Documentos de Trabajo
CID 2015-09
Big names in innovation research: a
bibliometric overview
CID
Centro de Innovación
para el Desarrollo
www.cid.uchile.cl
Facultad de Economía y Negocios de la Universidad de Chile
Big names in innovation research: a bibliometric overview
Christian A. Cancino*, José M. Merigó, Freddy C. Coronado
Department of Management Control and Information Systems, University of Chile
Av. Diagonal Paraguay 257, 8330015 Santiago, Chile
Emails: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
*Corresponding author
Abstract
Over the last few years it has been possible to observe an increasing
number of scientific studies related to innovation research. This study
analyses innovation research developed by authors between 1989 and
2013. The work uses the Web of Science database and provides several
author-level bibliometric indicators including the total number of
publications and citations, and the h-index. The results indicate that the
most influential professors over the last 25 years, according to their
highest h-index, are David Audretsch, Michael Hitt, Shaker Zahra,
Rajshree Agarwal, Eric Von Hippel, David Teece, Will Mitchell and
Robert Cooper. Among this group of authors it is possible to
demonstrate that they are not necessarily the most productive authors,
with the highest number of publications, however, they are the most
influential, with the highest number of citations. The incorporation of a
larger number of journals to the Web of Science has granted different
authors access to publish their work on innovation research.
Keywords: Innovation Research; Bibliometrics; Web of Science.
1
1. INTRODUCTION
In the last few decades the number of academic articles on research innovation has
grown exponentially (Fagerberg and Verspagen, 2009) Martin, 2012; Shafique,
2013). Such growth, annually exceeds the growth rate of the set of disciplines on
other areas of research (Cancino et al., 2015), which allows us to understand that
academics from different areas of knowledge are interested in publishing how
activities, processes and results of innovation are affecting our economies and
promoting development, not only of new businesses, but also of greater social and
economic well-being. According to Fagerberg et al. (2012), several thousand
academics worldwide are currently researching such issues, which explain the
importance of knowing who the leaders in innovation research are.
From an academic point of view, the greatest number of articles, especially in high
quality journals, present in the Web of Science (WoS), represents an important
effort from both different universities and specialised research centres, which seek
to significantly influence the development of new knowledge and new applications
in the discipline. Despite the above, this increase in the number of articles on
innovation research has not necessarily had an impact of equal magnitude in terms
of influence and relevance of the results in the scientific community. According to
Cancino et al. (2015), only 1.45% of the academic articles on innovation research
published in recent decades exceed 200 citations in other journals of the WoS. In
addition, only 4% of the publications exceed 100 citations. If we analyse it from
another point of view, 17% of the articles published on innovation research in the
WoS have never been cited, and 47.3% have not been cited more than 4 times
since their publication, being in general autocites, which shows that they are
articles which, although they increase scientific production in the discipline, in
practice they are not influencing the academic community, which could make us
doubt the true quality of those articles. Of the almost 40 thousand articles
published on innovation research in the last three decades, almost 50% of
publications do not necessarily generate impact.
Certainly, the development of academic articles that are responsible of analysing,
from a bibliometric point of view, not only the increase in productivity of scientific
research on innovation, but also its influence is a relevant matter. In this regard,
there are various articles in the literature which help us to understand which
authors are the most influential.
For example, Fagerberg et al. (2012) explore the knowledge base of innovation
studies, which is defined as the scholarly study of how innovation takes place and
what the important explanatory factors and social and economic consequences
are. This paper presents a ranking, using h-index, with the 20 most influential
authors in the discipline of innovation. In this ranking four contributors stand out
as being particularly influential, namely, Nelson, Freeman, Rosenberg and
Schumpeter, their work remains an important source of inspiration for the rest of
the researchers.
On the other hand, Fagerberg and Verspagen (2009), using bibliographical
evidence, were able to show a core literature in innovation studies centered on a
small number of leading academics. In their analysis they divided the most
influential authors into four periods. From 1979 to 2006, the most influential work
is by Freeman (1974), Schumpeter (1942), Arrow (1962, 1966) and Schumpeter
2
(1934). From 1979 to 1988 the most influential work is by Schmookler (1966),
Freeman (1974), Rosenberg (1976), Nelson and Winter (1977) and Freeman et al.
(1982). From 1989 to 1998 most influential work is by Pavitt (1984), Nelson and
Winter (1982), Rosenberg (1982), Freeman (1974) and Teece (1986). Finally, from
1999-2006, the most prominent are Nelson and Winter (1982), Nelson (1993),
Cohen and Levinthal (1989), Lundvall (1992) and Cohen and Levinthal (1990).
Thieme (2007) also studied the leading authors in innovation. Using 959 articles
reflecting the work of 1,179 scholars, this study ranks the world’s top scholars in
innovation management on the basis of the number of research articles published
across fourteen top academic journals in technology and innovation management,
between 1990 and 2004. Twenty-three scholars have at least eight articles in this
period. Michael Song has the most (31), followed by Robert Cooper, Roger
Calantone, William Souder, and Elko Kleinschmidt, who have published at least 17
articles in the 15-year period.
Yang and Tao (2012) extended Thieme’s article, with an updated analysis that also
included a university ranking. This paper includes data on innovation management
from articles published in two leading innovation management journals and eight
top management and marketing journals during 1991 to 2010. The empirical data
showed that the world’s top 10 innovation management scholars were: Michael
Song (University of Missouri-Kansas City), Roger J. Calantone (Michigan State
University), Erik Jan Hultink (Delft University of Technology), Mark E. Parry
(University of Missouri-Kansas City), Kwaku Atuahene-Gima (China Europe
International Business School), C. Anthony Di Benedetto (Temple University),
Abbie Griffin (University of Utah), William E. Souder (Retired), Barry L. Bayus
(University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill), and Christoph H. Loch (INSEAD).
Some other authors have studied the leading authors, journals and universities in
the field developing different types of rankings according to a wide range of
indicators (Linton and Thongpapanl, 2004; Biemans et al., 2007, 2010; Durisin et
al., 2010; Martin, 2012; Shafique, 2013).
The purpose of this paper is to complement previous research, presenting a
bibliometric analysis of the most influential authors in innovation research over
the past 25 years, between 1989 to 2013. For this, not only will we present an
analysis of the main authors in the leading management journals, which are
generally the most influential, but also those who are leading authors in journals
specialized in innovation, which are not necessarily more influential but much
more productive. It is important to note that in this work we classify as most
influential those journals that reach a high number of citations, and by more
productive we mean those that present a greater number of publications in
innovation research.
This work is organized into four sections. This first section shows the introduction
of the study. Section 2 presents the research methodology. Section 3 presents a
description of the results. Finally, section 4 presents the results of the work,
limitations and future research.
3
2. METHODS
The research method used in this article is the bibliometric analysis. According to
Broadus (1987), bibliometrics is a research field that quantitatively studies the
bibliographic material providing a general overview of a research field according
to a wide range of indicators. The most commonly used indicators include: the
total number of articles; the total number of citations; and, the h-index (Hirsch,
2005). While the total number of articles is a proxy variable of productivity, the
number of citations and the h-index are proxy variables of influence.
There is a discussion in the literature on which indicator could better measure
scientific production (Podsakoff et al., 2008). Some researchers criticize the use of
the indicator for number of articles, because a greater number of publications do
not imply higher quality of academic research. In fact, many of the articles by a
researcher might not be cited by another researcher, explaining his / her low
influence, or even quality. In addition, other researchers criticize the use of the
indicator for number of citations, because an author having a high number of
citations would not imply greater or lesser quality in terms of his/her research. An
author, specializing in a particular theme, in which very few researchers work,
surely will receive fewer citations, with respect to another researcher working in a
very popular theme, where there are many researchers interested in analysing
such topic. Therefore, a greater or lesser number of citations, would not
necessarily be directly related with higher quality. Finally, the h-index has not been
free from criticism either, particularly because sometimes an academic with little
track record, i.e. with a low number of published articles, but of high influence,
many citations, would have the same h-index as an academic or researcher with
great experience, many published articles, but not all of them cited with high
frequency (Alonso et al. 2009; Egghe, 2006). In this sense, the indicator would
treat the productivity alike even though it is obviously different.
Regardless of the criticism that occurs to the above listed indicators, in this work
we will develop a Bibliometric analysis by using the three indicators mentioned,
ranking authors, leaders in innovation research according to their h-index.
As a source of information, we will use the articles published in innovation
research available in the database of the Web of Science (WoS). The WoS is the
most popular database for classifying scientific research worldwide and it includes
those journals that are evaluated with the highest quality. Currently, WoS includes
more than 50,000,000 articles covering all areas of research and knowledge.
Hence, it is necessary to establish classification criteria and filters to specifically
analyse what is published only in innovation research.
In order to classify the leading authors in innovation research of the past 25 years
a series of filters are applied to the WoS core collection database to discriminate
between the 50,000,000 items. First, only those published in the WoS between
1989 and 2013 are analysed. Second, the study uses the keyword innovation in the
title, abstract and keywords, the titles of these articles are revised to check that
they correspond to themes of innovation research, and not just coincidentally
using the innovation concept in a different research context. Third, only articles
published in some specific areas of research are studied, all of which are
catalogued in a managerial perspective (Business & Economics, Public
4
Administration, Operations Research & Management Science, Government & Law,
Geography, Social Sciences and Other Topics, Computer Science, Sociology, Urban
Studies, History and Philosophy of Science, Transportation, Social Work, Social
Issues, Area Studies, Behavioral Sciences and Asian Studies). Finally, only
publications classified as articles are considered, reviews, letters and notes, leaving
out other scientific outputs such as posters, presentations at conferences, among
others. In accordance with the previous filters, our database to be analysed
corresponds to 36,644 published articles in innovation research in the past 25
years.
Without a doubt, the previous classification may have some limitations. For
example, given the specification of the filters used, some work on innovation
research which did not use the concept of innovation in the title, abstract or
keywords could have been excluded from the analysis. Another limitation that we
will have in order to develop our rankings will be that the WoS database always
gives one unit to any journal, author, university or country involved in an article,
which could affect the analysis, knowing that frequently two or more researchers
work on the same article. A third limitation that we will see in the development of
our rankings, given the database used, is that the obtained citations are not
weighted by the quality of the journal cited, assigning equal weight to publications
of different influence.
3. RESULTS
This Section presents the results of the paper. First, the study develops a ranking of
authors who have been leaders in innovation research over the past 25 years.
Second, the work develops rankings of the leading authors in innovation research
according to the journals who publish the most in innovation research. Third, the
article analyses the most influential authors in innovation research by periods of
time (quinquenial analysis). Finally, the study presents bibliographic coupling and
co-authorship analysis between the most productive and influential authors in
innovation research.
3.1. Leading authors in innovation research
For the period of time described, 1989 to 2013, research in innovation has
experienced significant growth that has led to publishing 36,644 articles in
journals present in the WoS. Some leading authors in innovation research stand
out in this discipline, not only because of the large number of publications which
they develop but also because of their high influence on the rest of the researchers
of the world. Table 1 presents a ranking with 50 leading authors in innovation
research, which are classified according to their h-index, which allows us to
analyse their influence on other researchers.
Along with the h-index in innovation (HI) of each author, Table 1 shows more
information such as the total number of publications in innovation (TPI) and the
5
total number of citations in innovation (TCI). In addition, indicators of overall
number of publications (TP), the total number of citations (TC) and h-index (H) in
all disciplines, are also presented. It is also possible to identify information about
the university that each researcher is affiliated, and the country that he or she
comes from.
- Table 1 The first results shown in Table 1 are that researchers from the U.S. lead the
ranking of the most influential authors in innovation research. Among the first 10
authors, 60% works in U.S. universities and from the total of 50 leading authors
28% do so. Following the USA, researchers from the UK are the most influential
present in our rankings, representing 14% of the total number of authors. The
Netherlands and China cooperate with the same number of the most influential
researchers, 5 each, followed by Canada and Italy contributing with 4 authors
leaders in our rankings.
Another important highlight is that the most influential authors come from
different universities; the generation of the most influential knowledge on
innovation research is not gathered in any particular university. In fact, among U.S.
universities, none presents two authors in our rankings. Whereas some European
and Asian universities, such as the Polytechnic University of Milan, KU Leuven,
Imperial College London, Shanghai Jiao T. University and the University of Toronto,
present two authors or more, as in the case of KU Leuven, in the ranking.
When ordering our ranking by h-index the 10 most influential innovation research
authors are David B. Audretsch (Indiana University), Michael a. Hitt (Texas A & M
University), Shaker A. Zahra (University of Minnesota Twin Cities), Rajshree
Agarwal (University of Maryland), Eric Von Hippel (MIT - Massachusetts Institute
of Technology), David J. Teece (University of California, Berkeley), Will Mitchell
(University of Toronto), Robert G Cooper (McMaster University) , Bart Verspagen
(Maastricht University) and John Bessant (Imperial College London). Without
doubt, all these authors are very well-known and influential in the discipline,
which highlights the importance of measuring the impact and influence of each
researcher on other authors who follow a similar line of research.
David B. Audretsch’s case is very interesting, not only because he is the author
with the highest number of publications in innovation research, for the period of
25 years under analysis, 63 in total, but he also presents a major h-index, 32.
However, if we look at the amount of citations by author, recently he would be the
fourth author with the greater influence.
Note that the ranking presented in Table 1 may be ordered by other criteria, which
would change the position of each author in the list. For example, David J. Teece,
who appears in sixth place in the Table 1, with an h-index of 21, if we order by the
number of citations that each researcher obtains, would be in first place in the
ranking. On the other hand, in Ulrich Lichtenthaler’s case, 19th place, or Michael
Song, 14th place, if we order by the number of publications in innovation research,
and no citations or h-index, he would also occupy the top positions of a ranking.
This allows us to understand that the criteria used to rate will highly affect the
information that arises with respect to leading authors who are more influential in
6
innovation research, where some stand out due to the high number of publications
that they perform in innovation research, while others do it for the greater
influence that they have on the scientific community, whether measured by
number of citations or h-index.
This is very important to understand, because there would be no direct correlation
between the most productive authors in innovation research and those most
influential in the discipline. There are many specialized journals in innovation in
the WoS, see Table 2, which do not always have the greatest impact in the
literature, which may be improving some Bibliometric indicators of those authors
who publish the most in these journals.
3.2 Individual specialized journals analysis of the leading authors
According to Cancino et al. (2015), it is possible to identify a number of journals
specializing in innovation research: International Journal of Technology
Management, Journal of Product Innovation Management, R&D Management,
Research Policy, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Technology
Analysis and Strategic Management, and Technovation. All of these journals are
highly valued by the discipline, some of them not only being the most cited
research in innovation, but also being the most productive, by publishing a greater
number of items every year and presenting good impact factors. Some examples:
Research Policy, Technological Forecasting and Social Change and Technovation
(Table 2).
- Table 2 While Table 1 showed a ranking of leading authors in innovation research taking
into account all the journals in the WoS, specialized or not in innovation research,
Tables 3 to 6, specifically present individualized rankings according to each journal
in Table 2, ordered the leading authors according to each h-index.
Table 3 presents the leading authors in the two specialized innovation research
journals: International Journal of Technology Management (IJTM) and Journal of
Product Innovation Management (JPIM).
- Table 3 In the case of IJTM the first 10 authors of the ranking have more than 5
publications on innovation in the same journal. Interestingly, not necessarily the
most cited authors are leading this ranking. Harry Boer’s case is interesting, who
with 93 citations and 6 publications, does not appear in the first places in the
ranking, having a lower h-index. Whereas John Bessant, who not only is the
researcher with the highest h-index but also the one who has published the
greatest number of papers and is also the most cited.
7
With respect to JPIM, it is possible to see that the number of publications and
number of citations in innovation research is much higher, in relation to the
analyzed IJTM. The first 10 authors of the JPIM ranking exceed by more than 10
times the number of citations of the first authors of the IJTM. Without a doubt,
JPIM is much more intensively publishing articles on innovation research, and so
their influence is far greater. In this journal authors such as Roger J. Calantone,
Elko J. Kleinschmidt and Robert Cooper who exceed one thousand citations, which
speaks of their high influence in the discipline, particularly in those researchers
who publish in this journal.
Table 4 presents the leading authors in: R&D Management (RDM) and Research
Policy (RP).
- Table 4 In the case of RDM the first 10 authors of the ranking exceed 4 publications about
innovation in the same journal. Unlike the information found in IJTM, in RDM even
though there are few papers published by leading authors in this journal, the
number of citations that have is very high. On average, nearly 230 citations by
author. Which shows their high influence. Oliver Gassmann and Roy Rothwell’s
cases are special because they reach close to 500 citations.
A specific case of analysis is RP, one of the most influential and productive
innovation research journals. In this case, the 10 most influential authors
according to our ranking which is sorted by h-index are: Eric Von Hippel, Loet
Leydesdorff, Daniele Archibugi, Bruce Tether, Richard Nelson, Geert Duysters, Paul
Nightingale, Bart Verspagen, Massimo Colombo and Robert Tijssen. The average
number of cites from all of these authors is 532 citations, which highlights their
high influence in the discipline. A particular case of analysis is Professor Henry
Etzkowitz, who although he does not appear in the first places in the ranking, has
reached almost 1400 citations, which also shows high influence for the academic
world.
Table 5 presents the leading authors in: Technological Forecasting and Social
Change (TFSC) and Technology Analysis and Strategic Management (TASM).
- Table 5 As for TFSC, it is possible to observe that the first 10 authors in the ranking exceed
5 publications on innovation in the same journal, surpassing 160 citations per
researcher on average. For the total number of researchers of the ranking, the
average ranking of citations is 100, which shows their high influence. It is
important to note the researchers Simona black and Roald Suurs presenting a high
ratio between citations and number of publications, without being first in the
ranking. In other words, they are not the most published in the journal, 4 and 3
respectively, but do have many cites with these articles.
8
TASM is perhaps one of the most interesting journals. The ranking shows that
there are few papers published by each academic, 6 being the maximum number
presented by two researchers in particular, David Wield and Alan Porter. The
interesting thing about this case is that the two academics who have published the
most have not turned out to be the most influential in the journal. In fact, the
number of citations by the two authors mentioned is relatively low, 28 and 16
respectively. If the above is compared to some researchers, such as Frank Geels,
Staffan Jacobsson and Jeremy Howells, all of which exceed 120 citaitons, we can
understand that productivity and influence are not directly related, hence the
importance of studying both aspects of scientific production. The average number
of publications of our ranking in TASM is 3.3, with a variance of 0.93. Meanwhile,
the average number of citations is 43.33 with a variance of 2281,76. Obviously, the
greater variability in the number of citations that different researchers present
explains their differences in impact and influence of scientific publications over
scientific community.
Finally, Table 6 presents the leading authors in Technovation.
- Table 6 As in the previous case, RDM is a journal that expresses the problem between
productivity and influence. On average, the number of articles published by the
researchers of the ranking is 4.8 with a variance of 11.24. Meanwhile, the number
of average citations per researcher is 98.4 with a variance of 4787. 22 showing the
complexity of the analysis productivity/influence by author. Four cases came to
our attention in the ranking. The authors Wim Vanhaverbeke, Joseph Shyu, Nabil
Amara and Réjean Landry, all exceeded the value of 48 regarding the number of
citations over the number of publications, which partly explains their greater
relative influence over the rest of the researchers in RDM.
3.3. Leading authors in innovation research by periods of time
In order to provide a deeper analysis of the results, in this section we will see the
evolution of the leading authors in innovation research over time. Table 7 to Table
11 presents the leading authors in each period of 5 years (analysis of
quinquennia).
- Table 7 In Table 7, it is possible to see the ranking of leading authors on innovation
research for the five-year period 1989-1993. Roy Rothwell, David Audretsch and
David Teece are the three researchers leading the list for those years. Their cases
are interesting, since they represent the three outstanding conditions of the
transition of innovation research leaders between five-year periods. For example
Roy Rothwell, despite being the first in the ranking of the five-year period 19899
1993, does not appear again within the leading authors on innovation research in
the other quinquennia. Whereas David Audretsch, who has almost always been at
the top of each ranking (see tables 7 to 11), with the sole exception of the last fiveyear period under analysis, 2009-2013 period, where he appears in the 14th
position in the list. Similarly to Roy Rothwell is David Teece, who is also not
present in all the quinquennium rankings. Despite the above, the importance of
Teece is that his case is repeated, appearing in the 12th position of the listing, in the
second five-year period under analysis, 1994-1998 (see table 8). Of the 40 names,
only three researchers present in the ranking in table 7, quinquennium 1989-1993,
appear in the other five-year period listings studied: David Audretsch, Michael
Song and Hariolf Grupp. Seven others, including David Teece, Alfred Kleinknecht,
Jane Howell, Mark Parry, Varun Grover, Zoltan Acs and Peter Nijkamp, repeated
only once in any of the analyzed quinquennia. The other thirty academics from
table 7 did not appear again in the other listings in tables 8 to 11.
- Table 8 In Table 8 it is possible to see the ranking of leading authors for the five-year
period 1994-1998. In this ranking, it is possible to observe that there are seven
authors who also appear in listings of leading researchers in the other three
quinquennia developed until the year 2013. The authors Michael Song, David
Audretsch, Michael Hitt, John Bessant, Philip Cooke, Roger Calantone and Hariolf
Grupp all appear again within the rankings that are presented in tables 9 to 11. It is
striking that, from the listing of 40 leading authors in the discipline that table 8.27
shows the authors are not present again in the other quinquennia under analysis.
Without a doubt, this could show that different researchers in general are
interested in publishing innovation research, being a very small group of
academics who are consolidated as authors who are more productive and
influential in the discipline.
- Table 9 Table 9 explains the ranking of leading authors in innovation research for the fiveyear period 1999-2003. As in the previous cases, there are few researchers who
appear in the different rankings in the other quinquennia analysed, only 13 out of
40. The most noteworthy cases are those of David Audretsch, Michael Hitt, Stephen
Roper, Michael Song, John Bessant and Hariolf Grupp who are present in the
rankings of leading authors on innovation for the following quinquennia analysed,
which will help us to understand the influence of these authors in the last 15 years
analysed. All these authors, who not only stand out in a quinquennia ranking in
particular, but also appear in the rest of the periods analysed, present a growth in
the number of publications on themes of innovation research per quinquennium.
For example, if we analyse David Audretsch’s case, we can see that in the period
1989-1993 he published 6 articles on innovation research, in the period 19941998 he published 10 articles and in the period 1999-2003 he published 15
articles. Professor Audretsch represents a typical case of increase in the number of
10
publications as the quinquennia move on. In the case of this author, the number of
citations of published work in this period, quinuennium 1999-2003, is lower than
the number of published citations in the previous period, quinuennium 19941998, but higher than the citations in quinuennium 1989-1993. Obviously, not all
the work by an author, using as an example Professor Audretsch’s case, has the
same influence and impact on the world of science. Certainly the work presented
between 1994 and1998 has greater influence.
- Table 10 Table 10 explains the ranking of leading authors in innovation research for the
quinquennium 2004-2008. Unlike the previous quinquennia, these quinquennia
are featured because the researchers in the ranking present higher productivity in
terms of the number of published articles. If in the first quinquennium, period
1989 - 1993 no academic surpassed 10 publications, in the second quinquennium
only 5 researchers did, in the third 7made it, in this fourth quinquennium, period
2004-2008, more than 50% of the researchers of the ranking surpassed 10
publications, being on average 10.4 publications per researcher. Evidently, access
to new high quality scientific journals, most of which are indexed in the Web of
Science, has allowed a greater number of researchers to publish their work on
innovation research.
- Table 11 Table 11 explains the ranking of leading authors in innovation research for the last
quinquennium analyzed, period 2009-2013. It is possible to observe that out of the
40 researchers from the list, 17 of them appear in one of the previous listings,
tables 7 to 10, which means that those that most stood out because of their h-index
in innovation between the years 2009 - 2013 also presented outstanding
leadership in previous years. The analysis of the researchers’ productivity in this
latest ranking is particular; the average number of publications of the authors of
this ranking is 16.2 articles, much higher than the average productivity in the
former quinquennia (10.4 in 2004-2008, 8.1 in 1999-2003, 7 in 1994-1998 and 3.9
in 1989-1993). Additionally, it is important to stress that there has been an
increase in the scientific production of innovation research which is higher than
the average growth rate of the scientific production of the set of scientific
disciplines that are observed in the databases of Web of Science. Also the
development of specialized journals in innovation research, such as those outlined
in table 2, has allowed young researchers and those with greater experience, to be
more likely to publish their research in high-impact journals.
11
3.4
Bibliographic coupling and co-citation between the most productive and
influential authors in innovation research
Finally, this work presents an analysis of the citation structure of innovation
research by authors through the concepts of bibliographic coupling and cocitation.
According to Martyn (1964), bibliographic coupling appears when two different
studies reference a common third study in their bibliographies. Figure 1 shows the
bibliographic coupling between the most productive and influential authors in
innovation research.
- Figure 1 It is possible to observe several groups of authors who are bibliographically
coupled, presenting a very huge bibliographic network. For example, Michael Hiit,
Skaker Zahra y Robert Hoskisson can be called a good network of American
authors. Another group of authors who are bibliographically coupled are
represented by the Italians Giovanni Dosi and Franco Malerba. In addition, there is
a more diverse group of authors from countries such as Germany, United States,
United Kingdom and Netherlands, such as Philip Cooke, Michael Fritsch, Andrés
Rodríguez-Pose, and Loet Leydesdorff. All these groups analyze literature in
common and often cite specific documents similar to their lines of research on
innovation. The previous analysis allows us to identify common study groups, with
highly correlated literature.
On the other hand, according to (Small, 1973), co-citation measures the frequency
with which two documents are cited together by other documents. Figure 2
presents the co-citation structure of the most productive and influential authors in
innovation research.
- Figure 2 In this case, leading authors in innovation research from our ranking (see table 1),
and other classic authors who are highly recognized for their contributions to
innovation research, appear to have the highest influence in the co-citation
analysis. According to this analysis, David Teece, Wesley Cohen and Richard
Nelson would be the authors who receive the most citations compared to other
authors in the world. It is remarkable that the earlier names are receiving even
more citations than classic names such as that of Joseph Schumpeter, typically
cited in any scientific work on innovation. As in the case of bibliographic coupling,
in co-citation analysis there are academics who are cited the most. These groups
include Professors David Audretsch, Zvi Griliches, and Adam Jaffe which are highly
cited, and by joint work, or also the group consisting of professors Michael Hitt,
Shaker Zahra and Danny Miller, who are also highly cited by other similar work.
David Teece, Wesley Cohen and Richard Nelson’s cases are remarkable, for
receiving citations transversely by different authors from all over the world.
12
4. CONCLUSIONS
This work presents a general overview of the leading authors in innovation
research between 1989 and 2013. Different analyses were performed, both at a
general level for the described period, and also at the level of specialized journals
and by quinquennia.
First, the analysis focused on studying a ranking of 50 leading authors that present
a greater h-index in the discipline. In this ranking, it is possible to observe an
interesting discussion that reveals that the most productive researchers, i.e., those
who have a greater quantity of published work, are not necessarily the most
influential, i.e. those who have a greater number of citations by the scientific
community. There are several authors who despite presenting fewer publications,
are frequently cited by other researchers. Perhaps one of the most interesting
cases is David Teece’s, researcher who is notable for having the largest number of
citations, almost 8 thousand citations, with only 31 articles in innovation research
published for the period of analysis, with an average of 257,7 citations per article.
Other authors, such as Ulrich Lichtenthaler, Michael Song, John Bessant, Philip
Nicholas Cooke, among others, present a greater number of publications, over 40
items for the period under analysis, but with fewer number of citations by article
regarding Teece, between 20 and 38 articles on average by author. Obviously,
greater productivity does not imply greater influence. Except in the case of
Professor David Audretsch, present in our ranking, who with more than 4500
citations and 63articles, presents the highest h-index.
Second, taking into account the seven most specialized and recognized journals in
innovation research - International Journal of Technology Management, Journal of
Product Innovation Management, R&D Management, Research Policy,
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Technology Analysis and Strategic
Management, and Technovation - it was possible to develop a particular analysis of
authors with higher h-index in innovation. Regarding individual journals, it is
corroborated again that the researchers presenting greater productivity do not
necessarily become the most influential. The above is also true for specialized
journals. However, Research Policy, Journal of Product Innovation Management,
R&D Management, and Technological Forecasting and Social Change stand out,
they are journals where authors who appear at the top of each ranking are
noticeable due to the high number of citations that have, exceeding even over a
thousand citations per researcher, such as the cases of Henry Etzkowitz , Loet
Leydesdorff and Eric Von Hippel on Research Policy, with 5, 8 and 11 publications,
respectively. In this case, it is possible to note more clearly the influence that an
author can have depends strongly on the quality, novelty and attraction of the
article by a researcher, rather than the number of publications that he /she
possesses in the discipline.
Third, a quinquenial analysis, five periods of five years each, allowed us to
recognize researchers who have been most influential in the discipline over 25
years of study. Specifically, David Audretsch, Michael Song, Michael Hitt, John
Bessant, Philip Cooke, Roger Calantone and Hariolf Grupp, who are present in the
vast majority of the quinquennia analyzed, which showss their high influence over
time, and not only in a particular period. All these authors, not only stand out for
the number of scientific articles they have published from period to period, but
also by the largest number of citations that they have accumulated, and the
13
influence that they have generated in the discipline. The analysis of quinquennia
shows the significant increase that the scientific discipline of innovation has had,
which allows the number of papers published on innovation research to increase
year after year, both in specialized journals as in non-specialised ones, which leads
to an interesting debate, which is particularly important if we want to analyse both
the number of new publications in the discipline, and also their impact. Cancino et
al. (2015) show that almost 50% of the current scientific production in innovation
research presents no citations, or if they are present, these are autocites, which
reflects the low impact and influence of certain work. Hence the importance of the
rankings presented in this study, which allow us to observe the differences
between the most productive authors and the most influential authors in
innovation research more clearly.
While we believe that the results of this work are valuable, we believe that it is
necessary to deepen and complement the information presented with new studies
that allow understanding how innovation research publications in different
journals in the Web of Science have increased, specialized and general and see
what the ratio of citations between these journals is. This would allow us to
recognize if the largest number of publications and citations of certain authors,
were linked to the network of contacts that is generated within the group of
authors who are concentrated around a journal, rather than by influence in the
scientific world, given the quality and appeal of their work. In this sense, we still
see need to further develop studies to complement the analysis of what the most
influential countries in innovation research and universities are and which
journals have greater impact and influence on the material.
The results of this work are particularly different from previous studies by
Fagerberg and Verspagen (2009), Thieme (2007) and Yang and Tao (2012). In the
case of the first work, Fagerberg and Verspagen presented an analysis of the most
influential authors in innovation research taking into account all the years of
history, which leads to highlight the classic papers by Freeman (1974),
Schumpeter (1942), Arrow (1962, 1966), Schumpeter (1934), among others. In
our work the focus is on the most influential authors of the past 25 years instead,
recognizing those who have allowed the frontiers of knowledge to extend in recent
years. In the cases of Thieme (2007) and Yang and Tao (2012), their analysis is
based primarily on measuring productivity, and to a lesser extent on measuring
influence, so that the results of our work allows is to activate the discussion on
whether only a greater volume of scientific production is desirable, or if the impact
and influence of each academic work is what is actually valuable.
14
REFERENCES
Alonso, S., Cabrerizo, F.J., Herrera-Viedmac, E. & Herrerac, F. (2009). h-Index: A
review focused in its variants, computation and standardization for
different scientific fields. Journal of Informetrics, 3, 273–289
Arrow, K.J. (1962). The economic implications of learning by doing. Review of
Economic Studies, 29, 155-73.
Biemans, W., Griffin, A. & Moenaert, R. (2007). Twenty years of the Journal of
Product Innovation Management: History, participants, and knowledge
stock and flows. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 24, 193–213.
Biemans, W., Griffin, A. & Moenaert, R. (2010). In search of the classics: A study of
the impact of JPIM papers from 1984 to 2003. Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 27, 461–484.
Broadus, R.N. (1987). Toward a definition of bibliometrics. Scientometrics, 12, 373379.
Cancino, C., Merigó, J.M. & Palacios-Marqués, D. (2015). A bibliometric analysis of
innovation research. CID Working Papers, 2015-02, University of Chile, Chile.
Cohen, W. & Levinthal, D. (1989). Innovation and learning: two faces of R&D. The
Economic Journal, 99 (397), 569–596.
Cohen, W. & Levinthal, D. (1990). Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on
learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128–152.
Durisin, B., Calabretta, G. & Parmeggiani, V. (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, 437–451.
Egghe, L. (2006). Theory and practice of the g-index. Scientometrics, 69(1), 131–
152.
Fagerberg, J. & Verspagen, B. (2009). Innovation studies: The emerging structure of a
new scientific field. Research Policy, 38, 218–233.
Fagerberg, J., Fosaas, M., & Sapprasert, K. (2012). Innovation: exploring the
knowledge base. Research Policy, 41, 1132–1153.
Freeman, C. (1974). The Economics of Industrial Innovation.
Harmondsworth.
Penguin,
Freeman, C., Clark, J. & Soete, L. (1982). Unemployment and Technical Innovation: A
Study of Long Waves and Economic Development. Pinter, London.
Hirsch, J.E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America, 102, 16569–16572.
Linton, J.D. & Thongpapanl, N. (2004). Perspective: Ranking the technology
innovation management journals. Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 21 (2), 123-39.
Lundvall, B. (1992). National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation
and Interactive Learning. Pinter, London, pp. 275–305.
15
Martin, B.R. (2012). The evolution of science policy and innovation studies.
Research Policy, 41, 1219–1239.
Nelson, R. (1993). National innovation systems: A comparative analysis. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Nelson, R. & Winter, S. (1977). In search of a useful theory of innovation. Research
Policy, 6 (1), 36–76.
Nelson, R. & Winter, S. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Ballknap
Press, Cambridge.
Pavitt, K. (1984). Sectoral patterns of technical change: towards a taxonomy and
theory. Research Policy, 13, 343–373.
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 the management literature in the
past quarter century. Journal of Management, 34, 641–720.
Rosenberg, N. (1976). Perspectives on Technology. Cambridge University Press,
New York.
Rosenberg, N. (1982). Inside the Black Box: Technology and Economics. Cambridge
University Press, New York.
Schmookler, J. (1966). Invention and Economic Growth. Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Schumpeter, J.A. (1934). The theory of Economic Development. Harvard University
Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Schumpeter, J.A. (1942). Capitalism, socialism e democracy. Harper and Row, New
York.
Shafique, M. (2013). Thinking inside the box: Intellectual structure of the
knowledge base of innovation research (1988–2008). Strategic
Management Journal, 34, 62–93.
Teece, D. (1986). Profiting from technological innovation: implications for
integration collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy, 15,
285–305.
Thieme, J. (2007). Perspective: the world’s top innovation management scholars and
their social capital. Journal of Product Innovation Management 24 (3), 214-229.
Yang, P. & Tao, L. (2012). Perspective: Ranking of the world’s top innovation
management scholars and universities. Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 29(2), 319-331.
16
Table 1. Leading authors in innovation research between 1989-2013
R
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
FULL NAME
David B. Audretsch
Michael A Hitt
Shaker A. Zahra
Rajshree Agarwal
Eric Von Hippel
David J. Teece
Will Mitchell
Robert G Cooper
Bart Verspagen
John Bessant
Philip Nicholas Cooke
Mike Wright
Geert Duysters
Michael Song
Michael Fritsch
Philippe Aghion
Reinhilde Veugelers
Julian Birkinshaw
Ulrich Lichtenthaler
Loet Leydesdorff
Zoltan J Acs
Henk W Volberda
Stephen Roper
Gina Coleralli O'Connor
Roberto Verganti
Varun Grover
Koenraad Debackere
Roger J Calantone
Abbie Griffin
Georg Von Krogh
James H Love
Harald Bathelt
Yuan Li
Andres Rodriguez-Pose
Hariolf Grupp
Eric Jan Hultink
Franco Malerba
Vittorio Chiesa
Albert N Link
Dirk Czarnitzki
Guan Jiancheng
Cristiano Antonelli
Yu-Shan Chen
Yi Liu
Chihiro Watanabe
Oliver Gassmann
David Doloreux
Chung-Jen Chen
Yongtae Park
Helen Lawton Smith
UNIVERSITY
Indiana U.
Texas A&M U.
U. Minnesota TC
U. Maryland
MIT
U. Calif. Berkeley
U. Toronto
McMaster U.
Maastricht U.
Imperial C.London
Bergen U. College
Imperial C.London
Tilburg U.
U. Missouri - K.C.
U. Jena
Harvard U.
KU Leuven
London Bus Sch
U. Mannheim
U. Amsterdam
George Mason U.
Erasmus U. Rott.
U. Warwick
Rensselaer P. Inst.
Polytech. U. Milan
Clemson U.
KU Leuven
Michigan St. U.
U. Utah
Swiss F.I.T. Zurich
Aston U.
U. Toronto
Shanghai Jiao T.U.
London Sch.Eco.
U. Karlsruhe
Delft U. Techn.
Bocconi U.
Polytech. U. Milan
U. North Carolina
KU Leuven
U. Chinese Aca. Sc.
U. Torino
National Taipei U.
Shanghai Jiao T. U.
Tokyo Inst. Tech.
U. St. Gallen
U. Ottawa
National Taiwan U.
Seoul National U.
U. London
COU
USA
USA
USA
USA
USA
USA
CAN
CAN
NLD
GBR
NOR
GBR
NLD
USA
DEU
USA
BEL
GBR
DEU
NLD
USA
NLD
GBR
USA
ITA
USA
BEL
USA
USA
CHE
GBR
CAN
CHN
GBR
DEU
NLD
ITA
ITA
USA
BEL
CHN
ITA
CHN
CHN
JPN
CHE
CAN
CHN
KOR
GBR
TPI
63
28
35
36
29
31
31
26
29
43
40
29
28
44
27
23
23
22
45
38
27
24
21
28
28
26
25
34
28
26
25
24
36
31
28
27
26
26
30
30
25
26
16
16
38
24
23
22
27
24
TCI
4510
4511
4682
2708
3200
7988
1583
1784
961
1253
1549
1026
1070
923
887
3038
1911
1837
931
1484
1622
1789
770
865
677
1424
756
1348
1123
1532
619
1619
441
686
527
587
1317
556
749
504
376
379
431
301
324
641
241
353
307
360
HI
32
25
23
22
22
21
20
20
19
18
18
18
18
17
17
17
17
17
16
16
16
16
16
15
15
15
15
14
14
14
14
14
13
13
13
13
13
13
12
12
12
11
11
11
10
10
10
10
9
9
TP
135
117
91
40
39
57
62
47
47
85
92
192
45
77
48
81
40
57
60
212
71
58
24
34
42
125
58
96
73
51
55
44
47
98
60
38
42
36
69
38
46
59
23
26
66
41
30
36
40
45
TC
6516
10470
8034
1106
3284
9048
2958
3027
1393
1585
1927
6212
1602
913
1362
7048
2135
4603
1009
4994
2703
2910
304
952
921
4510
1319
2939
2749
1939
996
1837
110
1701
921
878
1648
736
1170
598
710
585
449
51
499
1446
270
255
521
379
H
39
53
43
17
24
26
28
30
24
21
22
43
23
17
22
38
20
33
17
39
27
26
11
17
17
33
21
26
16
18
17
17
6
25
16
18
17
14
18
14
16
12
7
4
12
16
10
6
14
10
17
Table 2. Specialized Journals in Innovation Research
Journals
International Journal of Technology Management
Journal of Product Innovation Management
R&D Management
Research Policy
Technological Forecasting and Social Change
Technology Analysis and Strategic Management
Technovation
IF
0.492
1.379
1.266
2.598
1.959
0.841
2.704
5Y-IF
0.659
2.770
2.635
3.989
2.405
1.285
3.251
Table 3. Leading authors in innovation in International Journal of Technology
Management and Journal of Product Innovation Management
R
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Internat. Journal of Tech. Management
Author
TP
TC
H
TC/TP
Bessant J
10 115
5 11,50
Corso M
10
70
5
7,00
Lu IY
7
23
4
3,29
Howells J
5
58
4 11,60
Cabral R
5
21
4
4,20
Cooke P
4
76
4 19,00
Smeds R
4
28
4
7,00
Hyland P
7
33
3
4,71
Bowonder B
7
14
3
2,00
Herstatt C
5
40
3
8,00
Chanaron JJ
5
28
3
5,60
Chiesa V
4
33
3
8,25
Bart CK
4
27
3
6,75
Yang J
4
19
3
4,75
Wu SH
4
13
3
3,25
Lettl C
3
40
3 13,33
Phaal R
3
37
3 12,33
Probert DR
3
37
3 12,33
White S
3
33
3 11,00
Liu XL
3
30
3 10,00
Manzini R
3
28
3
9,33
Lee J
3
26
3
8,67
Salmador MP
3
18
3
6,00
Chiaromonte F
8
11
2
1,38
Boer H
6
93
2 15,50
Abetti PA
6
15
2
2,50
Tuominen M
6
11
2
1,83
Martini A
5
18
2
3,60
Ulhoi JP
5
7
2
1,40
Gertsen F
4
50
2 12,50
Paolucci E
4
19
2
4,75
Jorgensen F
4
8
2
2,00
Lin LH
4
6
2
1,50
Liyanage S
3
27
2
9,00
Soosay C
3
25
2
8,33
Smits R
3
16
2
5,33
Wu HL
3
11
2
3,67
Kurokawa S
3
10
2
3,33
Lin CH
3
6
2
2,00
Miyake T
3
5
2
1,67
Journal of Product Innovation Management
Author
TP
TC
H
TC/TP
Hultink EJ
19
488
12
25,68
Calantone RJ
25 1459
11
58,36
Song M
18
381
10
21,17
Griffin A
17
726
10
42,71
Kleinschmidt EJ
12 1260
10 105,00
Song XM
11
799
10
72,64
Souder WE
9
528
8
58,67
Cooper RG
8 1170
8 146,25
Parry ME
14
350
7
25,00
De Brentani U
10
413
7
41,30
Salomo S
10
212
7
21,20
Droge C
8
333
7
41,63
O'Connor GC
13
407
6
31,31
Verganti R
9
207
6
23,00
Athaide GA
7
149
6
21,29
Schreier M
6
272
6
45,33
Barczak G
8
189
5
23,63
Robben HSJ
6
255
5
42,50
Talke K
6
73
5
12,17
Garcia R
5
728
5 145,60
Veryzer RW
5
472
5
94,40
Langerak F
7
160
4
22,86
Kahn KB
7
147
4
21,00
Lynn GS
5
175
4
35,00
Duysters G
5
168
4
33,60
Van Der BIJ
5
166
4
33,20
Akgun AE
5
100
4
20,00
Ettlie JE
5
90
4
18,00
Rijsdijk SA
5
38
4
7,60
Van LOOY B
4
252
4
63,00
Markham SK
8
143
3
17,88
Nakata C
7
78
3
11,14
Kawakami T
7
29
3
4,14
McNally RC
6
29
3
4,83
Goffin K
5
67
3
13,40
Van Den Ende
5
24
3
4,80
Slater SF
4
484
3 121,00
Schmidt JB
4
228
3
57,00
Reid SE
4
148
3
37,00
Paladino A
4
65
3
16,25
18
Table 4. Leading authors in innovation in R&D Management and Research Policy
R
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
R&D Management
Author
TP
TC
Gassmann O
10 516
Herstatt C
6 222
Chiesa V
7 138
Ernst H
5 185
Lichtenthaler U
6 158
Bessant J
6
67
Rothwell R
4 484
Enkel E
4 262
Von Zedtwitz M
4 144
Manzini R
4 112
Debackere K
4
96
Kim Y
4
70
Frattini F
4
55
Hobday M
4
45
Chang YC
5
93
Garnsey E
5
32
Brockhoff K
4
45
Howells J
3 132
Tidd J
3 122
Linton JD
3 118
Hauschildt J
3 100
Von Krogh G
3
95
Lefebvre E
3
70
Lefebvre LA
3
70
Macpherson A
3
57
Rush H
3
40
Probert D
4
41
Klofsten M
3 123
Floricel S
3
32
McMillan GS
3
29
Miller R
3
20
Ball DF
5
15
Malik K
4 112
Berggren C
4
28
Verganti R
3
80
Hung SC
3
51
Collinson S
3
44
Jones O
3
38
Pearson A
3
26
Reger G
3
24
H
7
6
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
TC/TP
51,60
37,00
19,71
37,00
26,33
11,17
121,0
65,50
36,00
28,00
24,00
17,50
13,75
11,25
18,60
6,40
11,25
44,00
40,67
39,33
33,33
31,67
23,33
23,33
19,00
13,33
10,25
41,00
10,67
9,67
6,67
3,00
28,00
7,00
26,67
17,00
14,67
12,67
8,67
8,00
Author
Von Hippel E
Leydesdorff L
Archibugi D
Tether BS
Nelson RR
Duysters G
Nightingale P
Verspagen B
Colombo MG
Tijssen RJW
Roper S
Gambardella A
Hagedoorn J
Martin BR
Hobday M
Grupp H
Mowery DC
Fagerberg J
Geels FW
Link AN
Love JH
Kenney M
Blind K
Etzkowitz H
Orsenigo L
Fritsch M
Kleinknecht A
D'Este P
Frenken K
Mangematin V
Autio E
Pavitt K
Henkel J
Malerba F
Laredo P
Freitas IMB
Stoneman P
Iammarino S
Coombs R
Freeman C
Research Policy
TP
TC
11 1029
8 1123
12
213
10
528
9
770
8
426
8
306
8
282
7
366
7
274
10
314
8
520
8
407
8
356
7
610
7
301
7
228
8
220
6
833
6
365
6
281
6
211
6
195
5 1390
5
378
5
324
5
299
5
268
5
248
5
199
5
135
7
386
6
356
5
566
5
164
6
89
6
48
5
189
5
175
5
141
H
9
8
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
2
TC/TP
93,55
140,38
17,75
52,80
85,56
53,25
38,25
35,25
52,29
39,14
31,40
65,00
50,88
44,50
87,14
43,00
32,57
27,50
138,83
60,83
46,83
35,17
32,50
278,00
75,60
64,80
59,80
53,60
49,60
39,80
27,00
55,14
59,33
113,20
32,80
14,83
8,00
37,80
35,00
28,20
19
Table 5. Leading authors in innovation in Technological Forecasting and Social
Change and Technology Analysis and Strategic Management
R
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Technological Forec. and Social Change
Technology Analysis and Strat. Management
Author
Porter AL
Kostoff RN
Watanabe C
Hekkert MP
Walsh ST
Park Y
Salo A
Heitor MV
Conceicao P
Devezas TC
Goldenberg J
Phillips F
Negro SO
Guidolin M
Coccia M
Alkemade F
Linstone HA
Nijkamp P
Phaal R
Smits REHM
Cunningham SW
Grupp H
Kash DE
Linton JD
Markard J
Gibson DV
Suurs RAA
Smits R
Muller E
Robinson DKR
Weber KM
Sirilli G
Shih HY
Van Lente H
Pistorius CWI
Peine A
Koh WTH
Coates JF
Lee S
Meade N
Author
McAdam R
Geels FW
Jacobsson S
Wield D
Galbraith B
Chiesa V
Howells J
Duysters G
Sanden BA
Hekkert MP
Zawdie G
Tait J
Van Lente H
Bakker S
Leydesdorff L
Chataway J
Porter AL
Bessant J
Gemser G
Guo Y
Huang L
Robinson DKR
Clarke K
Hobday M
Jacobs D
Hemphill TA
Harborne P
Hendry C
Magnusson T
Hard M
Raven RPJM
Alegre J
Fontes M
Le Masson P
Verbong G
Wijnberg NM
Vonortas NS
Vergragt PJ
Walsh V
Witkamp MJ
TP
9
9
8
6
6
6
5
8
7
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
8
6
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
5
4
3
3
TC
341
239
68
337
194
128
131
54
53
102
71
32
322
48
45
37
128
19
55
276
82
73
57
52
31
28
260
153
136
64
49
39
25
25
21
16
20
76
78
62
H
8
7
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
TC/TP
37,89
26,56
8,50
56,17
32,33
21,33
26,20
6,75
7,57
20,40
14,20
6,40
80,50
12,00
11,25
9,25
16,00
3,17
11,00
69,00
20,50
18,25
14,25
13,00
7,75
7,00
86,67
51,00
45,33
21,33
16,33
13,00
8,33
8,33
7,00
5,33
4,00
19,00
26,00
20,67
TP
5
4
4
6
5
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
6
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
TC
36
249
122
28
29
52
185
90
83
80
35
34
31
28
25
24
16
29
24
14
14
5
59
46
42
31
23
23
23
22
11
10
10
5
60
41
33
30
20
11
H
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
TC/TP
7,20
62,25
30,50
4,67
5,80
13,00
61,67
30,00
27,67
26,67
11,67
11,33
10,33
9,33
8,33
8,00
2,67
7,25
6,00
3,50
3,50
1,25
19,67
15,33
14,00
10,33
7,67
7,67
7,67
7,33
3,67
3,33
3,33
1,67
30,00
20,50
16,50
15,00
10,00
5,50
20
Table 6. Leading authors in innovation in Technovation
Technovation
R
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Author
Watanabe C
Bessant J
Carayannis EG
Linton JD
Foxall GR
Griffy-Brown C
McAdam R
Kodama M
Wonglimpiyarat J
Lindelof P
Lofsten H
Hameri AP
Roper S
Dooley L
Brown S
Amara N
Landry R
Rothwell R
Kumar V
Roy R
Ottosson S
Lee J
Lichtenthaler U
Fontes M
Ilori MO
Vanhaverbeke W
Shyu JZ
Tzeng GH
Nieto M
Sohal AS
Islam N
Miyazaki K
Spithoven A
Love JH
O'Regan N
Trott P
O'Sullivan D
Phaal R
Probert D
Wang CH
TP
22
9
7
12
7
6
5
5
7
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
TC
227
394
210
98
72
71
103
54
52
80
80
47
65
47
28
193
193
153
98
81
63
46
44
43
17
159
145
117
112
108
88
88
85
83
82
81
75
52
52
50
H
8
7
6
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
TC/TP
10,32
43,78
30,00
8,17
10,29
11,83
20,60
10,80
7,43
16,00
16,00
9,40
16,25
11,75
7,00
48,25
48,25
38,25
24,50
20,25
15,75
11,50
11,00
10,75
4,25
53,00
48,33
39,00
37,33
36,00
29,33
29,33
28,33
27,67
27,33
27,00
25,00
17,33
17,33
16,67
21
Table 7. Leading authors in innovation research between 1989-1993
R
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Author
Rothwell R
Audretsch DB
Teece DJ
Geroski PA
Kleinknecht A
Cohen WM
Howell JM
Helpman E
Dodgson M
Cooper RG
Devinney TM
Parry ME
Song XM
Foxall GR
Chakrabarti AK
Damanpour F
Higgins CA
Grossman GM
Mansfield E
Grover V
Acs ZJ
Cusumano MA
Choi JP
Gifford S
Kanter RM
Brockhoff K
Nijkamp P
Bart CK
Davelaar EJ
Britton JNH
Chiang JT
Berry FS
Berry WD
Hauschildt J
Herbig PA
Bailetti AJ
Goel RK
Grupp H
Hitomi K
Gottinger HW
TPI
7
6
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
6
4
3
3
3
5
3
3
3
3
3
4
3
5
3
3
3
4
3
3
3
5
4
3
3
3
4
TCI
652
478
611
261
257
9108
1300
885
740
401
210
173
173
66
61
1821
904
611
421
286
267
246
84
62
61
54
50
45
43
35
21
574
574
64
34
32
32
30
12
4
HI
7
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
TCI/TPI
93,14
79,67
122,20
52,20
51,40
2277,00
325,00
221,25
185,00
100,25
52,50
43,25
43,25
11,00
15,25
607,00
301,33
203,67
84,20
95,33
89,00
82,00
28,00
20,67
15,25
18,00
10,00
15,00
14,33
11,67
5,25
191,33
191,33
21,33
6,80
8,00
10,67
10,00
4,00
1,00
% PI >250 >100 >50 TP TC HG
0,25 1
3
3 28 1060 15
0,46 0
2
2 13 750 8
0,56 1
2
2
9 870 7
0,56 0
1
1
9 298 7
0,83 0
1
2
6 257 5
0,57 2
2
4
7 9224 6
0,10 3
3
4 39 1919 15
0,29 2
2
4 14 1591 12
0,33 1
3
3 12 814 7
0,11 0
2
2 36 1520 20
0,67 0
1
1
6 218 4
0,44 0
0
2
9 485 7
0,36 0
0
2 11 299 7
0,32 0
0
0 19 161 8
0,11 0
0
0 38 419 14
0,50 1
2
2
6 1920 4
0,30 2
2
3 10 1322 7
0,27 1
1
3 11 1295 9
0,19 1
1
2 27 941 13
0,10 0
1
1 31 893 12
0,30 0
1
1 10 538 8
0,33 0
1
2
9 494 5
0,75 0
0
1
4
90
3
0,33 0
0
0
9 183 7
0,40 0
0
0 10 227 7
0,27 0
0
0 11 217 7
0,12 0
0
0 42 218 7
1,00 0
0
0
3
45
3
1,00 0
0
0
3
43
3
1,00 0
0
0
3
35
3
0,40 0
0
0 10 33
3
1,00 1
2
2
3 574 2
0,20 1
2
2 15 901 12
1,00 0
0
0
3
64
2
0,63 0
0
0
8
46
3
0,80 0
0
0
5
42
3
0,12 0
0
0 25 291 9
0,33 0
0
0
9 136 5
0,14 0
0
0 21 191 8
0,36 0
0
0 11 26
2
TC/TP
37,86
57,69
96,67
33,11
42,83
1317,71
49,21
113,64
67,83
42,22
36,33
53,89
27,18
8,47
11,03
320,00
132,20
117,73
34,85
28,81
53,80
54,89
22,50
20,33
22,70
19,73
5,19
15,00
14,33
11,67
3,30
191,33
60,07
21,33
5,75
8,40
11,64
15,11
9,10
2,36
22
Table 8. Leading authors in innovation research between 1994-1998
R
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Author
Song XM
Grover V
Audretsch DB
Souder WE
Kogut B
Miner AS
West MA
Garud R
Mowery DC
Chiesa V
Autio E
Teece DJ
Hitt MA
Nelson RR
Cooper RG
Premkumar G
Hobday M
Bessant J
Venkataraman S
Archibugi D
Coombs R
Evangelista R
Teng JTC
Feldman MP
Cooke P
Florida R
Jaffe AB
Kleinschmidt EJ
Calantone RJ
Ramamurthy K
Acs ZJ
Kelley MR
Grupp H
Fiedler KD
Eisenhardt KM
Geisler E
Dibenedetto CA
Hameri AP
Bowonder B
Rudall BH
TPI
12
13
10
10
7
7
7
7
7
8
9
7
6
6
6
6
7
8
6
6
6
6
6
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
5
6
5
5
7
5
5
7
17
TCI HI TCI/TPI
1119 12
93,25
515 10
39,62
2196 9 219,60
590 8
59,00
2963 7 423,29
1504 7 214,86
925 7 132,14
698 7
99,71
412 7
58,86
306 7
38,25
200 7
22,22
6389 6 912,71
1715 6 285,83
1041 6 173,50
607 6 101,17
559 6
93,17
499 6
71,29
469 6
58,63
408 6
68,00
351 6
58,50
254 6
42,33
224 6
37,33
120 6
20,00
1977 5 395,40
701 5 140,20
666 5 133,20
645 5 129,00
567 5 113,40
549 5
91,50
459 5
76,50
436 5
72,67
271 5
54,20
127 5
21,17
95 5
19,00
3452 4 690,40
100 4
14,29
96 4
19,20
30 3
6,00
18 3
2,57
1 1
0,06
% PI >250 >100 >50 TP TC HG TC/TP
0,27
0
5
7 45 2555 25 56,78
0,30
0
1
4 44 1331 19 30,25
0,59
2
5
5 17 3010 13 177,06
0,50
0
2
6 20 830 12 41,50
0,39
4
6
6 18 3660 12 203,33
0,88
3
6
6
8 1538 8 192,25
0,18
2
2
5 40 2634 26 65,85
0,54
1
3
3 13 806 10 62,00
0,44
0
2
3 16 1636 12 102,25
0,50
0
1
2 16 651 12 40,69
0,69
0
0
1 13 281 9 21,62
0,78
2
5
6
9 6754 8 750,44
0,43
3
5
6 14 2086 12 149,00
0,35
2
3
5 17 1536 11 90,35
0,19
1
2
3 32 2096 23 65,50
0,86
0
2
4
7 608 7 86,86
0,44
0
2
2 16 713 11 44,56
0,47
0
2
4 17 505 8 29,71
0,12
0
2
3 51 1488 19 29,18
1,00
0
2
2
6 352 6 58,67
0,07
0
0
3 90 7120 36 79,11
0,21
0
1
1 28 1464 20 52,29
0,29
0
0
0 21 785 15 37,38
1,00
2
4
5
5 1986 5 397,20
0,05
1
2
3 96 3569 28 37,18
0,26
0
3
3 19 1271 11 66,89
0,25
0
3
5 20 2521 17 126,05
0,56
1
2
3
9 886 9 98,44
0,43
1
1
2 14 865 12 61,79
0,40
0
2
3 15 530 8 35,33
0,75
1
1
2
8 447 6 55,88
0,12
0
1
2 42 1589 23 37,83
0,35
0
0
0 17 408 10 24,00
0,63
0
0
0
8 183 8 22,88
0,45
4
4
4 11 3874 9 352,18
0,47
0
0
0 15 124 5
8,27
0,83
0
0
0
6
97 4 16,17
0,31
0
0
0 16 155 6
9,69
0,64
0
0
0 11
30 3
2,73
0,57
0
0
0 30
4 1
0,13
23
Table 9. Leading authors in innovation research between 1999-2003
R
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Author
Audretsch DB
Von Hippel E
O'Connor GC
Zahra SA
Hitt MA
Shane S
Link AN
Swan J
Verspagen B
Lynn GS
Roper S
Sambamurthy V
Varga A
Deeds DL
Tatikonda MV
Thomke S
Atuahene-Gima K
Kessler EH
Laland KN
Scott JT
Song M
Bessant J
Souder WE
Rice MP
Watanabe C
Stern S
Leydesdorff L
Orsenigo L
Van Reenen J
Hultink EJ
Howells J
Corso M
Denicolo V
Grupp H
Glass AJ
Wright M
Niosi J
Kash DE
Blind K
Boer H
TPI
15
11
10
9
8
8
10
8
8
8
9
8
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
8
7
10
7
7
15
7
10
7
7
7
7
8
7
8
7
7
7
7
7
6
TCI
1012
2371
607
3163
2075
1879
567
485
378
372
349
1534
791
757
751
603
591
447
398
360
340
274
238
206
178
1159
1127
550
473
201
153
108
96
139
230
219
163
114
104
146
HI TCI/TPI % PI >250 >100 >50 TP
TC HG
12
67,47 0,65
1
3
4 23 1481 19
11 215,55 1,00
2
10 11 11 2371 11
10
60,70 1,00
0
1
5 10
607 10
9 351,44 0,82
2
7
8 11 3468 11
8 259,38 0,50
3
7
8 16 3423 14
8 234,88 0,33
2
5
7 24 5060 20
8
56,70 0,83
1
1
3 12
587 9
8
60,63 0,10
0
1
3 77 8128 31
8
47,25 0,73
0
1
3 11
496 10
8
46,50 0,62
0
0
3 13
437 10
8
38,78 0,15
0
0
3 59 2234 26
7 191,75 0,62
2
5
7 13 2155 12
7 113,00 0,07
1
3
5 96 3047 30
7 108,14 1,00
1
2
5
7
757 7
7 107,29 1,00
0
4
5
7
751 7
7
86,14 0,54
0
2
4 13
656 8
7
84,43 0,70
1
1
4 10
747 9
7
63,86 0,88
0
2
4
8
454 7
7
56,86 0,35
0
0
4 20 2097 18
7
45,00 0,35
0
0
3 23
663 14
7
48,57 0,01
0
1
2 573 12003 51
7
27,40 0,53
0
0
2 19
377 9
7
34,00 1,00
0
0
1
7
238 7
7
29,43 0,78
0
0
1
9
279 8
6
11,87 0,11
0
0
2 134 3676 32
6 165,57 0,04
1
1
3 156 5858 39
6 112,70 0,45
2
4
6 22 1275 12
6
78,57 0,64
1
1
3 11
622 8
6
67,57 0,50
0
2
5 14 1041 10
6
28,71 0,78
1
1
3
9
254 8
6
21,86 0,64
0
0
1 11
431 8
6
13,50 0,80
0
0
1 10
165 7
6
13,71 0,50
0
0
0 14
160 8
5
17,38 0,47
0
0
0 17
268 7
5
32,86 0,64
0
1
2 11
345 6
5
31,29 0,01
0
0
2 498 17402 64
5
23,29 0,78
0
0
2
9
221 7
5
16,29 0,88
0
0
0
8
114 5
5
14,86 0,88
0
0
0
8
127 6
4
24,33 0,17
0
0
2 35 1280 19
24
TC/TP
64,39
215,55
60,70
315,27
213,94
210,83
48,92
105,56
45,09
33,62
37,86
165,77
31,74
108,14
107,29
50,46
74,70
56,75
104,85
28,83
20,95
19,84
34,00
31,00
27,43
37,55
57,95
56,55
74,36
28,22
39,18
16,50
11,43
15,76
31,36
34,94
24,56
14,25
15,88
36,57
Table 10. Leading authors in innovation research between 2004-2008
R
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Author
Audretsch DB
Bessant J
Geels FW
Birkinshaw J
Cooke P
Rothaermel FT
Veugelers R
McCann P
Hoegl M
Song M
Lichtenthaler U
Roper S
Bathelt H
Salter A
Duysters G
Debackere K
Rodriguez-Pose A
Czarnitzki D
Aghion P
Fleming L
Zahra SA
Wong PK
Hitt MA
Fritsch M
Mitchell W
Castellacci F
Watanabe C
Von Hippel E
Herstatt C
Calantone RJ
Garcia-Morales VJ
Agarwal R
Liu Y
Macpherson A
Chen CJ
Doloreux D
McAleer M
Mulej M
Grupp H
Bagchi-Sen S
TPI
16
15
11
11
13
10
13
10
10
11
13
15
11
11
10
10
10
9
8
9
9
9
8
8
10
8
17
9
8
8
9
7
10
13
9
9
10
11
8
8
TCI
832
552
1346
865
378
1496
1184
542
511
452
415
303
1443
1271
665
609
510
215
945
902
812
683
576
401
276
204
123
641
368
309
291
280
230
227
213
157
121
91
253
67
HI TCI/TPI % PI >250 >100 >50 TP
TC HG
14
52,00 0,67
0
1
7 24 1194 19
12
36,80 0,60
0
1
4 25
709 14
11 122,36 0,85
2
3
7 13 1367 11
11
78,64 0,58
1
2
5 19 1851 18
11
29,08 0,62
0
0
2 21 4306 9
10 149,60 0,77
1
6
9 13 1670 12
10
91,08 0,65
1
4
6 20 1273 11
10
54,20 0,21
0
1
5 47 1300 19
10
51,10 0,63
0
1
6 16
766 15
19
41,09 0,85
0
0
3 13
484 9
10
31,92 0,93
0
1
3 14
468 11
10
20,20 0,19
0
0
1 79 2556 26
9 131,18 0,85
1
2
5 13 1453 9
9 115,55 0,22
1
3
4 49 2131 21
9
66,50 0,67
0
2
5 15
890 12
9
60,90 0,53
0
3
3 19
822 12
9
51,00 0,50
0
1
5 20
772 14
9
23,89 0,75
0
0
1 12
266 10
8 118,13 0,35
1
3
5 23 1688 17
8 100,22 0,09
0
5
6 98 3609 32
8
90,22 0,41
1
3
4 22 2040 18
8
75,89 0,10
1
1
1 91 4607 29
8
72,00 0,30
0
2
4 27 2533 21
8
50,13 0,36
0
0
2 22 9717 12
8
27,60 0,07
0
0
2 136 2945 28
8
25,50 1,00
0
0
1
8
204 8
8
7,24 0,89
0
0
0 19
258 8
7
71,22 0,82
0
4
6 11
678 8
7
46,00 0,62
0
1
4 13
368 7
7
38,63 0,44
0
0
3 18
674 13
7
32,33 0,90
0
0
1 10
466 7
7
40,00 1,00
0
2
3
7
280 7
7
23,00 0,01
0
0
1 775 16418 57
7
17,46 0,13
0
0
1 98 5500 34
7
23,67 0,69
0
0
1 13
224 7
7
17,44 1,00
0
0
0
9
157 7
6
12,10 0,15
0
0
1 66 1258 19
6
8,27 0,50
0
0
0 22
216 9
5
31,63 0,89
0
1
1
9
261 6
5
8,38 0,62
0
0
0 13
77 6
25
TC/TP
49,75
28,36
105,15
97,42
205,05
128,46
63,65
27,66
47,88
37,23
33,43
32,35
111,77
43,49
59,33
43,26
38,60
22,17
73,39
36,83
92,73
50,63
93,81
441,68
21,65
25,50
13,58
61,64
28,31
37,44
46,60
40,00
21,18
56,12
17,23
17,44
19,06
9,82
29,00
5,92
Table 11. Leading authors in innovation research between 2009-2013
R
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Author
Lichtenthaler U
Boschma R
Leydesdorff L
Von Krogh G
Frenken K
Czarnitzki D
Wright M
Chen YS
Gassmann O
Agarwal R
Song M
Ooi KB
Vanhaverbeke W
Audretsch DB
Frattini F
Guan JC
Park Y
Mudambi R
Huggins R
Calantone RJ
Fritsch M
Cooke P
Rodriguez-Pose A
Mazzanti M
Chen CJ
Phaal R
Wincent J
Frishammar J
Verganti R
Parry ME
Griffin A
Roper S
Doloreux D
Molina-Morales FX
Probert D
Mas-Verdu F
Nijkamp P
Chen IS
Chen JK
Link AN
TPI
32
20
24
16
14
18
13
21
19
11
26
17
16
16
13
18
21
13
14
16
13
15
16
15
13
15
19
13
13
13
13
14
13
15
13
15
21
13
13
14
TCI
660
744
423
443
403
249
323
276
579
262
244
193
367
332
227
215
197
187
160
150
195
163
154
139
214
146
132
108
99
86
166
128
128
125
96
75
71
93
92
67
HI TCI/TPI
12
0,05
12
0,03
11
0,06
10
0,04
10
0,03
10
0,07
9
0,04
9
0,08
9
0,03
9
0,04
9
0,11
9
0,09
8
0,04
8
0,05
8
0,06
8
0,08
8
0,11
8
0,07
8
0,09
8
0,11
7
0,07
7
0,09
7
0,10
7
0,11
6
0,06
6
0,10
6
0,14
6
0,12
6
0,13
6
0,15
5
0,08
5
0,11
5
0,10
5
0,12
5
0,14
5
0,20
5
0,30
4
0,14
4
0,14
4
0,21
% PI >250 >100 >50 TP TC HG TC/TP
0,94
0
2
4 34 689 13 20,26
0,87
0
1
3 23 846 15 36,78
0,24
0
0
3 99 2049 26 20,70
0,59
0
1
1 27 498 11 18,44
0,70
0
0
3 20 661 13 33,05
0,78
0
0
0 23 297 11 12,91
0,19
0
0
2 67 1161 16 17,33
0,57
0
0
2 37 391 12 10,57
0,73
0
2
3 26 688 11 26,46
1,00
0
0
1 11 262 9 23,82
0,52
0
0
0 50 542 13 10,84
0,44
0
0
0 39 461 13 11,82
0,84
0
1
1 19 378 8 19,89
0,52
0
1
2 31 461 10 14,87
0,27
0
0
0 49 600 13 12,24
0,40
0
0
0 45 478 13 10,62
0,37
0
0
0 57 604 13 10,60
0,72
0
0
0 18 400 10 22,22
0,18
0
0
0 77 1389 18 18,04
0,57
0
0
0 28 242 12
8,64
0,35
0
0
1 37 288 9
7,78
0,83
0
0
1 18 164 7
9,11
0,36
0
0
0 44 486 13 11,05
0,58
0
0
0 26 222 8
8,54
0,33
0
1
1 39 426 11 10,92
0,54
0
0
0 28 180 7
6,43
0,46
0
0
0 41 424 10 10,34
1,00
0
0
0 13 108 6
8,31
0,93
0
0
0 14 106 6
7,57
0,72
0
0
0 18 104 6
5,78
0,87
0
1
1 15 183 6 12,20
0,16
0
0
0 85 1172 17 13,79
0,72
0
0
0 18 145 6
8,06
0,83
0
0
1 18 133 5
7,39
0,43
0
0
0 30 170 7
5,67
0,83
0
0
0 18
86 5
4,78
0,23
0
0
0 93 546 12
5,87
0,65
0
0
0 20 164 7
8,20
0,65
0
0
0 20 145 7
7,25
0,82
0
0
0 17
75 5
4,41
26
Figure 1. Bibliographic Coupling Analysis
27
Figure 2. Cocitation Analysis
28
CID
Centro de Innovación
para el Desarrollo
www.cid.uchile.cl
Facultad de Economía y Negocios de la Universidad de Chile