papers. The keyword distribution includes 1,198 Keywords Plus and 1,133 Author’s Keywords. In terms of authorship, the dataset involves 986 authors, with 73 single-authored documents and an average of 3.07 co-authors per document, of which 16.27% involve international collaboration.

Research question one explores publication trends in digital leadership in education from 1993 to 2024. Figure 2 shows a sharp post-2010 rise in publications, peaking in 2023. Figure 2 presents citation growth, mirroring publication trends, and Figure 3 maps influential leadership authors and their citation links to digital education themes.

Figure 3. — Source: Processed data outcomes (2025).

Research question 1: What is the trend in the number of publications on digital leadership in education from 1993 to 2024?

According to the number of articles published annually, Figure 2 shows the evolution of research output from 1993 to 2025. The trend indicates a comparatively stagnant period in the preceding years, especially from 1993 to 2009, when the annual output was continuously low and showed little fluctuation. Around 2010, there is a noticeable upward trend that reflects a steady rise in scholarly activity. After 2017, this growth picks up speed as it enters an exponential expansion phase. The highest number of articles published during the observed period, 2023, marks the peak in scientific output. However, the notable decline observed in 2024 indicates that the trend experiences a steep drop immediately afterward. The graph highlights a notable evolution in research production overall, with consistent growth, a peak of high productivity, and a discernible recent decline.

Figure 3 shows the average number of citations per year for academic publications from 1993 to 2025. According to the data, the citation rate was comparatively constant in the early years before gradually rising beginning in 2010. After 2017, this upward trend becomes more noticeable, indicating that scholarly works are more visible and influential, perhaps as a result of more collaborative research projects and easier access to digital resources. The 2023 average citation peak indicates the highest scholarly impact during the study period. However, an apparent decrease in 2024 might be explained by matters like publication saturation, changes in the focus of research, or outside disturbances that impact citation patterns. Overall, the figure highlights times of growth and decline in citation patterns, underscoring the dynamic character of academic influence over time.

Figure 4 shows a citation network visualization that maps relationships between leadership and technology in education literature. Four source authors (Hector, Burns, Sheppard, Bronfenbrenner) on the left connect to various educational technology themes on the right via gray citation lines. Key themes include technology leadership, digital leadership, digital literacy, digital transformation, and educational computing. The diagram illustrates how foundational leadership theories have influenced educational technology applications, revealing the interdisciplinary connections that form the intellectual basis of technology leadership in education. The network structure demonstrates which authors have been most influential across multiple domains in this field.

Research question two investigates the primary sources publishing research on digital leadership in education from 1993 to 2024. Figure 5: Most Relevant Sources highlights the top journals contributing to the field, with Cogent Education leading in volume. Figure 6: Core Sources by Bradford’s Law identifies high-yield journals forming the publication nucleus. Figure 7: Sources’ Local Impact by H-index ranks these journals by citation influence, showing Education and Information Technologies as most impactful. Finally, Figure 8: Sources’ Production over Time illustrates cumulative output trends, revealing rapid growth in scholarly contributions, especially after 2015.

Figure 6. — Source: Processed data outcomes (2025).

Figure 7. — Source: Processed data outcomes (2025).

Figure 8. — Source: Processed data outcomes (2025).

Research question 2: What are the sources of publications on digital leadership in education from 1993 to 2024?

Figure 5 shows a horizontal bar chart quantifying document contributions from key educational technology publication sources. Cogent Education leads with nine documents, followed by Education and Information Technologies and Education Sciences (7 each), British Journal of Educational Technology (5), Frontiers in Education (4), and Lecture Notes in Educational Technology (4) form the mid-tier contributors. The distribution demonstrates the interdisciplinary nature of educational technology research, with significant contributions from dedicated educational technology journals and broader education publications, revealing where the most substantial scholarly discourse occurs.

Figure 6, a graph, illustrates Bradford’s Law application to educational technology literature sources. The step-function plot maps the relationship between source logarithmic rank (x-axis) and article productivity (y-axis). The shaded “Core Sources” region identifies the most productive publications, with Cogent Education, Education and Information Technologies, and Education Sciences forming the highest-contributing nucleus. The distinctive downward trend illustrates the bibliometric principle that a small number of journals generate an excessively high proportion of pertinent articles. Researchers searching for high-impact publications in the field of educational technology can get empirical guidance from this visualisation, which successfully identifies the primary publication venues influencing this conversation.

Figure 7 represents the horizontal bar chart that maps the impact of local citations on educational technology publications through their H-index values. Education and Information Technologies leads with an H-index of 6, followed by British Journal of Educational Technology (5) and Education Sciences (4). Four sources share an H-index of 3 (Frontiers in Education, International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, Journal of Research on Technology in Education, and Sustainability), while the three sources register an H-index of two. The visualisation shows the stratification of citation impact in this field, separating high-impact journals from those with more modest citation footprints in educational technology discourse.

Figure 8 shows the line graph, which tracks cumulative publication output from key educational technology journals between 1993 and 2025. The visualization reveals that significant publication activity only began around 2015, with dramatic acceleration after 2021. Cogent Education shows the steepest growth trajectory (yellow line), reaching approximately nine publications by 2025, while Education Sciences and Education and Information Technologies demonstrate substantial but more moderate growth. British Journal of Educational Technology and Frontiers in Education follow similar growth patterns. The temporal distribution indicates that educational technology has rapidly evolved as a research domain, with the most substantial scholarly contributions emerging within the past decade.

Research question three presents key findings about author productivity and impact in digital leadership research from 1993 to 2024, highlighting leading contributors and citation patterns that define the field’s scholarly landscape across key metrics such as: Most Relevant Authors, Authors’ Production over Time, Authors’ Local Impact by H-index, Most Globally Cited Documents and Most Locally Cited References.

Research question 3: What is the information on digital leadership about the authors with publications from 1993 to 2024?

Figure 9 depicts the horizontal bar chart, quantifying publication productivity among key educational technology scholars. Three researchers lead with four publications each: Altinay F, Altinay Z, and Karakose T, establishing them as the most prolific contributors in this domain. Seven additional scholars (Antonopoulou H, Blau I, Halkiopoulos C, Polat H, Reis-Andersson J, Shamir-Inbal T, and Tulubas T) follow with three publications each. Similar publication counts suggest possible collaboration clusters, and the distribution shows a relatively small core of productive researchers driving educational technology scholarship. This productivity metric assists in identifying key players who influence conceptualisation and empirical research in the field.

The scatter plot from Figure 10 illustrates the temporal distribution and intensity of scholarly output among educational technology researchers from 2015 to 2024. Altinay F, Altinay Z, and Karakose T show the most sustained activity, with Altinay Z peaking in recent years. Marker size reflects the number of articles, while the vertical scale shows individual authors. Citation impact (TC per Year) varies, with Antonopoulou H and Tulubas T achieving higher influence per output in 2022 and 2023, respectively. The timeline reveals a growing research momentum post-2020, with visible clustering suggesting emerging collaboration patterns and thematic convergence.

The H-index scores of important educational technology researchers are displayed in a dot plot in Figure 11, emphasising their scholarly influence locally. Karakose T leads with an H-index of 4, indicating consistent citation of multiple publications. Four other scholars: Blau I, Polat H, Shamir-Inbal T, and Tulubas T share the next highest score of 3, reflecting solid citation performance across their output. A second tier of contributors, including Altinay F, Altinay Z, Antonopoulou H, and others, holds an H-index of 2 or below. The distribution underscores a small cohort of highly cited authors shaping localized academic discourse within the field.

This horizontal bar chart in Figure 12 displays the most frequently cited references within the selected body of educational technology literature. Flanagan L. (2003) leads with nine local citations, followed closely by Braun V. (2006), Burns J.M. (1978), and Dexter S. (2020), each cited 7 times. These works likely represent foundational or widely applied theoretical frameworks. The presence of recent sources such as Karakose T. (2021) and Harris A. (2020) indicates the integration of contemporary discourse. The combination of older and modern citations reveals a scholarly dialogue that bridges long-established theories with emerging educational challenges.

This horizontal dot plot in Figure 13 ranks scholarly documents by total global citations within educational technology. Karakose T. (2021) tops the list with 161 citations, indicating substantial international influence, followed by Sá M.J. (2020) with 134. Farnan J.M. (2008) and Alajmi M.K. (2022) also show high visibility with 91 and 86 citations, respectively. The presence of both foundational medical education research and recent digital learning studies reflects interdisciplinary relevance. The citation patterns suggest growing global scholarly engagement with themes of sustainability, instructional innovation, and digital transformation in education.

Research question four explores the conceptual structure of digital leadership in education from 1993 to 2024. Figures 14– 19 detail key themes, keyword dynamics, and conceptual trends of the study. From co-occurrence patterns ( Figure 14) to thematic evolution ( Figure 15) and strategic mapping ( Figures 16– 19), the findings reveal a field shaped by pedagogical, technological, and interdisciplinary concerns.

Figure 14. — Source: Processed data outcomes (2025).

Figure 19. — Source: Processed data outcomes (2025).

Figure 15. — Source: Processed data outcomes (2025).

Figure 16. — Source: Processed data outcomes (2025).

Research question 4: What are the most common themes, keywords, and concepts in digital leadership in education from 1993 to 2024?

This co-occurrence network visualizes thematic clusters within educational technology literature. Two major clusters emerge: the blue cluster emphasizes “leadership,” “humans,” and “medical education,” reflecting health sciences and organizational research; the red cluster centers on “students,” “teaching,” and “engineering education,” indicating pedagogical and digital learning themes. Bridging terms such as “education” and “teaching” suggests an interdisciplinary overlap. Node size denotes frequency, while edge thickness indicates keyword association strength. The network highlights the field’s bifocal structure—balancing leadership in health-related contexts and technological innovation in instructional environments.

Figure 15 illustrates the longitudinal shift in thematic focus within educational leadership research from 1993 to 2025. Early themes such as “leadership,” “school leadership,” and “digital education” (1993–2022) transition into contemporary emphases like “digital leadership,” “digital transformation,” and “educational innovation” (2023–2025). Notably, “leadership” remains central, evolving in scope and linking to future-focused constructs such as “digital competence” and “institutional leadership.” Thematic continuity is evident, yet the vocabulary increasingly reflects technological and pandemic-era concerns, signifying a conceptual pivot toward digitally mediated educational practices.

Figure 16 categorizes research themes by development (density) and relevance (centrality). “Leadership,” “human,” and “education” appear in the upper-left quadrant as well-developed niche themes, indicating specialization but limited influence across the broader field. On the other hand, “students”, “teaching”, and “e-learning” are grouped in the lower-right quadrant, indicating that they are fundamental themes that are underdeveloped despite being extremely central. These foundational topics play a key integrative role across studies but warrant further theoretical refinement. The absence of motor or emerging themes suggests a field stabilizing around established concepts, with limited current innovation or diversification.

Figure 17 identifies four thematic zones. “Leadership,” “school leadership,” and “management & administration” are motor themes—both central and well-developed, indicating strong influence and theoretical maturity. The concepts of “digital leadership”, “digital competence”, and “education” are fundamental yet essential; they need to be further developed to be as relevant as they are. Both “K-12 education” and “artificial intelligence” appear as niches, denoting focused but distinct research. In contrast, the lower-left quadrant contains the emerging or declining themes of “mental health” and “digital education,” indicating a lack of integration and growth. This distribution reflects a research field balancing traditional foundations with rising digital and contextual shifts.

The map in Figure 18 visualizes thematic clustering in educational research. The right cluster, dominated by “students,” “decision making,” and “educational technology,” highlights a strong digital and learner-centered focus. The central zone shows general terms like “education,” “learning,” and “leadership,” reflecting the field’s conceptual core. The left cluster is anchored in “medical education,” “schools,” and “organization,” indicating a distinct strand related to healthcare and institutional management. Terms on the lower left, like “mental health” and “coronavirus disease 2019”, show the influence of context. Overall, the structure shows a three-way research landscape that includes digital transformation, medical education, and pedagogy.

This treemap in Figure 19 visualizes the frequency and distribution of keywords across educational research literature. Dominant terms such as “leadership” (6%), “students” (5%), “teaching” (5%), and “e-learning” (5%) indicate sustained scholarly focus on pedagogy, digital environments, and organizational roles. “Engineering education”, “medical education”, and “curriculum”, which indicate sector-specific interests, are examples of mid-frequency terms. New trends are reflected in less common but noteworthy keywords like “digital transformation” and “social media.” The area-based, hierarchical layout emphasises thematic prominence and relational breadth, offering a thorough overview of research priorities and the changing field of educational inquiry.

Research question five examines the social structure of digital leadership research in education between 1993 and 2024. Figures 20 and 21 visualize co-authorship and country collaboration patterns. The co-authorship map ( Figure 20) reveals key author networks, while the country collaboration map ( Figure 21) highlights global partnerships, led predominantly by developed nations.

Figure 20. — Source: Processed data outcomes (2025).

Figure 21. — Source: Processed data outcomes (2025).

Research question 5: What is the social structure of the publications on digital leadership in education from 1993 to 2024?

This co-authorship network in Figure 20 highlights collaborative clusters within educational research. Central figures such as Karakose T., Altinay F., and Altinay Z. display strong interconnections, indicating prolific joint contributions and central influence. Smaller, isolated clusters (e.g., Imron A. & Wiyono BB, Shamir-Inbal T. & Blau I.) suggest limited but focused collaborations. The size and proximity of nodes represent author prominence and partnership strength, respectively. The network underscores a fragmented yet collaborative scholarly landscape, with key authors forming distinct hubs of knowledge production.

The map in Figure 21 above illustrates patterns of international research collaboration, with the US standing out as the main hub and forming wide-ranging partnerships across continents. The United States has noteworthy partnerships with nations like Australia, the United Kingdom, and Turkey. Higher contributions are indicated by darker blue, which reflects varying degrees of research activity. The global distribution points to a concentration of collaborative networks in North America, Europe, and some parts of Asia-Pacific, underscoring regional differences and confirming the importance of developed countries in international academic collaboration.

Discussion of findings

The bibliometric analysis of digital leadership in education from 1993 to 2024 revealed significant trends, thematic shifts, and collaborative patterns, addressing the five research questions guiding this study. Below is a structured discussion of the findings:

Publication trends between 1993 and 2024

These findings show a significant increase in publications on digital leadership in education after 2010, with a peak in 2023 and a subsequent decline in 2024. The COVID-19 pandemic, AI breakthroughs, and the need for digital leadership skills have all contributed to the global acceleration of digital transformation, especially in education. The recent steep decline may indicate saturation or a change in research priorities, whereas the surge reflects increased scholarly interest in how digital tools transform educational leadership. Additionally, the observed decline in publications may be attributed to other factors not captured in the dataset, including delays in indexing or changes in funding cycles could contribute to this downturn.

Meanwhile, the citation trends reflected the growth in publications, highlighting the field’s growing impact. Recent studies corroborate this study’s findings that there was a significant surge in publications post-2010 on digital leadership research in education ( Adeoye et al., 2023; Wollscheid et al., 2025; Zhao & Zhou, 2024).

Publication sources between 1993 and 2024

A concentration of influential publications in a few core journals, such as Cogent Education, Education and Information Technologies, and Education Sciences, emerged as central outlets for digital leadership research. Bradford’s Law confirmed these as core sources, with Education and Information Technologies exhibiting the highest local impact (H-index = 6). The dominance of these journals highlights their role in disseminating cutting-edge research, while the rapid post-2015 growth in output suggests the field’s maturation as a distinct research domain. Some scholars attest to an increasing concentration of publications in key journals and the development of thematic areas over the reference time ( Adeoye et al., 2023; Karakose et al., 2024; Makda, 2025; Wollscheid et al., 2025).

Author productivity and impact between 1993 and 2024

The results highlight a compact group of prolific scholars consistently demonstrating volume and influence in digital leadership education discourse. Karakose T., Altinay F., and Altinay Z. emerge as high-impact contributors, with Karakose demonstrating the highest local influence (H-index = 4) and notable global citations (e.g., Karakose et al., 2021 study with 161 citations). According to previous bibliometric studies, Karakose is an important contributor to the discourse on digital leadership, primarily as a result of collaborative efforts to analyse the field’s theoretical limitations and evolution ( Karakose et al., 2022; Karakose & Tülübaş, 2023). Similar to this, Altinay F. and Altinay Z.’s joint scholarship shows a strong emphasis on inclusive digital leadership practices, especially in the areas of educational accessibility and sustainability ( Baglama et al., 2022). The analysis also demonstrates the field’s increasing intellectual cohesion and thematic maturity. Notably, post-2020 co-authorship networks show intensified collaboration, likely driven by global digital disruptions such as COVID-19, accelerating the transition to remote research and leadership models. The interplay between foundational leadership frameworks (e.g., Burns, 1978) and emergent digital competencies ( Dexter et al., 2020; Harris & Jones, 2020) highlights how established theories are adapted to meet contemporary educational challenges.

Conceptual structure between 1993 and 2024

The conceptual structure, as revealed through co-occurrence analysis and thematic mapping, points to a dual orientation toward educational leadership principles and digital transformation technologies. Through a bibliometric mapping approach, Karakose et al. (2022) demonstrate that digital competence, virtual leadership, and innovation have become core thematic clusters, particularly after 2020, coinciding with pandemic-induced shifts in educational delivery. Thematic evolution and strategic mapping further underscore a maturing research landscape, with shifts from technology management function to a more holistic construct encompassing AI integration and institutional digital capacity ( Sagbasi & Erdogan, 2022). Similarly, Magesa and Jonathan (2022) and Gilli et al. (2023) confirm that thematic evolution showed a post-pandemic pivot toward digital transformation leadership in response to systemic challenges, underlining the global relevance of digital competencies across institutional contexts. The lack of motor themes, however, suggests that the field is maturing around central concepts, with little innovation in specialised fields like artificial intelligence and K–12 education.

Social structure between 1993 and 2024

The social structure of contemporary educational digital leadership research between 1993 and 2024 reveals a fragmented yet expanding scholarly collaboration network. Co-authorship patterns indicate the emergence of closely connected author clusters, particularly among prolific contributors such as Karakose and Altinay, whose frequent collaborations exemplify regional academic cohesion ( Wollscheid et al., 2025). Globally, countries like the United States, Turkey, and the United Kingdom dominate as research hubs, reflecting their roles and influences in knowledge production in the Global North ( Tigre et al., 2023). This study also aligns with Chasokela et al. (2025), who contended that digital technologies have facilitated international research exchange but reinforce the structural disparities in global participation. Consequently, developing nations continue to be under-represented in high-impact publishing networks, indicating that initiatives aimed at enhancing capacity and promoting digital equity are essential for inclusive knowledge production in the field of digital leadership.

Conclusion

A thorough review of the research trends in digital leadership in education from 1993 to 2024 is given by this bibliometric analysis, which also shows a notable increase in scholarly output, thematic evolution, and collaborative networks. The study draws attention to a dramatic rise in publications after 2010, which peaked in 2023 and demonstrated how digital leadership is increasingly acknowledged as a crucial and developing field of study in educational research. The analysis also reveals a concentration of research within selected high-impact journals such as Education and Information Technologies and Cogent Education, while the dominance of scholars like Karakose and Altinay indicates the emergence of thought leaders shaping the discourse. Especially in post-pandemic educational settings, the research’s conceptual structure, as shown by thematic mapping, showcases how the field is moving from generic digitalisation narratives to complex constructions, including artificial intelligence integration, digital competencies, virtual leadership, and institutional innovation. Nevertheless, the drop in publications in 2024 points to possible saturation or changing research priorities, prompting more investigation. The analysis of the social structure reveals a dispersed but developing network of cooperation. The study shows continuing variations in contribution between the Global North and South in spite of rising inquiry volume and global collaboration. Though countries like the United States, the UK, and Turkey show great impact, much of the Global South remains under-represented. This splintered social framework emphasises the need for expansive, inclusive collaborative research and a deliberate concentration on digital equity to ensure that educational leadership development reflects global realities rather than just the interests of leading economies. The outcomes also underline how global events like the COVID-19 epidemic hasten digital transformation research and support fresh leadership models. In summary, this study delineates the intellectual terrain of digital leadership in education, laying the foundation for future research and practical applications.

Implications of the study

The study’s conclusions have profound implications for academics, policymakers, and educational leaders. The trends that have been identified show scholars that more interdisciplinary research is needed in the field of digital leadership, with new technologies like artificial intelligence, machine learning, and data analytics in education. Thematic gaps offer opportunities for further research to advance novel concepts. Additionally, the dominance of research centres in the Global North demands greater equity in knowledge creation, thereby promoting collaboration that clearly stands up for underrepresented regions. In conclusion, expanding global research networks may contribute to a more equitable and diverse discourse of leadership in the digital era in education.

For policymakers, the study emphasises the need for them to include digital leadership competencies in professional development plans for teachers and school administrators. Policies should accord capacity-building projects top priority given the rapid digital transformation in education since they will equip leaders with the tools to handle technological interruptions. Moreover, differences in global research participation point to the need for financing and infrastructure support to improve digital scholarship in developing countries. Policymakers can guarantee that educational institutions globally are better ready for future obstacles by supporting inclusive digital leadership ecosystems. In addition, policies should prioritise infrastructure improvements in low-resource schools while promoting school leaders’ professional training in digital pedagogy, data literacy, and ethical AI use in order to close the digital divide.

For educational leaders, the results highlight how important it is to use adaptive leadership techniques that keep up with technological developments. To effectively use emerging technologies and guarantee that digital transformation leads to improved teaching and learning outcomes, educational leaders must embrace continuous learning. The study highlights the value of cooperative networks and exhorts educational leaders to engage in knowledge-sharing forums that promote digital leadership best practices. Stakeholders can promote substantial innovation in education and prepare institutions for a future that is increasingly focused on technology by resolving the shortcomings and applying the knowledge gained from this study.

Ethical consideration

All the included articles are publicly accessible online and have been appropriately cited, and as a result, this study did not require ethical consideration.

Acknowledgment

This research received no specific grant from funding agencies.

Funding Statement

The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

[version 2; peer review: 3 approved

Data availability statement

Underlying data

The datasets generated for Digital Leadership in Education: A Bibliometric Analysis of Research Trends from 1993 to 2024 are openly available in https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15661591 ( Okunlola and Naicker, 2025).

This project contains the following underlying data:

1.
Digital Leadership in Education: A Bibliometric Analysis of Research Trends from 2010 to 2024 Scopus Data.

Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0).

References

Adeoye MA, Akinnubi OP, Rullyana G: A Bibliometric Analysis on Research Trends of Digital Leadership in Education. PEDAGOGIA. 2023;21(2):137–152. [Google Scholar]
Arham A, Norizan NS, Arham A, et al. : Digital leadership in education: A meta-analysis review. Alareeni B, Hamdan A, Khamis R, et al., editors. Digitalisation: Opportunities and challenges for business. Springer International Publishing;2023. 10.1007/978- [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Aria M, Cuccurullo C: Bibliometrix: An R tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. J. Informet. 2017;11(4): pp.959–975. Elsevier. 10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Baglama B, Evcimen E, Altinay F, et al. : Analysis of digital leadership in school management and accessibility of animation-designed game-based learning for sustainability of education for children with special needs. Sustainability. 2022;14(13):7730. 10.3390/su14137730 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Brown C, Czerniewicz L, Huang CW, et al. : Curriculum for Digital Education Leadership: A Concept Paper. Commonw. Learn. 2016;1–52. [Google Scholar]
Burns JM: Leadership. Harper & Row;1978. [Google Scholar]
Cabellon ET, Ahlquist J: Engaging the Digital Generation: New Directions for Student Services. John Wiley & Sons;2016. Number 155. [Google Scholar]
Chasokela D, Senderayi P, Nyamapfene A, et al. : 21st Century Role of Technology in Facilitating International Collaboration and Exchange in Higher Education. Contemporary Approaches to Internationalization in Higher Education. IGI Global Scientific Publishing;2025. [Google Scholar]
Connolly C, O’Brien E, O’Ceallaigh TJ: Ensuring knowledge sustainability in a digital era: Empowering digital transformation through digital educational leadership. Technol. Knowl. Learn. 2023;1–17. 10.1007/s10758-023-09707-0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Deroncele-Acosta A, Palacios-Núñez ML, Toribio-López A: Digital transformation and technological innovation on higher education post-COVID-19. Sustainability. 2023;15(3):2466. 10.3390/su15032466 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Dexter S, Clement D, Moraguez D, et al. : (Inter) Active learning tools and pedagogical strategies in educational leadership preparation. J. Res. Leadersh. Educ. 2020;15(3):173–191. 10.1177/1942775120936299 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Donthu N, Kumar S, Mukherjee D, et al. : How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. J. Bus. Res. 2021;133:285–296. 10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Ellegaard O, Wallin JA: The bibliometric analysis of scholarly production: How great is the impact? Scientometrics. 2015;105:1809–1831. 10.1007/s11192-015-1645-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Flanagan L, Jacobsen M: Technology leadership for the twenty-first-century principal. J. Educ. Adm. 2003;41:124–142. 10.1108/09578230310464648 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Ghavifekr S, Pei X: Leading global digitalization in higher education. Internationalization of Higher Education. Hershey: IGI Global;2023;1–15. [Google Scholar]
Gierlich-Joas M, Hess T, Neuburger R: More self-organization, more control—or even both? Inverse transparency as a digital leadership concept. Bus. Res. 2020;13(3):921–947. 10.1007/s40685-020-00130-0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Gilli K, Nippa M, Knappstein M: Leadership competencies for digital transformation: An exploratory content analysis of job advertisements. Ger. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2023;37(1):50–75. 10.1177/23970022221087252 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Hamzah NH, Nasir KM, Abdul Wahab J: The Effects of Principals’ Digital Leadership on Teachers’ Digital Teaching during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Malaysia. Journal of Education and E-Learning Research. 2021;8(2):216–221. 10.20448/journal.509.2021.82.216.221 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Harris A, Jones M: COVID-19 – school leadership in disruptive times. Sch. Leadersh. Manag. 2020;40(4):243–247. 10.1080/13632434.2020.1811479 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Kang B: How the COVID-19 pandemic is reshaping the education service.In The Future of Service Post-COVID-19 Pandemic, Volume 1: Rapid Adoption of Digital Service Technology. 2021. pp.15–36. 10.1007/978-981-33-4126-5_2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Karakose T, Demirkol M, Yirci R, et al. : Una conversación con ChatGP sobre liderazgo digital y Integración Tecnológica: Análisis Comparativo Basado en Colaboración entre humanos e IA. Administrative Sciences. 2023;13(7). [Google Scholar]
Karakose T, Kocabas I, Yirci R, et al. : The Development and Evolution of Digital Leadership: A Bibliometric Mapping Approach-Based Study. Sustainability (Switzerland). 2022;14(23). 10.3390/su142316171 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Karakose T, Polat H, Papadakis S: Exploring Teachers’ Perspectives on the Role of Digital Leadership in the COVID-19 Pandemic and Tech Skills of School Leaders. Sustainability. 2021;13(23). 10.3390/su132313448 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Karakose T, Polat H, Tülübaş T, et al. : A Review of the Conceptual Structure and Evolution of Digital Leadership Research in Education. Educ. Sci. 2024;14(11). 10.3390/educsci14111166 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Karakose T, Tülübaş T: Digital Leadership and Sustainable School Improvement—A Conceptual Analysis and Implications for Future Research. Educ. Process: Int. J. 2023;12(1):7–18. 10.22521/edupij.2023.121.1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Leong M, Chua Y, Sathiamoorthy K: Relationship between principal technology leadership practices and teacher ICT competency. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Management. 2016;4(3):13–36. 10.22452/mojem.vol4no3.2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. : The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: Explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2009;339(b2700). 10.1136/bmj.b2700 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Magesa MM, Jonathan J: Conceptualizing digital leadership characteristics for successful digital transformation: the case of Tanzania. Inf. Technol. Dev. 2022;28(4):777–796. 10.1080/02681102.2021.1991872 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Makda F: Digital education: Mapping the landscape of virtual teaching in higher education–a bibliometric review. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2025;30(2):2547–2575. 10.1007/s10639-024-12899-2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Mhlanga D, Moloi T: COVID-19 and the digital transformation of education: What are we learning on 4IR in South Africa? Educ. Sci. 2020;10(7). 10.3390/educsci10070180 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Mongeon P, Paul-Hus A: The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: a comparative analysis. Scientometrics. 2016;106:213–228. 10.1007/s11192-015-1765-5 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Nugroho MA: Pemanfaatan Teknologi Informasi dalam Peningkatan Mutu Pendidikan Islam di Madrasah. MUDARRISA J. Islam. Educ. 2015;6(1):30. 10.18326/mdr.v6i1.758 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Oberer B, Erkollar A: Leadership 4.0: digital leaders in the age of industry 4.0. Int. J. Organ. Leadersh. 2018;7(4):404–412. 10.33844/ijol.2018.60332 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Okunlola JO: Digital technology adoption and school leadership in the post-pandemic era: Insights from high school leaders. Int. J. Educ. Res. 2024a;6:1–14. 10.38140/ijer-2024.vol6.32 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Okunlola JO: Unpacking the drivers and barriers of digital leadership practice in education: A study of high school leaders’ experiences. J. Education Learn. Technol. 2024b;207–220. 10.38159/jelt.2024573 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Okunlola JO, Naicker SR, Uleanya C: Digital leadership in the fourth industrial revolution enacted during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review. Cogent Education. 2024;11(1). 10.1080/2331186X.2024.2317258 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Okunlola JO, Naicker SR: Digital Leadership in Education: A Bibliometric Analysis of Research Trends from 1993 to 2024.[Data set]. F1000 Research. Zenodo. 2025.
Patra SK, Bhattacharya P, Verma N: Bibliometric study of literature on bibliometrics. DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology. 2006;26(1):27–32. 10.14429/dbit.26.1.3672 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Ridho MR, Lesmana I, Safitri HDA: Proceedings of the International Conference on Educational Management and Technology (ICEMT 2022). Proceedings of the International Conference on Educational Management and Technology (ICEMT 2022). Atlantis Press SARL;2023. 10.2991/978-2-494069-95-4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Rusnati I, Gaffar MF: Implementation of Principal’s Digital Leadership in Communication and Teacher Professional Development at School. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Research of Educational Administration and Management (ICREAM 2020). 2020;526:90–95. 10.2991/assehr.k.210212.018 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Sagbasi M, Erdogan F: Digital Leadership: A Systematic Conceptual Review. İstanbul Kent Üniversitesi İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Dergisi;2022. [Google Scholar]
Sheninger E: Digital Leadership: Changing paradigms for changing times: Paper presented at the INTED2019 Proceedings. 2014.
Smyrnova-Trybulska E, Morze N, Kuzminska O, et al. : Bibliometric Science Mapping as a Popular Trend: Chosen Examples of Visualisation of International Research Network Results. International Association for Development of the Information Society;2017. [Google Scholar]
Tigre FB, Curado C, Henriques PL: Digital Leadership: A Bibliometric Analysis. J. Leadersh. Org. Stud. 2023;30(1):40–70. 10.1177/15480518221123132 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Van Niekerk EJ, Van Wyk MM: Staff’s perceptions of vision and long-term principal leadership in South African schools: An exploratory study. Mediterr. J. Soc. Sci. 2014;5(4):406–414. 10.5901/mjss.2014.v5n4p406 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Wollscheid S, Tømte CE, Egeberg GC, et al. : Research trends on digital school leadership over time: Science mapping and content analysis. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2025;30(1):747–778. 10.1007/s10639-024-12909-3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Yulianto E, Pratomo TP, Zein Z, et al. : Impact of Work Demand and Job Autonomy on Employee Sustainable Performance with Digital Leadership as Moderating Variable: A Proposed Framework. Proceedings of the 8th North American International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management, Houston, Texas, USA, June 13-16, 2023. 2023;1013–1026. 10.46254/na8.20230268 [DOI]
Zhao B, Zhou J: Research hotspots and trends in digitalization in higher education: A bibliometric analysis. Heliyon. 2024;10(21):e39806. 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e39806 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Zhong L: Indicators of digital leadership in the context of K-12 education. Journal of Educational Technology Development and Exchange. 2017;10(1):27–40. 10.18785/jetde.1001.03 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Zupic I, Čater T: Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organ. Res. Methods. 2015;18(3):429–472. 10.1177/1094428114562629 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

F1000Res. 2025 Sep 27. doi: 10.5256/f1000research.188151.r416211

Reviewer response for version 2

Sulaimon Adewale ¹

The study is deemed technically sound, employing an appropriate bibliometric methodology. The underlying data is openly available, ensuring reproducibility. However, the review identifies key areas for improvement. The work is only partly clearly presented due to an over-reliance on citations from a narrow group of authors and occasional complex sentence structures. While the methodology is appropriate, conclusions are only partly supported, as some policy recommendations extend beyond the direct bibliometric evidence.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes

If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes

Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes

Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly

Reviewer Expertise:

Education leadership and management, peace studies and gender studies.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

F1000Res. 2025 Sep 26. doi: 10.5256/f1000research.188151.r415532

Reviewer response for version 2

Moses Adeleke ADEOYE ¹

I have carefully considered the revised manuscript and the authors’ detailed responses to earlier peer review reports. The revisions have addressed many of the concerns previously raised, particularly through:

Clarification of methodological details, including software packages, Bibliometrix/biblioshiny interface, and threshold parameters.
Correction of date inconsistencies and improvement of abstract accuracy.
Integration of COVID-19’s impact and references that strengthen contextual framing.
Expanded implications for practice and policy, making the work more actionable.

The bibliometric scope remains focused on education, which the authors have justified as a deliberate and bounded choice. While broader comparisons (e.g., with public sector or government-led digital transformation) could have added further insights, I accept the authors’ clarification that such extensions fall beyond the present study’s intent and may be pursued in future work.

Overall, the manuscript is now more rigorous, coherent, and transparent. The study makes a useful contribution by mapping the intellectual and social structure of digital leadership in education, while also highlighting the persistent gap in Global South participation.

Final Position: I have no further substantive comments to make. I consider the manuscript suitable for indexing in its current form.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly

If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Partly

Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes

Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Partly

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Reviewer Expertise:

Educational Leadership

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

F1000Res. 2025 Sep 26. doi: 10.5256/f1000research.188151.r415533

Reviewer response for version 2

Asem Obied ¹

good job

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes

If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes

Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes

Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes

Reviewer Expertise:

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

References

1. : The professional competence of faculty members from the students’ perspective at Kuwait University and Palestine Technical University Kadoorie. Arab Gulf Journal of Scientific Research .2024;42(4) : 10.1108/AGJSR-05-2023-0208 1755-1769 10.1108/AGJSR-05-2023-0208 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

F1000Res. 2025 Aug 26. doi: 10.5256/f1000research.183690.r404289

Reviewer response for version 1

Elizabeth Valentine ¹

Peer Review of Digital Leadership in Education: A Bibliometric Analysis of Research Trends from 2010 to 2024

Summary:

This article applies biometric analysis to answer five questions pertaining to trends in Digital Leadership (DL) in education:

1. What is the trend in the number of publications on digital leadership in education from 2010 to 2024?
2. What are the sources of publications on digital leadership in education from 2010 to 2024?
3. What is the information about the authors with publications from 2010 to 2024?
4. What are the most common themes, keywords, and concepts on digital leadership in education from 2010 to 2024?
5. What is the social structure of the publications on digital leadership in education from 2010 to 2024?

The emphasis is on publication numbers, sources, authors and the social structures with a small amount of analysis on themes and trends based on the other question foci.

Comments

While on face value this article appears academically sound, I found the work lacking rigour for three reasons:

First, DL has not ‘newly emerged’ neither is it a ‘new necessity’ (para 1).

The term "digital leadership" was first coined in 2002 by Fisk to describe a new form of leadership style essential for navigating digital transformation. Further, the related concept of "e-leadership" was introduced earlier by Avolio in 2000, signifying leadership mediated by digital technologies. Before that, in education we had decades of scholarly research grounded in e-Learning.

Further, more recently, DL has been more widely described as a strategy and an outcome (e.g., Adie et al, Westerman et al). These additional but important distinctions have also not been made in this work. Both are applicable to education.

What would have added real value are trend-based insights for those responsible for making DL and Digital Transformation (DT) decisions when the requirement to transform at scale and at pace (Adie et al) is faced by most (all?) education institutions, at all levels.

Second, to add anything substantial to the body of knowledge, the article seems too narrowly focused on education i.e., it fell into the trap of being solely in an education silo. Thus, I suggest there are missed opportunities and reduced insights by not marginally expanding the context within which the education sector is strategized, funded and monitored. As a consequence, I suggest the search questions and application of the excellent methodology were also narrow. For example, the search might have added then compared and contrasted digital transformation in government. (Education is most commonly a part of the public wider sector).

Third, this work does not clarify the two major, separate but interdependent areas of DT in education.

While hinted at in terms of ‘operations’ and learning and teaching delivery the work lacks clarity between these two aspects, which in turn reduces the ability to more clearly articulate a DL capability focus (and to better identify and target competencies).

It could have added real value to the research questions had the emphasis been to identify and made clear distinctions between running an education institution as a business (from governance, strategic, financial and education performance and compliance perspectives) and research highlighting excellence in teaching and learning as a result of DT.

For some time and in practice, the interplay between school operations and administration, and the design, delivery, monitoring and measurement of education results has become fundamental to successful DL and DT approaches, investment, and prioritization. With clear distinction it is then possible to articulate strategy-matching capabilities and associated competencies (as the building blocks of capability (Valentine 2016 - 2026).

Suggested improvements :

Covid 19 is mentioned but the impact and consequences for the transformation of technology use in education is neither summarized nor explored. A quick Google Scholar search provided the following:

[reference1], [reference 2], [reference 3]

My comments also apply to references to the 4 ^th Industrial Revolution and the current and emerging use of AI in education.
Therefore, while the research questions appear sound, greater and therefore deeper, more actionable insights might have been gained had questions been focused on understanding the impacts of 4LR, COVID and AI, and what those education institutions that were identified as ‘Digital Leaders’ as an outcome, and therefore held up as benchmarks; and questions about or those who provided Digital Leadership (as a role with accountabilities) and what each did differently in response to 4LR, C19 and AI. This would have enabled insights about the strategy-matching capabilities and competencies each developed to transform.
A review of literature associated with the education value chain which prioritizes the student journey and quality pedagogy while also underpinning these with the business, data and technology architecture required, is where things have been heading for some time, from DT and therefore DL perspectives.

This dual focus is required to deliver strategies, business / operating and academic plans, financial and education performance and compliance outcomes.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly

If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Not applicable

Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

No source data required

Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Partly

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes

Reviewer Expertise:

ICT in Education, IT Governance Competencies for Boards and Senior Leaders; Digital Leadership; Digital Transformation; Capability and Competency in Leadership.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above.

References

1. : How the COVID-19 Pandemic Is Reshaping the Education Service. 10.1007/978-981-33-4126-5_2 15-36 10.1007/978-981-33-4126-5_2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
2. : Digital Transformation and Technological Innovation on Higher Education Post-COVID-19. Sustainability .2023;15(3) : 10.3390/su15032466 10.3390/su15032466 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
3. : COVID-19 and the Digital Transformation of Education: What Are We Learning on 4IR in South Africa?. Education Sciences .2020;10(7) : 10.3390/educsci10070180 10.3390/educsci10070180 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

F1000Res. 2025 Sep 13.

John Olayemi OKunlola ¹

The study applies a bibliometric approach as its guiding framework , offering both methodological and conceptual grounding. Since bibliometric analysis itself functions as a theoretical lens, additional frameworks may not be strictly necessary.
Thank you for this valuable feedback. We acknowledge the comment and have expanded the implications of the study section to provide actionable recommendations for policymakers and practitioners.
The inaccuracy in the usage of the years 1993 and 2010 has been corrected.
Identified gaps in the abstracts have been re-examined and catered for.
“The methodological section outlines the use of RStudio and bibliometric analysis adequately, but fails to provide specific information on the software packages or analysis thresholds”. This has been treated in the methodological section as identified and suggested.
Figure 4: The Sankey Citation Flow Map was appropriately integrated into the main manuscript. Perhaps a mismatch occurred during copy-editing.
In this study, maturity denotes thematic coherence and growing intellectual cohesion, not conceptual closure . The findings show sustained evolution, as emerging themes like AI integration and institutional digital capacity continue to expand the field’s boundaries.
We appreciate this constructive observation. While the manuscript drew significantly on prolific authors such as Karakose and Altinay, this was due to their high visibility in the bibliometric dataset. As a bibliometric-driven study, the analysis is inherently bounded by the available data indexed in Scopus, which naturally foregrounds the most productive and frequently cited authors.
We thank the reviewer for this observation. The manuscript did state the use of RStudio and bibliometrix , though not explicitly. For clarity, we now specify that the analysis was conducted using the biblioshiny interface of bibliometrix, with thresholds and clustering parameters applied accordingly.
The manuscript has been revised to include the search strings, field tags, Boolean operators, and parameter thresholds used in RStudio, ensuring methodological transparency and reproducibility.
In this study, maturity denotes thematic coherence and growing intellectual cohesion, not conceptual closure . The findings show sustained evolution, as emerging themes like AI integration and institutional digital capacity continue to expand the field’s boundaries.
We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s thoughtful suggestion. However, the focus of this study is deliberately confined to digital leadership in education, as this represents both the authors’ research niche and the central objective of the paper. While expanding to broader public-sector transformations (e.g., government or health) could generate comparative insights, it would risk diluting the study’s primary purpose: to map, analyze, and advance understanding of digital leadership specifically within the educational sector. We therefore retain this focus to ensure alignment with the study’s aims, while noting that future research may extend the methodology to cross-sectoral contexts.
We appreciate this insightful comment. Indeed, the education value chain linking pedagogy, student experience, and institutional processes with data and technology architectures is an important dimension of digital transformation. However, the present study’s scope is confined to digital leadership within the school system. To avoid diluting its focus, we did not explicitly extend into business or financial architectures. Nonetheless, we agree that future research could productively integrate this dual focus by exploring how digital leadership mediates the intersection of pedagogy with institutional strategy, performance, and compliance outcomes.
As suggested, the impact of COVID-19 on digital transformation in education has now been incorporated and supported with references to Kang (2021), Deroncele-Acosta et al. (2023), and Mhlanga & Moloi (2020)

F1000Res. 2025 Aug 25. doi: 10.5256/f1000research.183690.r401740

Reviewer response for version 1

Moses Adeleke ADEOYE ¹

1. Summary of the Article

The manuscript titled “Digital Leadership in Education: A Bibliometric Analysis of Research Trends from 2010 to 2024” by John Olayemi Okunlola and Suraiya Rathankoomar Naicker presents a bibliometric analysis of 338 Scopus-indexed publications using RStudio. It evaluates publication trends, author productivity, conceptual themes, and collaborative structures related to digital leadership in educational contexts. The study identifies key publication sources, highlights dominant research themes like digital competence and AI integration, and uncovers global collaborative patterns—emphasising gaps in Global South participation. The paper aims to establish a foundational intellectual map to guide further research, policy, and practice.

2. Evaluation of Scientific Soundness

Title and Abstract

The title accurately reflects the study's content. The abstract provides a broad overview, but terms like 'fragmented collaborations' or 'institutional innovation' need clarification. The abstract could be more precise in stating the context behind peaks or declines in publication trends.

Introduction

The introduction presents relevant background information but tends to repeat citations of particular authors (e.g., Karakose) without critical differentiation. Several sentences are grammatically awkward and could benefit from copy-editing. Clearer articulation of the research gap is needed.

Literature Review

While the review includes current and relevant literature, it lacks subheadings and a synthesized thematic structure. The discussion often reads like an introduction. An improved structure and clearer articulation of theoretical gaps would enhance its value.

Methodology

The methodological section outlines the use of RStudio and bibliometric analysis adequately, but fails to provide specific information on the software packages or analysis thresholds (e.g., clustering methods, minimum citation counts). More transparency is needed for reproducibility.

Results

The analysis is rich in visuals and quantitative detail, but some figures (e.g., Sankey maps) are not well-integrated into the discussion. Result narratives often drift into interpretive commentary. The presentation should distinguish more clearly between results and discussion.

Discussion

The discussion demonstrates a good grasp of scholarly trends and contextual relevance but could diversify its source base. Over-reliance on a few scholars skews the analysis. Deeper comparative engagement with existing studies would improve depth.

Conclusion and Implications

A strong summative section, but the term 'mature field' is used without sufficient evidence. Clarify whether maturity refers to volume, thematic coherence, or conceptual closure. Reframe to highlight ongoing evolution and emerging areas.

Language and Style

Generally readable but marked by long, complex sentences and minor grammatical errors. Copy-editing is needed for clarity, tone, and conciseness.

Ethics and Data

All ethical considerations and data availability were handled appropriately and comply with open science practices.

3. Critical Revisions Required for Scientific Soundness

• Clarify bibliometric tools, R packages used, and analysis thresholds in the Methodology section.
• Refine the literature review structure with subheadings and better synthesis of theoretical gaps.
• Reduce citation redundancy and ensure balanced scholarly references in all sections.
• Differentiate clearly between Results and Discussion; interpret figures explicitly within the text.
• Strengthen abstract clarity and specify context behind major trends.
• Conduct comprehensive copy-editing to correct grammatical issues and improve readability.

4. Final Approval Status

REVISIONS REQUIRED. The article is well-conceived and relevant but requires moderate revisions to be considered scientifically sound. Upon addressing the outlined issues, it will make a valuable contribution to the scholarship on educational digital leadership.

5. Reviewer Form Questions – Detailed Responses

1. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Answer: PARTLY

The manuscript is generally clear and coherent in its purpose and design. However, it occasionally suffers from overly long sentences and a lack of syntactic clarity, especially in the introduction and literature review. The citations are mostly current, but heavily centered around a narrow set of authors (e.g., Karakose, Altinay). This creates an echo chamber that underrepresents broader scholarly discourse. The authors are encouraged to diversify their citations to incorporate geographically and conceptually broader research perspectives and reduce over-reliance on a limited number of sources.

2. Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Answer: PARTLY

The use of bibliometric analysis is appropriate for the research questions. However, the methodology section does not detail the specific software packages or algorithms used (e.g., bibliometrix, clustering parameters). The network analysis and thematic evolution are technically valid, but the absence of descriptions for threshold settings or analytical parameters weakens reproducibility. Authors must clarify the tools, settings, and rationale behind analytical choices to ensure technical transparency.

3. Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Answer: NO

Although a PRISMA-style diagram and basic inclusion criteria are provided, the exact search strings, field tags, Boolean operators, and parameter thresholds used in RStudio are omitted. This omission significantly limits the replicability of the study. The authors should provide the full search syntax, specify field limitations (title, abstract, keywords), and explain their data cleaning and keyword normalization processes.

4. If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Answer: PARTLY

Though traditional statistical testing is not required, bibliometric indicators (e.g., H-index, co-authorship density, citation metrics) require clear interpretation. Some claims—such as thematic maturity or field saturation—lack quantitative justification. The authors are advised to define bibliometric indices more precisely and support trends with visual evidence or model-based explanations.

5. Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Answer: YES

The dataset has been made openly available on Zenodo with a working DOI. This commendable effort complies with open science principles and allows external validation of the bibliometric analysis. No further action required here.

6. Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Answer: PARTLY

The conclusions summarize the bibliometric trends effectively but occasionally extrapolate beyond the data. For example, assertions about thematic maturity or policy directions lack direct evidence. Authors should temper such claims, clearly separate data-driven inferences from broader interpretations, and explicitly link implications to the specific findings derived from their analysis.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly

If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Partly

Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes

Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Partly

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Reviewer Expertise:

Educational Leadership

F1000Res. 2025 Sep 13.

John Olayemi OKunlola ¹

The study applies a bibliometric approach as its guiding framework , offering both methodological and conceptual grounding. Since bibliometric analysis itself functions as a theoretical lens, additional frameworks may not be strictly necessary.
Thank you for this valuable feedback. We acknowledge the comment and have expanded the implications of the study section to provide actionable recommendations for policymakers and practitioners.
The inaccuracy in the usage of the years 1993 and 2010 has been corrected.
Identified gaps in the abstracts have been re-examined and catered for.
“The methodological section outlines the use of RStudio and bibliometric analysis adequately, but fails to provide specific information on the software packages or analysis thresholds”. This has been treated in the methodological section as identified and suggested.
Figure 4: The Sankey Citation Flow Map was appropriately integrated into the main manuscript. Perhaps a mismatch occurred during copy-editing.
In this study, maturity denotes thematic coherence and growing intellectual cohesion, not conceptual closure . The findings show sustained evolution, as emerging themes like AI integration and institutional digital capacity continue to expand the field’s boundaries.
We appreciate this constructive observation. While the manuscript drew significantly on prolific authors such as Karakose and Altinay, this was due to their high visibility in the bibliometric dataset. As a bibliometric-driven study, the analysis is inherently bounded by the available data indexed in Scopus, which naturally foregrounds the most productive and frequently cited authors.
We thank the reviewer for this observation. The manuscript did state the use of RStudio and bibliometrix , though not explicitly. For clarity, we now specify that the analysis was conducted using the biblioshiny interface of bibliometrix, with thresholds and clustering parameters applied accordingly.
The manuscript has been revised to include the search strings, field tags, Boolean operators, and parameter thresholds used in RStudio, ensuring methodological transparency and reproducibility.
In this study, maturity denotes thematic coherence and growing intellectual cohesion, not conceptual closure . The findings show sustained evolution, as emerging themes like AI integration and institutional digital capacity continue to expand the field’s boundaries.
We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s thoughtful suggestion. However, the focus of this study is deliberately confined to digital leadership in education, as this represents both the authors’ research niche and the central objective of the paper. While expanding to broader public-sector transformations (e.g., government or health) could generate comparative insights, it would risk diluting the study’s primary purpose: to map, analyze, and advance understanding of digital leadership specifically within the educational sector. We therefore retain this focus to ensure alignment with the study’s aims, while noting that future research may extend the methodology to cross-sectoral contexts.
We appreciate this insightful comment. Indeed, the education value chain linking pedagogy, student experience, and institutional processes with data and technology architectures is an important dimension of digital transformation. However, the present study’s scope is confined to digital leadership within the school system. To avoid diluting its focus, we did not explicitly extend into business or financial architectures. Nonetheless, we agree that future research could productively integrate this dual focus by exploring how digital leadership mediates the intersection of pedagogy with institutional strategy, performance, and compliance outcomes.
As suggested, the impact of COVID-19 on digital transformation in education has now been incorporated and supported with references to Kang (2021), Deroncele-Acosta et al. (2023), and Mhlanga & Moloi (2020)

F1000Res. 2025 Aug 22. doi: 10.5256/f1000research.183690.r399596

Reviewer response for version 1

Asem Obied ¹

Lack of Clear Theoretical Framework: While recent sources are integrated, there is limited discussion about the underlying theoretical frameworks guiding the bibliometric analysis or how these frameworks influence the interpretation of research trends. A clearer articulation of the conceptual lens could strengthen the study.

Insufficient Discussion of Practical Implications: The implications for policymakers and practitioners are broad but lack specificity. More detailed recommendations based on the findings would enhance the paper’s relevance to real-world educational leadership practice.

No Examination of Research Quality: The paper maps publication trends and social structures but does not evaluate the quality, citation impact, or validity of the publications analyzed, which could influence the interpretation of research influence and innovation .

Limited Consideration of Emerging Topics: Although thematic evolution is mentioned, the paper might benefit from deeper analysis of emerging topics like AI, data analytics, and leadership 4.0 to highlight future directions more explicitly.

Language and Clarity: The manuscript could improve clarity in some sections, especially in articulating complex bibliometric methods and their significance. Clearer explanations would make the paper more accessible to a broader audience.

Temporal Gaps in Data: The drop in publications observed in 2024 is noted but not thoroughly analyzed—possible reasons such as delays in publication, changes in funding, or shifts in research focus are not discussed.

The pictures in the figures are not clear.

There is inaccuracy in the years, sometimes the researcher uses the year 1993 and sometimes the year 2010.

There is no match between Figure 5 and its comment.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes

If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes

Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes

Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes

Reviewer Expertise:

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

References

1. : Digital leadership in the academic environment: A systematic literature review. Social Sciences & Humanities Open .2025;11: 10.1016/j.ssaho.2025.101542 10.1016/j.ssaho.2025.101542 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

F1000Res. 2025 Sep 13.

John Olayemi OKunlola ¹

The study applies a bibliometric approach as its guiding framework , offering both methodological and conceptual grounding. Since bibliometric analysis itself functions as a theoretical lens, additional frameworks may not be strictly necessary.
Thank you for this valuable feedback. We acknowledge the comment and have expanded the implications of the study section to provide actionable recommendations for policymakers and practitioners.
The inaccuracy in the usage of the years 1993 and 2010 has been corrected.
Identified gaps in the abstracts have been re-examined and catered for.
“The methodological section outlines the use of RStudio and bibliometric analysis adequately, but fails to provide specific information on the software packages or analysis thresholds”. This has been treated in the methodological section as identified and suggested.
Figure 4: The Sankey Citation Flow Map was appropriately integrated into the main manuscript. Perhaps a mismatch occurred during copy-editing.
In this study, maturity denotes thematic coherence and growing intellectual cohesion, not conceptual closure . The findings show sustained evolution, as emerging themes like AI integration and institutional digital capacity continue to expand the field’s boundaries.
We appreciate this constructive observation. While the manuscript drew significantly on prolific authors such as Karakose and Altinay, this was due to their high visibility in the bibliometric dataset. As a bibliometric-driven study, the analysis is inherently bounded by the available data indexed in Scopus, which naturally foregrounds the most productive and frequently cited authors.
We thank the reviewer for this observation. The manuscript did state the use of RStudio and bibliometrix , though not explicitly. For clarity, we now specify that the analysis was conducted using the biblioshiny interface of bibliometrix, with thresholds and clustering parameters applied accordingly.
The manuscript has been revised to include the search strings, field tags, Boolean operators, and parameter thresholds used in RStudio, ensuring methodological transparency and reproducibility.
In this study, maturity denotes thematic coherence and growing intellectual cohesion, not conceptual closure . The findings show sustained evolution, as emerging themes like AI integration and institutional digital capacity continue to expand the field’s boundaries.
We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s thoughtful suggestion. However, the focus of this study is deliberately confined to digital leadership in education, as this represents both the authors’ research niche and the central objective of the paper. While expanding to broader public-sector transformations (e.g., government or health) could generate comparative insights, it would risk diluting the study’s primary purpose: to map, analyze, and advance understanding of digital leadership specifically within the educational sector. We therefore retain this focus to ensure alignment with the study’s aims, while noting that future research may extend the methodology to cross-sectoral contexts.
We appreciate this insightful comment. Indeed, the education value chain linking pedagogy, student experience, and institutional processes with data and technology architectures is an important dimension of digital transformation. However, the present study’s scope is confined to digital leadership within the school system. To avoid diluting its focus, we did not explicitly extend into business or financial architectures. Nonetheless, we agree that future research could productively integrate this dual focus by exploring how digital leadership mediates the intersection of pedagogy with institutional strategy, performance, and compliance outcomes.
As suggested, the impact of COVID-19 on digital transformation in education has now been incorporated and supported with references to Kang (2021), Deroncele-Acosta et al. (2023), and Mhlanga & Moloi (2020)

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Citations

Okunlola JO, Naicker SR: Digital Leadership in Education: A Bibliometric Analysis of Research Trends from 1993 to 2024.[Data set]. F1000 Research. Zenodo. 2025.

Data Availability Statement

Underlying data

This project contains the following underlying data:

1.
Digital Leadership in Education: A Bibliometric Analysis of Research Trends from 2010 to 2024 Scopus Data.

Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0).

[ref1] Adeoye MA, Akinnubi OP, Rullyana G: A Bibliometric Analysis on Research Trends of Digital Leadership in Education. PEDAGOGIA. 2023;21(2):137–152. [Google Scholar]

[ref2] Arham A, Norizan NS, Arham A, et al. : Digital leadership in education: A meta-analysis review. Alareeni B, Hamdan A, Khamis R, et al., editors. Digitalisation: Opportunities and challenges for business. Springer International Publishing;2023. 10.1007/978- [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[ref3] Aria M, Cuccurullo C: Bibliometrix: An R tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. J. Informet. 2017;11(4): pp.959–975. Elsevier. 10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[ref4] Baglama B, Evcimen E, Altinay F, et al. : Analysis of digital leadership in school management and accessibility of animation-designed game-based learning for sustainability of education for children with special needs. Sustainability. 2022;14(13):7730. 10.3390/su14137730 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[ref5] Brown C, Czerniewicz L, Huang CW, et al. : Curriculum for Digital Education Leadership: A Concept Paper. Commonw. Learn. 2016;1–52. [Google Scholar]

[ref6] Burns JM: Leadership. Harper & Row;1978. [Google Scholar]

[ref7] Cabellon ET, Ahlquist J: Engaging the Digital Generation: New Directions for Student Services. John Wiley & Sons;2016. Number 155. [Google Scholar]

[ref8] Chasokela D, Senderayi P, Nyamapfene A, et al. : 21st Century Role of Technology in Facilitating International Collaboration and Exchange in Higher Education. Contemporary Approaches to Internationalization in Higher Education. IGI Global Scientific Publishing;2025. [Google Scholar]

[ref9] Connolly C, O’Brien E, O’Ceallaigh TJ: Ensuring knowledge sustainability in a digital era: Empowering digital transformation through digital educational leadership. Technol. Knowl. Learn. 2023;1–17. 10.1007/s10758-023-09707-0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[ref52] Deroncele-Acosta A, Palacios-Núñez ML, Toribio-López A: Digital transformation and technological innovation on higher education post-COVID-19. Sustainability. 2023;15(3):2466. 10.3390/su15032466 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[ref10] Dexter S, Clement D, Moraguez D, et al. : (Inter) Active learning tools and pedagogical strategies in educational leadership preparation. J. Res. Leadersh. Educ. 2020;15(3):173–191. 10.1177/1942775120936299 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[ref11] Donthu N, Kumar S, Mukherjee D, et al. : How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. J. Bus. Res. 2021;133:285–296. 10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[ref12] Ellegaard O, Wallin JA: The bibliometric analysis of scholarly production: How great is the impact? Scientometrics. 2015;105:1809–1831. 10.1007/s11192-015-1645-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref13] Flanagan L, Jacobsen M: Technology leadership for the twenty-first-century principal. J. Educ. Adm. 2003;41:124–142. 10.1108/09578230310464648 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[ref14] Ghavifekr S, Pei X: Leading global digitalization in higher education. Internationalization of Higher Education. Hershey: IGI Global;2023;1–15. [Google Scholar]

[ref15] Gierlich-Joas M, Hess T, Neuburger R: More self-organization, more control—or even both? Inverse transparency as a digital leadership concept. Bus. Res. 2020;13(3):921–947. 10.1007/s40685-020-00130-0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[ref16] Gilli K, Nippa M, Knappstein M: Leadership competencies for digital transformation: An exploratory content analysis of job advertisements. Ger. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2023;37(1):50–75. 10.1177/23970022221087252 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[ref17] Hamzah NH, Nasir KM, Abdul Wahab J: The Effects of Principals’ Digital Leadership on Teachers’ Digital Teaching during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Malaysia. Journal of Education and E-Learning Research. 2021;8(2):216–221. 10.20448/journal.509.2021.82.216.221 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[ref19] Harris A, Jones M: COVID-19 – school leadership in disruptive times. Sch. Leadersh. Manag. 2020;40(4):243–247. 10.1080/13632434.2020.1811479 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[ref53] Kang B: How the COVID-19 pandemic is reshaping the education service.In The Future of Service Post-COVID-19 Pandemic, Volume 1: Rapid Adoption of Digital Service Technology. 2021. pp.15–36. 10.1007/978-981-33-4126-5_2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[ref20] Karakose T, Demirkol M, Yirci R, et al. : Una conversación con ChatGP sobre liderazgo digital y Integración Tecnológica: Análisis Comparativo Basado en Colaboración entre humanos e IA. Administrative Sciences. 2023;13(7). [Google Scholar]

[ref21] Karakose T, Kocabas I, Yirci R, et al. : The Development and Evolution of Digital Leadership: A Bibliometric Mapping Approach-Based Study. Sustainability (Switzerland). 2022;14(23). 10.3390/su142316171 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[ref23] Karakose T, Polat H, Papadakis S: Exploring Teachers’ Perspectives on the Role of Digital Leadership in the COVID-19 Pandemic and Tech Skills of School Leaders. Sustainability. 2021;13(23). 10.3390/su132313448 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[ref24] Karakose T, Polat H, Tülübaş T, et al. : A Review of the Conceptual Structure and Evolution of Digital Leadership Research in Education. Educ. Sci. 2024;14(11). 10.3390/educsci14111166 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[ref25] Karakose T, Tülübaş T: Digital Leadership and Sustainable School Improvement—A Conceptual Analysis and Implications for Future Research. Educ. Process: Int. J. 2023;12(1):7–18. 10.22521/edupij.2023.121.1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[ref26] Leong M, Chua Y, Sathiamoorthy K: Relationship between principal technology leadership practices and teacher ICT competency. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Management. 2016;4(3):13–36. 10.22452/mojem.vol4no3.2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[ref27] Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. : The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: Explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2009;339(b2700). 10.1136/bmj.b2700 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref28] Magesa MM, Jonathan J: Conceptualizing digital leadership characteristics for successful digital transformation: the case of Tanzania. Inf. Technol. Dev. 2022;28(4):777–796. 10.1080/02681102.2021.1991872 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[ref29] Makda F: Digital education: Mapping the landscape of virtual teaching in higher education–a bibliometric review. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2025;30(2):2547–2575. 10.1007/s10639-024-12899-2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[ref54] Mhlanga D, Moloi T: COVID-19 and the digital transformation of education: What are we learning on 4IR in South Africa? Educ. Sci. 2020;10(7). 10.3390/educsci10070180 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[ref30] Mongeon P, Paul-Hus A: The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: a comparative analysis. Scientometrics. 2016;106:213–228. 10.1007/s11192-015-1765-5 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[ref31] Nugroho MA: Pemanfaatan Teknologi Informasi dalam Peningkatan Mutu Pendidikan Islam di Madrasah. MUDARRISA J. Islam. Educ. 2015;6(1):30. 10.18326/mdr.v6i1.758 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[ref32] Oberer B, Erkollar A: Leadership 4.0: digital leaders in the age of industry 4.0. Int. J. Organ. Leadersh. 2018;7(4):404–412. 10.33844/ijol.2018.60332 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[ref33] Okunlola JO: Digital technology adoption and school leadership in the post-pandemic era: Insights from high school leaders. Int. J. Educ. Res. 2024a;6:1–14. 10.38140/ijer-2024.vol6.32 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[ref34] Okunlola JO: Unpacking the drivers and barriers of digital leadership practice in education: A study of high school leaders’ experiences. J. Education Learn. Technol. 2024b;207–220. 10.38159/jelt.2024573 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[ref35] Okunlola JO, Naicker SR, Uleanya C: Digital leadership in the fourth industrial revolution enacted during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review. Cogent Education. 2024;11(1). 10.1080/2331186X.2024.2317258 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[ref36] Okunlola JO, Naicker SR: Digital Leadership in Education: A Bibliometric Analysis of Research Trends from 1993 to 2024.[Data set]. F1000 Research. Zenodo. 2025.

[ref37] Patra SK, Bhattacharya P, Verma N: Bibliometric study of literature on bibliometrics. DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology. 2006;26(1):27–32. 10.14429/dbit.26.1.3672 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[ref39] Ridho MR, Lesmana I, Safitri HDA: Proceedings of the International Conference on Educational Management and Technology (ICEMT 2022). Proceedings of the International Conference on Educational Management and Technology (ICEMT 2022). Atlantis Press SARL;2023. 10.2991/978-2-494069-95-4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[ref40] Rusnati I, Gaffar MF: Implementation of Principal’s Digital Leadership in Communication and Teacher Professional Development at School. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Research of Educational Administration and Management (ICREAM 2020). 2020;526:90–95. 10.2991/assehr.k.210212.018 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[ref41] Sagbasi M, Erdogan F: Digital Leadership: A Systematic Conceptual Review. İstanbul Kent Üniversitesi İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Dergisi;2022. [Google Scholar]

[ref42] Sheninger E: Digital Leadership: Changing paradigms for changing times: Paper presented at the INTED2019 Proceedings. 2014.

[ref44] Smyrnova-Trybulska E, Morze N, Kuzminska O, et al. : Bibliometric Science Mapping as a Popular Trend: Chosen Examples of Visualisation of International Research Network Results. International Association for Development of the Information Society;2017. [Google Scholar]

[ref45] Tigre FB, Curado C, Henriques PL: Digital Leadership: A Bibliometric Analysis. J. Leadersh. Org. Stud. 2023;30(1):40–70. 10.1177/15480518221123132 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[ref46] Van Niekerk EJ, Van Wyk MM: Staff’s perceptions of vision and long-term principal leadership in South African schools: An exploratory study. Mediterr. J. Soc. Sci. 2014;5(4):406–414. 10.5901/mjss.2014.v5n4p406 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[ref47] Wollscheid S, Tømte CE, Egeberg GC, et al. : Research trends on digital school leadership over time: Science mapping and content analysis. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2025;30(1):747–778. 10.1007/s10639-024-12909-3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[ref48] Yulianto E, Pratomo TP, Zein Z, et al. : Impact of Work Demand and Job Autonomy on Employee Sustainable Performance with Digital Leadership as Moderating Variable: A Proposed Framework. Proceedings of the 8th North American International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management, Houston, Texas, USA, June 13-16, 2023. 2023;1013–1026. 10.46254/na8.20230268 [DOI]

[ref49] Zhao B, Zhou J: Research hotspots and trends in digitalization in higher education: A bibliometric analysis. Heliyon. 2024;10(21):e39806. 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e39806 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref50] Zhong L: Indicators of digital leadership in the context of K-12 education. Journal of Educational Technology Development and Exchange. 2017;10(1):27–40. 10.18785/jetde.1001.03 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[ref51] Zupic I, Čater T: Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organ. Res. Methods. 2015;18(3):429–472. 10.1177/1094428114562629 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

PERMALINK

Digital Leadership in Education: A Bibliometric Analysis of Research Trends from 1993 to 2024

John Olayemi OKunlola

Suraiya Rathankoomar Naicker

Roles

Version Changes

Revised. Amendments from Version 1

Abstract

Introduction

Literature review

Digital leadership in education

Materials and methods

Data search strategy, extraction, and analysis procedure

Figure 1. Adapted PRISMA framework for study selection.

Results

Bibliometric analysis

Figure 2. Annual scientific production.

Figure 3. Average citations per year.

Figure 4. Sankey citation flow map.

Figure 5. Most relevant sources.

Figure 6. Core sources by Bradford’s law.

Figure 7. Sources’ local impact by H-index.

Figure 8. Sources’ production over time.

Figure 9. Most relevant authors.

Figure 10. Authors’ production over time.

Figure 11. Authors’ local impact by H-index.

Figure 12. Most locally cited references.

Figure 13. Most globally cited documents.

Figure 14. Co-occurrence network of keywords.

Figure 19. Keyword co-occurrence treemap.

Figure 15. Thematic evolution of keywords.

Figure 16. Thematic map of conceptual structure.

Figure 17. Strategic thematic map of educational leadership research.

Figure 18. Conceptual structure map of educational research (MCA Method).

Figure 20. Co-authorship map.

Figure 21. Country Collaboration Map (CCM).

Discussion of findings

Publication trends between 1993 and 2024

Publication sources between 1993 and 2024

Author productivity and impact between 1993 and 2024

Conceptual structure between 1993 and 2024

Social structure between 1993 and 2024

Conclusion

Implications of the study

Ethical consideration

Acknowledgment

Funding Statement

Data availability statement

Underlying data

References

Reviewer response for version 2

Sulaimon Adewale

Roles

Reviewer response for version 2

Moses Adeleke ADEOYE

Roles

Reviewer response for version 2

Asem Obied

Roles

References

Reviewer response for version 1

Elizabeth Valentine

Roles

References

John Olayemi OKunlola

Reviewer response for version 1

Moses Adeleke ADEOYE

Roles

John Olayemi OKunlola

Reviewer response for version 1

Asem Obied

Roles

References

John Olayemi OKunlola

Associated Data

Data Citations

Data Availability Statement

Underlying data

ACTIONS

PERMALINK