The present study attempts to provide a bibliometric analysis of the research conducted on entrepreneurship and innovation. Utilising the Scopus database, a total of 1,103 papers, published from the year 1999 to 2018, have been analysed in this study. A classification of these papers is presented further on the basis of important journals, papers with maximum citations, year-wise publication trends, subject-wise distribution, most productive countries and institutions, and eminent authors. Further, the VOSviewer software is utilised for providing a co-authorship analysis, international collaboration patterns, keywords co-occurrences analysis, co-citation analysis and bibliographic coupling analysis. The results show that the research on this area has been rapidly growing; the maximum papers have been contributed by developed countries such as the USA, UK and China. Furthermore, the most cited paper is about entrepreneurship, innovation and economic growth, and the maximum research has been carried out in the subject areas of business, management and accounting.
AhlstromD., YangX., WangL., & WuC. (2018). A global perspective of entrepreneurship and innovation in China. Multinational Business Review, 26(4), 302–318. https://doi.org/10.1108/MBR-08-2018-0058
2.
AlfonzoP. M., SakaraidaT. J., & Hasting-TolsmaM. (2014). Bibliometrics: Visualizing the impact of nursing research. Online Journal of Nursing Informatics, 18(1), 231–267.
3.
AnokhinS., & SchulzeW. S. (2009). Entrepreneurship, innovation, and corruption. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(5), 465–476. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2008.06.001
4.
Atuahene-GimaK., & KoA. (2001). An empirical investigation of the effect of market orientation and entrepreneurship orientation alignment on product innovation. Organization Science, 12(1), 54–74. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.12.1.54.10121
5.
AudretschD. B., KuratkoD. F., & LinkA. N. (2016). Dynamic entrepreneurship and technology-based innovation. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 26(3), 603–620. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00191-016-0458-4
6.
BakerP. (2004). Querying keywords: Questions of difference, frequency, and sense in keywords analysis. Journal of English Linguistics, 32(4), 346–359. https://doi.org/10.1177/0075424204269894
7.
BoyackK. W., & KlavansR. (2010). Co-citation analysis, bibliographic coupling, and direct citation: Which citation approach represents the research front most accurately?Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(12), 2389–2404. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21419
8.
BremA. (Ed.). (2008). Innovation management in emerging technology ventures: The concept of an integrated idea management. In Boundaries of innovation and entrepreneurship: Conceptual background and essays on selected theoretical and empirical aspects (pp. 73–93). Gabler Verlag Wiesbaden.
9.
BremA. (2011). Linking innovation and entrepreneurship: Literature overview and introduction of a process-oriented framework. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 14(1), 6–35. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEIM.2011.040820
10.
DagninoG. B., LevantiG., MinàA., & PiconeP. M. (2015). Interorganizational network and innovation: A bibliometric study and proposed research agenda. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 30(3/4), 354–377. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-02-2013-0032
11.
DavilaA., & OyonD. (2009). Introduction to the special section on accounting, innovation and entrepreneurship. European Accounting Review, 18(2), 277–280. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180902924522
12.
De BakkerF. G. A., GroenewegenP., & Den HondF. (2005). A bibliometric analysis of 30 years of research and theory on corporate social responsibility and corporate social performance. Business and Society, 44(3), 283–317. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650305278086
13.
DoganovaL., & Eyquem-RenaultM. (2009). What do business models do? Innovation. Research Policy, 38(10), 1559–1570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2009.08.002
14.
DruckerP. F. (1998). The discipline of innovation. Leader to Leader, 1998(9), 13–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/ltl.40619980906
15.
Duane IrelandR., & WebbJ. W. (2007). A cross-disciplinary exploration of entrepreneurship research. Journal of Management, 33(6), 891–927. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206307307643
16.
Duque OlivaE. J., Cervera TauletA., & Rodríguez RomeroC. (2006). Estudio bibliométrico de los modelos de medición del concepto de calidad percibida del servicio en Internet. INNOVAR: Revista de Ciencias Administrativas y Sociales, 16(28), 341–359.
17.
DurisinB., CalabrettaG., & ParmeggianiV. (2010). The intellectual structure of product innovation research: A bibliometric study of the journal of product innovation management, 1984–2004. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27(3), 437–451. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2010.00726.x
18.
FangY., HenfridssonO., & JarvenpaaS. L. (2018). Editorial on generating business and social value from digital entrepreneurship and innovation. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 27(4), 275–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2018.11.001
19.
FerreiraM. P., SantosJ. C., SerraF. A. R., & ReisN. R. (2010). Entrepreneurship research: A bibliometric study of the ENANPADs 1997–2008. REBRAE, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.7213/rebrae.v3i1.13529
20.
García-MoralesV. J., Llorens-MontesF. J., & Verdú-JoverA. J. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of organizational innovation and organizational learning in entrepreneurship. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 106(1), 21–42. https://doi.org/10.1108/02635570610642940
21.
GoldsbyM. G., KreiserP. M., KuratkoD. F., BishopJ. W., & HornsbyJ. S. (2018). Social proactiveness and innovation: The impact of stakeholder salience on corporate entrepreneurship. Journal of Small Business Strategy, 28(2), 1–15.
22.
González-TejerinaS., & VieiraM. J. (2018, October). Training in innovation and entrepreneurship in primary education. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality (pp. 1016–1020). https://doi.org/10.1145/3284179.3284346
23.
GranadosM. L., HlupicV., CoakesE., & MohamedS. (2011). Social enterprise and social entrepreneurship research and theory: A bibliometric analysis from 1991 to 2010. Social Enterprise Journal, 7(3), 198–218. https://doi.org/10.1108/17508611111182368
24.
GrégoireD. A., NoëlM. X., DéryR., & BéchardJ. P. (2006). Is there conceptual convergence in entrepreneurship research? A co–citation analysis of frontiers of entrepreneurship research, 1981–2004. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(3), 333–373. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2006.00124.x
25.
HeersminkR., van den HovenJ., van EckN. J., & van den BergJ. (2011). Bibliometric mapping of computer and information ethics. Ethics and Information Technology, 13(3), 241–249. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-011-9273-7
26.
JarnevingB. (2007). Bibliographic coupling and its application to research-front and other core documents. Journal of Informetrics, 1(4), 287–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2007.07.004
27.
KakourisA., & GeorgiadisP. (2016). Analysing entrepreneurship education: A bibliometric survey pattern. Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research, 6(1), 6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40497-016-0046-y
28.
KirznerI. M. (1973). Competition and entrepreneurship. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign’s academy for entrepreneurial leadership historical research reference in entrepreneurship. SSRN. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1496174
29.
LarsonA. L. (2000). Sustainable innovation through an entrepreneurship lens. Business Strategy and the Environment, 9(5), 304–317. https://doi.org/10.1002/1099-0836(200009/10)9:5<304::AID-BSE255>3.0.CO;2-O
30.
LaudanoM. C., MarziG., & CaputoA. (2018). A decade of the international journal of entrepreneurship and small business: A bibliometric analysis. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 33(2), 289–314. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJESB.2018.090151
31.
LeeV. H., & HewJ. J. (2018). Is TQM fading away? A bibliometric analysis of a decade (2006–2015). International Journal of Services, Economics and Management, 8, 227–249.
32.
LeydesdorffL., RotoloD., & RafolsI. (2012). Bibliometric perspectives on medical innovation using the medical subject Headings of PubMed. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(11), 2239–2253. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22715
33.
LiñánF., & FayolleA. (2015). A systematic literature review on entrepreneurial intentions: Citation, thematic analyses, and research agenda. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 11(4), 907–933. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-015-0356-5
34.
LiuZ., YinY., LiuW., & DunfordM. (2015). Visualizing the intellectual structure and evolution of innovation systems research: A bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics, 103(1), 135–158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1517-y
35.
López-FernándezM. C., Serrano-BediaA. M., & Pérez-PérezM. (2016). Entrepreneurship and family firm research: A bibliometric analysis of an emerging field. Journal of Small Business Management, 54(2), 622–639. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12161
36.
ManimalaM. J., & ThomasP. (2017). Entrepreneurship education: Innovations and best practices. In Entrepreneurship education (pp. 3–53). Springer.
37.
MartynJ. (1964). Bibliographic coupling. Journal of Documentation, 20(4), 236–236. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb026352
38.
MerigóJ. M., Gil-LafuenteA. M., & YagerR. R. (2015). An overview of fuzzy research with bibliometric indicators. Applied Soft Computing, 27, 420–433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2014.10.035
39.
MichaelS. C., & PearceJ. A. (2009). The need for innovation as a rationale for government involvement in entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 21(3), 285–302. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985620802279999
40.
OjhaA. K., & KrishnaS. (2004). Originative innovation and entrepreneurship in the software industry in India. In India in the global software industry (pp. 220–245). Palgrave Macmillan.
41.
PatoM. L., & TeixeiraA. A. C. (2016). Twenty years of rural entrepreneurship: A bibliometric survey. Sociologia Ruralis, 56(1), 3–28. https://doi.org/10.1111/soru.12058
42.
PhillipsW., LeeH., GhobadianA., O’ReganN., & JamesP. (2015). Social innovation and social entrepreneurship: A systematic review. Group and Organization Management, 40(3), 428–461. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601114560063
43.
PolanyiM. (1966). The logic of tacit inference. Philosophy, 41(155), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0031819100066110
44.
RandhawaK., WildenR., & HohbergerJ. (2016). A bibliometric review of open innovation: Setting a research agenda. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 33(6), 750–772. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12312
45.
Rey-MartíA., Ribeiro-SorianoD., & Palacios-MarquésD. (2016). A bibliometric analysis of social entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Research, 69(5), 1651–1655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.10.033
46.
SakataI., SasakiH., AkiyamaM., SawataniY., ShibataN., & KajikawaY. (2013). Bibliometric analysis of service innovation research: Identifying knowledge domain and global network of knowledge. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 80(6), 1085–1093. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2012.03.009
47.
SassmannshausenS. P., & VolkmannC. (2013). A bibliometric based review on social entrepreneurship and its establishment as a field of research (No. 2013–003). Schumpeter Discussion Papers.
48.
SchalteggerS., & WagnerM. (2011). Sustainable entrepreneurship and sustainability innovation: Categories and interactions. Business Strategy and the Environment, 20(4), 222–237. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.682
49.
SchildtH. A., & SillanpääA. (2004). The field of entrepreneurship: A bibliometric assessment. InConference Paper, Babson Kauffman Entrepreneurship Research Conference Glasgow.
50.
SchildtH. A., ZahraS. A., & SillanpääA. (2006). Scholarly communities in entrepreneurship research: A co-citation analysis. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(3), 399–415. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2006.00126.x
51.
SchumpeterJ. A., & NicholA. J. (1934). Robinson’s economics of imperfect competition. Journal of Political Economy, 42(2), 249–259.
52.
ScottA. J. (2006). Entrepreneurship, innovation and industrial development: Geography and the creative field revisited. Small Business Economics, 26(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-004-6493-9
53.
ServantieV., CabrolM., GuieuG., & BoissinJ. P. (2016). Is international entrepreneurship a field? A bibliometric analysis of the literature (1989–2015)?Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 14(2), 168–212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10843-015-0162-8
54.
ShaneS., & VenkataramanS. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217–226. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2000.2791611
55.
ShawE., O’LoughlinA., & McFadzeanE. (2005). Corporate entrepreneurship and innovation part 2: A role- and process-based approach. European Journal of Innovation Management, 8(4), 393–408. https://doi.org/10.1108/14601060510627786
56.
SmallH. (1973). Co-citation in the scientific literature: A new measure of the relationship between two documents. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 24(4), 265–269. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.4630240406
57.
SteffensenB., & NeeleyK. A. (2017). Precaution and evidence: Legal systems as context factors of engineering innovation and entrepreneurship[Paper presentation]. 2017 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Columbus, OH, USA.
58.
TeixeiraA. A. C. (2014). Evolution, roots and influence of the literature on National Systems of Innovation: A bibliometric account. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 38(1), 181–214. https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/bet022
59.
Van EckN. J., & WaltmanL. (2007). VOS: A new method for visualizing similarities between objects. In Studies in classification, data analysis, and knowledge organization (pp. 299–306). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-70981-7_34
60.
Van EckN. J., & WaltmanL. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3
61.
Van EckN. J., & WaltmanL. (2011). Text mining and visualization using VOSviewer. arXiv preprint arXiv:1109.2058.
62.
Van EckN. J., WaltmanL., DekkerR., & van den BergJ. (2010). A comparison of two techniques for bibliometric mapping: Multidimensional scaling and VOS. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(12), 2405–2416. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21421
63.
VoleryT., & MazzarolT. (2015). The evolution of the small business and entrepreneurship field: A bibliometric investigation of articles published in the International Small Business Journal [Journal]. International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship, 33(4), 374–396. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242613516139
64.
WattsR. J., PorterA. L., & NewmanN. C. (1998). Innovation forecasting using bibliometrics. Competitive Intelligence Review, 9(4), 11–19. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6386(199810/12)9:4<11::AID-CIR4>3.0.CO;2-V
65.
WongP. K., HoY. P., & AutioE. (2005). Entrepreneurship, innovation and economic growth: Evidence from GEM data. Small Business Economics, 24(3), 335–350. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-005-2000-1
66.
WoodsideA. G., BernalP. M., & CodurasA. (2017). The complexity turn in cultures’ consequences on entrepreneurship, innovation, and quality-of-life. In The complexity turn (pp. 133–183). Springer.
67.
WuC. W. (2016). Global entrepreneurship and innovation in management: Comparing MRA/SEM versus fuzzy-set QCA theory creation, data analysis, and findings. Journal of Business Research, 69(6), 2061–2066. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.12.009
68.
WuW. Y., ChangM. L., & ChenC. W. (2008). Promoting innovation through the accumulation of intellectual capital, social capital, and entrepreneurial orientation. R and D Management, 38(3), 265–277. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2008.00512.x
69.
XiaoH. (2008, October). Entrepreneurship, innovation and the transformation of economic development mode. In 4th International Conference on Wireless Communications, Networking and Mobile Computing, WiCOM’08 (pp. 1–4). IEEE Publications.
70.
YanJ., & YanL. (2016). Individual entrepreneurship, collective entrepreneurship and innovation in small business: An empirical study. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 12(4), 1053–1077. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-015-0380-5
71.
YangL. P., XuD. W., & WangW. (2014). The application of intelligent agent in network platform for undergraduate’s innovation and entrepreneurship education. Applied Mechanics and Materials, 687–691. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.687-691.2149
72.
ZhangM. Y., & DodgsonM. (2007). ‘A roasted duck can still fly away’: A case study of technology, nationality, culture and the rapid and early internationalization of the firm. Journal of World Business, 42(3), 336–349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2007.04.005
73.
ZhaoF. (2005). Exploring the synergy between entrepreneurship and innovation. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research, 11(1), 25–41. https://doi.org/10.1108/13552550510580825
74.
ZhaoS., ZhangH., & WangJ. (2018). Cognition and system construction of civil engineering innovation and entrepreneurship system in emerging engineering education. Cognitive Systems Research, 52, 1020–1028. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsys.2018.10.020
75.
ZhuW., & GuanJ. (2013). A bibliometric study of service innovation research: Based on complex network analysis. Scientometrics, 94(3), 1195–1216. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0888-1
