Beatriz M. Terán-Pérez*
| Denisse Ballardo-Cárdenas | Ernesto León-Castro
© 2024 The authors. This article is published by IIETA and is licensed under the CC BY 4.0 license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
OPEN ACCESS
This study aims to provide an overview of the main contributions to academic entrepreneurship. To do so, a bibliometric analysis was carried out that developed various indicators, such as productivity, citations, and the h-index. The Scopus database was used to identify the area's most relevant journals, articles, and affiliations. In addition, the VOSviewer software was used to create a graphic map of references in this field, analyzing aspects such as co-citation, bibliographic coupling, and co-occurrence of keywords. The findings reveal that research on academic entrepreneurship has experienced growth in the last decade, with most publications occurring in this period. The United Kingdom is the leading country in this field, with the most influential authors and institutions.
academic entrepreneurship, university spin-off, bibliometric analysis, Scopus, VOSviewer
Academic entrepreneurship (AE) has been identified as an innovation driver that boosts competitive advantage and economic development in the region [1-4]. Consequently, in recent decades, universities have expanded their entrepreneurial activities, focusing on technology transfer and supporting the commercialization of research results through patents, licensing, and the creation of spin-off companies [5-8].
AE is creating new companies based on knowledge generated in universities [9-11]. Furthermore, Hayter et al. [12] argue that AE encompasses the activities of professors, postdocs, students, or affiliated staff seeking to establish new companies derived from university technology.
The relevance of AE has been widely recognized in the literature, reflected in the remarkable increase in publications on the topic in recent years; this field has attracted numerous researchers from various disciplines, leading to a growing literature base [13-15]. Therefore, to mitigate the risk of fragmentation in this field and encourage the systematic generation of relevant knowledge on AE, it is essential to understand the structure of the existing literature and the importance of classifying it according to the main trends in the discipline [16-18].
One of the most common techniques to address these challenges is bibliometrics, which deals with the quantitative study of bibliographic material and provides an overview of a research field [19]. This methodological technique analyses scientific production from two perspectives: the first focuses on quantitative analysis, which uses various indicators to assess the impact of citations of scientific articles (e.g., authors, affiliations, and countries) in each study area. The second perspective includes the graphic mapping of science, which complements bibliometric indicators and allows for visualizing structural aspects [20].
Bibliometric studies are expected in different areas of research, including management. Podsakoff et al. [21] applied bibliometric techniques to analyze journals publishing articles related to the management field, using the number of citations to assess the impact of each research paper in each period. In innovation, Cancino et al. [22] examined research published between 1989 and 2013, filtering by keywords and areas related to management, and thus identified the most productive universities and the most influential journals containing the most significant number of cited publications and a high H index.
However, bibliometric studies specific to AE research are limited. Skute [23] conducted a quantitative literature review using bibliographic coupling on 615 articles to interpret the bibliometric findings comprehensively. They identified hierarchical clusters of frequent terms and conducted a content analysis of the publications. Mathisen and Rasmussen [16] systematically reviewed recent research on university spin-offs' development, growth, and performance, highlighting the top journals, authors, and universities. However, most publications overlook techniques and indicators typically used in bibliometric analysis, such as influence indicators (H-index) and citation analysis.
This paper aims to provide an overview of the main contributions of academic entrepreneurship (AE). To achieve this, a comprehensive bibliometric analysis was carried out based on data from the Scopus database, including various indicators, such as the H-index, productivity, and citations. The study examines the evolution of this research topic, covering journals, articles, authors, affiliations, and countries.
The article is structured as follows: Section 2 delves into a review of relevant literature. Section 3 details the methodology used. Section 4 analyses the evolution of academic entrepreneurship and the 30 most prominent journals, articles, authors, institutions, countries and presents graphical visualizations of the results, using the VOS Viewer software to analyze cocitation, bibliographic coupling, and keyword frequency. Finally, Section 5 presents the main conclusions of the study.
According to Hayter et al. [12] Academic Entrepreneurship (AE) refers to activities related to the creation of new spin-off companies by professors, postdocs, students, or affiliated staff, based on university technology and is a fundamental vehicle for economic and social development. Augier and Teece [11] define AE as the process that arises from collaborations between university researchers and companies, contract research, the commercialization of intellectual property and when academic researchers create new businesses.
Wang et al. [4] and Wang et al. [24] argue that in recent decades universities have expanded their entrepreneurial activities, especially due to collaboration with the productive sector through technological innovations that impact regional economic growth. At the same time, Guerrero and Siegel [25] point out the importance of the university's entrepreneurial culture that values technology transfer and supports the commercialization of research through patents, licensing, and the creation of spin-offs.
The present literature review allows us to visualize that on AE lines of research have been developed in different types of documents (book chapters, reviews, bibliometrics, case studies, among others) and in various areas/levels: macro, meso, and micro [26, 27]. Under the macro approach, there are studies related to the incidence of the legal, economic, and social framework on academic entrepreneurship and the impact of this phenomenon in the region [6, 28]. Regarding studies with a meso approach, the literature presents studies related to procedures and practices of organizational management for strengthening the academic entrepreneurship ecosystem that allows commercializing research results [29-31]. Finally, the lines of research with a micro perspective study the individual characteristics of the entrepreneur or by research groups, the entrepreneurial orientation of the faculties, how academic entrepreneurs identify business opportunities, and what the attitude towards entrepreneurship and the intention to undertake the university community: academics, students and administrative staff [32-34].
Thus, Audretsch et al. [28] have shown that in entrepreneurial activities of universities (mainly the creation of academic spin-offs), access to financing and profits of such companies depends largely on the adoption of digital technologies and the stage of growth. In their research they contribute to the ongoing debate on the factors affecting access to such variables, their findings allow us to distinguish the development of digital technology by the entrepreneur himself, the stage of growth, and the field of science in which the spin-off is developed represent three boundary conditions for access to external financing and obtaining profitability.
Gaspar Pacheco et al. [29] consider that the commercialization of research produced by universities constitutes a central facet of AE, thus supporting the importance of consolidating an entrepreneurial ecosystem. Their study evaluates the mechanisms facilitating AE and the variables (incubation programs, support initiatives and proof-of-concept programs) that can moderate the relationship between these mechanisms and AE in 125 Portuguese universities through a structural equation model.
In addition, the literature supports that to strengthen AE activities it is important not only to consolidate an environment of entrepreneurial universities, but that the regions as a whole must generate contextual characteristics, both socioeconomic and institutional and informational, that benefit business ecosystems in general and, consequently, reinforce and strengthen regional innovation systems and entrepreneurship. Audretsch and Belitski [1] study the domains of entrepreneurial ecosystems (culture, infrastructure, services, formal institutions, entrepreneurs), through a complex model of start-ups. Their results support policymakers and academics in developing new policies that lead to improving systems with a more multifunctional and multidisciplinary approach.
In particular, to better define AE support and policies, literature increasingly recognizes the vital role of academia, as several studies have shown that knowledge transfer occurs bottom-up, from the student or scientist to the university. Individual characteristics and motives have been highlighted as the best predictors of AE; thus, attention is being paid to understanding the factors that encourage academic entrepreneurial intention. Luo et al. [32] argue that AE is influenced by a combination of individual, organizational, and institutional factors, and the relationships behind the factors are hierarchy-dependent, interdependent, and resilient to each other, but the purpose of AE is mainly focused on knowledge transfer, which links the university's governance structure with the ability to create academic by-products.
Finally, it should be noted that there is little and fragmented literature regarding EA from a gender perspective, for example, Di Paola's study [33] argues that female entrepreneurship is uncommon in the academic field, and female scientists tend to create spin-off companies less frequently than their male colleagues. Her research has a sample of 52 academic researchers affiliated with 13 different university departments. The results obtained highlight different scenarios and implications related to female academic entrepreneurship.
Scopus is a primary collection database used as the main source in various academic research [35, 36]. The research methodology begins with selecting keywords essential to define the literature search equation and obtain the study sample in the AE thematic line: “academic entrepr*" OR “academic spin*" OR "universit* spin*" OR " academic start-up" OR "universit* start-up ". Quotation marks and the logical operator OR were used to ensure results and match publication titles, abstracts, and keywords.
The search was conducted in August 2023 and covers all documents published on Academic Entrepreneurship from 1972 to 2023. During this period, the Scopus database recorded 2,107 documents. The search was refined by document type, including articles, reviews, notes, and letters.
As of that date, Academic Entrepreneurship has received 51,931 citations from other documents in Scopus, which results in an average of 33.23 citations per document. In addition, the H index is 115, which means that out of the 1,563 papers, they receive 115 citations or more, in addition to citations in other articles.
Based on the data obtained, an analysis of the information provided by Scopus was performed, considering various bibliometric indicators, such as productivity (total number of publications in the field of AE, TPAE), influence (number of citations, TCAE), citations per year (C/Y), citations per publication (C/P), and citation thresholds (≥100, ≥50, ≥20). The H index, which connects the number of documents with the number of citations, and the temporal evolution (grouping the articles published in different periods) were also examined. The analysis includes the number of articles and citations per million inhabitants in each country.
The study was complemented by classifying universities according to the Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) and the Quacquarelli Symonds University Ranking (QS). In addition, the VOS visualization software was used to graphically map the bibliographic material, allowing co-citation, bibliographic coupling, and author keyword analysis from data collection and the construction of graphic maps [37-40].
4.1 Production and trend of publications
Below are the results of the bibliometric analysis applied to documents related to research in Academic Entrepreneurship (AE) published between 1972 and 2023. The search, carried out in August 2023, yielded 1,563 publications. Of these, 1,459 articles, 85 reviews, 15 notes, and four letters in various thematic areas were selected.
The number of peer-reviewed publications is a crucial indicator for assessing the development of a discipline or research topic [41]. According to Figure 1, research in AE has shown a significant increase in recent years. Most articles have been published in the last decade, with 1,092 articles dated between 2013 and 2023, representing 69.87% of the total. The first publication dates to 1972, and until 1990, publications were scarce, with less than ten publications per year. From 2002 onwards, a steady increase in annual publications began to be noticed, reaching a peak in 2013 with 89 publications. Although there was a slight decrease in 2014 (76 publications), the overall trend has remained upward, with 109 articles published in 2019. This growth reflects a growing interest of the scientific community in the subject, as no significant reduction in the number of publications has been observed.
Figure 1. Number of AE publications per year
Several factors may explain this increase in ccpublications. Firstly, there is a tendency towards an increase in the number of international researchers interested in this field. Secondly, journals have shown a greater willingness to accept studies related to Academic Entrepreneurship [42].
The influence of a document in a research field is measured through citations. Regarding AE, related articles present a remarkably low citation rate compared to management, innovation, and technology transfer. To assess the citation rate in the field of EA, Table 1 provides an overview of the most cited research in Scopus, ranked by number of citations and showing the percentage of articles in each category. Only nine articles have received more than 500 citations, and barely 13.37% have reached at least 25 citations. Furthermore, the H-index for the set of articles in the field of EA is 115, indicating that at least 115 articles have received at least 115 citations each.
Table 1. General citation structure in AE research in Scopus
|
Number of Citations |
Number Articles |
% Articles |
|
≥500 |
9 |
0.58% |
|
≥250 |
22 |
1.41% |
|
≥100 |
94 |
6.01% |
|
≥ 50 |
130 |
8.32% |
|
≥ 25 |
209 |
13.37% |
|
≤ 25 |
1099 |
70.31% |
|
Total articles |
1563 |
|
4.2 The most productive and influential journal in AE research
Table 2 shows that the journal with the highest number of publications in the field of Academic Entrepreneurship is the Journal of Technology Transfer (JTT), with 120, representing 17.9% of all articles the journals have published. However, Research Policy (RP) is the most influential journal because it has 64 articles, with the highest TCAE and H-index. Some journals stand out not only for their scientific productivity but are influential because their articles published in EA are above 100 citations. These include Journal of Business Venturing (JBV), Technovation (T), Small Business Economics (SBE), Technological Forecasting and Social Change (TFSC), R and D Management (RDM), Science and Public Policy (SPP), Entrepreneurship and Regional Development (ERD), European Planning Studies (EPS), Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (APMR) and Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice (ETP).
Another aspect to consider in Table 2 is the total number of citations for Academic Entrepreneurship (TCAE). The journal RP stands out again, accumulating 13,423 citations, followed by JTT and JBV, which have 7,340 and 2,652 citations, respectively. A third group of journals, such as T and SBE, have more than 1,000 citations. In a fourth group, journals such as RDM, ERD, EPS, TFSC, SPP, and APMR have between 300 and 750 citations, while the rest have a TCAE of less than 300 citations. The differences in the number of citations between the groups of journals can be explained by factors such as their quality, impact factor, and recognition in their respective fields.
Table 2. Most influential journal in AE research
|
R |
Journal |
TPAE |
TCAE |
H-AE |
C/P |
T30 |
≥100 |
≥50 |
≥25 |
Q1 |
Q2 |
Q3 |
Q4 |
H |
IF |
|
1 |
JTT |
120 |
7340 |
52 |
61.2 |
2 |
23 |
30 |
30 |
- |
2 |
28 |
90 |
95 |
5.3 |
|
2 |
RP |
64 |
13423 |
48 |
209.7 |
17 |
39 |
8 |
17 |
- |
1 |
35 |
28 |
271 |
7.2 |
|
3 |
IHE |
47 |
518 |
11 |
11.0 |
- |
- |
2 |
3 |
- |
8 |
20 |
19 |
30 |
1.7 |
|
4 |
T |
33 |
2528 |
27 |
76.6 |
- |
11 |
8 |
8 |
- |
- |
13 |
20 |
150 |
12.5 |
|
5 |
TFSC |
28 |
899 |
14 |
32.1 |
- |
2 |
4 |
5 |
- |
- |
1 |
27 |
155 |
12 |
|
6 |
SBE |
28 |
1741 |
18 |
62.2 |
2 |
5 |
7 |
4 |
- |
1 |
4 |
23 |
157 |
7.4 |
|
7 |
IEMJ |
28 |
730 |
17 |
26.1 |
- |
1 |
2 |
8 |
- |
- |
6 |
22 |
71 |
6.1 |
|
8 |
SJ |
24 |
440 |
13 |
18.3 |
- |
- |
1 |
8 |
- |
- |
7 |
17 |
126 |
4.5 |
|
9 |
SS |
23 |
139 |
8 |
6.0 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
23 |
136 |
3.9 |
|
10 |
RDM |
19 |
1074 |
15 |
56.5 |
- |
3 |
3 |
7 |
- |
1 |
9 |
9 |
112 |
4.37 |
|
11 |
JTMI |
17 |
211 |
8 |
12.4 |
- |
- |
1 |
3 |
- |
- |
2 |
15 |
34 |
0.9 |
|
12 |
IJESB |
17 |
102 |
5 |
6.0 |
- |
- |
- |
1 |
- |
- |
10 |
7 |
44 |
1.1 |
|
13 |
TASM |
16 |
449 |
11 |
28.1 |
- |
- |
3 |
6 |
- |
1 |
8 |
7 |
78 |
3.5 |
|
14 |
SPP |
16 |
408 |
8 |
25.5 |
- |
2 |
- |
1 |
- |
- |
6 |
10 |
75 |
2.8 |
|
15 |
SHE |
15 |
54 |
4 |
3.6 |
- |
- |
- |
1 |
- |
- |
- |
15 |
120 |
4.5 |
|
16 |
IJEBR |
15 |
328 |
11 |
21.9 |
- |
1 |
- |
3 |
- |
- |
2 |
13 |
83 |
6.4 |
|
17 |
JIE |
14 |
285 |
11 |
20.4 |
- |
- |
- |
4 |
- |
- |
- |
14 |
53 |
4.1 |
|
18 |
JBV |
14 |
2652 |
12 |
189.4 |
3 |
8 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
5 |
6 |
211 |
8.7 |
|
19 |
IJTM |
13 |
220 |
7 |
16.9 |
- |
- |
1 |
2 |
- |
- |
3 |
10 |
64 |
2.8 |
|
20 |
IJEIM |
13 |
87 |
6 |
6.7 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
6 |
7 |
30 |
0.8 |
|
21 |
IJITM |
12 |
96 |
6 |
8.0 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
3 |
9 |
24 |
1.8 |
|
22 |
VC |
11 |
124 |
7 |
11.3 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
6 |
5 |
59 |
4.0 |
|
23 |
JKE |
11 |
148 |
6 |
13.5 |
- |
- |
1 |
1 |
- |
- |
- |
11 |
38 |
3.0 |
|
24 |
JSBED |
11 |
231 |
7 |
21.0 |
- |
- |
1 |
2 |
- |
1 |
4 |
6 |
80 |
5.2 |
|
25 |
EJIM |
11 |
135 |
6 |
12.3 |
- |
- |
1 |
1 |
- |
- |
2 |
9 |
74 |
5.5 |
|
26 |
EINT |
11 |
182 |
6 |
16.5 |
- |
- |
1 |
1 |
- |
- |
9 |
2 |
62 |
3.3 |
|
27 |
EPS |
10 |
498 |
9 |
49.8 |
- |
1 |
3 |
2 |
- |
2 |
4 |
4 |
95 |
3.5 |
|
28 |
ERD |
10 |
604 |
6 |
60.4 |
- |
2 |
3 |
- |
- |
2 |
1 |
7 |
106 |
6.9 |
|
29 |
ETP |
9 |
968 |
7 |
107.6 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
2 |
- |
- |
6 |
3 |
185 |
14.4 |
|
30 |
APMR |
9 |
403 |
8 |
44.8 |
- |
1 |
2 |
4 |
- |
2 |
6 |
1 |
206 |
4.3 |
|
Source: Our elaboration based on Scopus 2023. R, ranking; TPAE and TCAE, Total Papers and Citations only AE; H-AE, H-index only AE; C/P, Cites per paper; T30, number of papers in the Top 30 list shown in Table 3; ≥100, ≥50, ≥25, number of paper with more than 100, 50 and 25 citations; Q1: 1972-1990 period; Q2: 1991-2001 period; Q3: 2002-2012; Q4: 2013-2023; H, h-index of journal; IF, impact factor 2023; Journal Abbreviations are: JTT: Journal of Technology Transfer; RP: Research Policy, IHE: Industry and Higher Education; T: Technovation, TFSC: Technological Forecasting and Social Change; SBE: Small Business Economics; IEMJ: International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal; SJ: Spine Journal; SS: Sustainability Switzerland; RDM: R and D Management; JTMI: Journal of Technology Management and Innovation; IJESB: International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business; TASM: Technlogy Analysis and Strategic Management; SPP: Science and Public Policy; SHE: Studies in Higher Education; IJEBR: International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research; JIE: Journal of International Entrepreneurship; JBV: Journal of Business Venturing; IJTM: International Journal of Technology Management; IJEIM: International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management; IJITM: International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management; VC: Venture Capital; JKE: Journal of the Knowledge Economy; JSBED: Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development; EJIM: European Journal of Innovation Management; EINT: Economics of Innovation and New Technology; EPS: European Planning Studies; ERD: Entrepreneurship and Regional Development; ETP: Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice; APMR: Achives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. |
|||||||||||||||
Table 3. The most cited papers in AE research
|
R |
Article |
Ref. No. |
Y |
J |
TC |
TC/Y |
|
1 |
Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university-industry relations |
[43] |
2013 |
RP |
1410 |
141 |
|
2 |
Research groups as 'quasi-firms': The invention of the entrepreneurial university |
[44] |
2003 |
RP |
918 |
45.9 |
|
3 |
The impact of network capabilities and entrepreneurial orientation on university spin-off performance |
[45] |
2006 |
JBV |
791 |
46.5 |
|
4 |
Critical junctures in the development of university high-tech spinout companies |
[46] |
2004 |
RP |
725 |
38.2 |
|
5 |
Entrepreneurial orientation, technology transfer and spinoff performance of U.S. universities |
[47] |
2005 |
RP |
675 |
37.5 |
|
6 |
Academic entrepreneurs: Organizational change at the individual level |
[48] |
2008 |
OS |
562 |
37.5 |
|
7 |
Resources, capabilities, risk capital and the creation of university spin-out companies |
[49] |
2005 |
RP |
538 |
29.9 |
|
8 |
30 years after Bayh-Dole: Reassessing academic entrepreneurship |
[50] |
2011 |
RP |
530 |
44.2 |
|
9 |
Industry funding and university professors' research performance |
[51] |
2005 |
RP |
509 |
28.3 |
|
10 |
Creating value in ecosystems: Crossing the chasm between knowledge and business ecosystems |
[52] |
2014 |
RP |
472 |
52.4 |
|
11 |
University start-up formation and technology licensing with firms that go public: A resource-based view of academic entrepreneurship |
[53] |
2005 |
JBV |
442 |
24.6 |
|
12 |
Academics or entrepreneurs? Investigating role identity modification of university scientists involved in commercialization activity |
[54] |
2009 |
RP |
420 |
30 |
|
13 |
From human capital to social capital: A longitudinal study of technology-based academic entrepreneurs |
[55] |
2007 |
ETP |
408 |
25.5 |
|
14 |
A process study of entrepreneurial team formation: The case of a research-based spin-off |
[56] |
2004 |
JBV |
373 |
19.6 |
|
15 |
What Is the Source of Chronic Low Back Pain and Does Age Play a Role? |
[57] |
2011 |
PM |
365 |
30.4 |
|
16 |
Research collaboration in universities and academic entrepreneurship: The-state-of-the-art |
[58] |
2013 |
JTT |
358 |
35.8 |
|
17 |
University spin-out companies and venture capital |
[59] |
2006 |
RP |
357 |
21 |
|
18 |
Comparing Academic Entrepreneurship in Europe -The Case of Sweden and Ireland |
[60] |
2000 |
SBE |
355 |
15.4 |
|
19 |
The creation of spin-off firms at public research institutions: Managerial and policy implications |
[61] |
2005 |
RP |
351 |
19.5 |
|
20 |
Academic Entrepreneurship: Time for a Rethink? |
[62] |
2015 |
BJM |
345 |
43.1 |
|
21 |
Academic and surrogate entrepreneurs in university spin-out companies |
[63] |
2001 |
JTT |
343 |
15.6 |
|
22 |
The Evolution of Entrepreneurial Competencies: A Longitudinal Study of University Spin-Off Venture Emergence |
[64] |
2011 |
JMS |
343 |
28.6 |
|
23 |
Bottom-up versus top-down policies towards the commercialization of university intellectual property |
[65] |
2003 |
RP |
331 |
16.6 |
|
24 |
Mid-range universities' linkages with industry: Knowledge types and the role of intermediaries |
[66] |
2008 |
RP |
326 |
21.7 |
|
25 |
Technology Transfer and Universities' Spin-Out Strategies |
[67] |
2003 |
SBE |
326 |
16.3 |
|
26 |
Economic impact of entrepreneurial universities' activities: An exploratory study of the United Kingdom |
[68] |
2015 |
RP |
325 |
40.6 |
|
27 |
What motivates academic scientists to engage in research commercialization: 'Gold', 'ribbon' or 'puzzle'? |
[69] |
2011 |
RP |
315 |
26.3 |
|
28 |
The impact of entrepreneurial capacity, experience and organizational support on academic entrepreneurship |
[70] |
2011 |
RP |
294 |
24.5 |
|
29 |
The nature of academic entrepreneurship in the UK: Widening the focus on entrepreneurial activities |
[71] |
2013 |
RP |
288 |
28.8 |
|
30 |
Research and technology commercialization |
[72] |
2008 |
JMS |
280 |
18.7 |
|
Source: Our elaboration based on Scopus 2023. R: Ranking; Y: Year; J: Journal Abbreviations are available in the previous table; TC: Total Citations; TC/Y: Total Citations per Year. |
||||||
Furthermore, analyzing the temporal evolution of AE research in these journals is relevant, grouping the number of papers published in different periods. The results indicate that AE research has been published increasingly in several journals, with the last two decades being incredibly productive (Q3 and Q4). RP published 17 of the 30 most cited papers considered in Table 4, and 7 of these articles are in the top 10.
Table 4. Most productive and influential authors in AE research in Scopus
|
R |
Name |
Affiliation |
Country |
TPAE |
TCAE |
H-AE |
C/P |
TOP 30 |
≥100 |
≥50 |
≥20 |
|
1 |
Wright, M. |
Imperial College London |
United Kingdom |
44 |
8358 |
36 |
189.9 |
13 |
27 |
6 |
6 |
|
2 |
Rasmussen, E. |
Nord University Business School |
United Kingdom |
22 |
1636 |
15 |
74.4 |
1 |
7 |
4 |
2 |
|
3 |
Rodeiro-Pazos, D. |
Universidad de Santiago de Compostela |
Spain |
20 |
262 |
10 |
13.1 |
- |
- |
- |
1 |
|
4 |
Fernández-López, S. |
Universidad de Santiago de Compostela |
Spain |
20 |
219 |
10 |
10.9 |
- |
- |
- |
1 |
|
5 |
Rodríguez-Gulías, M. |
Universidad de Santiago de Compostela |
Spain |
19 |
221 |
10 |
11.6 |
- |
- |
- |
1 |
|
6 |
Clarysse, B. |
ETH Zûrich |
Switzerlan |
18 |
2884 |
14 |
160.2 |
5 |
10 |
1 |
2 |
|
7 |
Lockett, A. |
Warwick Business School |
United Kingdom |
18 |
3900 |
15 |
216.7 |
6 |
10 |
5 |
2 |
|
8 |
Fini, R. |
Alma Master Studiorum Universitâ di Bolgna |
Italy |
15 |
2396 |
13 |
159.7 |
1 |
6 |
1 |
3 |
|
9 |
Meoli, M. |
Università degli Studi di Bergamo |
Italy |
14 |
497 |
11 |
35.5 |
- |
- |
3 |
6 |
|
10 |
Haig, A.J. |
University of Michigan |
USA |
14 |
438 |
10 |
31.3 |
- |
- |
3 |
4 |
|
11 |
Knockaert, M. |
Universiteit Gent |
Belgium |
13 |
1173 |
12 |
90.2 |
1 |
5 |
2 |
4 |
|
12 |
Grimaldi, R. |
Alma Master Studiorum Universitâ di Bolgna |
Italy |
12 |
2634 |
10 |
219.5 |
2 |
5 |
2 |
1 |
|
13 |
Etzkowitz, H. |
International Triple Helix Institute |
USA |
12 |
1382 |
9 |
115.2 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
|
14 |
Vismara, S. |
Università degli Studi di Bergamo |
Italy |
11 |
532 |
11 |
48.4 |
- |
- |
4 |
5 |
|
15 |
Prencipe, A. |
Università degli Studi di Teramo |
Italy |
11 |
98 |
6 |
8.9 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
16 |
Hayter, C. |
Arizona State University |
USA |
11 |
793 |
9 |
72.1 |
- |
4 |
3 |
1 |
|
17 |
Camelo-Ordaz, C. |
Universidad de Cádiz |
Spain |
11 |
170 |
8 |
15.5 |
- |
- |
1 |
- |
|
18 |
Cunningham, J. |
Newcastle University Business School |
United Kingdom |
10 |
617 |
8 |
61.7 |
1 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
|
19 |
Corsi, C. |
Università degli Studi di Teramo |
Italy |
10 |
86 |
9 |
8.6 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
20 |
Secundo, G. |
Università degli Studi di Teramo |
Italy |
9 |
390 |
8 |
43.3 |
- |
1 |
1 |
4 |
|
21 |
Pazos, D. |
Universidad de Santiago de Compostela |
Spain |
9 |
64 |
14 |
7.1 |
- |
- |
1 |
- |
|
22 |
Mosey, S. |
University of Nottingham |
United Kingdom |
9 |
1475 |
9 |
163.9 |
2 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
|
23 |
Lehoux, P. |
University of Montreal |
Canada |
9 |
152 |
6 |
16.9 |
|
- |
1 |
- |
|
24 |
Guerrero, M. |
Arizona State University |
USA |
9 |
913 |
7 |
101.4 |
1 |
5 |
- |
1 |
|
25 |
van Geenhuizen, M. |
Faculteit Techniek |
Netherlands |
8 |
322 |
7 |
40.2 |
- |
1 |
1 |
2 |
|
26 |
Parmentola, A. |
Parthenope University of Napoles |
Italy |
8 |
120 |
6 |
15.0 |
- |
- |
- |
1 |
|
27 |
Klofsten, M. |
Linkopings Universitet |
Sweden |
8 |
643 |
7 |
80.4 |
1 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
|
28 |
Franco-Leal, N. |
Universidad de Cádiz |
Spain |
8 |
104 |
6 |
13.0 |
- |
- |
1 |
- |
|
29 |
Zou, B. |
Sun Yat-sen Business School |
China |
7 |
113 |
4 |
16.14 |
- |
- |
1 |
- |
|
30 |
Urbano, D. |
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona |
Spain |
7 |
910 |
7 |
130.0 |
1 |
5 |
- |
1 |
|
R: rank; TPAE, TCAE, H-AE: Total Papers, Total Citations and H-index in AE; C/P: Cites per paper; TOP30: Articles in TOP 30; ≥100, ≥50, ≥20, number of paper with more than 100, 50 and 20 citations. |
|||||||||||
4.3 The 30 most cited papers in AE research
One way to get a complete overview of published papers in a field is to analyze the number of citations received [19]. The number of citations reflects the popularity and influence of each article in the scientific community.
Table 3 shows the 30 most cited articles in the field of Academic Entrepreneurship, including the year of publication, the journal in which they appeared, the total number of citations, and the number of citations per year. The article with the highest number of citations is that of Perkman et al. [43], published in 2013, entitled “Academic Engagement and Commercialization: A Review of the Literature on University-Industry Relations.” The article has 1,410 citations in Scopus and generates 141 citations per year. In this research, the authors present a systematic review of how academics engage in collaborative research, contract research, consultancy, and informal relationships for knowledge transfer between university and industry, which they call “academic engagement”. This concept is related to academic entrepreneurship, as both approaches seek to facilitate knowledge transfer and interaction between academia and the business sector. However, the focus of academic entrepreneurship may be more on creating new companies and the commercialization of research.
Another relevant study is “Research Groups as 'quasi-firms': The Invention of the Entrepreneurial University” by Etzkowitz [44], which examines the transition of research universities toward the entrepreneurial university model. This article has accumulated 918 citations, generating an average of 45.9 citations annually. The following article, by Walter et al. [45], studies a database of 149 university spin-offs to investigate the impact of network capability and entrepreneurial orientation on organizational performance. This study has 791 citations and an average of 46.5 citations per year.
4.4 Most productive and influential author in AE research
Table 4 presents the most influential researchers in the field of Academic Entrepreneurship. Wright is the most productive and influential author, with 44 articles, 8,358 citations (TCAE), and an H-index of 36 (H-AE). Furthermore, Wright has 13 studies in the Top 30 of the most cited articles in EA. In second place is Rasmussen, with 22 articles but 50% less productivity than Wright. Interestingly, of the three most prominent authors, two are from different institutions in the United Kingdom, and one is from Spain [36]. Most of these authors come from universities; seven are from Spain, and four belong to the University of Santiago de Compostela, adding together 94 publications in total, according to Table 4.
As for influential authors in the TCAE and C/P, figures such as Lockett, Clarysse, and Grimaldi stand out, with 3900, 2884, and 2632 citations, respectively. Etzkowitz is also a relevant author, with 1382 citations, and occupies second place in the list of the 30 most cited works. A group of five authors, including Secundo, Pazos, Mosey, Lehoux, and Guerrero, tied in TPAE with nine publications; however, Mosey stands out in TCAE with 1475 citations, 163.9 C/P and is also in the Top 30 of most cited works.
4.5 Most productive and influential affiliations in AE research
Table 5 presents the most relevant institutions in the field of EA research. The Universiteit Gent tops this list in Belgium with 44 published articles and 32 H-AE. Other universities with more than 30 articles are Imperial College Business School in the UK, Alma Mater Studiorum in the UK, and the University of Ghent in the UK. Università di Bologna in Italy, the University of Nottingham in the United Kingdom, and the University of Santiago de Compostela in Spain. There are also institutions tied in productivity, such as Delft University of Technology, the University of Michigan, and the University of Cambridge, with 21 articles each. Next are the Università of Studi di Bergamo, the University of Toronto, and KU Leuven, with 19 articles.
Table 5. The most productive and influential affiliation in AE research in Scopus
|
R |
Affiliation |
Country |
TPAE |
TCAE |
H-AE |
C/P |
TOP30 |
≥100 |
≥50 |
≥20 |
ARWU |
QS |
|
1 |
Universiteit Gent |
Belgium |
44 |
5734 |
32 |
130.3 |
7 |
13 |
10 |
8 |
84 |
143 |
|
2 |
Imperial College Business School |
United Kingdom |
36 |
6029 |
28 |
167.5 |
6 |
11 |
9 |
6 |
23 |
6 |
|
3 |
Alma Mater Studiorum Università di Bologna |
Italy |
35 |
3392 |
21 |
96.9 |
2 |
7 |
4 |
10 |
201-300 |
167 |
|
4 |
University of Nottingham |
United Kingdom |
32 |
6707 |
29 |
209.6 |
10 |
20 |
4 |
4 |
101-150 |
114 |
|
5 |
Universidad de Santiago de Compostela |
Spain |
31 |
341 |
11 |
11.0 |
- |
- |
- |
5 |
601-700 |
751 - 800 |
|
6 |
Nottingham University Business School |
United Kingdom |
29 |
5802 |
27 |
200.1 |
6 |
18 |
5 |
5 |
101-150 |
114 |
|
7 |
Nord Universitet |
Norway |
25 |
1128 |
14 |
45.1 |
- |
6 |
6 |
6 |
- |
- |
|
8 |
Universidade da Coruña |
Spain |
23 |
257 |
10 |
11.2 |
- |
- |
- |
5 |
- |
1001 - 1200 |
|
9 |
Delft University of Technology |
Netherlands |
21 |
496 |
12 |
23.6 |
- |
1 |
2 |
6 |
151-200 |
61 |
|
10 |
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor |
USA |
21 |
501 |
12 |
23.9 |
- |
- |
3 |
5 |
26 |
25 |
|
11 |
University Of Cambridge |
United Kingdom |
21 |
2556 |
14 |
121.7 |
2 |
3 |
5 |
4 |
4 |
2 |
|
12 |
Università degli Studi di Bergamo |
Italy |
19 |
786 |
14 |
41.4 |
- |
1 |
4 |
7 |
- |
- |
|
13 |
University of Toronto |
Canada |
19 |
339 |
10 |
17.8 |
- |
1 |
1 |
3 |
24 |
34 |
|
14 |
KU Leuven |
Belgium |
19 |
1287 |
15 |
67.7 |
- |
3 |
7 |
3 |
86 |
76 |
|
15 |
Lunds Universitet |
Sweden |
18 |
428 |
10 |
23.8 |
- |
1 |
2 |
5 |
151-200 |
95 |
|
16 |
Birkbeck University of London |
United Kingdom |
17 |
416 |
8 |
24.5 |
- |
1 |
2 |
3 |
- |
343 |
|
17 |
Universidad de Cádiz |
Spain |
17 |
201 |
9 |
11.8 |
- |
- |
1 |
1 |
901-1000 |
- |
|
18 |
Chalmers University of Technology |
Sweden |
15 |
679 |
12 |
45.3 |
- |
2 |
3 |
5 |
401-500 |
125 |
|
19 |
Stanford University |
USA |
15 |
563 |
10 |
37.5 |
- |
2 |
1 |
5 |
2 |
3 |
|
20 |
Imperial College London |
United Kingdom |
15 |
2087 |
12 |
139.1 |
2 |
8 |
2 |
2 |
23 |
6 |
|
21 |
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona |
Spain |
15 |
1278 |
13 |
85.2 |
1 |
6 |
2 |
3 |
301-400 |
178 |
|
22 |
Universidade da Beira Interior |
Portugal |
14 |
193 |
7 |
13.8 |
- |
- |
- |
5 |
- |
- |
|
23 |
ETH Zurich |
Switzerland |
14 |
258 |
8 |
18.4 |
- |
- |
1 |
3 |
20 |
9 |
|
24 |
Norges Teknisk-Naturvitenskapelige Universitet |
Norway |
14 |
522 |
9 |
37.3 |
- |
1 |
4 |
3 |
101-150 |
352 |
|
25 |
Universitat Augsburg |
Germany |
13 |
521 |
10 |
40.1 |
- |
1 |
2 |
3 |
- |
- |
|
26 |
Politecnico di Milano |
Italy |
13 |
1051 |
9 |
80.8 |
- |
4 |
4 |
1 |
201-300 |
139 |
|
27 |
Parthenope University of Napoles |
Italy |
13 |
260 |
9 |
20.0 |
- |
- |
1 |
4 |
- |
- |
|
28 |
University of Montreal |
Canada |
13 |
160 |
6 |
12.3 |
- |
- |
1 |
1 |
- |
116 |
|
29 |
Friedrich-Schiller-Universitat Jena |
Germany |
13 |
669 |
10 |
51.5 |
- |
3 |
2 |
3 |
401-500 |
340 |
|
30 |
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia |
Malaysia |
12 |
29 |
3 |
2.4 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
701-800 |
203 |
|
R: rank; TPAE, TCAE, H-AE: Total Papers, Total Citations and H-index in AE; C/P: Cites per paper; TOP30: Articles in TOP 30; ≥100, ≥50, ≥20, Number of Paper with more than 100, 50 and 20 Citations; ARWU and QS: Ranking in the General ARWU and QS University Rankings. |
||||||||||||
In addition, some universities are considered influential because of the number of citations received for their work. The University of Nottingham leads with 6707 citations, generating an average of 209.6 C/P, and 20 articles with at least 100 citations. Other relevant institutions in terms of citations are Imperial College Business School (6029 citations), Nottingham University Business School (5802 citations), and Universiteit Gent (5734 citations).
Surprisingly, only four American universities (two from the US and two from Canada) appear on this list, unlike in other disciplines where the US occupies most of the top spots. European universities are very well represented, with 25 institutions in the ranking (83.3%), with the UK being the European country with the most universities on the list.
Finally, regarding quality indicators, 10 universities are in the ARWU top 100, and 10 more are in the QS Top 100. Of these, only seven are in both indicators within the top 50: Stanford University, University of Cambridge, Imperial College Business School, University of Michigan, University of Toronto, Imperial College London, and ETH Zurich.
4.6 Most productive and influential countries in AE research
This section aims to examine EA research according to its geographical distribution. Table 6 shows an analysis by country, indicating where the authors worked at the time of publication. The results are organized according to the EA-H, considering the indicators in the previous tables. In addition, the analysis includes the total population of the countries to assess productivity per million inhabitants.
Table 6. The most productive and influential countries in AE research in Scopus
|
R |
Country |
H-AE |
TPAE |
TCAE |
C/P |
TOP30 |
≥100 |
≥50 |
≥20 |
P/Po |
C/Po |
|
1 |
United Kingdom |
67 |
255 |
19634 |
77 |
18 |
50 |
34 |
61 |
3.7 |
288.0 |
|
2 |
USA |
66 |
329 |
16756 |
50.93 |
12 |
41 |
43 |
67 |
1.0 |
49.3 |
|
3 |
Italy |
48 |
204 |
8903 |
43.6 |
3 |
34 |
26 |
94 |
3.3 |
146.0 |
|
4 |
Spain |
35 |
146 |
5498 |
37.7 |
1 |
12 |
9 |
30 |
3.0 |
113.0 |
|
5 |
Germany |
35 |
118 |
5950 |
50.4 |
2 |
10 |
16 |
30 |
1.4 |
71.4 |
|
6 |
Sweden |
33 |
78 |
5162 |
66.2 |
2 |
11 |
9 |
26 |
7.5 |
496.0 |
|
7 |
Belgium |
41 |
75 |
7462 |
99.5 |
1 |
24 |
13 |
14 |
6.4 |
635.0 |
|
8 |
China |
15 |
74 |
554 |
7.5 |
- |
- |
1 |
8 |
0.0 |
0.4 |
|
9 |
Netherlands |
30 |
71 |
2723 |
38.4 |
- |
7 |
11 |
15 |
4.1 |
156.0 |
|
10 |
Canada |
23 |
63 |
1617 |
25.7 |
- |
2 |
8 |
14 |
1.6 |
40.9 |
|
11 |
France |
23 |
56 |
3397 |
60.7 |
1 |
7 |
5 |
13 |
0.8 |
49.6 |
|
12 |
Norway |
29 |
55 |
3377 |
61.4 |
1 |
11 |
9 |
14 |
1.0 |
619.0 |
|
13 |
Brazil |
15 |
43 |
974 |
22.7 |
- |
3 |
2 |
7 |
0.2 |
4.5 |
|
14 |
Portugal |
15 |
42 |
713 |
17.0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
12 |
4.1 |
69.5 |
|
15 |
Switzerland |
15 |
36 |
707 |
19.6 |
- |
- |
4 |
9 |
4.0 |
79.2 |
|
16 |
Malaysia |
5 |
31 |
172 |
5.5 |
- |
- |
1 |
- |
0.9 |
5.0 |
|
17 |
Japan |
8 |
27 |
342 |
12.7 |
- |
1 |
- |
4 |
0.2 |
2.8 |
|
18 |
Finland |
9 |
27 |
801 |
29.7 |
- |
2 |
4 |
2 |
4.9 |
144.0 |
|
19 |
Denmark |
20 |
27 |
3579 |
132.6 |
1 |
7 |
4 |
9 |
4.6 |
603.0 |
|
20 |
Australia |
11 |
24 |
473 |
19.7 |
- |
1 |
2 |
7 |
0.9 |
18.0 |
|
21 |
Ireland |
12 |
22 |
2040 |
92.7 |
- |
5 |
3 |
4 |
4.4 |
405.0 |
|
22 |
Poland |
8 |
21 |
174 |
8.3 |
- |
- |
- |
3 |
0.6 |
4.6 |
|
23 |
South Africa |
6 |
19 |
125 |
6.6 |
- |
- |
- |
1 |
0.3 |
2.1 |
|
24 |
Russian Federation |
8 |
18 |
239 |
13.3 |
- |
- |
2 |
- |
0.1 |
1.7 |
|
25 |
South Korea |
7 |
16 |
188 |
11.8 |
- |
- |
- |
4 |
0.3 |
3.7 |
|
26 |
Austria |
11 |
16 |
473 |
29.6 |
- |
1 |
2 |
7 |
1.8 |
52 |
|
27 |
India |
4 |
14 |
50 |
3.6 |
- |
- |
- |
1 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
28 |
Iran |
5 |
13 |
81 |
6.2 |
- |
- |
- |
1 |
0.2 |
0.9 |
|
29 |
Mexico |
6 |
12 |
176 |
14.7 |
- |
- |
- |
4 |
0.0 |
1.4 |
|
30 |
Hong Kong |
5 |
12 |
102 |
8.5 |
- |
- |
- |
1 |
1.6 |
13.3 |
|
R: rank; TPAE, TCAE, H-AE: Total Papers, Total Citations and H-index in AE; C/P: Cites per paper; TOP30: Articles in TOP 30; ≥100, ≥50, ≥20, Number of Paper with more than 100, 50 and 20 Citations; P/Po and C/Po = Papers and Cites per million inhabitants. |
|||||||||||
According to Table 6, the United Kingdom is ranked as the most influential country, with 67 H-AEs and 19,634 TCAEs; it has published more than half of the 30 most cited articles. In second place is the United States, which presents significantly higher indicators than other countries. It is the most productive country in the ranking, with 329 TPAEs, 66 H-AEs, and 16,756 TCAEs.
In terms of H-AE, European countries dominate the top fifteen positions. Only two Latin American countries, Brazil and Mexico, are ranked 15th and 6th, respectively. On the other hand, five Asian countries, led by China, are also represented.
4.7 Graphical analysis of AE research with VOS viewer
The bibliographic connections between the main sources are visualized to carry out a more detailed analysis of the data obtained in the search. This work uses the VOS visualization software [37]. It is also essential to examine citations and co-citations, co-authorship, and the co-occurrence of author keywords [19, 73].
Figure 2 illustrates the overall visualization between 1972 and 2023, setting a minimum threshold of twenty citations and showing the 272 most significant connections. The circles' colors represent the clusters of the journals.
Figure 2. Co-citation of Journal cited in AE research
Next, the bibliographic coupling of authors publishing on AE is analyzed. Figure 3 presents the most productive authors, with a minimum threshold of three published documents and the fifty most robust coupling links between them.
This figure allows us to map the authors graphically, grouping those with similar research profiles, i.e., those who cite related bibliographic sources. The results of this figure are shown in Table 4.
Next, the bibliographic coupling of the affiliations publishing in the journal is investigated. Figure 4 visualizes the data with a minimum threshold of two documents and fifty connections. The primary affiliations are consistent with those presented in Table 5. The bibliographic data of these institutions depend on the authors working in them, highlighting that Ghent University maintains strong links with several of these affiliations.
Figure 3. Bibliographic coupling of Authors in AE research
Figure 4. Bibliographic coupling of Affiliations in AE research
To summarize the results at the national level, Figure 5 presents the bibliographic coupling of countries with a threshold of one document and ninety connections. The results in Table 5 indicate that the USA is the most productive country, followed by the UK, which is the most influential. It can be observed that the countries in the highest positions are interconnected, with a notable presence and connection between European nations.
Figure 6 shows the coincidence of the authors' keywords. This map considers a threshold of five occurrences and the fifty most representative connections. The largest node refers to the keyword "Academic Entrepreneurship", which is the central theme in the development of this field of research.
Figure 5. Bibliographic coupling of countries in AE research
Figure 6. Co-occurrence of author keywords of documents in AE research
Furthermore, nodes related to “technology transfer,” “entrepreneurship,” and “university spin-off” are the most common keywords. Table 7 presents the 10 most frequent author keywords in AE research.
Table 7. Author keyword occurrences in AE research
|
R |
Keyword |
Oc |
Co |
|
1 |
Academic entrepreneurship |
298 |
344 |
|
2 |
Technology transfer |
154 |
288 |
|
3 |
Entrepreneurship |
101 |
162 |
|
4 |
University spin-offs |
91 |
129 |
|
5 |
Academic spin-offs |
70 |
86 |
|
6 |
Innovation |
49 |
84 |
|
7 |
Universities |
38 |
77 |
|
8 |
Spin-offs |
36 |
72 |
|
9 |
Knowledge transfer |
36 |
71 |
|
10 |
Entrepreneurial university |
45 |
59 |
|
Abbreviations. Oc: Author keyword occurrences. Co: Author keyword co-occurrences links. |
|||
Scopus database, where the sample analyzed was 1563 documents. One of the main conclusions is that there is limited production in the number of publications on AE, but with an upward trend, which indicates the scientific community's interest in the subject; most of the articles were written between 2010 and 2019. The analysis of the journals demonstrates that the most important of the total publications is the Journal of Technology Transfer, and the most influential journal is Research Policy, with the most significant citations and the highest H index.
Among the articles on AE, the most cited is “Academic Engagement and Commercialization: A Review of the Literature on university-industry Relations”, published by Perkmann et al. [43], in 2013, with 1410 citations. When analyzing the most influential researchers in the field, Wright, Rasmussen, Lockett, and Clarysse have the highest H-index in the ranking. The authors are European, and three come from the UK. The results show that the main affiliations are Universiteit Gent and Imperial College Business School, both from European countries.
This paper explores and describes how the literature on academic entrepreneurship is organized. The keywords analysis showed that studies on entrepreneurship and spin-offs in the university context are considered the means to transfer technology from the scientific to the business field. As future lines of research, literature reviews with a systematic approach are suggested that allow an exhaustive summary of the relevant literature to understand the theoretical approaches and methodologies used. In addition, the content of the articles will allow an understanding of the phenomena, contexts, and concepts usually addressed in the topic of academic entrepreneurship.
The Scopus database used to extract the literature is complete and prestigious. The documents reviewed only respond to the search criteria applied, so it is possible that when modified, the results may differ from the information presented here.
[1] Audretsch, D., Belitski, M. (2018). Expanding entrepreneurship education and engagement with entrepreneurial ecosystems. In Enterprising Education in UK Higher Education, pp. 17-26. eBook ISBN9781315518138.
[2] Siegel, D.S. (2018). Academic entrepreneurship: Lessons learned for technology transfer personnel and university administrators. In World Scientific Reference on Innovation: Volume 1: University Technology Transfer and Academic Entrepreneurship, pp. 1-21.
[3] Evertsen, P.H., Rasmussen, E., Nenadic, O. (2022). Commercializing circular economy innovations: A taxonomy of academic spin-offs. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 185: 122102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.122102
[4] Wang, M., Cai, J., Soetanto, D., Guo, Y. (2023). Why do academic scientists participate in academic entrepreneurship? An empirical investigation of department context and the antecedents of entrepreneurial behavior. Journal of Small Business Management, 61(4): 1497-1528. https://doi.org/10.1080/00472778.2020.1844486
[5] Siegel, D.S., Wright, M. (2015). University technology transfer offices, licensing, and start-ups. In Chicago, the Handbook of University Technology Transfer and Academic Entrepreneurship. https://doi.org/10.7208/9780226178486-002
[6] Etzkowitz, H., Dzisah, J., Clouser, M. (2022). Shaping the entrepreneurial university: Two experiments and a proposal for innovation in higher education. Industry and Higher Education, 36(1): 3-12. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950422221993421
[7] Abootorabi, H., Wiklund, J., Johnson, A.R., Miller, C.D. (2021). A holistic approach to the evolution of an entrepreneurial ecosystem: An exploratory study of academic spin-offs. Journal of Business Venturing, 36(5): 106143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2021.106143
[8] Siegel, D., Bogers, M.L., Jennings, P.D., Xue, L. (2023). Technology transfer from national/federal labs and public research institutes: Managerial and policy implications. Research Policy, 52(1): 104646. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2022.104646
[9] Guerrero, M., Urbano, D., Fayolle, A., Klofsten, M., Mian, S. (2016). Entrepreneurial universities: Emerging models in the new social and economic landscape. Small Business Economics, 47(3): 551-563. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-016-9755-4
[10] Davari, A., Emami, A., Ramadani, V., Taherkhani, S. (2018). Factors influencing academic entrepreneurship: A case-based study. Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management, 9(3): 284-295. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSTPM-01-2018-0007
[11] Augier, M., Teece, D.J. (2018). The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Strategic Management. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
[12] Hayter, C.S., Nelson, A.J., Zayed, S., O’Connor, A.C. (2018). Conceptualizing academic entrepreneurship ecosystems: A review, analysis and extension of the literature. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 43: 1039-1082. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-018-9657-5
[13] Bradley, S.R., Hayter, C.S., Link, A.N. (2013). Models and methods of university technology transfer. Foundations and Trends® in Entrepreneurship, 9(6): 571-650. https://doi.org/10.1561/0300000048
[14] Skute, I., Zalewska-Kurek, K., Hatak, I., de Weerd-Nederhof, P. (2019). Mapping the field: A bibliometric analysis of the literature on university–industry collaborations. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 44: 916-947. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-017-9637-1
[15] Zavale, N.C., Langa, P.V. (2018). University-industry linkages’ literature on Sub-Saharan Africa: Systematic literature review and bibliometric account. Scientometrics, 116(1): 1-49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2760-4
[16] Mathisen, M.T., Rasmussen, E. (2019). The development, growth, and performance of university spin-offs: A critical review. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 44(6): 1891-1938. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-018-09714-9
[17] Walsh, G.S., Cunningham, J.A., Mordue, T., McLeay, F., O’Kane, C., Connolly, N. (2021). What business schools do to support academic entrepreneurship: A systematic literature review and future research agenda. Studies in Higher Education, 46(5): 988-999. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2021.1896805
[18] Caputo, A., Pellegrini, M.M., Nikiforou, A. (2022). Entrepreneurial decision making in academic spinoffs: A bibliometric map and research agenda. Studies in Higher Education, 47(10): 2022-2038. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2022.2122657
[19] Merigó, J.M., Yang, J.B. (2017). A bibliometric analysis of operations research and management science. Omega-International Journal of Management Science, 73: 37-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2016.12.004
[20] Cobo, M.J., López-Herrera, A.G., Herrera-Viedma, E., Herrera, F. (2011). An approach for detecting, quantifying, and visualizing the evolution of a research field: A practical application to the Fuzzy Sets Theory field. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1): 146-166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.10.002
[21] Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Podsakoff, N.P., Bachrach, D.G. (2008). Scholarly influence in the field of management: A bibliometric analysis of the determinants of university and author impact in management literature in the past quarter century. Journal of Management, 34(4): 641-720. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308319533
[22] Cancino, C.A., Merigó, J.M., Coronado, F.C. (2017). A bibliometric analysis of leading universities in innovation research. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 2(3): 106-124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2017.03.006
[23] Skute, I. (2019). Opening the black box of academic entrepreneurship: A bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics, 120(1): 237-265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03116-w
[24] Wang, M., Soetanto, D., Cai, J., Munir, H. (2021). Scientist or Entrepreneur? Identity centrality, university entrepreneurial mission, and academic entrepreneurial intention. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 47(1): 119-146. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-021-09845-6
[25] Guerrero, M., Siegel, D.S. (2024). Prosocial technology transfer and academic entrepreneurship: Lessons learned and new directions. Academy of Management Perspectives. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2024.0079
[26] Hu, R., Wang, Y., Bin, P., Ye, Y. (2018). Entrepreneurial universities: Exploring the academic and innovative dimensions of entrepreneurship in higher education. Higher Education, 76(1): 183-186.
[27] Cunningham, J.A., O’reilly, P. (2018). Macro, meso and micro perspectives of technology transfer. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 43(3): 545-557. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-018-9658-4
[28] Audretsch, D.B., Belitski, M., Scarra, D. (2024). Intrapreneurship activity and access to finance in natural science: Evidence from the UK academic spinoffs. Technovation, 129: 102888. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2023.102888
[29] Gaspar Pacheco, A.I., Ferreira, J., Simoes, J., Mota Veiga, P., Dabic, M. (2024). Mechanisms for facilitating academic entrepreneurship in higher education. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 30(6): 1448-1479. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-04-2023-0333
[30] Civera, A., Meoli, M., Vismara, S. (2024). The sustainability of academic entrepreneurial ecosystems. In Research Handbook on Entrepreneurial Ecosystems, pp. 339-351. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781800378988.00025
[31] Correia, M.P., Marques, C.S., Silva, R., Ramadani, V. (2024). Academic entrepreneurship ecosystems: Systematic literature review and future research directions. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 15: 17498-17528. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-024-01819-x
[32] Luo, W., Ran, Q., Cheng, S. (2024). What kind of support can promote academic entrepreneurial intention: An analysis of the Qualitative Comparative Analysis configuration effect of multiple support. Managerial and Decision Economics, 45(3): 1414-1427. https://doi.org/10.1002/mde.4082
[33] Di Paola, N. (2021). Pathways to academic entrepreneurship: The determinants of female scholars’ entrepreneurial intentions. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 46(5): 1417-1441. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-020-09824-3
[34] Urban, B., Chantson, J. (2017). Academic entrepreneurship in South Africa: Testing for entrepreneurial intentions. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 44(2): 948-980. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-017-9639-z
[35] Valenzuela-Fernandez, L., Merigó, J.M., Lichtenthal, J.D., Nicolas, C. (2019). A bibliometric analysis of the first 25 years of the Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing. Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing, 26(1): 75-94. https://doi.org/10.1080/1051712X.2019.1565142
[36] Faisal, S. (2023). Twenty-years Journey of Sustainable Human Resource Management Research: A bibliometric analysis. Administrative sciences, 13(6): 139. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci13060139
[37] Van Eck, N.J., Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2): 523-538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3
[38] Kessler, M.M. (1963). Bibliographic coupling between scientific papers. American Documentation, 14(1): 10-25. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.5090140103
[39] Caputo, A., Marzi, G., Pellegrini, M.M., Rialti, R. (2018). Conflict management in family businesses: A bibliometric analysis and systematic literature review. International Journal of Conflict Management, 29(4): 519-542. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCMA-02-2018-0027
[40] Martínez-López, F.J., Merigó, J.M., Gázquez-Abad, J.C., Ruiz-Real, J.L. (2020). Industrial marketing management: Bibliometric overview since its foundation. Industrial Marketing Management, 84: 19-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2019.07.014
[41] Van Nunen, K., Li, J., Reniers, G., Ponnet, K. (2018). Bibliometric analysis of safety culture research. Safety science, 108: 248-258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2017.08.011
[42] Martínez, M.A., Herrera, M., López-Gijón, J., Herrera-Viedma, E. (2014). H-classics: Characterizing the concept of citation classics through H-index. Scientometrics, 98(3): 1971-1983. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1155-9
[43] Perkmann M., Tartari V., McKelvey M., Autio E., Broström A., D'Este P., Fini R., Geuna A., Grimaldi R., Hughes A., Krabel S., Kitson M., Llerena P., Lissoni F., Salter A., Sobrero M. (2013). Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university-industry relations. Research Policy, 42(2): 423-442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.09.007
[44] Etzkowitz, H. (2003) Research groups as 'quasi-firms': The invention of the entrepreneurial university. Research Policy, 32(1): 109-121. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00009-4
[45] Walter A., Auer M., Ritter T. (2006). The impact of network capabilities and entrepreneurial orientation on university spin-off performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(4): 541-567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2005.02.005
[46] Vohora A., Wright M., Lockett A. (2006). Critical junctures in the development of university high-tech spinout companies. Research Policy, 3(1): 147-175. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(03)00107-0
[47] Chevalier, A., Allen, T.J., O'Shea, R.P., Roche, F. ( (2005). Entrepreneurial orientation, technology transfer and spinoff performance of U.S. universities. Research Policy, 34(7): 994-1009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.05.011
[48] Bercovitz, J., Feldman, M. (2008). Academic entrepreneurs: Organizational change at the individual level. Organization science, 19(1): 69-89. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1070.0295
[49] Lockett, A., Wright, M. (2005). Resources, capabilities, risk capital and the creation of university spin-out companies. Research Policy, 34(7): 1043-1057. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.05.006
[50] Grimaldi, R., Kenney, M., Siegel, D.S., Wright, M. (2011). 30 years after Bayh-Dole: Reassessing academic entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 40(8): 1045-1057. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.04.005
[51] Gulbrandsen, M., Smeby, J.C. (2005). Industry funding and university professors' research performance. Research Policy, 34(6): 932-950. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.05.004
[52] Clarysse, B., Wright, M., Bruneel, J., Mahajan, A. (2014). Creating value in ecosystems: Crossing the chasm between knowledge and business ecosystems. Research Policy, 43(7): 1164-1176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2014.04.014
[53] Powers, J.B., McDougall, P.P. (2005). University start-up formation and technology licensing with firms that go public: A resource-based view of academic entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(3), 291-311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2003.12.008
[54] Jain, S., George, G., Maltarich, M. (2000). Academics or entrepreneurs? Investigating role identity modification of university scientists involved in commercialization activity. Research Policy, 38(6): 922-935. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2009.02.007
[55] Mosey S., Wright M. (2001). From human capital to social capital: A longitudinal study of technology-based academic entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(6): 909-935. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2007.00203.x
[56] Clarysse, B., Moray, N. (2004). A process study of entrepreneurial team formation: The case of a research-based spin-off. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(1): 55-79. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(02)00113-1
[57] DePalma, M.J., Ketchum, J.M., Saullo T. (2011). What is the source of chronic low back pain and does age play a role?. Pain Medicine and Research, 12(2): 224-33. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-4637.2010.01045.x
[58] Bozeman, B., Fay, D., Slade, C.P. (2013). Research collaboration in universities and academic entrepreneurship: The-state-of-the-art. Journal of Technology Transfer, 38: 1-67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-012-9281-8
[59] Wright, M., Lockett, A., Clarysse, B., Binks M. (2006). University spin-out companies and venture capital. Research Policy, 35(4): 481-501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.01.005
[60] Klofsten, M., Jones-Evans, D. (2009). Comparing Academic Entrepreneurship in Europe -The Case of Sweden and Ireland. Small Business Economics, 14: 299-309. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008184601282
[61] Lockett, A., Siegel, D., Wright, M., Ensley, M.D. (2005). The creation of spin-off firms at public research institutions: Managerial and policy implications. Research Policy, 34(7): 981-993. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.05.010
[62] Siegel, D., Wright, M. (2015). Academic entrepreneurship: time for a rethink? British Journal of Management, 26(4): 582-595. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12116
[63] Franklin, S.J., Wright, M., Lockett A. (2007). Academic and surrogate entrepreneurs in university spin-out companies. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1): 127-141. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007896514609
[64] Rasmussen, E., Mosey, S., Wright M. (2011). The evolution of entrepreneurial competencies: A longitudinal study of university spin-off venture emergence. Journal of Management Studies, 48(6): 1314-1345. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00995.x
[65] Goldfarb, B., Henrekson, M. (2003). Bottom-up versus top-down policies towards the commercialization of university intellectual property. Research Policy, 32(4): 639-658. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00034-3
[66] Wright, M., Clarysse, B., Lockett, A., Knockaert, M. (2008). Mid-range universities' linkages with industry: Knowledge types and the role of intermediaries. Research Policy, 37(8): 1205-1223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.04.021
[67] Lockett, A., Wright, M., Franklin, S. (2003). Technology transfer and universities' spin-out strategies. Small Business Economics, 20: 185-200. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022220216972
[68] Guerrero, M., Cunningham, J.A., Urbano, D. (2015). Economic impact of entrepreneurial universities’ activities: An exploratory study of the United Kingdom. Research policy, 44(3): 748-764. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2014.10.008
[69] Lam, A. (2011). What motivates academic scientists to engage in research commercialization: 'Gold', 'ribbon' or 'puzzle'?. Research Policy, 40(10): 1354-1368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.09.002
[70] Clarysse, B., Tartari, V., Salter, A. (2011). The Impact of Entrepreneurial Capacity, Experience and Organizational Support on Academic Entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 40(8): 1084-1093. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.05.010
[71] Abreu, M., Grinevich, V. (2013). The natur of academic entrepreneurship in the UK: Widening the focus on entrepreneurial activities. Research Policy, 42(2):408-422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.10.005
[72] Markman, G.D., Siegel, D.S., Wright, M. (2008). Research and technology commercialization. Journal of Management Studies, 45(8): 1401-1423. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2008.00803.x
[73] Shukla, N., Merigó, J.M., Lammers, T., Miranda, L. (2020). Half a century of computer methods and programs in biomedicine: A bibliometric analysis from 1970 to 2017. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine, 183: 105075. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmpb.2019.105075
