arbiter
JournalsPricingAccount

What do we actually hide: conceptual and measurement challenges of knowledge hiding research

Kaiyu Yang et al.

International Journal of Knowledge Management Studies2025https://doi.org/10.1504/ijkms.2025.146083article
AJG 1ABDC C
Weight
0.50

What the paper says

Since the knowledge hiding concept was identified a decade ago, significant progress has been made in deciphering the antecedents and consequences of this detrimental behaviour of individuals in organisations. Previous knowledge hiding studies focused very little attention on what type of knowledge [knowledge (informing), codified/explicit knowledge, or tacit knowledge] was hidden when investigating the claimed concept. Starting with a systematic literature review that identifies 'non-sharing' publications followed by a thorough examination of existing empirical research on knowledge hiding, this conceptual paper revisits the concept of 'knowledge' and its nature. It concludes that 'knowledge hiding' has not yet been adequately investigated and that the knowledge hiding concept has often been confused with information hiding. Therefore, the authors call for a broadened view to encompass different knowledge types in future research and for further development of more reliable and valid measurement instruments with defined context to sufficiently measure knowledge hiding.

Open paper page →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1504/ijkms.2025.146083

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{kaiyu2025,
  title        = {{What do we actually hide: conceptual and measurement challenges of knowledge hiding research}},
  author       = {Kaiyu Yang et al.},
  journal      = {International Journal of Knowledge Management Studies},
  year         = {2025},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1504/ijkms.2025.146083},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

What do we actually hide: conceptual and measurement challenges of knowledge hiding research

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.50

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20
M · momentum0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.