This bibliometric analysis maps workplace bullying research trends, revealing key domains and collaborative patterns in global scholarship.
Purpose This study aims to systematically map the intellectual, social and thematic structure of workplace bullying research over the past five decades, providing a consolidated overview of its theoretical foundations, collaborative structures and key research domains. Design/methodology/approach A comprehensive bibliometric analysis was conducted on 3,359 peer-reviewed journal articles and review papers indexed in Scopus from 1975 to 2024. The study integrates performance analysis with science-mapping techniques, including co-citation analysis, co-authorship network analysis and keyword co-occurrence analysis. Findings The results reveal sustained growth in workplace bullying scholarship, shaped by influential contributions on abusive supervision, workplace aggression and incivility. Co-citation analysis identifies four interconnected knowledge domains: conceptual foundations of workplace bullying and aggression; leadership-driven mistreatment and abusive supervision; bullying prevalence, antecedents and consequences and workplace incivility with methodological foundations. Co-authorship networks display a core-periphery structure dominated by the United States, United Kingdom, China and Europe, with increasing participation from Asia, Latin America and Africa, indicating expanding international collaboration. Keyword co-occurrence patterns highlight strong thematic linkages around leadership, employee well-being and organizational support, reflecting the field's integrative and multi-level orientation. Originality/value This study offers one of the most comprehensive bibliometric syntheses of workplace bullying research to date by jointly examining its intellectual, social and conceptual structures within a unified framework. By clarifying conceptual intersections and identifying underexplored areas, the study provides a theoretically informed roadmap for future research and supports the development of evidence-based interventions aimed at fostering psychologically safe and equitable workplaces.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Budhiraja et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: