1 s2.0 S014829632201089X Main

Journal of Business Research 158 (2023) 113624
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Business Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jbusres
What is going on in entrepreneurship research? A bibliometric and

SNA analysis
Francisco García-Lillo *, Pedro Seva-Larrosa , Eduardo Sánchez-García
Department of Management, University of Alicante, P.O. Box 99, ES E-03080 Alicante, Spain
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Entrepreneurship is a highly dynamic and fast-growing academic research field with a long intellectual tradition.
Entrepreneurship research It attracts scholars with different backgrounds and theoretical frameworks, and with different levels of analyses
Literature review and methodological orientations. But where is the field headed next? What is going on in entrepreneurship
Bibliometrics
research? The purpose of this paper is to take stock of the current research in the field, to map it using biblio
Bibliographic coupling analysis (BCA)
Social network analysis (SNA)
metric methods and social network analysis (SNA), and to offer directions for future research. Bibliographic
Bibliometrix coupling analysis (BCA) is used in this study, due to its ability to unveil current trends and future priorities as
they are reflected at the forefront of research (i.e., active research fronts). Data were collected from the WoS,
comprising 5,393 peer-reviewed journal articles published in 273 journals and containing 470,262 cited refer
ences. The results provide an overall perspective of the research in the field, identifying 16 different research
fronts. We believe that this study significantly contributes to the entrepreneurship field by revealing the
advancement of the literature and some of the most active research fronts in this domain, providing insights not
previously fully grasped or evaluated by previous literature reviews.
1. Introduction which is driven by several recent developments: a growing recognition

that the popular empirical approaches in entrepreneurship research
Over the past decades the field of entrepreneurship has come a long have important limitations, a broad concern about the reproducibility of
way as a result of entrepreneurship scholars’ enthusiastic dedication to prior findings in social science research, and rapid advances in available
developing its theoretical basis using increasingly sophisticated research research methods that allow for conducting more rigorous studies” (p.
methods such as multilevel analysis. Entrepreneurship is a domain of 1059).
research that can be investigated from different disciplines, functions, In relation to the above, it hardly needs saying that among the
and contexts, which provides ample opportunities for multilevel research methods that allow for conducting more rigorous studies in the
research (Aguinis et al., 2011, p. 412), PLS-SEM, or fuzzy-set QCA field are bibliometric methods. Compared with other literature review
(Audretsch et al., 2019; Douglas & Prentice, 2019; Douglas et al., 2020; methods, bibliometric studies are potentially more rigorous, less biased,
Hernández-Perlines et al., 2016; Hörisch et al., 2017). Over these years, and present an aggregate view of the scientific literature in a particular
scholars have attempted to articulate the distinctive domain of entre field, while complementing meta-analyses and systematic literature re
preneurship (Alvarez & Busenitz, 2001; Carlsson et al., 2013; Mitchell views (Velt et al., 2020; Zupic & Čater, 2015). Despite this, and although
et al., 2004; Venkataraman, 1997), assess the emergence of entrepre these methods have been used in recent years to understand the evo
neurship as a field (Aldrich, 2012; Busenitz et al., 2003; Fayolle et al., lution of the field, its emerging trends and future avenues for research (e.
2016; Meyer et al., 2014), and offer directions for future entrepreneur g., Sarango-Lalangui et al., 2018; Skute, 2019; Terán-Yépez et al., 2020),
ship research (Berger et al., 2021; Gupta et al., 2020; Phan, 2004; their application has remained limited, with rare exceptions (e.g., Meyer
Shepherd, 2015), enlightening us on the boundaries of the field, the et al., 2014; Lampe et al., 2019; Anand et al., 2021), to traditional
clarity of these boundaries, and areas where they can be expanded. bibliometric indicators (e.g., citation counts, keywords and leading
Nevertheless, as Maula and Stam (2020) point out, “there is currently a authors).
strong push for more rigor in quantitative entrepreneurship research, In contrast with, and drawing on an analysis of, recent literature, the
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: f.garcia@ua.es (F. García-Lillo).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.113624
Received 16 June 2022; Received in revised form 22 December 2022; Accepted 26 December 2022
Available online 13 January 2023
0148-2963/© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
F. García-Lillo et al. Journal of Business Research 158 (2023) 113624
purpose of this paper is to identify the existence of active research fronts 2010; Leydesdorff & Welbers, 2011; Zhao & Strotmann, 2011). Others
in the entire field of entrepreneurship through bibliographic coupling have utilized BCA, as proposed by Kessler (1963) (e.g., Boyack & Kla
analysis (BCA) and social network analysis (SNA). BCA examines the vans, 2010; Chen et al., 2011; Glänzel & Thijs, 2011). There is yet
extent to which a set of source documents cites in its references the same another group of scholars who have jointly used some of these analysis
secondary documents. It implies that the primary documents –the citing techniques, e.g., ACA and co-word analysis (e.g., Zitt et al., 2011) or co-
documents rather than the cited secondary– are the focus of analysis citation and text-based analysis (e.g., Saft & Nissen, 2014; Mora et al.,
(Batistič & van der Laken, 2019; Vogel & Güttel, 2013). The general 2019). Ultimately, two types of analysis prevail: ACA and BCA.
assumption is that the more the bibliographies of two documents over ACA –pioneered by Henry Small (1973) (cf. Irina Marshakova,
lap, the stronger their connection. BCA is different from other biblio 1973)1 – is anchored on the hypothesis that a certain intellectual
metric methods as it does not derive the importance of papers within a connection could exist –at least from the citing author’s perspective
scholarly community from their citation count or relations (Verbeek (McCain, 1990, p. 443)– between two documents, A and B, that are cited
et al., 2002). It prevents an (over)emphasis on mainstream documents together, i.e., co-cited, so that the higher the co-citation frequency, the
that may be popular but are insignificant to the intellectual development closer the connection between them (Cawkell, 1976; Garfield, 1970;
of their field. Moreover, because it relies on references within the doc Griffith et al., 1974; Small & Griffith, 1974). According to Small (1973,
uments, the results of BCA are more stable over time because reference p. 265), if it may be assumed that highly-cited documents represent the
lists do not change over time (in contrast to citation counts and re “key concepts, methods, or experiments” in a domain or scientific
lations). All this makes coupling particularly suitable for detecting discipline, i.e., they can become viewed as “exemplars” –using Thomas
current trends and future priorities, as these are commonly covered in S. Kuhn’s terminology (Aksnes et al., 2019) or, in the words of Glänzel &
more recent publications, which inherently are not the most cited. Czerwon (1995, 1996), as “core documents” in the context of co-citation
Our paper contributes to entrepreneurship research in different analysis–, such co-citation patterns could then be used to provide details
ways: on the evolution of the intellectual structure of a discipline, allowing us
to identify the documents that have served as the pillars for the future
• First, a review paper like ours synthesizes existing research findings advancement of the discipline by providing a comprehensive assessment
at a meta-level in order to highlight the status quo of the research of its evolution. Needless to say, this method of analysis offers a retro
field and identify opportunities for future research (Kraus et al., spective vision, i.e., it has a more past-oriented point of view (Calabretta
2021; Snyder, 2019). et al., 2011; Ertz & Leblanc-Proulx, 2019; Grégoire et al., 2006), in so far
• Second, to the best of our knowledge, this study is among the earliest, as it reveals documents with a greater impact on research in the scien
if not the first, to apply BCA to the entire field of entrepreneurship. tific communication system, whereby papers are cited because they
• Third, although other literature reviews have been conducted in the represent a classical study, a concept marker (Small, 1978), or show how
field, our review is considerably more comprehensive and performs a particular line of research is carried out. According to Merton’s view,
better in terms of robustness/reproducibility. Our sample consists of the norms of science oblige researchers to cite the work upon which they
5,393 peer-reviewed journal articles from 273 journals, all of them draw, and in this way acknowledge or credit contributions by others
indexed in the WoS. (Merton, 1979).
As regards BCA, in this technique, two articles citing a third publi
We agree with authors such as Ethiraj et al. (2017, p. 3) that “reviews cation, i.e., two citing documents, are coupled because high instances of
of prior literature serve an important purpose of integrating often mutual references in their bibliographies suggest an intellectual capital
disparate research conversations”. But effective reviews go further, not common to both (Khanra et al., 2021; Xu et al., 2018). So, the fact that
only synthesizing existing research but also seeking to stimulate new two documents, A and B, share a certain number of references in com
research. In particular, review articles play a critical role in the scholarly mon –“… a single item of reference shared by two documents is defined
domain of entrepreneurship (Bacq et al., 2021). By synthesizing, orga as a unit of coupling between them” (Kessler, 1962)–allows us to infer
nizing, and taking stock of the past, reviews can assist with charting new that documents A and B could be thematically related (Martyn, 1964).
research pathways for the future (e.g., Zahra et al., 2006; Phan et al., BCA links papers that have similarities in their reference lists, “indi
2009; Kiss et al., 2012; Shepherd et al., 2015; Drover et al., 2017; cating the probability of a shared related topic” (Maseda et al., 2022, p.
Grégoire et al., 2019; Sutter et al., 2019; Brownell et al., 2021) and, in 282). Logically, the greater the amount of overlap between the reference
our opinion, the research methods mentioned above and described in lists of A and B, the greater the thematic affinity between them (Kessler,
detail below are adequate to achieve this purpose. 1962, 1963). In general, the interest of studies grounded on the appli
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Once the cation of BCA lies in the fact that documents connected by strong
methods have been discussed, the next section (Methodology) deals with bibliographic coupling links can provide insights into the structure of
the data collection. The outcome of the BCA developed –including a the research fronts within an academic field in terms of subject relat
visualization of the bibliographic coupling network and the results of the edness (Jarneving, 2007a, 2007b; Peters et al., 1995; Vladutz & Cook,
SNA and multivariate analyses– are provided in the subsequent section 1984). Unlike ACA, this technique can however be qualified as pro
(Results and discussion). Finally, in the last section we outline the spective (Verbeek et al., 2002; Vogel & Güttel, 2013), i.e., forward-
conclusion, limitations and directions for future research. looking in that citing documents are, de facto, more recent than the
2. Methodology
2.1. Methods: co-citation vs bibliographic coupling analysis
In the Library and Information Science (LIS) area, and even outside
this domain (González-Alcaide, 2021; Khanra et al., 2021), there are
1
different methods and techniques that can be used when it comes to Henry Small and Irina Marshakova are credited for introducing co-citation
defining and visualizing a scientific field with the aim of detecting analysis in 1973. Both researchers came up with the measure independently,
subfields, organizing the current literature on different research topics, although Marshakova gained less credit, likely because her work was published
or delineating lines of future research. Among them, it is worth in Russian.
mentioning bibliometric methods. Some studies have utilized author co-
citation (ACA), document (DCA), or co-word analysis (e.g., Chen et al.,
2
publications they cite (except for documents cited as forthcoming). 2019; Pham et al., 2021; Thukral & Jain, 2021; Fauzi, 2022; Kim & Fung
Additionally, this technique can be used to identify hot research topics So, 2022); and, (iii) that this statement provides the potential to increase
(Glänzel & Czerwon, 1995, 1996; Jarneving, 2007a, 2007b), and pro reliability across reviews.
vides a useful basis for “detecting current trends and future priorities as Since they are the only source type that can be viewed as –in Mer
they are reflected at the forefront of research”2 (Vogel & Güttel, 2013, p. ton’s words (Merton, 1973)– “certified knowledge”, only peer-reviewed
429). scholarly journal articles, rather than books, chapters in books, confer
Fig. 1 exhibits a graphical depiction of the two procedures described ence proceedings, or documents containing reviews or notes were
above –ACA and BCA– for analyzing the cited references in a scientific collected. The use of articles that have been published in peer-reviewed
publication. scholarly journals constitutes, moreover, a common practice in these
Since method choice –ACA vs BCA– directly depends on the research studies, since it increases the reliability of the results obtained –the re
question(s) that a literature review like ours sets out to answer and, view process itself acts as a control mechanism that enables us to vali
given that our paper’s aim is to identify and characterize some of the date the knowledge such peer-reviewed scholarly journal articles
main active research fronts in the entire field of entrepreneurship to provide (Light & Pillemer, 1984; Ordanini et al., 2008).
provide a prospective approach to the research in this domain, BCA is As a result, on 29 November 2021, a total of 5,393 articles were
used in this review. SNA is also utilized to construct, analyze, and downloaded as the dataset from which to extract the bibliographic data
visualize the network that derives from our literature review. to conduct this study.
2.3. Bibexcel® and the treatment of bibliographic records

2.2. Source for data analysis and citing documents dataset
In this study, bibliographic data from the retrieved peer-reviewed
Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science Core Collection™ (WoS) –in journal articles were downloaded in plain text format (.txt) to be
particular, one of its indexes: the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI)–, handled through Bibexcel®, a versatile toolbox for bibliometricians
was used to carry out this study. Since the simultaneous use of different designed by Professor Olle Persson at the Swedish University of Umeå to
databases is unhelpful owing to duplication of records (Harzing & Ala assist a user in analyzing bibliographic data/records (or any data of a
kangas, 2016) and the Web of Science Core Collection™ is considered textual nature formatted in a similar manner). It enables users, among
the gold standard database for measuring scholars’ performance, the other functionalities, to extract the information included within a
WoS was our choice. From this database, a first search in the TOPIC field bibliographic record using any document’s field –the list of references of
for all publications on entrepreneurship issued between 2017 and each source document, which was initially extracted from Clarivate
November 29, 2021 (the database consultation date) was executed. We Analytics’ Web of Science™, is included in one of these fields–, or some
started with a query string for the above topic in two of the subject combination of fields. As Fahimnia et al. (2015, p. 104) point out,
categories in the WoS: the Management and Business categories, this interested readers can refer to Paloviita (2009) and Persson et al. (2009)
search attempt resulted in an initial dataset of 6,314 documents. for more detailed procedure and applications of this software/toolbox in
Once the initial search was carried out and despite having been bibliometric and statistical analysis.
developed to be used in systematic literature reviews (Moher et al., Bibexcel® was chosen for this study due to its high degree of flexi
2009; Page, 2021), the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Re bility in modifying and adjusting the input data imported from different
views and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement was adopted to refine our databases such as Scopus or the WoS, and its ability to provide
search results (Fig. 2). The criteria are listed in Table 1. comprehensive data analysis for use in a range of network analysis tools
In our particular case, the adoption of the PRISMA statement as a including Pajek, UCINET, VOSviewer, and Gephi (Persson et al., 2009;
guide was due to three principal reasons: (i) the recognition it has based Fahimnia et al., 2015; Dai, Duan, et al., 2020; Arora & Majumdar, 2022;
on its comprehensiveness; (ii) the fact that it has recently started to be Kumar & Sharma, 2022; among others).
used in a great amount of bibliometric studies (e.g., Grosseck et al., In the present study, the above software was not only used to extract
the cited references in each bibliography but also, once an appropriate
threshold was fixed –a certain filtering of noise is necessary–, to quantify
the coupling strength of each pair of citing documents. This made it
possible to construct a co-occurrence matrix with the absolute values of
the cited references common to each pair. Then, we used the output of
the preceding analysis –Gephi accepts a number of graph data formats
including.net, which is what BibExcel® is able to generate– as input for
subsequent SNA using Gephi 0.9.6, an open source software package
that uses a three-dimensional render engine to provide expressive and
insightful visual illustrations of large networks (Bastian et al., 2009;
Jacomy et al., 2014).
In the face of other possible alternatives (e.g., VOSviewer), Gephi
was selected for this study due to its flexibility (editable and user-
friendly environment), advanced filtering capabilities, ability to work
Fig. 1. Bibliographic coupling vs co-citation analysis.
with different data formats, and several built-in network analysis
toolboxes.
As a novelty, Bibliometrix® –an open-source R-package developed
by Aria and Cuccurullo (2017) to perform quantitative research in bib
2 liometrics and scientometrics that includes most of the main biblio
In summary, as authors such as Vogel and Güttel (2013, p. 429) point out,
metric methods of analysis– was also used. It works with Clarivate
“co-citation analysis is advantageous for mapping the intellectual heritage of a
particular field on the basis of high-impact publications, but tends to neglect the Analytics’ Web of Science, Scopus, Digital Science Dimensions, PubMed,
publication dynamics at the forefront of research. Bibliographic coupling, in and Cochrane databases, and the analyses performed can be exported to
contrast, captures more recent contributions, including the classics of different file formats (e.g.,.xlsx).
tomorrow, so to speak, however, this method has a blind spot with regard to the Fig. 1*, 2*, 3*, and Tables 1* and 2* (see, ANNEX 1) show some
history of an intellectual field.”. examples of the output that can be obtained using Bibliometrix®.
3
Fig. 2. PRISMA statement diagram and steps in bibliographic data identification and search refinement.
after deciding how the principal diagonal elements in the matrix will be
Table 1
treated– the next step in the application of BCA consists in calculating a
Search criteria for obtaining our dataset of citing documents.
proximity matrix, S(sij)nxn, Pearson’s correlation coefficient being,
Database Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science Core Collection™ regardless of the criticism received3 (e.g., Ahlgren et al., 2003, 2004;
Citation Index SSCI (Social Sciences Citation Index)
Leydesdorff, 2005; Leydesdorff & Vaughan, 2006; Leydesdorff, 2007;
Search field(s) TOPIC (searches title, abstract, author keywords, and keywords
plus) Zhou & Leydesdorff, 2016), one of the similarity measures between pairs
Topic(s) Entrepreneurship most often used among a wide range of normalization strategies (e.g.,
Subject Management, Business Salton’s cosine, Jaccard index, Ochiai coefficient). Should co-occurrence
categories
data be normalized? This is a different matter altogether. In the opinion
Time span 2017–2021* (database consultation date: November 29, 2021)
Document type Article
of authors such as Leydesdorff and Vaughan (2006, p. 1618), “a co-
Language English citation matrix is a proximity matrix, so there is no need to apply a
similarity measure to construct a proximity matrix. On the contrary,
doing so may distort the data.”.
2.4. Document selection and calculation of co-occurrence and proximity
matrices
2.5. Factor analysis and construction of the bibliographic coupling
In this study, all citing documents with a coupling strength of at least network
32 shared references with at least one of the remaining dataset docu
ments were considered. Bibliographic coupling occurs when two In this study, SNA, which is based on graph theory, in conjunction
scholarly works reference a common third work in their bibliographies. with factor analysis (FA) –there are several advantages of analyzing and
Two documents are bibliographically coupled if they both cite one or visualizing co-occurrence data, such as the ones used in BCA with tools
more documents in common. In theory, all the citing documents could from SNA (Leydesdorff & Vaughan, 2006; Yang et al., 2012; among
be incorporated into the analysis –in our case, a total of 5,393 peer- others)– was adopted as the principal technique of analysis. The suit
reviewed journal articles–. However, the difficulty of working with all ability of combining these two analytical techniques –SNA together with
of them –furthermore, it becomes meaningless– makes it necessary to fix a clustering-based analytical method such as FA– lies in the fact that
a minimum coupling threshold. The cut-off point allowed us to obtain a results can be tested and provided with enhanced robustness, as high
co-occurrence matrix, C(cij)nxn, of dimensions 226x226 with the lighted by Vogel and Güttel (2013), as well as a variety of other authors
amount of cited references in common between each pair of citing in the domain of LIS.
documents in the sample. More precisely and, using the Force Atlas layout algorithm provided
Once a co-occurrence matrix C(cij)nxn has been constructed –and by Gephi –also known as spring embedders, force-direct algorithms
calculate the layout of a graph using only information contained within
3
In practice, “confusion and controversy persist concerning the proper sta
tistical analysis to be applied” (Leydesdorff & Vaughan, 2006, p. 1627). For
instance, Ahlgren, Jarneving, and Rousseau (2003) provided arguments for
using the Salton’s cosine instead of the Pearson correlation coefficient, partic
ularly if one aims at visualization of the structure of data as in the case of SNA
or MDS, whereas Bensman (2004) provided evidence regarding why one might
nevertheless prefer the Pearson correlation coefficient when the purpose of the
study is a statistical (e.g., multivariate) analysis.
4
the structure of the graph itself, rather than relying on domain-specific entrepreneurship –i.e., of the citing documents– by year. The annual
knowledge (Kobourov, 2012)–, an effort was made to calculate the growth rate of publications –articles in our case– in the field was 7.77 %,
layout of a bibliographic coupling network through which the active which clearly demonstrates the continued interest in research in this
research fronts identified in this study can be visualized. In the network, domain worldwide.
citing documents are shown as nodes and the amount of overlap be Finally, the documents cited by the 5,393 articles in our dataset,
tween the reference lists of each pair of documents are represented by contained a total of 470,262 cited references, resulting in an average
the arcs/edges between the nodes. The path length, i.e., the number of number of 87.20 references per document. Table 2 shows the list of the
arcs/edges between them, approximates the distance between any two top-ten most cited scholarly works by the 5,393 articles under exami
nodes. The shorter the mean path length between a given node and the nation. The average citation level per document was 11.65.
other nodes, the higher its centrality in the network.
In our particular case, and consistent with the criteria used to obtain 3.2. Most relevant authors, institutions, journals, and local cited articles
the co-occurrence matrix C(cij)nxn on which this analysis is primarily
supported, a decision was made to establish the same coupling strength The top ten of the most relevant authors, institutions or affiliations
between each citing document. Accordingly, a minimum number of two –informally speaking, these terms are often used interchangeably–, and
other source documents was set. It is worth noting here that variations to journals by volume of publications are listed in Table 3a, Table 3b, and
this threshold caused changes in the size of the network, even though its Table 3c respectively. Kraus (43 articles), Audretsch (39 articles), and
structure did not change to a significant extent, remaining practically Wincent (29 articles), co-authored the largest number of articles
invariable. This led to the final decision to utilize the previously (Table 3a), while one of America’s leading research universities, Indiana
mentioned values (tie strength ≥ 32; node degree ≥ 2) as parameters. University, stands out among the institutions by contributing 151 arti
The number of documents was thus reduced from the 5,393 initial pa cles, followed by the Erasmus University Rotterdam, the Netherlands
pers and 226 whose bibliographic coupling values shape matrix C to a (84 articles), and Lancaster University in the United Kingdom (69 arti
much smaller number of documents. cles) (Table 3b). Moreover, Small Business Economics (421 articles), In
FA –applied this time on the matrix S(sij)nxn of Pearson’s r-correla ternational Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research (262 articles),
tion coefficients, i.e., on the matrix of similarities between documents– and Journal of Business Research (251 articles) were identified as the
led to the extraction of 93 factors with an eigenvalue ≥ 1 through the most relevant journals leading the research on entrepreneurship
implementation of principal component analysis and VARIMAX rota (Table 3c). These three journals accumulated 17.32 % of the publica
tion. From these, only those factors comprising at least three of the tions (the top ten 39.44 %) on entrepreneurship between 2017 and
different nodes (i.e., of the documents considered in SNA with factor 2021*. The remaining 60.56 % of the articles were dispersed across
loadings that have an absolute value ≥ 0.7) and eigenvalue ≥ 3 were multiple outlets.
selected. In the event that more than one factor should have to be Table 3d reports the top ten most local cited documents –ranging
loaded, the factor with the highest factor loading was selected. The from 150 to 43 citations– by the articles included in our dataset. Local
reason for this choice was that it additionally implied eliminating all the citations measure how many times an author (or a document) included
other documents that did not significantly load in any of the extracted in a collection have been cited by the documents included in the same
factors. Once again applying the parameters defined in the preceding collection. In terms of total local citations (TLC) and total local citations
analysis, the number of nodes represented in the network was fixed at 66 per year (TLC/t) received, the most influential document with 150 cites
documents. Finally, with respect to the factors considered (16 in all), was the paper by Spigel (2017) entitled: ‘The relational organization of
they accounted for 28.9 % of the total explained variance, drawing a entrepreneurial ecosystems’, published in Entrepreneurship Theory and
correspondence with each of the active research fronts identified in our Practice, followed by the paper by Nambisan (2017): ‘Digital entrepre
study.4 neurship: Toward a digital technology perspective of entrepreneurship’,
The results of the different analyses performed in this study–BCA, FA, published in the same journal. These findings are consistent with those
and SNA– are described in detail in the next section. found in the BCA carried out in this study. One of the research fronts
identified in this analysis brings together the papers by Rocha et al.
3. Results and discussion (2021), Cavallo et al. (2019), and Wurth et al. (2021) –this last paper co-
authored by Ben Spigel– on entrepreneurial ecosystems.
Once the bibliographic data were analyzed –including an initial
analysis and characterization of the dataset used,– it was possible to 3.3. BCA and SNA results – Identification and characterization of
obtain the following findings and research results. research fronts
The outcomes of the BCA and SNA carried out in this study are dis
3.1. Initial and descriptive results
played and interpreted below.
BCA proved to be useful in identifying 2,709,994 unique pairs of
The 5,393 peer-reviewed scholarly journal articles included in the
source-documents: 62.45 % (n = 1,692,320) of these pairs of citing
dataset from which the data were extracted (Fig. 1) were (co-) authored
documents with a single bibliographic reference in common; 36.70 % (n
by 10,061 authors and published in 273 different scholarly journals.
= 994,568) between two and nine; and finally, 0.85 % (n = 23,104) over
Most of the authors wrote multi-authored documents (9,532 authors),
ten references. As previously explained in the Methodology section, in
and many of these publications were articles with international co-
this study the co-occurrence matrix C(cij)nxn was constructed with the
authorship (45.84 %).
bibliographic couplings between 226 documents, a number which
Fig. 3 illustrates the diachronic evolution of the publications on
eventually went down to 66 in the SNA and the FA. These documents
were included in some of the various research fronts that will subse
4 quently be analyzed.
Even though it can be stated that the various identified research fronts
Fig. 4 illustrates the layout of the bibliographic coupling network
reflect and collect a significant part of research on entrepreneurship developed
during the period under study, other possible fronts might not have been comprising the 66 citing documents mentioned above. The color of each
identified in our study. It is necessary to take into consideration that a mini node in the network is indicative of the research front to which the citing
mum coupling threshold between each pair of documents was required in this document belongs –one or another of the 16 identified in the FA–, and
study, as well as a minimum number of at least two other documents (tie the node diameters are scaled to their respective betweenness centrality
strength ≥ 32; node degree ≥ 2). degree.
5
1296
1126
1057
972
942
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021*
Fig. 3. Number of papers analyzed by year of publication, 2017–2021* * as of November 29, 2021 (database consultation date); 1296 peer-reviewed journal articles/
citing documents – 26 of them with PY – Publication Year 2022.
Table 2 Table 3a
List of the top ten most cited research works by the 5,393 articles published on List of the top ten most relevant authors based on the number of publications
entrepreneurship, 2017–2021*. Authors Frequency(Number of articles) Articles fractionalized
Ranking
Kraus S 43 10.10
1 Shane S, Venkataraman S (2000). The Promise of Entrepreneurship as a Audretsch DB 39 15.53
Field of Research. Academy of Management Review 25(1), 217–226. Wincent J 29 8.04
2 Eisenhardt KM (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research. Shepherd DA 26 10.17
Academy of Management Review 14(4), 532–550. Guerrero M 24 8.48
3 Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee JY, Podsakoff NP (2003). Common Dana LP 23 7.15
Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature Patel PC 22 10.25
and Recommended Remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology 88, Wiklund J 18 5.15
879–903. Zahra SA 18 8.67
4 Barney JB (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Kuratko DF 17 5.07
Journal of Management 17(1), 99–120.
5 Sarasvathy S (2001). Causation and Effectuation: Toward a Theoretical
Shift from Economic Inevitability to Entrepreneurial Contingency. In the present study, the groups resulting from the analyses are
Academy of Management Review 26(2), 243–263. defined, at a bibliometric level, as research fronts, which shape the
6 Fornell C, Larcker DF (1981). Evaluating Structural Equation Models with
vanguard of knowledge and reveal current trends and future directions
Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing
Research 18(1), 39–50. in the domain under examination.
7 Lumpkin GT, Dess GG (1996). Clarifying the Entrepreneurial Orientation For ease of understanding, the network was visualized in an
Construct and Linking It to Performance. The Academy of Management aesthetically pleasing Force Atlas layout, which is a classic force-
Review 21(1), 135–172. directed algorithm that uses the properties of the network to draw
8 Eisenhardt KM, Graebner ME (2007). Theory Building from Cases:
Opportunities and Challenges. Academy of Management Journal 50(1),
linked nodes closer and push unrelated nodes farther apart.5 This layout
25–32. also allows consideration of edge weight for directed networks, such that
9 Welter F (2011). Contextualizing Entrepreneurship — Conceptual the strength of different connections may be visualized at a glance
Challenges and Ways Forward. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 35 (Cherven, 2015; Velden et al., 2017).
(1), 165–184.
Table 4 shows the value of the different network indicators calcu
10 Gioia DA, Corley KG, Hamilton AL (2012). Seeking Qualitative Rigor in
Inductive Research: Notes on the Gioia Methodology. Organizational lated for some of the nodes shaping it (the 5 nodes with higher indices).
Research Methods 16(1), 15–31. These indices or indicators –weighted degree, closeness centrality,
betweenness centrality– allowed us to complete the analyses developed
5
Force Atlas is a force-driven algorithm and maybe the most recommended
layout by the developers in terms of simplicity and readability. The network is
arranged in a way that linked edges attract and linked nodes repulse each other.
It also allows for the manual adjustment of the repulsion strength, gravity,
speed, node size and other characteristics (Bastian et al., 2009). With this al
gorithm, the most connected nodes move to the center of the network while the
more isolated (less connected) nodes move to the borders.
6
Table 3b Table 3d
List of the top ten academic institutions contributing the most to research on List with the top ten most local cited articles –ranging from 150 to 43 citations–
entrepreneurship. by the articles included in our dataset.
Affiliations Country Frequency Percentage Total Ranking TLC TGC
percentage
1 Spigel B (2017). The relational organization of 150 499
Indiana University United States 151 2.80% 2.80% entrepreneurial ecosystems. Entrepreneurship Theory
Erasmus University the 84 1.56% 4.36% and Practice 41(1), 49–72.
Rotterdam Netherlands 2 Nambisan S (2017). Digital entrepreneurship: Toward a 122 353
Lancaster University United 69 1.28% 5.64% digital technology perspective of entrepreneurship.
Kingdom Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 41(6),
Copenhagen Denmark 62 1.15% 6.79% 1029–1055.
Business School 3 Acs ZJ, Stam E, Audretsch DB, O’Connor A (2017). The 87 246
University ST Gallen Switzerland 60 1.11% 7.90% lineages of the entrepreneurial ecosystem approach.
University of North United States 59 1.09% 8.99% Small Business Economics, 49(1), 1–10.
Carolina 4 Foss NJ, Saebi T (2017). Fifteen years of research on 65 528
University of Denmark 58 1.08% 10.07% business model innovation: How far have we come, and
Southern where should we go? Journal of Management 43(1),
Denmark 200–227.
University of Spain 56 1.04% 11.11% 5 Wry T, York JG (2017). An identity-based approach to 61 168
Valencia social enterprise. The Academy of Management Review
Northumbria United 55 1.02% 12.13% 42(3), 437–460.
University Kingdom 6 Brown R, Mason C (2017). Looking inside the spiky bits: 60 185
University of Beira Portugal 55 1.02% 13.15% a critical review and conceptualisation of
interior entrepreneurial ecosystems. Small Business Economics
Others (2,972 4,684 86.90% 100.00% 49(1), 11–30.
institutions) 7 Spigel B, Harrison R (2018). Toward a process theory of 54 180
TOTAL 5,393 100% entrepreneurial ecosystems. Strategic Entrepreneurship
Journal 12(1), 151–168.
8 Fisher G, Kuratko DF, Bloodgood JM, Hornsby JS (2017). 50 115
Legitimate to whom? The challenge of audience diversity
Table 3c and new venture legitimacy. Journal of Business
List of the top ten journals in research on entrepreneurship. Venturing 32(1), 52–71.
9 Saebi T, Foss NJ, Linder S (2019). Social 50 174
Title of the journal Frequency Percentage Total
entrepreneurship research: Past achievements and future
percentage
promises. Journal of Management 45(1), 70–95.
Small Business Economics 421 7.81% 7.81% 10 Sussan F, Acs ZJ (2017). The digital entrepreneurial 43 132
International Journal of 262 4.86% 12.66% ecosystem. Small Business Economics 49(1), 55–73.
Entrepreneurial Behavior &
Research
TLC = Total local citations received. Local citations measure how many times an
Journal of Business Research 251 4.65% 17.32% author (or a document) included in a collection, e.g., the dataset from which our
International Entrepreneurship and 230 4.26% 21.58% bibliographic data were extracted, have been cited by the documents included in
Management Journal the same collection; TGC = Total global citations received. Global citations
Technological Forecasting and Social 208 3.86% 25.44% measure the total citations that an article, included in a collection, has received
Change from documents indexed on bibliographic databases (WoS, Scopus, etc.)
Journal of Business Venturing 174 3.23% 28.67% worldwide.
Journal of Small Business 159 2.95% 31.62%
Management
Entrepreneurship & Regional 144 2.67% 34.29% entrepreneurship. Innovations stemming from research conducted on
Development university campuses are a growing source of the ideas and core tech
Journal of Technology Transfer 144 2.67% 36.96% nologies that drive entrepreneurial endeavors. This trend has led to the
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 134 2.48% 39.44%
Others (263 journals) 3,266 60.56% 100.00%
development of the above phenomenon, which refers to “the efforts and
TOTAL 5,393 100% activities that universities and their industry partners undertake in
hopes of commercializing the outcomes of faculty research” (Wood,
2011, p. 153). The paper by Bolzani et al. (2021) explores the impact of
in our study from the perspective supplied by SNA. parent university linkages on the market performance of university spin-
In this study, the highest betweenness centrality degree –when the off firms (USOs). They argue that spin-offs’ performance is not only
total amount of citing documents in the dataset is considered– corre affected by competencies inherited from their parent universities at
sponds to the paper by Hota et al. (2020): ‘Mapping the Intellectual start-up but also by links maintained over time.
Structure of Social Entrepreneurship Research: A Citation/Co-citation Another of the identified research fronts was related to two of the
Analysis.’ The intermediary role that certain nodes may play is very different decision-making logics that entrepreneurs rely on when start
often has to do either with the fact that such nodes represent documents ing new ventures: causal and effectual decision-making logics. The pa
that deal with transversal issues common to several research fields or pers by Braun and Sieger (2021), McKelvie et al. (2020), and Smolka
that they are documentary typologies such as literature reviews or et al. (2018) integrate this research front. As an example, the first of
represent documents written for a general purpose. These documents these papers finds that using causal and effectual decision-making logics
have particular value because they favor connectivity and cohesion in ambidextrously, leads to positive firm-level outcomes, such as enhanced
research undertaken within a discipline (Meyer et al., 2014). new venture performance.
To conclude, the different research fronts at the forefront of knowl As far as the rest of fronts are concerned and, with the intention of
edge that reveal the current, and even future, trends in the field are not extending the analysis further by describing each of the 16 research
shown in Table 5. fronts identified in our study, Table 5 includes a series of descriptors for
By way of example, one of the research fronts identified in our study each of these fronts.
(Table 5), brings together the papers by Sciarelli et al. (2021), Bolzani
et al. (2021), Iacobucci et al. (2021), Good et al. (2019), and Sandström
et al. (2018). All these papers deal with the phenomenon of academic
7
Fig. 4. Force Atlas layout of the bibliographic coupling network comprising the 66 citing documents included in the 16 research fronts identified in our study.
Table 4
Indicators –centrality degree, closeness and betweenness– calculated for some of the nodes of the network.
Document Centrality (weighted Document Closeness (closeness Document Betweenness (betweenness
degree) centrality) centrality)
Hota et al. (2020) 8975.0 Hota et al. (2020) 0.682493 Hota et al. (2020) 15745.701549
Douglas et al. (2021) 6913.0 Douglas et al. (2021) 0.653154 Douglas et al. (2021) 12882.768317
Hota (2021) 6842.0 Braun and Sieger 0.642685 Hota (2021) 11023.931592
(2021)
Dzikowski (2018) 6661.0 Dzikowski (2018) 0.638148 Braun and Sieger 9930.224424
(2021)
Douglas and Prentice 6100.0 Hota (2021) 0.635789 Wurth et al. (2021) 8831.786355
(2019)
4. Conclusion, limitations, and future research Rauch & Frese, 2007; Lundqvist & Middleton, 2013; Dushnitsky &
Matusik, 2019). But where is the field headed next? What is going on in
Entrepreneurship is a relatively mature –while not fully mature, entrepreneurship research?
entrepreneurship shows all the signs of a maturing field from its In trying to answer the above research question(s), our purpose in
increasingly internal orientation and the establishment of key areas of this article was to take stock of the research in the entire field of
research through to an enhanced, discipline-specific, theoretical entrepreneurship, map it using bibliometric methods and SNA, and offer
approach with a professional language of its own– and multidisciplinary directions for future research.
field of research with a long tradition that has gained extensive interest For this study, we chose bibliometric analysis over other traditional
beyond the traditional areas of management studies during the last few review methods like systematic literature review (SLR), as bibliometric
decades. As the field has matured –a diverse range of topics, theories, techniques are replicable, transparent, objective, unbiased, and
frameworks, and applied research methods characterize this maturity–, rigorous, and thus superior to other techniques for conducting literature
many new perspectives and streams of research have emerged (e.g., reviews. Well-conducted bibliometric studies may considerably improve
entrepreneurial ecosystems research) (Cavallo et al., 2019; Rocha et al., the knowledge of a field or domain of research by allowing and
2021; Wurth et al., 2021); others, need to be explored or revisited (e.g., empowering scholars to gain a holistic perspective, identify research
8
Table 5 Index (SSCI); Search string: “entrepreneurship” in the TOPIC field; Number of
Research fronts identified after the application of factor analysis upon Matrix S. source-documents: 5,393.
1 García-Lillo et al. (2017), Ahmed Born global firms and accidental
& Brennan (2019a, 2019b), internationalists; Early gaps and conduct critical assessments of contextualized research issues
McCormick and Somaya (2020), internationalization and international (Arora & Chakraborty, 2021).
Yavuz (2017), Schwens et al. new ventures (INVs).
From among bibliometric methods, it was decided to use BCA in this
(2018), Hennart et al. (2021),
Martin and Javalgi (2018), and study, based on its ability to unveil current trends and future priorities as
Dzikowski (2018) they are reflected at the forefront of research. Data were collected from
2 Arz (2019), Pittino et al. (2018), Entrepreneurial orientation of family the WoS database, comprising 5,393 peer-reviewed journal articles
Stanley et al. (2019), Hernández- firms; Entrepreneurship in family firms; published between 2017 and 2021* (database consultation date:
Linares et al. (2018), Hernández- Family firms’ entrepreneurial
November 29, 2021), i.e., in the last five years, which is in line with our
Linares and López-Fernández orientation and performance.
(2018), Bettinelli et al. (2017), basic intent to investigate the latest academic research in the field.
and Hernández-Perlines et al. Despite the large number of analyzed peer-reviewed journal articles
(2019) and its wide thematic diversity –the field of entrepreneurship remains
3 Saebi et al. (2019), Hota (2021), Social entrepreneurship research; Social
highly fragmented–, a total of 16 active research fronts were identified
Hota et al. (2020), De Bernardi entrepreneurship orientation and
et al. (2021), Gali et al. (2020), performance/ success; Value creation in and characterized in this study. The prospective analysis, performed
and Hlady-Rispal and Servantie the context of social entrepreneurship. through BCA and SNA, revealed that current research is embedded,
(2018) among other research topics, in: (i) entrepreneurship in family firms; (ii)
4 Sciarelli et al. (2021), Bolzani Founding and governance determinants social entrepreneurship; (iii) born global firms and INVs; (iv) founding
et al. (2021), Iacobucci et al. in university spin-off new ventures;
and governance determinants in university spin-off new ventures; (v)
(2021), Good et al. (2019), and academic entrepreneurship; Public
Sandström et al. (2018) policy for academic entrepreneurship determinants of women entrepreneurs’ firm performance; (vi) entre
initiatives. preneurial ecosystems research; or (vii) green start-ups –drawing upon
5 Welsh, Kaciak, and Shamah Determinants of women entrepreneurs’ the knowledge spillovers theory of entrepreneurship and on previous
(2018), Welsh and Kaciak (2019), firm performance; Women’s
literature on the complex and systemic nature of green technologies,
Kaciak and Welsh (2020), Welsh, entrepreneurial success; Women
Kaciak, Memili, et al. (2018), and entrepreneurs and work-life interface.
Colombelli and Quatraro (2019) analyze, for instance, the relevance of
Welsh, Kaciak, and Minialai local knowledge stocks, distinguishing between clean and dirty stocks,
(2017) in the creation of green start-ups. Table 5 offers a synoptic view of each
6 Buccieri et al. (2020), Martin, Marketing capabilities and international of the different research fronts identified in our analyses.
Javalgi, and Ciravegna (2018), new venture/born global firms’
The results also identify the most active and influential authors, in
Martin, Javalgi, and Ciravegna performance; International new venture
(2020), and Martin, Javalgi, and performance: role of international stitutions, articles, and journals in the field, providing robust guidance
Cavusgil (2017) entrepreneurial culture, ambidextrous for further research. Needless to say, scholars seeking to publish their
innovation, and dynamic marketing research and build a career must have a good understanding of the prior
capabilities.
literature, not only to craft each section of any manuscript but also to
7 Wang et al. (2018), Wang, Cai, Entrepreneurial intention; Academic
and Munir (2017), and Wang, Cai, entrepreneurship in China; Chinese
avoid wasting effort on projects that lack novelty or that essentially
and Munir (2021) scientists’ intention to engage in duplicate previous studies (Kraus et al., 2021).
entrepreneurial activities.
8 Bose, Kiran, and Goyal (2017), Critical success factors of agri-business 4.1. Limitations
Bose, Kiran, and Goyal (2018), incubators and their impact on business/
and Bose, Kiran, and Goyal (2019) firm performance in India.
9 Wu, Li, and Zhang (2019), Li et al. Cross-country/worldwide analysis of As with all research, our study comes with several limitations, some
(2021), and Wu and Li (2020) female entrepreneurial activity through of which are a consequence of the design of the research itself –e.g., in
fuzzy-set QCA approach. our study only peer-reviewed scholarly journal articles from the WoS
10 Rocha et al. (2021), Cavallo et al. Entrepreneurial ecosystems research.
database were collected to retrieve the bibliometric data–, while others
(2019), and Wurth et al. (2021)
11 Colombelli et al. (2021), Local knowledge composition and the are a direct result of using bibliometric methods like BCA. Regarding this
Colombelli and Quatraro (2019), emergence of entrepreneurial activities last type of limitation, the authors of the present study agree with au
Colombelli and Quatraro (2018) across industries; Green start-ups and thors such as Batistič and van der Laken (2019) that the interpretation of
local knowledge spillovers; New firm the results could be limited to our human capabilities as researchers in
formation and regional knowledge
terms of text and information processing. Future studies could extend
production modes.
12 Braun and Sieger (2021), Effectuation and causation; Synergistic the findings with a more data-driven approach. For example, text mining
McKelvie et al. (2020), and effects of causal and effectual decision- algorithms, such as latent Dirichlet allocation (Blei et al., 2003) –a
Smolka et al. (2018) making logics on venture performance. generative statistical model that allows sets of observations to be
13 Dai, Arndt, et al. (2020), Dai and Opportunity recognition; Policy-induced
explained by unobserved groups that explain why some parts of the data
Liao (2019), and Dai, Liao, et al. opportunities; Entrepreneurial attention
(2020) at government policies and firm
are similar– could be used to identify the state-of-the-art in entrepre
performance. neurship research. Additionally, as Batistič et al. (2017, pp. 100–101)
14 Douglas et al. (2021), Douglas Individuals’ motivations for different point out, meta-analytical review approaches could also be suitable to
et al. (2020), and Douglas and types of entrepreneurial careers; help future researchers have a clearer vision and achieve a better un
Prentice (2019) Innovation and profit motivations for
derstanding of the results of the present study. As for the remaining
social entrepreneurship.
15 Williams and Kedir (2017), Informal entrepreneurship in developing limitations, the most important one relates to research design, which
Williams and Kedir (2019), and economies; Starting-up unregistered and derives basically from applying certain thresholds to the data process
Williams et al. (2017) firm performance. ing. We acknowledge that these thresholds may have introduced bias in
16 Bennett (2021a), Bennett (2019), Local institutional heterogeneity and
the otherwise relatively objective bibliometric methods.
and Bennett (2021b) firm dynamism; Local economic
freedom and creative destruction in
America; Infrastructure investments and 4.2. Future research
entrepreneurial dynamism in the U.S.
Search criteria for Web of Science (WoS): Data range: 2017–2021* (database Finally, as far as future research is concerned, as we pointed out in
consultation data: November 29, 2021); Citation index: Social Sciences Citation the Introduction section, a review paper like ours synthesizes existing
research findings at a meta-level in order to highlight the status quo of
9
the research field and identify opportunities for future research. For this Arora, S., & Majumdar, A. (2022). Machine learning and soft computing applications in
textile and clothing supply chain: Bibliometric and network analyses to delineate
reason, a relevant avenue for future inquiry would be to take a wider
future research agenda. Expert Systems with Applications, 200, Article 117000.
pool of specialized literature on entrepreneurship and delve deeper into https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2022.117000
the examination of key findings and major debates in each of the 16 Arz, C. (2019). Bridging the micro-macro gap: A multi-layer culture framework for
research fronts that emerged. On the other hand, some of the papers in understanding entrepreneurial orientation in family firms. Journal of Family Business
Strategy, 10(3), Article 100287. 100287. 10.1016/j.jfbs.2019.04.006.
the different research fronts identified in our study already propose an Audretsch, D. B., Belitski, M., & Desai, S. (2019). National business regulations and city
agenda for future research regarding certain (sub)fields in entrepre entrepreneurship in Europe: A multilevel nested analysis. Entrepreneurship Theory
neurship research, e.g., social entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial eco and Practice, 43(6), 1148–1165. https://doi.org/10.1177/1042258718774916
Bacq, S., Drover, W., & Kim, P. H. (2021). Writing bold, broad, and rigorous review
systems research, etc. (Cavallo et al., 2019; Hernández-Linares & López- articles in entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 36(6), Article 106147. 10
Fernández, 2018; Hota, 2021; Saebi et al., 2019). .1016/j.jbusvent.2021.106147.
Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of
Management, 17(1), 99–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700108
CRediT authorship contribution statement Bastian, M., Heymann, S., & Jacomy, M. (2009). Gephi: An open source software for
exploring and manipulating networks. Proceedings of the Third International AAAI
Francisco García-Lillo: Visualization, Software, Methodology, Conference on Weblogs and Social Media. AAAI Publications. https://ojs.aaai.org/i
ndex.php/ICWSM/article/view/13937.
Formal analysis, Conceptualization, Investigation, Project administra Batistič, S., Černe, M., & Vogel, B. (2017). Just how multi-level is leadership research? A
tion, Supervision, Validation, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & document co-citation analysis 1980–2013 on leadership constructs and outcomes.
editing. Pedro Seva-Larrosa: Methodology, Conceptualization, Formal The Leadership Quarterly, 28, 86–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.10.007
Batistič, S., & van der Laken, P. (2019). History, evolution and future of big data and
analysis, Investigation, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & analytics: A bibliometric analysis of its relationship to performance in organizations.
editing. Eduardo Sánchez-García: Formal analysis, Validation, Writing British Journal of Management, 30(2), 229–251. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-
- review & editing. 8551.12340
Bennett, D. L. (2019). Infrastructure investments and entrepreneurial dynamism in the U.
S. Journal of Business Venturing, 34(5), Article 105907. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jbusvent.2018.10.005
Declaration of Competing Interest
Bennett, D. L. (2021a). Local institutional heterogeneity & firm dynamism: Decomposing
the metropolitan economic freedom index. Small Business Economics, 57(1), 493–511.
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-020-00322-2
Bennett, D. L. (2021b). Local economic freedom and creative destruction in America.
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
Small Business Economics, 56(1), 333–353. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-019-
the work reported in this paper. 00222-0
Bensman, S. J. (2004). Pearson’s r and author cocitation analysis: A commentary on the
controversy. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 55
Appendix A. Supplementary material (10), 935–936. 10.1002/asi.20028.
Berger, E. S. C., von Briel, F., Davidsson, P., & Kuckertz, A. (2021). Digital or not – The
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi. future of entrepreneurship and innovation: Introduction to the special issue. Journal
of Business Research, 125, 436–442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.12.020
org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.113624.
Bettinelli, C., Sciascia, S., Randerson, K., & Fayolle, A. (2017). Researching
entrepreneurship in family firms. Journal of Small Business Management, 55(4),
References 506–529. 10.1111/jsbm.12347.
Blei, D. M., Ng, A. Y., & Jordan, M. I. (2003). Latent Dirichlet allocation. Journal of
Machine Learning Research, 3(4–5), 993–1022.
Acs, Z. J., Stam, E., Audretsch, D. B., & O’Connor, A. (2017). The lineages of the
Bolzani, D., Rasmussen, E., & Fini, R. (2021). Spin-offs’ linkages to their parent
entrepreneurial ecosystem approach. Small Business Economics, 49(1), 1–10. https://
universities over time: The performance implications of equity, geographical
doi.org/10.1007/s11187-017-9864-8
proximity, and technological ties. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 15(4), 590–618.
Aguinis, H., Boyd, B. K., Pierce, C. A., Short, J. C., & Shepherd, D. A. (2011). Multilevel
https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1359
entrepreneurship research: Opportunities for studying entrepreneurial decision
Bose, S. C., Kiran, R., & Goyal, D. (2017). Examining the relation of service assistance
making. Journal of Management, 37(2), 412–420. https://doi.org/10.1177/
facilities, managerial skill competencies and constraints with agri-business
0149206310369940
incubators performance in India. Custos e Agronegocio on Line, 13(3), 75–100.
Ahlgren, P., Jarneving, B., & Rousseau, R. (2003). Requirements for a cocitation
Bose, S. C., Kiran, R., & Goyal, D. (2018). Critical success factors of agri-business
similarity measure, with special reference to Pearson’s correlation coefficient.
incubators and their impact on business performance. Custos e Agronegocio on Line,
Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(6),
14(4), 350–376.
550–560. doi: 10.1002/asi.10242.
Bose, S. C., Kiran, R., & Goyal, D. (2019). Critical success factors of agri-business
Ahlgren, P., Jarneving, B., & Rousseau, R. (2004). Author cocitation analysis and
incubators and their impact on business. Custos e Agronegocio on Line, 15(1),
Pearson’s r. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 55
352–378.
(9), 843–843 (letter to the editor). doi: 10.1002/asi.10325.
Boyack, K. W., & Klavans, R. (2010). Co-citation analysis, bibliographic coupling, and
Ahmed, F. U., & Brennan, L. (2019a). The impact of founder’s human capital on firms’
direct citation: Which citation approach represents the research front most
extent of early internationalisation: Evidence from a least-developed country. Asia
accurately? Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 61(12),
Pacific Journal of Management, 36(3), 615–659. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-
2389–2404. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21419
019-09646-4
Braun, I., & Sieger, P. (2021). Under pressure: Family financial support and the
Ahmed, F. U., & Brennan, L. (2019b). An institution-based view of firms’ early
ambidextrous use of causation and effectuation. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 15
internationalization: Effectiveness of national export promotion policies.
(4), 716–749. 10.1002/sej.1388.
International Marketing Review, 36(6), 911–954. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMR-03-
Brown, R., & Mason, C. (2017). Looking inside the spiky bits: A critical review and
2018-0108
conceptualisation of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Small Business Economics, 49(1),
Aksnes, D. W., Langfeldt, L., & Wouters, P. (2019). Citations, citation indicators, and
11–30. 10.1007/s11187-017-9865-7.
research quality: An overview of basic concepts and theories. SAGE Open, 9(1),
Brownell, K. M., McMullen, J. S., & O’Boyle, E. H., Jr. (2021). Fatal attraction: A
2158244019829575. doi: 10.1177/2158244019829575.
systematic review and research agenda of the dark triad in entrepreneurship. Journal
Aldrich, H. E. (2012). The emergence of entrepreneurship as an academic field: A
of Business Venturing, 36(3), Article 106106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
personal essay on institutional entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 41(7), 1240–1248.
jbusvent.2021.106106
10.1016/j.respol.2012.03.013.
Buccieri, D., Javalgi, G., & Cavusgil, E. (2020). International new venture performance:
Alvarez, S. A., & Busenitz, L. W. (2001). The entrepreneurship of resource-based theory.
Role of international entrepreneurial culture, ambidextrous innovation, and
Journal of Management, 27(6), 755–775. https://doi.org/10.1177/
dynamic marketing capabilities. International Business Review, 29(2), Article 101639.
014920630102700609
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2019.101639
Anand, A., Argade, P., Barkemeyer, R., & Salignac, F. (2021). Trends and patterns in
Busenitz, L. W., West, G. P., Shepherd, D. A., Nelson, T., Chandler, G. N., & Zacharakis, A.
sustainable entrepreneurship research: A bibliometric review and research agenda.
(2003). Entrepreneurship research in emergence: Past trends and future directions.
Journal of Business Venturing, 36(3), Article 106092. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Journal of Management, 29(3), 285–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-2063_03_
jbusvent.2021.106092
00013-8
Aria, M., & Cuccurullo, C. (2017). Bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science
Calabretta, G., Durisin, B., & Ogliengo, M. (2011). Uncovering the intellectual structure
mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 11(4), 959–975. https://doi.org/10.1016/
of research in business ethics: A journey through the history, the classics, and the
j.joi.2017.08.007
pillars of Journal of Business Ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 104(4), 499–524.
Arora, S. D., & Chakraborty, A. (2021). Intellectual structure of consumer complaining
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0924-8
behavior (CCB) research: A bibliometric analysis. Journal of Business Research, 122,
60–74. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.08.043.
10
Carlsson, B., Braunerhielm, P., McKelvey, M., Olofsson, C., Persson, L., & Ylinenpää, H. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with
(2013). The evolving domain of entrepreneurship research. Small Business Economics, unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1),
41(4), 913–930. 10.1007/s11187-013-9503-y. 39–50. doi: 10.2307/3151312.
Cavallo, A., Ghezzi, A., & Balocco, R. (2019). Entrepreneurial ecosystem research: Foss, N. J., & Saebi, T. (2017). Fifteen years of research on business model innovation:
Present debates and future directions. International Entrepreneurship and Management How far have we come, and where should we go? Journal of Management, 43(1),
Journal, 15(4), 1291–1321. 10.1007/s11365-018-0526-3. 200–227. doi: 10.1177/0149206316675927.
Cawkell, A. E. (1976). Understanding science by analysing its literature. Essays of an Gali, N., Niemand, T., Shaw, E., Hughes, M., Kraus, S., & Brem, A. (2020). Social
Information Scientist, 2, 543–549. entrepreneurship orientation and company success: The mediating role of social
Chen, D. Z., Huang, M. H., Hsieh, H. C., & Lin, C. P. (2011). Identifying hidden relevant performance. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 160, Article 120230.
patent citation links by using bibliographic coupling in LED illuminating technology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120230
Journal of Informetrics, 5, 400–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2011.02.005 García-Lillo, F., Claver-Cortés, E., Marco-Lajara, B., & Úbeda-García, M. (2017). Mapping
Chen, C., Ibekwe-San Juan, F., & Hou, J. (2010). The structure and dynamics of the intellectual structure of research on ‘born global’ firms and INVs: A citation/co-
cocitation clusters: A multiple-perspective cocitation analysis. Journal of the citation analysis. Management International Review, 57(4), 631–652. https://doi.org/
American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(7), 1386–1409. https:// 10.1007/s11575-016-0308-5
doi.org/10.1002/asi.21309 Garfield, E. (1970). Citation indexing, historio-biblography, and the Sociology of
Cherven, K. (2015). Mastering Gephi Network Visualization. Birmingham, UK: Packt Science. In K. E. Davis, & W. D. Sweeney (Eds.), Proceedings of the third international
Publishing Ltd. congress of medical librarianship. Amsterdam, 5–9 May 1969 (pp. 187–204).
Colombelli, A., Orsatti, G., & Quatraro, F. (2021). Local knowledge composition and the Amsterdam: Excerpta Medica.
emergence of entrepreneurial activities across industries: Evidence from Italian Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2012). Seeking qualitative rigor in
NUTS-3 regions. Small Business Economics, 56(2), 613–635. https://doi.org/10.1007/ inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research
s11187-019-00192-3 Methods, 16(1), 15–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428112452151
Colombelli, A., & Quatraro, F. (2018). New firm formation and regional knowledge Glänzel, W., & Czerwon, H. J. (1995). A new methodological approach to bibliographic
production modes: Italian evidence. Research Policy, 47(1), 139–157. https://doi. coupling and its application to research-front and other core documents. In
org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.10.006 Proceedings of 5th international conference on scientometrics and informetrics (pp.
Colombelli, A., & Quatraro, F. (2019). Green start-ups and local knowledge spillovers 167–176), held in River Forest, Illinois, June 7–10. Medford: Learned Information
from clean and dirty technologies. Small Business Economics, 52(4), 773–792. 10.100 Inc.
7/s11187-017-9934-y. Glänzel, W., & Czerwon, H. J. (1996). A new methodological approach to bibliographic
Dai, W. Q., Arndt, F., & Liao, M. Q. (2020). Hear it straight from the horse’s mouth: coupling and its application to the national, regional and institutional level.
Recognizing policy-induced opportunities. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, Scientometrics, 37(2), 195–221. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02093621
32(5–6), 408–428. 10.1080/08985626.2019.1640452. Glänzel, W., & Thijs, B. (2011). Using ‘core documents’ for the representation of clusters
Dai, S., Duan, X., & Zhang, W. (2020). Knowledge map of environmental crisis and topics. Scientometrics, 88(1), 297–309. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-
management based on keywords network and co-word analysis, 2005–2018. Journal 0347-4
of Cleaner Production, 262, 121168. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121168. González-Alcaide, G. (2021). Bibliometric studies outside the information science and
Dai, W. Q., & Liao, M. Q. (2019). Entrepreneurial attention to deregulations and library science field: Uncontainable or uncontrollable? Scientometrics, 126(1),
reinvestments by private firms: Evidence from China. Asia Pacific Journal of 6837–6870. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04061-3
Management, 36(4), 1221–1250. 10.1007/s10490-018-9574-z. Good, M., Knockaert, M., Soppe, B., & Wright, M. (2019). The technology transfer
Dai, W. Q., Liao, M. Q., Lin, Q., & Dong, J. C. (2020). Does entrepreneurs’ proactive ecosystem in academia: An organizational design perspective. Technovation, 82,
attention to government policies matter? Asian Business & Management. https://doi. 35–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2018.06.009
org/10.1057/s41291-020-00130-2 Grégoire, D. A., Binder, J. K., & Rauch, A. (2019). Navigating the validity tradeoffs of
De Bernardi, P., Bertello, A., Forliano, C., & Orlandi, L. B. (2021). Beyond the “ivory entrepreneurship research experiments: A systematic review and best-practice
tower”. Comparing academic and non-academic knowledge on social suggestions. Journal of Business Venturing, 34(2), 284–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/
entrepreneurship. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal; doi: j.jbusvent.2018.10.002
10.1007/s11365-021-00783-1. Grégoire, D. A., Nöel, M. X., Déry, R., & Béchard, J. P. (2006). Is there conceptual
Douglas, E. J., & Prentice, C. (2019). Innovation and profit motivations for social convergence in entrepreneurship research? A co-citation analysis of Frontiers of
entrepreneurship: A fuzzy-set analysis. Journal of Business Research, 99, 69–79. doi: Entrepreneurship Research, 1981–2004. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 3(3),
10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.02.031. 333–373. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2006.00124.x
Douglas, E. J., Shepherd, D. A., & Prentice, C. (2020). Using fuzzy-set qualitative Griffith, B. C., Small, H. G., Stonehill, J. A., & Dey, S. (1974). Structure of scientific
comparative analysis for a finer-grained understanding of entrepreneurship. Journal literatures. II: Toward a macrostructure and microstructure for science. Science
of Business Venturing, 35(1), Article 105970. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Studies, 4(4), 339–365. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631277400400402
jbusvent.2019.105970 Grosseck, G., Tîru, L. G., & Bran, R. A. (2019). Education for sustainable development:
Douglas, E. J., Shepherd, D. A., & Venugopal, V. (2021). A multi-motivational general Evolution and perspectives: A bibliometric review of research, 1992–2018.
model of entrepreneurial intention. Journal of Business Venturing, 36(4), Article Sustainability, 11(21), 6136. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11216136
106107. 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2021.106107. Gupta, P., Chauhan, S., Justin, P., & Jaiswal, M. P. (2020). Social entrepreneurship
Drover, W., Busenitz, L., Matusik, S., Townsend, D., Anglin, A., & Dushnitsky, G. (2017). research: A review and future research agenda. Journal of Business Research, 113,
A review and road map of entrepreneurial equity financing research: venture capital, 209–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.03.032
corporate venture capital, angel investment, crowdfunding, and accelerators. Journal Harzing, A. W., & Alakangas, S. (2016). Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science:
of Management, 43(6), 1820–1853. doi: 10.1177/0149206317690584. A longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison. Scientometrics, 106(2), 787–804.
Dushnitsky, G., & Matusik, S. F. (2019). A fresh look at patterns and assumptions in the https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1798-9
field of entrepreneurship: What can we learn? Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 13 Hennart, J. F., Majocchi, A., & Hagen, B. (2021). What’s so special about born globals,
(4), 437–447. doi: 10.1002/sej.1324. their entrepreneurs or their business model? Journal of International Business Studies,
Dzikowski, P. (2018). A bibliometric analysis of born global firms. Journal of Business 52(9), 1665–1694. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-021-00427-0
Research, 85, 281–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.12.054 Hernández-Linares, R., Kellermanns, F. W., & López-Fernández, M. C. (2018). A note on
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. The Academy of the relationships between learning, market, and entrepreneurial orientations in
Management Review, 14(4), 532–550. https://doi.org/10.2307/258557 family and nonfamily firms. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 9(3), 192–204.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2018.08.001
and challenges. The Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25–32. doi: 10.5465/ Hernández-Linares, R., & López-Fernández, M. C. (2018). Entrepreneurial orientation
amj.2007.24160888. and the family firm: Mapping the field and tracing a path for future research. Family
Ertz, M., & Leblanc-Proulx, S. (2019). Review of a proposed methodology for Business Review, 31(3), 318–351. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894486518781940
bibliometric and visualization analyses for organizations: Application to the Hernández-Perlines, F., Moreno-García, J., & Yáñez-Araque, B. (2016). The mediating
collaboration economy. Journal of Marketing Analytics, 7(12), 84–93. https://doi. role of competitive strategy in international entrepreneurial orientation. Journal of
org/10.1057/s41270-019-00052-9 Business Research, 69(11), 5383–5389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Ethiraj, S. K., Gambardella, A., & Helfat, C. E. (2017). Reviews of strategic management jbusres.2016.04.142
research. Strategic Management Journal, 38(1), 3–3. doi: 10.1002/smj.2606. Hernández-Perlines, F., Moreno-García, J., & Yáñez-Araque, B. (2019). The influence of
Fahimnia, B., Sarkis, J., & Davarzani, H. (2015). Green supply chain management: A socioemotional wealth in the entrepreneurial orientation of family businesses.
review and bibliometric analysis. International Journal of Production Economics, 162, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 15(2), 523–544. https://doi.
101–114. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2015.01.003. org/10.1007/s11365-019-00561-0
Fauzi, M. A. (2022). Knowledge hiding behavior in higher education institutions: A Hlady-Rispal, M., & Servantie, V. (2018). Deconstructing the way in which value is
scientometric analysis and systematic literature review approach. Journal of created in the context of social entrepreneurship. International Journal of Management
Knowledge Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-07-2021-0527 Reviews, 20(1), 62–80. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12113
Fayolle, A., Landstrom, H., Gartner, W. B., & Berglund, K. (2016). The Hörisch, J., Kollat, J., & Brieger, S. A. (2017). What influences environmental
institutionalization of entrepreneurship: Questioning the status quo and re-gaining entrepreneurship? A multilevel analysis of the determinants of entrepreneurs’
hope for entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development: An environmental orientation. Small Business Economics, 48(1), 47–69. https://doi.org/
International Journal, 28(7–8), 477–486. 10.1080/08985626.2016.1221227. 10.1007/s11187-016-9765-2
Fisher, G., Kuratko, D. F., Bloodgood, J. M., & Hornsby, J. S. (2017). Legitimate to Hota, P. K. (2021). Tracing the intellectual evolution of social entrepreneurship research:
whom? The challenge of audience diversity and new venture legitimacy. Journal of Past advances, current trends, and future directions. Journal of Business Ethics.
Business Venturing, 32(1), 52–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2016.10.005 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-021-04962-6
11
Hota, P. K., Subramanian, B., & Narayanamurthy, G. (2020). Mapping the intellectual communication and the moderation effect of technological turbulence. Journal of
structure of social entrepreneurship research: A citation/co-citation analysis. Journal Business Research, 107, 25–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.09.044
of Business Ethics, 166(1), 89–114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04129-4 Martyn, J. (1964). Bibliographic coupling. Journal of Documentation, 20(4), 236–236.
Iacobucci, D., Micozzi, A., & Piccaluga, A. (2021). An empirical analysis of the doi: 10.1108/eb026352.
relationship between university investments in Technology Transfer Offices and Maseda, A., Iturralde, T., Cooper, S., & Aparicio, G. (2022). Mapping women’s
academic spin-offs. R & D Management, 51(1), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/ involvement in family firms: A review based on bibliographic coupling analysis.
radm.12434 International Journal of Management Reviews, 24(2), 279–305. https://doi.org/
Jacomy, M., Venturini, T., Heymann, S., & Bastian, M. (2014). ForceAtlas2, a continuous 10.1111/ijmr.12278
graph layout algorithm for handy network visualization designed for the Gephi Maula, M., & Stam, W. (2020). Enhancing rigor in quantitative entrepreneurship
software. PLoS ONE, 9(6), e98679. research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 44(6), 1059–1090. https://doi.org/
Jarneving, B. (2007a). Bibliographic coupling and its application to research-front and 10.1177/1042258719891388
other core documents. Journal of Informetrics, 1(4), 287–307. https://doi.org/ McCain, K. W. (1990). Mapping authors in intellectual space: A technical overview.
10.1016/j.joi.2007.07.004 Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 41(6), 433–443. https://doi.
Jarneving, B. (2007b). Complete graphs and bibliographic coupling: A test of the org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199009)41:6<433::AID-ASI11>3.0.CO;2-Q
applicability of bibliographic coupling for the identification of cognitive cores on the McCormick, M., & Somaya, D. (2020). Born globals from emerging economies:
field level. Journal of Informetrics, 1(4), 338–356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Reconciling early exporting with theories of internationalization. Global Strategy
joi.2007.08.001 Journal, 10(2), 251–281. https://doi.org/10.1002/gsj.1368
Kaciak, E., & Welsh, D. H. B. (2020). Women entrepreneurs and work-life interface: The McKelvie, A., Chandler, G. N., DeTienne, D. R., & Johansson, A. (2020). The
impact of sustainable economies on success. Journal of Business Research, 112, measurement of effectuation: Highlighting research tensions and opportunities for
281–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.11.073 the future. Small Business Economics, 54(3), 689–720. https://doi.org/10.1007/
Kessler, M. M. (1962). An experimental study of bibliographic coupling between technical s11187-019-00149-6
papers. M.I.T Lincoln Laboratory. Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations.
Kessler, M. M. (1963). Bibliographic coupling between scientific papers. Journal of the Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Association for Information Science and Technology, 14(1), 10–25. https://doi.org/ Merton, R. K. (1979). Foreword. In E. Garfield (Ed.), Citation indexing—Its theory and
10.1002/asi.5090140103 application in science, technology, and humanities (pp. v–ix). New York, NY: John
Khanra, S., Dhir, A., Parida, V., & Kohtamäki, M. (2021). Servitization research: A review Wiley.
and bibliometric analysis of past achievements and future promises. Journal of Meyer, M., Libaers, D., Thijs, B., Grant, K., Glänzel, W., & Debackere, K. (2014). Origin
Business Research, 131, 151–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.03.056 and emergence of entrepreneurship as a research field. Scientometrics, 98(1),
Kim, H., & Fung So, K. K. (2022). Two decades of customer experience research in 473–485. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1021-9
hospitality and tourism: A bibliometric analysis and thematic content analysis. Mitchell, R. K., Busenitz, L., Lant, T., McDougall, P. P., Morse, E. A., & Smith, J. B.
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 100, Article 103082. https://doi.org/ (2004). The distinctive and inclusive domain of entrepreneurial cognition research.
10.1016/j.ijhm.2021.103082 Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28(6), 505–518. https://doi.org/10.1111/
Kiss, A. N., Danis, W. M., & Cavusgil, S. T. (2012). International entrepreneurship j.1540-6520.2004.00061.x
research in emerging economies: A critical review and research agenda. Journal of Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for
Business Venturing, 27(2), 266–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2011.09.004 systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Annals of Internal
Kobourov, S. G. (2012). Spring embedders and force directed graph drawing algorithms. Medicine, 151(4), 264–269. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-
Mathematics, Computer Science; arXiv:1201.3011. Bibcode:2012arXiv1201.3011K. 00135
Kraus, S., Mahto, R. V., & Walsh, S. T. (2021). The importance of literature reviews in Mora, L., Deakin, M., & Reid, A. (2019). Combining co-citation clustering and text-based
small business and entrepreneurship research. Journal of Small Business Management. analysis to reveal the main development paths of smart cities. Technological
https://doi.org/10.1080/00472778.2021.1955128 Forecasting and Social Change, 142, 56–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Kumar, B., & Sharma, A. (2022). Examining the research on social media in business-to- techfore.2018.07.019
business marketing with a focus on sales and the selling process. Industrial Marketing Nambisan, S. (2017). Digital entrepreneurship: Toward a digital technology perspective
Management, 102, 122–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2022.01.008 of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(6), 1029–1055. https://
Lampe, J., Kraft, P. S., & Bausch, A. (2019). Mapping the field of research on doi.org/10.1111/etap.12254
entrepreneurial organizations (1937–2016): A bibliometric analysis and research Ordanini, A., Rubera, G., & DeFillippi, R. (2008). The many moods of inter-
agenda. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 44(4), 784–816. https://doi.org/ organizational imitation: A critical review. International Journal of Management
10.1177/1042258719851217 Reviews, 10(4), 375–398. 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2008.00233.x.
Leydesdorff, L. (2005). Similarity measures, author cocitation analysis, and information Page, M. J., et al. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for
theory. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 56(7), reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
769–772. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20130 (Published 29 March
Leydesdorff, L. (2007). Should co-occurrence data be normalized? A rejoinder. Journal of Paloviita, A. (2009). Stakeholder perceptions of alternative food entrepreneurs. World
the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(14), 2411–2413. Review of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development, 5(4), 395–406.
https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20691 https://doi.org/10.1504/WREMSD.2009.031627
Leydesdorff, L., & Vaughan, L. (2006). Co-occurrence matrices and their applications in Persson, O., Danell, R., & Schneider, J. W. (2009). How to use Bibexcel for various types
information science: Extending ACA to the Web environment. Journal of the American of bibliometric analysis. In F. Åstrom, R. Danell, B. Larsen, & J. W. Schneider (Eds.),
Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(12), 1616–1628. https://doi.org/ Celebrating scholarly communication studies: A festschrift for Olle Persson at his 60
10.1002/asi.20335 birthday (pp. 9–24). Leuven, Belgium: Special volume of the e-newsletter of the
Leydesdorff, L., & Welbers, K. (2011). The semantic mapping of words and co-words in International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics Vol. 05-S.
contexts. Journal of Informetrics, 5(3), 469–475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Peters, H. P., Braam, R. R., & van Raan, A. F. (1995). Cognitive resemblance and citation
joi.2011.01.008 relations in chemical engineering publications. Journal of the American Society for
Li, Y. K., Wu, J., Zhang, D. R., & Ling, L. (2021). Gendered institutions and female Information Science, 46(1), 9–21. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199501)
entrepreneurship: A fuzzy-set QCA approach. Gender in Management, 36(1), 87–107. 46:1<9::AID-ASI2>3.0.CO;2-3
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-019-00570-z Pham, H. H., Dong, T. K. T., Vuong, Q. H., Luong, D. H., Nguyen, T. T., Dinh, V. H., &
Light, R., & Pillemer, D. (1984). Summing up: The science of reviewing research. Cambridge, Ho, M. T. (2021). A bibliometric review of research on international student
MA: Harvard University Press. mobilities in Asia with Scopus dataset between 1984 and 2019. Scientometrics, 126
Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct (6), 5201–5224. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-03965-4
and linking it to performance. The Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 135–172. Phan, P. H. (2004). Entrepreneurship theory: Possibilities and future directions. Journal
https://doi.org/10.2307/258632 of Business Venturing, 19(5), 617–620. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Lundqvist, M. A., & Middleton, K. L. W. (2013). Academic entrepreneurship revisited – jbusvent.2003.09.001
university scientists and venture creation. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Phan, P. H., Wright, M., Ucbasaran, D., & Tan, W. L. (2009). Corporate entrepreneurship:
Development, 20(3), 603–617. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSBED-04-2013-0059 Current research and future directions. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(3), 197–205.
Marshakova, I. V. (1973). System of document connection based on references. Nauchno- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2009.01.007
Teknichescaya Informatisya Seriya, 2, 3–8. Pittino, D., Martínez, A. B., Chirico, F., & Galván, R. S. (2018). Psychological ownership,
Martin, S. L., & Javalgi, R. G. (2018). Epistemological foundations of international knowledge sharing and entrepreneurial orientation in family firms: The moderating
entrepreneurship. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 14(3), role of governance heterogeneity. Journal of Business Research, 84, 312–326. https://
671–680. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-018-0517-4 doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.08.014
Martin, S. L., Javalgi, R. G., & Cavusgil, E. (2017). Marketing capabilities, positional Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method
advantage, and performance of born global firms: Contingent effect of ambidextrous biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended
innovation. International Business Review, 26(3), 527–543. https://doi.org/10.1016/ remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/
j.ibusrev.2016.11.006 0021-9010.88.5.879
Martin, S. L., Javalgi, R. G., & Ciravegna, L. (2018). Service advantage built on service Rauch, A., & Frese, M. (2007). Born to be an entrepreneur? Revisiting the personality
capabilities: An empirical inquiry of international new ventures. Journal of Business approach to entrepreneurship. In J. R. Baum, M. Frese, & R. A. Baron (Eds.), The
Research, 88, 371–381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.01.024 psychology of entrepreneurship (pp. 41–65). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Martin, S. L., Javalgi, R. G., & Ciravegna, L. (2020). Marketing capabilities and Associates.
international new venture performance: The mediation role of marketing
12
Rocha, A., Brown, R., & Mawson, S. (2021). Capturing conversations in entrepreneurial firm emergence, and growth (Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 119–138). Greenwich, CT: The JAI
ecosystems. Research Policy, 50(9), Article 104317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Press.
respol.2021.104317 Verbeek, A., Debackere, K., Luwel, M., & Zimmermann, E. (2002). Measuring progress
Saebi, T., Foss, N. J., & Linder, S. (2019). Social entrepreneurship research: Past and evolution in science and technology– I: The multiple uses of bibliometric
achievements and future promises. Journal of Management, 45(1), 70–95. https:// indicators. International Journal of Management Reviews, 4(2), 179–211. https://doi.
doi.org/10.1177/0149206318793196 org/10.1111/1468-2370.00083
Saft, D., & Nissen, V. (2014). Analysing full text content by means of a flexible co-citation Vladutz, G., & Cook, J. (1984). Bibliographic coupling and subject relatedness.
analysis inspired text mining method – exploring 15 years of JASSS articles. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science, 21, 204–207.
International Journal of Business Intelligence and Data Mining, 9(1), 52–73. https://doi. Vogel, R., & Güttel, W. H. (2013). The dynamic capability view in strategic management:
org/10.1504/IJBIDM.2014.062883 A bibliometric review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 15(4), 426–446.
Sandström, C., Wennberg, K., Wallin, M. W., & Zherlygina, Y. (2018). Public policy for https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12000
academic entrepreneurship initiatives: A review and critical discussion. The Journal Wang, M., Cai, J. F., & Munir, H. (2017). Academic entrepreneurship in China: Individual
of Technology Transfer, 43(5), 1232–1256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-016- human capital and institutional context in higher education organisations. Asian
9536-x Journal of Technology Innovation. https://doi.org/10.1080/19761597.2020.1833354
Sarango-Lalangui, P., Santos, J. L. S., & Hormiga, E. (2018). The development of Wang, M., Cai, J. F., & Munir, H. (2021). Promoting entrepreneurial intentions for
sustainable entrepreneurship research field. Sustainability, 10(6), 2005. https://doi. academic scientists: Combining the social cognition theory and theory of planned
org/10.3390/su10062005 behaviour in broadly-defined academic entrepreneurship. European Journal of
Sarasvathy, S. (2001). Causation and effectuation: Toward a theoretical shift from Innovation Management, 24(2), 613–635. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-07-2020-
economic inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency. The Academy of Management 0257
Review, 26(2), 243–263. https://doi.org/10.2307/259121 Wang, M., Cai, J. F., Soetanto, D., & Guo, Y. (2018). Why do academic scientists
Schwens, C., Zapkau, F. B., Bierwerth, M., Isidor, R., Knight, G., & Kabst, R. (2018). participate in academic entrepreneurship? An empirical investigation of department
International entrepreneurship: A meta-analysis on the internationalization and context and the antecedents of entrepreneurial behavior. Journal of Small Business
performance relationship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 42(5), 734–768. Management. https://doi.org/10.1080/00472778.2020.1844486
https://doi.org/10.1177/1042258718795346 Welsh, D. H. B., & Kaciak, E. (2019). Family enrichment and women entrepreneurial
Sciarelli, M., Landi, G. C., Turriziani, L., & Tani, M. (2021). Academic entrepreneurship: success: The mediating effect of family interference. International Entrepreneurship
Founding and governance determinants in university spin-off ventures. The Journal and Management Journal, 15(4), 1045–1075. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-019-
of Technology Transfer, 46(4), 1083–1107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-020- 00587-4
09798-2 Welsh, D. H. B., Kaciak, E., Memili, E., & Minialai, C. (2018). Business-family interface
Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of and the performance of women entrepreneurs: The moderating effect of economic
research. The Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217–226. https://doi.org/ development. International Journal of Emerging Markets, 13(2), 330–349. https://doi.
10.2307/259271 org/10.1177/0266242620952356
Shepherd, D. A. (2015). Party on! A call for entrepreneurship research that is more Welsh, D. H. B., Kaciak, E., & Minialai, C. (2017). The influence of perceived
interactive, activity based, cognitively hot, compassionate, and prosocial. Journal of management skills and perceived gender discrimination in launch decisions by
Business Venturing, 30(4), 489–507. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2015.02.001 women entrepreneurs. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 13(1),
Shepherd, D. A., Williams, T. A., & Patzelt, H. (2015). Thinking about entrepreneurial 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-015-0379-y
decision making: Review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 41(1), 11–46. Welsh, D. H. B., Kaciak, E., & Shamah, R. (2018). Determinants of women entrepreneurs’
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314541153 firm performance in a hostile environment. Journal of Business Research, 88,
Skute, I. (2019). Opening the black box of academic entrepreneurship: A bibliometric 481–491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.12.015
analysis. Scientometrics, 120(1), 237–265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019- Welter, F. (2011). Contextualizing entrepreneurship — Conceptual challenges and ways
03116-w forward. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(1), 165–184. https://doi.org/
Small, H. (1973). Co-citation in the scientific literature: A new measure of the relation 10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00427.x
between two documents. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 24 Williams, C. C., & Kedir, A. M. (2017). Starting-up unregistered and firm performance in
(4), 265–269. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.4630240406 Turkey. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 13(3), 797–817.
Small, H. G. (1978). Cited documents as concept symbols. Social Studies of Science, 8(3), https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-016-0425-4
327–340. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631277800800305 Williams, C. C., & Kedir, A. M. (2019). Explaining cross-country variations in the
Small, H., & Griffith, B. C. (1974). Structure of scientific literatures. I: Identifying and prevalence of informal sector competitors: Lessons from the World Bank Enterprise
graphing specialties. Science Studies, 4(1), 17–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/ Survey. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 15(3), 677–696.
030631277400400102 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-018-0527-2
Smolka, K. M., Verheul, I., Burmeister-Lamp, K., & Heugens, P. P. M. A. R. (2018). Get it Williams, C. C., Martínez-Pérez, A., & Kedir, A. M. (2017). Informal entrepreneurship in
together! Synergistic effects of causal and effectual decision-making logics on developing economies: The impacts of starting up unregistered on firm performance.
venture performance. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 42(4), 571–604. https:// Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(5), 773–799. https://doi.org/10.1111/
doi.org/10.1177/1042258718783429 etap.12238
Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and Wood, M. S. (2011). A process model of academic entrepreneurship. Business Horizons, 54
guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. (2), 153–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2010.11.004
jbusres.2019.07.039 Wry, T., & York, J. G. (2017). An identity-based approach to social enterprise. The
Spigel, B. (2017). The relational organization of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Academy of Management Review, 42(3), 437–460. https://doi.org/10.5465/
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(1), 49–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/ amr.2013.0506
etap.12167 Wu, J., & Li, Y. K. (2020). An exploratory cross-country analysis of female
Spigel, B., & Harrison, R. (2018). Toward a process theory of entrepreneurial ecosystems. entrepreneurial activity: The roles of gendered institutions. Entrepreneurship Research
Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 12(1), 151–168. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1268 Journal, 10(3), 20180019. https://doi.org/10.1515/erj-2018-0019
Stanley, L. J., Hernández-Linares, R., López-Fernández, M. C., & Kellermanns, F. W. Wu, J., Li, Y. K., & Zhang, D. R. (2019). Identifying women’s entrepreneurial barriers and
(2019). A typology of family firms: An investigation of entrepreneurial orientation empowering female entrepreneurship worldwide: A fuzzy-set QCA approach.
and performance. Family Business Review, 32(2), 174–194. https://doi.org/10.1177/ International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 15(3), 905–928. https://doi.
0894486519838120 org/10.1007/s11365-019-00570-z
Sussan, F., & Acs, Z. J. (2017). The digital entrepreneurial ecosystem. Small Business Wurth, B., Stam, E., & Spigel, B. (2021). Toward an entrepreneurial ecosystem research
Economics, 49(1), 55–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-017-9867-5 program. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 46(3), 729–778. https://doi.org/
Sutter, C., Bruton, G., & Chen, J. (2019). Entrepreneurship as a solution to extreme 10.1177/1042258721998948
poverty: A review and future research directions. Journal of Business Venturing, 34(1), Xu, X., Chen, X., Jia, F., Brown, S., Gong, Y., & Xu, Y. (2018). Supply chain finance: A
197–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2018.06.003 systematic literature review and bibliometric analysis. International Journal of
Terán-Yépez, E., Marín-Carrillo, G. M., Casado-Belmonte, M. D. P., & Capobianco- Production Economics, 204, 160–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2018.08.003
Uriarte, M. D. L. M. (2020). Sustainable entrepreneurship: Review of its evolution Yang, Y., Wu, M., & Cui, L. (2012). Integration of three visualization methods based on
and new trends. Journal of Cleaner Production, 252, Article 119742. https://doi.org/ co-word analysis. Scientometrics, 90(2), 659–673. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-
10.1016/j. jclepro.2019.119742 011-0541-4
Thukral, S., & Jain, A. (2021). Unveiling contemporary dimensions in the Yavuz, R. I. (2017). Founders’ education, social capital, and their interplay in the
internationalisation of family firms through bibliometric analysis and thematic intensity of new-venture internationalization. Journal of Small Business Management.
analysis. Review of International Business and Strategy, 31(4), 507–539. https://doi. https://doi.org/10.1080/00472778.2021.1913596
org/10.1108/RIBS-09-2020-0121 Zahra, S. A., Sapienza, H. J., & Davidsson, P. (2006). Entrepreneurship and dynamic
Velden, T., Yan, S., & Lagoze, C. (2017). Mapping the cognitive structure of astrophysics capabilities: A review, model and research agenda. Journal of Management Studies, 43
by infomap clustering of the citation network and topic affinity analysis. (4), 917–955. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00616.x
Scientometrics, 111(2), 1033–1051. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2299-9 Zhao, D., & Strotmann, A. (2011). Intellectual structure of stem cell research: A
Velt, H., Torkkeli, L., & Laine, I. (2020). Entrepreneurial ecosystem research: comprehensive author co-citation analysis of a highly collaborative and
Bibliometric mapping of the Domain. Journal of Business. Ecosystems, 1(2). https:// multidisciplinary field. Scientometrics, 87(1), 115–131. https://doi.org/10.1007/
doi.org/10.4018/JBE.20200701.oa1 s11192-010-0317-2
Venkataraman, S. (1997). The distinctive domain of entrepreneurship research: An Zhou, Q., & Leydesdorff, L. (2016). The normalization of occurrence and co-occurrence
editor’s perspective. In J. Katz, & R. Brockhaus (Eds.), Advances in entrepreneurship, matrices in bibliometrics using cosine similarities and Ochiai coefficients. Journal of
13
the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(11), 2805–2814. https:// Hospitality Management, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, or
doi.org/10.1002/asi.23603 International Business Review, among other.
Zitt, M., Lelu, A., & Bassecoulard, E. (2011). Hybrid citation-word representations in
science mapping: Portolan charts or research fields? Journal of the American Society
Pedro Seva-Larrosa (born in 1988) received his Ph.D. degree in Management in 2019 at the
for Information Science and Technology, 62(1), 19–39. https://doi.org/10.1002/
University of Alicante (UA), where he currently works. His research interests include SEM
asi.21440
and other methodologies applied to different fields. He has published articles in refereed
Zupic, I., & Čater, T. (2015). Bibliometric methods in management and organization.
leading journals such as Papers in Regional Science or International Journal of Emerging
Organizational Research Methods, 18(3), 429–472. https://doi.org/10.1177/
Markets.
1094428114562629
Eduardo Sánchez-García received his Ph.D. in Management in 2021 from the UA (Uni
Francisco García-Lillo (born in 1970) received his Ph.D. degree in Management in July
versity of Alicante, Alicante, Spain). His research interests are related to fields such as
2002 at the University of Alicante (UA), where he has been working since 1994. Since
strategic and knowledge management. Eduardo is (co-)author of different journal papers
September 2021, he is Full Professor of strategic management at this university. His
and publications in international conference proceedings indexed by the Web of Science
research interests include bibliometrics applied to different fields related to management.
Core Collection.
He has published articles in international leading journals such as Journal of Business
Research, Journal of Knowledge Management, Scientometrics, International Journal of
14

1 s2.0 S014829632201089X Main

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 s2.0 S014829632201089X Main

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 s2.0 S014829632201089X Main

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Business Research 158 (2023) 113624

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

What is going on in entrepreneurship research? A bibliometric and

1. Introduction which is driven by several recent developments: a growing recognition

2.1. Methods: co-citation vs bibliographic coupling analysis

2.3. Bibexcel® and the treatment of bibliographic records

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021*

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.