Innovation Management: A Bibliometric Analysis of Research Hotspots and Citation Dynamics
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.58812/wsbm.v4i01.2764Keywords:
Innovation Management, Bibliometric AnalysisAbstract
This study aims to map the intellectual structure, research hotspots, and citation dynamics in innovation management literature through a bibliometric approach. Data were collected from the Scopus database within a defined publication period and analyzed using VOSviewer to examine keyword co-occurrence, co-citation patterns, and thematic evolution. The results reveal that innovation management research is structured around three major thematic domains: sustainability-driven innovation, technology-enabled innovation, and human-centered applications. Key research hotspots include sustainable development, artificial intelligence, knowledge management, and healthcare innovation. The analysis also indicates a significant shift from traditional firm-centric innovation toward interdisciplinary and impact-oriented approaches that integrate environmental, technological, and social dimensions. Citation dynamics highlight the growing influence of digital transformation and sustainability paradigms in shaping contemporary research. This study contributes by providing a comprehensive overview of the evolution and current landscape of innovation management, offering insights into emerging trends and future research directions.
References
[1] O. Korniienko, “Investment of Intellectual Capital in the Innovative Development of the Enterprise,” Intellect XXІ, no. 1, 2023, pp. 43–46, 2023, doi: 10.32782/2415-8801/2023-1.8.
[2] F. Alfazzi, “the Analysis of Challenges and Prospects Faced By Entrepreneurs To Ensure Sustainable Growth of Small and Medium Enterprises,” Acad. Rev., vol. 1, no. 58, pp. 175–186, 2023, doi: 10.32342/2074-5354-2023-1-58-13.
[3] C. Lendner and M. Dowling, “The organisational structure of university business incubators and their impact on the success of start-ups: an international study,” Int. J. Entrep. Innov. Manag., vol. 7, no. 6, pp. 541–555, 2007.
[4] J. Senyard, T. Baker, P. Steffens, and P. Davidsson, “Bricolage as a path to innovativeness for resource‐constrained new firms,” J. Prod. Innov. Manag., vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 211–230, 2014.
[5] A. Hidalgo and J. Albors, “Innovation management techniques and tools: a review from theory and practice,” R&d Manag., vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 113–127, 2008.
[6] R. N. Rosyidiana and I. M. Narsa, “Micro , small , and medium-sized enterprises ( MSMEs ) during the post-pandemic economic recovery period : digitalization , literation , innovation , and its impact on financial performance,” Cogent Bus. Manag., vol. 11, no. 1, p., 2024, doi: 10.1080/23311975.2024.2342488.
[7] D. J. Teece, G. Pisano, and A. Shuen, “Dynamic capabilities and strategic management,” Strateg. Manag. J., vol. 18, no. 7, pp. 509–533, 1997.
[8] R. M. Grant, “Toward a knowledge‐based theory of the firm,” Strateg. Manag. J., vol. 17, no. S2, pp. 109–122, 1996.
[9] R. S. Kaplan and D. P. Norton, The balanced scorecard: measures that drive performance, vol. 70. Harvard Business Review Boston, MA, USA, 2005.
[10] G. C. Moore and I. Benbasat, “Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation,” Inf. Syst. Res., vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 192–222, 1991.
[11] S. Taylor and P. A. Todd, “Understanding information technology usage: A test of competing models,” Inf. Syst. Res., vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 144–176, 1995.
[12] D. J. Teece, “Business models, business strategy and innovation,” Long Range Plann., vol. 43, no. 2–3, pp. 172–194, 2010.
[13] M. E. Porter, Clusters and the new economics of competition, vol. 76, no. 6. Harvard Business Review Boston, 1998.
[14] E. Proctor et al., “Outcomes for implementation research: conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda,” Adm. policy Ment. Heal. Ment. Heal. Serv. Res., vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 65–76, 2011.
[15] T. Greenhalgh, G. Robert, F. Macfarlane, P. Bate, and O. Kyriakidou, “Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations,” milbank Q., vol. 82, no. 4, pp. 581–629, 2004.
[16] K. Laursen and A. Salter, “Open for innovation: the role of openness in explaining innovation performance among UK manufacturing firms,” Strateg. Manag. J., vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 131–150, 2006.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Loso Judijanto, Yendri Deswin
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Facebook 
Instagram 
Twitter 
Youtube 
westscience.journals@gmail.com