The purpose of this work is a bibliometric analysis of the evolution of knowledge management (KM) and intellectual capital (IC) as scientific fields in time. The used data was all articles having “intellectual capital” or “knowledge management” in their title from SCOPUS database exported in Excel and R language is used to compute the indexes. The analysis is using the indexes (H index, N index, G index, I index, lotka’s law), which are most related to references and citations of the articles. We find that KM and IC fields are heterogeneous in cases and homogeneous in other cases vis à vis the applied indexes. This analysis is usefull to researchers in the two areas to find the pionners and the most productive authors to potentially collaborate with them and, the most read articles to use them in literature review. In databases of researches, only H index is offered but to all articles of area defined by the database and not for a set of requested articles. This paper is filling this gap, as the first study of KM and IC using relative bibliometric indexes

The analysis is comparing the scientific journals of the field of IC and knowledge management. The results are presented under tables and graphs and, are commented to make a comparison between these journals. The overall objective of the final work would be the implementation of scientometric indexes using the programming language R and the interpretation of the obtained results. The originality of the paper is the proposal of relative indexes to a query, i.e., relatively to a set of papers and not applied to the overall research database.

The purpose of this paper is to compare between three methods of intellectual capital (IC) measurement; intellectual capital dynamic valuation (IC-dVal), value added intellectual coefficient (VAIC), and national intellectual capital index (NICI). The three methods are the most used in practice; we used 24 criteria covering important aspects of IC to do general comparison. According to ten criteria, we compared and prioritised them using analytic hierarchy process (AHP). The results of this comparison show that the methods are close for some criteria and distant for other criteria. The prioritisation with AHP found that NICI method is the most method responding to the criteria, namely: macro measure, guidelines of the method, dynamic valuation, involved levels of business, usability by stakeholders, covered aspects of IC, quantifiability, frequency of use and applicability. IC-dVal is the second one and VAIC is the third method responding to the criteria. The analysis could give more significant results using larger set of criteria. This is the first research prioritising methods of measurement of IC using AHP analysis.