Keywords
Startups, entrepreneurship, bibliometric analysis, co-citation, co-occurrence, entrepreneurial drivers
-
Views
-
Downloads
How to cite this article
Kumar M, Yadav M, Rani P et al. Navigating entrepreneurship: insights from a bibliometric review of entrepreneurial drivers and inhibitors in business and management [version 1; peer review: awaiting peer review]. F1000Research 2025, 14:1154 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.169967.1)
NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
Export Citation
Sciwheel
EndNote
Ref. Manager
Bibtex
ProCite
Sente
▬
✚
Review
Navigating entrepreneurship: insights from a bibliometric review of entrepreneurial drivers and inhibitors in business and management
[version 1; peer review: awaiting peer review]
PUBLISHED 22 Oct 2025
OPEN PEER REVIEW
REVIEWER STATUS
Abstract
Corresponding authors:
Mohan Kumar, Mohd Asif Shah
Competing interests:
No competing interests were disclosed.
Grant information:
The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.
Copyright:
© 2025 Kumar M et al.
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
How to cite: Kumar M, Yadav M, Rani P et al. Navigating entrepreneurship: insights from a bibliometric review of entrepreneurial drivers and inhibitors in business and management [version 1; peer review: awaiting peer review]. F1000Research 2025, 14:1154 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.169967.1)
First published: 22 Oct 2025, 14:1154 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.169967.1)
Latest published: 22 Oct 2025, 14:1154 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.169967.1)
1. Introduction
Startups have emerged and grown over the last two decades as undoubtedly the most potent economic force contributing to the development of the world has ever experienced (Galindo & Méndez, 2014; Kuratko, 2005). However, it remains difficult to define entrepreneurship as a single definition in terms of methodologies and approaches (Audretsch, 2012; Davidsson et al., 2006). Initially, entrepreneurship was considered a subfield of broad general management before the last two decades until entrepreneurship approached its maturity and the rating of its journals highly increased (Bebchuk & Fried, 2012). While creating a venture, entrepreneurs may face many unexpected challenges such as high production costs, market failure, and low competitiveness. At this stage, entrepreneurs must correct this scenario by making the right decision, as they should continue their course of action and reframe or abandon it (McMullen, 2015). These decisions are made under uncertainty, and it is difficult for entrepreneurs to determine the best strategy and consequences of the decision (Hampel et al., 2019; Pillai et al., 2020). Entrepreneurship skills are critical for new ventures and equally crucial for existing business organizations (Nguyen et al., 2025). Therefore, academics and scholars have paid more attention to intrapreneurial research over the last few decades (Corbett et al., 2013). Research on the motivational factors and challenges of startups has adopted various approaches (Kumar, Rani, et al., 2025b). An ample amount of literature is available in the different prestigious databases about motivational factors that drive entrepreneurs to launch a startup; however, there is no proper understanding of the motivational factors that reinforce most entrepreneurs (Autio et al., 2001; Carter et al., 2005; Chen & Elston, 2013). These startups are subsidized and different states and central governments run various startup accelerator programs. Recently, these accelerator programs have become progressively popular (Hochberg, 2016). The social implication of the study conducted by McAdam et al. (2016) is that accelerators based on universities are a vital component of entrepreneurship development at the regional level. A growing interest in researching the field of startups highlights the importance of reviewing the existing literature. Bibliometric analysis is a dynamic research strategy adopted to systematically identify and analyze conceptual production in terms of analysis at a different level, methods applied for data analysis, and theoretical background (Kumar et al., 2023; Nguyen et al., 2025; Torres & Augusto, 2019).
Primarily, based on bibliometric analysis, the present study makes three contributions to the literature on startup entrepreneurs. First, it attempts to provide an in-depth review that helps researchers establish a starting point for conducting future research on startup decisions. Second, this study provides a theoretical framework that helps connect the different stages of venture creation, the cognitive aspect of startups, and the temporal dynamics identified in the entrepreneurship literature. The third contribution was identified as comprising the recognition, generation, seizing, testing, and reconfiguration of entrepreneurship options. Many entrepreneurs and scholars have received training and orientation in one of the different fields covered in the management discipline, and considerable research in entrepreneurship has been developed by drawing theoretical frameworks of other diverse subjects (Davidsson et al., 2006; Grant & Perren, 2002). Busenitz et al. (2003) suggest that high openness regarding entrepreneurship facilitates scholarly exchange with other management disciplines.
The current study’s findings present novel insights into the theoretical foundations of research on the motivational factors and challenges of startups, which empowers us to recognize the contribution made by other scholars and help develop a course of action for future research. Therefore, the primary objective of this study is to enhance the breadth and depth of current scholarly investigations by examining the motivations and challenges that entrepreneurs have faced in business and management over the past 30 years.
The present study endeavours to address the answers to the following questions:
RQ1. What is the annual scientific production of articles on entrepreneurial drivers and inhibitors?
RQ2. Who are the most prolific authors in entrepreneurial drivers and inhibitors?
RQ3. What are the most cited documents of the incorporated domain?
RQ4. What are the most prolific journals publishing the maximum number of articles in terms of research in the field of startup entrepreneurs?
RQ5. What is the inter-country collaboration ratio of research article publications?
RQ6. What are the most prolific affiliations and countries?
RQ7. What are the most widely used authors’ keywords for entrepreneurial drivers and inhibitors?
To address these questions, the present study used bibliometric analysis.
This study aims to overcome several limitations found in prior research to contribute to the broader field of entrepreneurial research, specifically in entrepreneurial drivers and inhibitors. In this study, we conducted a comprehensive review of the relevant literature to gather information and subsequently subjected it to a meticulous analysis of the collected data. Scientific mapping and performance analysis were undertaken to examine the research advancements in entrepreneurial drivers and inhibitors over a specific timeframe, namely 1991-2020. The evaluation was based on several pertinent indicators, including author productivity, productivity by country, collaborative efforts among authors and countries, citation analysis, thematic mapping, and keyword co-occurrence. Hence, it has become feasible to elucidate advancements within the subject matter that are beyond the purview of studies systematically predicated on literature reviews (Baier-Fuentes et al., 2019; Block et al., 2020; Rey-Martí et al., 2016; Schildt, 2004; Vallaster et al., 2019). The Scopus and WoS databases were employed in the current work to locate bibliographic data on entrepreneurial drivers and inhibitors. This study is more thorough than earlier work and lessens the chance of missing crucial work on the subject. The temporal scope of previous research has shown considerable variation contingent upon the subject matter and research objectives at hand. However, the scope of this study encompasses publications published over three decades, specifically between 1991 and 2020. This study also endeavored to address this issue by conducting a scientific mapping and performance analysis of entrepreneurial drivers and inhibitors from 1991 to 2020.
The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. Section 2 provides a concise overview of entrepreneurial drives and inhibitors, while distinguishing the drivers and inhibitors faced by individual entrepreneurs from those experienced by other entrepreneurs, all within the framework of a shared understanding. The research methodology outlined in Section 3 follows this. Section 4 focuses on performance analysis, while Section 5 delves into the discussion of Science Mapping Analysis, specifically through graphical analysis. The latter segments of the manuscript emphasize the theoretical contributions of this study in Section 6. Section 7 concludes the paper, including an examination of the study’s limitations and suggestions for future research.
2. Literature review
By undertaking a comprehensive assessment of the existing body of literature on entrepreneurial motivation, our study aims to provide a scholarly contribution to the understanding of motivation within the domain of entrepreneurship. Additionally, our study seeks to enhance the comprehension of the factors that drive and hinder entrepreneurial motivation in business and management. Individuals possess diverse motivations for embarking on entrepreneurship. Motivation can be conceptualized as a complex interplay of dynamic forces that originate internally and externally, influencing individuals to incite and shape their behavioral patterns while dictating the degree, vigor, and longevity (Mitchell & Daniels, 2003). The predominant framework for conceptualizing entrepreneurial motivations revolves around categorizing stated motivations into distinct domains of push and pull factors (McClelland et al., 2005; Schjoedt & Shaver, 2007; Segal et al., 2005). Individual personal or external factors distinguish push factors and frequently carry unfavorable connotations. From an alternative perspective, pull factors can be defined as the compelling forces that entice individuals to embark on entrepreneurial endeavors, often stemming from recognizing lucrative opportunities (Granger et al., 1995). Based on a comprehensive analysis of the relevant research, the author determined that four key drivers significantly influence entrepreneurial motivation. The primary driving force behind individuals pursuing entrepreneurship is the desire for independence, encompassing characteristics such as autonomy and increased control (Alstete, 2002; Borooah, 1979; Cassar, 2007). Aspiration for autonomy is predominantly categorized as a pull factor. Limited gender disparities have been identified concerning independence (Marlow, 1997; Pinfold, 2001; Still & Soutar, 2001). The pursuit of autonomy seems to serve as a comparable driving force for both women and men when embarking on entrepreneurship (Frederick & Chittock, 2006). Monetary incentives are commonly categorized as pull elements. Nevertheless, individuals are not always driven by financial factors when initiating a business venture (Kumar et al., 2024; Kumar et al., 2025a; Paulose, 2011). Throughout their entrepreneurial journey, individuals encounter distinct forms and degrees of motivation contingent on their involvement in commencement, development, or exit endeavors. Entrepreneurship investigates how individuals identify, assess, and capitalize on possibilities (Shane & Venkataraman, 2000). This encompasses the entire spectrum of activities, from initiating commercial ventures to nurturing their growth, and ultimately disengaging from them (Fisher et al., 2013). Extrinsic motivation is the predominant form of motivation, explicitly focusing on monetary and economic incentives (Benzing et al., 2009). Additional extrinsic entrepreneurial motivations identified in scholarly literature include social equity (Renko, 2013), conserving the environment (York et al., 2016), and balancing work and family life (Adkins et al., 2013). It is worth noting that these motivations have not received as much academic scrutiny as the economic factors driving entrepreneurship.
The pursuit of entrepreneurship can be duly recognized as a vocation wherein individuals embark on a journey of innovative ventures and commercial undertakings driven by their innate desire to create and cultivate novel enterprises (Asante & Affum-Osei, 2019). Various academics and researchers have investigated the influence of entrepreneurial goals on founder behavior that extends beyond initiating a new business venture. Several studies have examined the various categories of new enterprises initiated (Townsend & Hart, 2008), different entrepreneurial activities undertaken (Webb et al., 2013), and the behavior exhibited by entrepreneurs throughout their initial stages (Dunkelberg et al., 2013). At a broad level, the driving force to initiate a business catalyses further entrepreneurial endeavors (Herron & Sapienza, 1992; McMullen & Shepherd, 2006; Van Gelderen et al., 2015). However, more specific underlying impulses exist for this broad purpose. The contemporary economy largely depends on entrepreneurs’ capacity to generate novel ideas and products that lead to job creation, fostering the expansion, advancement, and enhancement of both local and national economies, as well as global economic progress as a whole (Hessels & Naudé, 2018). Various factors contribute to macroeconomic instability, including elevated levels of unemployment in the private sector, excessive employment in the public sector, heightened susceptibility to fluctuations in oil and gas prices, and increased vulnerability resulting from conflicts in surrounding countries. Numerous studies have demonstrated that a firm’s geographical location significantly affects its financial capacity, particularly for creative and growth-oriented enterprises (Andersson et al., 2023; Henderson, 2002). The findings of the research conducted by Alessandrini et al., (2009); Flögel (2016) demonstrated that the extended operational distance has impeded the financing capability of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). According to Mason & Brown (2014) the location of an entrepreneurial venture that attracts talented people is a crucial factor in the initial development of an entrepreneurship ecosystem. The phenomenon of spin-offs and entrepreneurial recycling activities is widely recognized as vital for fostering growth and cultivating an ecosystem. The development process of ecosystems may be impeded by many alterations in internal and external environments, such as technological advancements. Business success (Henderson, 2002) and economic expansion critically depend on the availability of talented people, particularly those with high levels of expertise. The co-evolutionary interaction between entrepreneurs, institutions, and other players within the ecosystem that facilitates local economies and start-up rates is widely recognized. The entrepreneurial ecosystem is now widely acknowledged as a significant method for promoting economic growth, frequently emphasizing stimulating employment and the development of high-growth enterprises (Mason & Brown, 2014; Spigel & Harrison, 2018).
This study contributes to the understanding of the theoretical underpinnings, measurement methodologies, and organizational ramifications of entrepreneurial drivers and inhibitors in business and management. Consequently, it serves as a helpful guide for researchers and practitioners who wish to delve deeper into this phenomenon. The exposition above affirms the challenging nature of remaining aware of scholarly advancements. Consequently, this endeavor aims to scrutinize entrepreneurship’s significant drivers and inhibitors through bibliometric analysis.
3. Methods
3.1 Extraction of information from the literature
The utilization of bibliometric analysis has recently surged in prominence in business research (Donthu, Kumar, & Pandey, 2021b; Khan et al., 2021). Bibliometric analysis amalgamates diverse frameworks, tools, and methodologies to examine and scrutinize the citations of scholarly publications. This endeavor has resulted in various metrics that facilitate a deeper understanding of the intellectual fabric within a wide range of academic fields. Furthermore, these metrics enable the meticulous evaluation of the influence exerted by scientific journals, studies, and researchers in a meticulous manner (Akhavan et al., 2016; Kumar et al., 2023). The findings derived from bibliometric analysis have the potential to assist researchers in elucidating nascent patterns within scholarly articles, evaluating the efficacy of academic journals, identifying the most prolific authors, and discerning patterns of collaboration. Performance evaluation entails the utilization of a range of bibliometric indicators, including but not limited to the h-index, productivity metrics, and citation counts (Donthu, Kumar, Mukherjee, et al., 2021a; Gaviria-Marin et al., 2019; Verma & Gustafsson, 2020). Bibliometric coupling, co-occurrence, and co-citation analyses were performed using information from different databases. Bibliographic coupling may be defined as when two papers have quoted another common article, i.e., paper ‘A’ is cited by paper ‘B’ and paper ‘C’ (Kumar et al., 2023; Merigo & Yang, 2016; Zupic & Čater, 2014). Both studies have coupled bibliographies, as shown in ( Figure 1). Greater bibliographic coupling leads to a stronger relationship (Kessler, 1963). Similarly, when two papers are cited in another single article, called co-citation, in other words, papers ‘A’ and paper ‘B’ is cited in Paper ‘C’ as mentioned in ( Figure 2). If more citations of two articles are quoted in a single paper, there will be a greater degree of relationship (Small, 1973). Similarly, co-authorship occurs when a single article has more than one author and helps us identify the authors’ scientific collaboration (Merigo et al., 2017).
Figure 1. Bibliometric coupling.
Figure 2. Co-citation.
Furthermore, it is imperative to acknowledge that the prevalence of bibliometric analysis within business research is not a passing trend, but a manifestation of its inherent efficacy in managing substantial quantities of scientific data and generating significant research influence. Despite its positive attributes, bibliometric analysis is still considered to be a relatively recent approach in business research. However, it is often observed that its implementation does not fully utilize its complete potential. This phenomenon arises when bibliometric studies utilize a restricted range of bibliometric data and methodologies, resulting in an incomplete comprehension of the subject area being investigated. For instance, these studies may focus on performance analysis while neglecting crucial aspects of science mapping (Brown et al., 2020). The application of bibliometric analysis has the inherent ability to effectively manage large volumes of scholarly literature and offers a comprehensive portrayal of a specific academic discipline, which does indeed entail certain inherent limitations. Notably, the literature encompassed in such analyses may exhibit a reduced level of diversity, and the presence of heterogeneity among existing studies as well as the influence of publication bias can potentially undermine the validity of the findings (Aguinis et al., 2013; Junni et al., 2013).
The present bibliometric study searched for various repositories and multiple publishers in startup literature. Data were collected from seven English language databases: Elsevier, Web of Science, SAGE, Springer, Wiley Online, Taylor and Francis Online, and other publishers. Search queries such as ((“Startup” OR “Startups” OR “startup” OR “Startups”) AND “Motivation” OR “Motivational factor” OR “Challenges”) were used. This study had a specific time limit from 1985 to 2021, and only peer-reviewed research articles from reputed academic journals were included. Initially, a large number of articles were published. Therefore, to reduce the sample size of the articles, we restricted the search areas to management, business, and accounting. After the restriction, we finally obtained 1773 articles, as shown in Figure 3. Although many filters have been applied, there were many unrelated articles to search. Therefore, the authors carefully read the titles and abstracts of the papers to decide whether to retain or discard the paper from the present study. The main selection criteria applied for the scrutiny of articles are that the document must be focused on the motivational factors or challenges of startups. After a thorough screening of articles, 1383 research articles were discarded, and 390 research articles were included in the study for further analysis.
Figure 3. Flow chart for the incorporation of the articles in the study.
Source: Authors’ development.
3.2 Data analysis
The quantification of scientific articles’ production was conducted by utilizing diverse parameters, including the overall quantity of published documents, mean number of citations per document, average annual citations per document, keywords employed by authors, frequency of author appearances, prevalence of single-authored versus multiple-authored documents, number of documents attributed to each author, and collaboration index. The time spanning from 1991 to 2020, 390 documents were produced consisting of 259 articles and 31 review papers from various prestigious sources. The average number of citations per document received by publications was 30.24. Table 1 shows 56 documents authored by a single individual, compared with the substantial number of 784 documents that multiple individuals have collaboratively authored. The authors’ level of collaboration was assessed using two metrics: the average number of co-authors per document and the collaboration index, which was found to be 2.56. This suggests that collaborative efforts and the creation of documents with many authors had a notable prevalence among entrepreneurial drivers and inhibitors. The study’s results reveal a comprehensive compilation of 698 keywords and an additional 1050 authors’ keywords, presenting various terms employed in investigating entrepreneurial drivers and inhibitors.
Table 1. Scientific production of articles from 1991 to 2020.
4. Performance analysis
4.1 Annual scientific production
Academicians and researchers have been conducting research on the topic of “Motivational factors and challenges of startups” since 1991. The pace of studies conducted in the startup field has been increasing since 2009, with a mean number of citations per document of 27.91, as shown in Figure 4. According to the annual scientific production scale, the growth rate of articles produced in this area is 14.11 percent, and it also shows the evolution of article publications per year over time.
Figure 4. Evolution over time of the article publications per year.
Source: Authors' development using R-4.1.0.
4.2 Most cited articles
Table 2 represents the 15 most-cited articles by authors such as Per Davidsson, Marco Van Gelderen, Alain Jean Claude Fayolle, and Maija Renko from prestigious databases. The research articles published by these five authors are the most cited in the existing literature related to startups and entrepreneurship. In 2016, four research articles were published, with the maximum contribution concerning the top-cited article, followed by two articles each in 2008, 2012, and 2014 in the top 15. The authors also found that the top-cited article was titled “Continued entrepreneurship ability need and opportunity as determinants of small firm growth,” produced by (Davidsson, 1991), and the paper with the most citations per year produced by (Mian et al., 2016). The findings of the performance analysis revealed that the document authored by Van Gelderen and Jansen (2006) exhibited the highest level of productivity, garnering notable 151 citations. In close pursuit, Fayolle et al. (2014) authored a work that amassed commendable 130 citations, as depicted in Figure 2. Mian et al. (2016) received 129 citations in the field of entrepreneurial drivers and inhibitors, making them the most frequently mentioned source. Van der Zwan et al. (2016) closely followed the 100 citations.
Table 2. The top 15 most cited articles between 1991 to 2020.
| S. No | Author | Year | Title | DOI | TC | TC/Y |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | (Davidsson, 1991) | 1991 | “Continued entrepreneurship ability needs and opportunity as determinants of small firm growth” | 10.1016/0883-9026(91)90028-C | 358 | 11.548 |
| 2 | (Van Gelderen & Jansen, 2006) | 2006 | “Autonomy as a startup motive” | 10.1108/14626000610645289 | 151 | 9.438 |
| 3 | (Fayolle et al., 2014) | 2014 | “Beyond entrepreneurial intentions values and motivations in entrepreneurship” | 10.1007/s11365-014-0306-7 | 130 | 16.25 |
| 4 | (Mian et al., 2016) | 2016 | “Technology business incubation an overview of the state of knowledge” | 10.1016/j.technovation.2016.02.005 | 129 | 21.5 |
| 5 | (Van der Zwan et al., 2016) | 2016 | “Factors influencing the entrepreneurial engagement of opportunity and necessity entrepreneurs” | 10.1007/s40821-016-0065-1 | 100 | 16.667 |
| 6 | (Renko et al., 2012) | 2012 | “Expectancy theory and nascent entrepreneurship” | 10.1007/s11187-011-9354-3 | 58 | 5.8 |
| 7 | (Hessels et al., 2008) | 2008 | “Drivers of entrepreneurial aspirations at the country level the role of startup motivations and social security” | 10.1007/s11365-008-0083-2 | 57 | 4.071 |
| 8 | (Van G M et al., 2008) | 2008 | “Drivers of entrepreneurial aspirations at the country level the role of startup motivations and social security” | 10.1007/s11365-008-0083-2 | 57 | 4.071 |
| 9 | (Hechavarria et al., 2012) | 2012 | “The nascent entrepreneurship hub goals entrepreneurial self-efficacy and startup outcomes” | 10.1007/s11187-011-9355-2 | 56 | 5.6 |
| 10 | (Van Gelderen et al., 2005) | 2005 | “Learning opportunities and learning behaviours of small business starters relations with goal achievement skill development and satisfaction” | 10.1007/s11187-005-4260-1 | 55 | 3.235 |
| 11 | (Davidsson & Gordon, 2016) | 2016 | “Much ado about nothing the surprising persistence of nascent entrepreneurs through the macroeconomic crisis” | 10.1111/etap.12152 | 48 | 8 |
| 12 | (Hoogendoorn et al., 2019) | 2019 | “Sustainable entrepreneurship the role of perceived barriers and risk” | 10.1007/s10551-017-3646-8 | 41 | 13.667 |
| 13 | (Lamine et al., 2014) | 2014 | “How do social skills enable nascent entrepreneurs to enact perseverance strategies in the face of challenges? A comparative case study of success and failure” | 10.1108/IJEBR-02-2013-0020 | 24 | 3 |
| 14 | (Verheul et al., 2009) | 2009 | “Allocation and productivity of time in new ventures of female and male entrepreneurs” | 10.1007/s11187-009-9174-x | 20 | 1.538 |
| 15 | (Renko et al., 2015) | 2016 | “Entrepreneurial entry by people with disabilities” | 10.1177/0266242615579112 | 14 | 2.333 |
4.3 Most prolific authors
Figure 5 shows the authors who demonstrated exceptional productivity within the encompassed field. The study’s findings show that Roy Thurik (h-index-58) has shown the highest level of scholarly productivity, having authored four articles that received 219 citations. In the same way, Per Davidsson (h-index-47), Marco Van Gelderen (h-index-21), Abhinava S. Singh (h-index-1), Alain Fayolle (h-index-39), Surabhi Singh (h-index-2), Tobias Regner (h-index-15), Maximilian Goethner (h-index-11), Fauzia Jabeen (h-index-20), and Majia Renko (h-index-23) have each contributed three articles within the pertinent field of study.
Figure 5. Most prolific authors.
Source: Authors’ development using Biblioshiny (R-Studio).
4.4 Lotka’s law
Lokta’s law was employed to quantify the articles published by different authors on entrepreneurship. Lokta’s law postulates a negative correlation between the number of articles and the frequency with which authors generate the said quantity of articles (Sahu & Jena, 2022). As shown in Figure 6, 866 authors (92.81 percent) from various nations contributed one article to the combined entrepreneurial driver and inhibitor domain. In the domain under consideration, it was observed that 55 authors (5.89 percent) made notable contributions by authoring two articles each. In comparison, additional 11 authors (1.17 percent) demonstrated their scholarly prowess by contributing three articles each. Within the encompassed domain, only one author (0.10 percent) made a cumulative contribution to the four research articles indicated in Table 3.
Figure 6. Collaboration of authors using Lotka Law.
Source: Authors’ development using Biblioshiny (R-Studio).
4.5 Most productive and highly cited countries
Figure 7 illustrates the top 15 countries that exhibit high productivity in generating research publications on entrepreneurial motives and obstacles within the business and management disciplines. The US has been determined to exhibit a remarkable level of productivity, as evidenced by the production of 149 articles. These 149 articles received 2906 citations, followed by the United Kingdom, published 79 articles, and 930 citations.
Figure 7. Most productive and highly cited countries.
Source: Authors’ development using Biblioshiny (R-Studio).
Germany ranked third in publications and has significantly contributed to 73 research articles. These articles garnered a commendable total of 743 citations, highlighting the scholarly impact of Germany’s research endeavors.
Similarly, India made a substantial contribution to the 39 articles. However, the current number of citations for these 39 publications is limited to only 18. The primary factor behind the low Cite-score of these publications is the zero MCP ratio, as shown in Figure 7. China and the Netherlands contributed to 31 articles. China and the Netherlands produced 31 papers each. The number of citations received by research articles published in China was 203, but research articles published in the Netherlands received 385 citations. The disparity in citation counts between these two countries can be attributed only to the variance in the magnitude of the MCP ratio. The Netherlands has the highest MCP ratio among entrepreneurial drivers and inhibitors. Similarly, Switzerland has achieved a commendable standing ranking of fifteenth among nations through the substantial contribution of ten scholarly articles. Currently, these ten articles have garnered a total of 36 citations.
4.6 Corresponding authors’ country (SCP/MCP)
It has come to light that the United States of America has emerged as the leading contributor in entrepreneurial drivers and inhibitors, having published a remarkable 55 articles. These publications exhibited a modest degree of international collaboration, as indicated by a corresponding authorship ratio of 0.231, denoting the proportion of articles co-authored with researchers from other nations. The United Kingdom currently occupies a prominent position as the second-highest contributor to article publications, with an MCP ratio of 0.286. Figure 8 indicates a relatively low degree of foreign collaboration in the realm of publication. Another significant finding of the present study is that the Netherlands produced a cumulative sum of 15 scholarly works, of which 11 articles were co-authored with authors from other countries. The observed MCP ratio exhibited a significant degree of elevation, with a value of 0.733; subsequently, France exhibited an MCP ratio of 0.600.
Figure 8. Single-country production/multi-country production of corresponding authors.
Source: Authors’ development using Biblioshiny (R-Studio).
By contrast, India has published many research publications (28 articles) on entrepreneurial incentives and challenges. However, none of these studies have been published in partnership with authors from foreign countries. This implies that India has a zero-degree MCP ratio. India should prioritize engaging in collaborative research and other projects to enhance its output quantity and quality, and raise the number of citations received (Velez-Estevez et al., 2022).
4.7 Most prolific journals publishing in entrepreneurial drivers and inhibitors
To identify leading journals that publish research articles related to entrepreneurship and startups. During the analysis of journals, it was found that the highest number of research articles was 58, produced by the journal “Emerald Emerging Markets Case Studies,” consistently producing quality research articles in upswing order since 1994. We are followed by the journal “International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal,” by published 24 articles, publishing research articles related to the title “Entrepreneurship and Startups” since 2007. When we analyze journal publications’ evolution over time, it reflects that there has been expected growth in publications on entrepreneurship and startups since 2011, as seen in Figure 4. Twenty-one articles were published by the journal “Small Business Economics,” Twenty by the journal “Journal of Business Venturing,” and a total of twelve articles published by the journal “Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development” in the area of entrepreneurial drivers and inhibitors, as shown in Figure 9. The frequency with which the term ‘entrepreneurial drivers and inhibitors’ appears in academic journals annually can be attributed to the dynamics of its sources.
Figure 9. Most prolific journals.
Source: Author's elaboration using R-4.1.0.
It can be seen in Figure 10 that the Emerald Emerging Markets Case Studies journal experienced the highest number of annual occurrences between the years 2011 and 2020.
Figure 10. Source dynamic.
Source: Author's elaboration using R-4.1.0.
4.8 Bradford’s law distribution
Bradford’s law was employed as a theoretical framework to elucidate the pattern of article distribution within journals, according to a particular thematic focus. Source dynamics pertain to the systematic examination of recurring phenomena surrounding the concepts of entrepreneurial drivers and inhibitors, as documented in diverse scholarly journals annually. Singh et al. (2016) assert that Bradford’s law operates based on the concept of centric productivity zones, wherein the exhaustive publication of literature exhibits diminishing returns.
From 2011 to 2020, the Journal “Emerald Emerging Markets Case Studies” showed the highest level of productivity in terms of publication frequency, as shown in Table 4. The “International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal” contributed 24 research articles, followed by the journal “Small Business Economics” contributing 21 articles on entrepreneurial drivers and inhibitors. Journals are classified into several zones according to the frequency and ranking of their articles, as stipulated by law. Based on Bradford’s rule of scattering, it can be observed that the “Emerald Emerging Markets Case Studies, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Small Business Economics, Journal of Business Venturing, and International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research” serve as the predominant repositories of research on information concealment, as depicted in Figure 11. As shown in Table, Bradford’s law delineated three distinct zones: Zone 1 encompasses a total of five scholarly journals, Zone 2 encompasses a more extensive collection of 15 journals, and Zone 3 boasts the largest assemblage of eighty-three journals.
Table 4. Evolution over the time of research articles publications by Journals.
Figure 11. Bradford’s Law.
Source: Authors’ development using R-4.1.0.
According to Bradford’s rule of scattering, there is an anticipated increase in journal production when one moves from one zone to another. Additionally, this law suggests that the total number of citations can be evenly distributed across the three distinct zones (Brookes, 1985). The subsequent data in Table 5 present the distribution of titles and journals according to Bradford’s projected zones.
Table 5. Bradford’s law.
Description of Zone based on the number of journals and articles published as below:
4.9 Most prolific affiliations
According to the findings Table 6 reveals that the Erasmus University, Netherlands and Linköping University, Sweden, have made equal contributions of seven publications each in entrepreneurial drivers and inhibitors, as depicted in Figure 12. On the other hand, Universities such as the National University of Singapore have contributed 6 publications, and De Montfort University, England, and Illinois University, Chicago, USA, have contributed 5 articles each. Similarly, Abu Dhabi University, United Arab Emirates; Babson College Boston, United States; Indiana University, Bloomington, USA; Massey University, New Zealand; Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, Canada; Technology University Munich, Germany; Cambridge University, England, Ghent University, Belgium; and St. Gallen University, Switzerland, each made a noteworthy contribution to the four articles.
Table 6. Prolific affiliations’ contribution to the publication of research articles.
Figure 12. Most prolific countries for article publications.
Source: Word cloud source, authors’ development using R-4.1.0.
5. Science mapping analysis (Graphical analysis)
The graphical analysis aims to represent a detailed analysis of citation structure, and the software used for graphical analysis is R/R-Studio-4.1.0 (Ahmad & Raulamo-Jurvanen, 2019; Chuang et al., 2014; Glass et al., 2002). This kind of software allows us to identify, create, and visualize results by considering the co-citation map of the author and journals (Dingsøyr et al., 2012; Glass, 1992). Bibliometric analysis is based on the bibliometric network of authorship, co-authorship, citations, co-citations, and bibliographic coupling (Martínez-López et al., 2018). During bibliometric co-citation analysis of journals from 1985 to 2021, the “International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal” was the most representative journal, followed by the Emerald Emerging Markets Case Studies, Journal of Business Research, and International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship.
5.1 Keywords analysis
To identify the key terms found during systematic information searches of different databases, R-Software-4.1.0 was utilized. Authors’ details, publication years, titles, abstracts, and source details were used to extract the key information. The titles and abstracts of 390 finally selected papers were used to carry out the frequency of word analysis, which comprises the most repeated words presented by Word Cloud Mart. This allows us to identify the most frequently used words in the summary based on the text size. The larger the text size in the word cloud mart, the greater the frequency of words used in the summary.
As shown in Figure 13, the most repeated words include entrepreneurship, innovation, start-ups, startups, motivation, strategy, entrepreneurs, business development, social enterprise, and technology transfer. The dominance of the term entrepreneurship highlights its centrality in the discourse, indicating that the core focus of the literature revolves around various dimensions and challenges related to entrepreneurial activity. Similarly, terms like innovation and start-ups underscore the growing interest in how innovation drives new venture creation. The prominence of motivation, entrepreneurial skills, and strategy reflects the emphasis placed on behavioral and strategic components of entrepreneurship. Keywords such as gender, social media, developing countries, sustainability, and universities also emerged frequently, suggesting diverse research angles addressing socio-economic contexts, digital tools, and institutional roles in entrepreneurship. This diversity in terminology illustrates the interdisciplinary nature and expanding research scope of the entrepreneurship domain.
Figure 13. Word cloud by using authors’ keywords.
Source: Word cloud source, authors’ development using R-4.1.0.
5.2 Treemap analysis and trend topic analysis
The tree map analysis presented in Figure 14 reveals that the most prominent term across the selected literature is “Entrepreneurship,” which accounts for 10% (107 occurrences) of all keywords, signifying its foundational role in the research domain. Other frequently cited terms include “Innovation” (7%, 72), “Performance” (7%, 71), “Motivation” (5%, 47), “Start-ups” (4%, 46), “Start-up” (3%, 32), and “Growth” (3%, 33), indicating a strong scholarly focus on entrepreneurial drivers, venture creation, and measurable outcomes. Additional terms such as “Strategy,” “Technology,” “Self-efficacy,” “Gender,” and “Networks” also emerge, highlighting the multidimensional nature of entrepreneurship research, encompassing strategic, psychological, technological, and social perspectives. As shown in Figure 15, the trend topic analysis illustrates the thematic evolution over time, with “Start-up” and “Motivation” dominating in 2017, followed by a shift toward “Entrepreneurship,” “Innovation,” and “Entrepreneurial Skills” in 2018. The year 2019 saw a focus on “Strategy,” “Marketing,” and “Sustainability,” while in 2020 and beyond, themes like “Startups,” “Business Formation,” and “Opportunity” gained momentum. The sustained presence of terms such as “Technology Transfer,” “Universities,” and “Value Creation” reflects ongoing interest in institutional and knowledge-based drivers of entrepreneurship. Collectively, these visualizations offer a comprehensive view of the evolving research landscape, key thematic areas, and emerging scholarly priorities in the field.
Figure 14. Treemap analysis of keywords.
Source: Authors’ development using R-4.1.0.
Figure 15. Trend topics in the area of entrepreneurial drivers and inhibitors.
Source: Authors’ development using R-4.1.0.
5.3 The Worldwide Author-Country-Resource Network
Here, the greater the number of papers published, the larger is the number of nodes. Similarly, the distance between the nodes of two journals represents the citation frequency between these journals. We found that a considerable distance between two nodes represents a lower frequency of citations, and vice versa (Liao et al., 2018). As shown in Figure 16, the Journal of Cleaner Production is the most cited and has an extensive network with the journals “Sustainability and Business Strategy and the Environment.” A Threshold limit of 20 articles was used for a maximum of 30 representative connections. In Figure 16, the green, red, and yellow clusters have the most significant citations, with a maximum number of relationships with other journals. This implies that the researchers in the same article quote a pair of authors.
Figure 16. Co-citation of the journals of the related domain.
Source: Authors’ Development using R-4.1.0.
Figure 17 shows the bibliometric coupling between countries. The leading countries that produced the maximum number of research articles on entrepreneurship and startups were the USA, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and China. This also indicates that the relationships between the Netherlands, Germany, France, the USA, and China are close, which means that these countries have a greater connection.
Figure 17. Bibliographic coupling of authors.
Source: Authors’ development using R-4.1.0.
Bibliometric coupling may be defined as articles mentioned in the same set of cited articles (Boyack & Klavans, 2010). Figure 17 shows how authors are coupled bibliographically and how they are associated with each other. Three clusters are identified, in which the red and green clusters represent the highest concentration of connections between them. In the red cluster, we find that Jones, Brush, and Davidsson, Carter, and Shepherd in the green cluster, while in the blue cluster, Westhead and Locke have a stronger connection so that they appear closer to each other.
This implies that the researchers in the same article quote a pair of authors. Figure 18 shows the bibliometric coupling between countries. The leading countries that produced the maximum number of research articles on entrepreneurship and startups were the USA, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and China. This also indicates that the relationship between the Netherlands, Germany, France, the USA, and China is close, which means that these countries have a greater connection.
Figure 18. Bibliographic coupling by countries.
Source: Authors’ development using R-4.1.0.
5.4 Co-occurrence of author’s keywords
After reviewing the authors’ main keywords by taking a threshold of six occurrences and 50 maximum representative articles, the present study examined six distinct clusters delineated based on the centrality of betweenness and closeness of various keywords. The quantification of the degree of centrality pertains to the enumeration of relational connections that a document or constituent of research possesses within a network, as expounded by (Donthu et al., 2021a). The terms entrepreneurial, startup, entrepreneurs, business, innovation, challenges, and motivations are shown in Figure 19. On the other hand, Table 7 also shows the most common author keywords consistent with this result. Thus, it is evident that the main keywords are entrepreneurial, startup, entrepreneur, innovation, and business.
Figure 19. Bibliometric analysis of co-occurrence of author’s keywords.
Source: Authors’ development using R-4.1.0.
5.5 Thematic mapping and evolution
According to Braun and Clarke (2012), thematic mapping is a valuable tool for analyzing the evolution of themes over time, as it allows the identification of patterns, trends, seasonality, and outliers within study themes. Thematic keyword mapping is used to delineate and establish themes in a given context, fundamental expressions associated with these topics, and their interconnections (Akter et al., 2021). The themes in the upper-right quadrant were characterized by motor themes that exhibited a significant level of centrality and density. Conversely, the themes in the lower right quadrant were associated with basic themes that displayed a high degree of centrality but low density. The quadrant positioned at the top left, characterized by low centrality and high density, is commonly denoted as a niche topic. Conversely, the quadrant located in the lower left, exhibiting low density and centrality, signifies emerging or declining themes. Figure 20 demonstrates that “Entrepreneurship, Innovation”, and “Startups, developing countries, and entrepreneurial ecosystems” are crucial and noteworthy research domains within entrepreneurial drivers and inhibitors.
Figure 20. Thematic map analysis.
Source: Authors’ development using R-4.1.0.
While “technology transfer, academic entrepreneurship, and new venture creation” and “Value creation, service innovation, and small business” have been extensively studied, they have limited relevance to entrepreneurial drivers and inhibitors. Moreover, the themes in the lower right quadrant, namely “Motivation, Culture, and Context” and “Entrepreneurial Motivation, Self-employment, and Entrepreneurial Intention,” pertain more directly to entrepreneurial drivers and inhibitors. However, these themes have been explored comparatively less extensively. The topics in the lower left quadrant, denoting emerging or decreasing themes, such as entrepreneurial learning, human capital, and young entrepreneurs, exhibit limited development and relevance to their respective domains. The findings of this study enhance the comprehension of entrepreneurial drivers and inhibitors by identifying prominent and emerging study themes and their interconnections.
Furthermore, these findings emphasize the significance and stability of specific themes, providing academics with valuable insights for discerning suitable domains for subsequent exploration and inquiry within the discipline.
Figure 21 illustrates the commencement of research on entrepreneurial drivers, inhibitors, and their related fields in 1991, following the official initiation of business formation in 199. Figure 20 was partitioned into three zones based on the intake and outflow of the study area. The predominant subjects of investigation in zone-1 (1991-2010) were business formation, entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial motivation, entrepreneurialism, and entrepreneurs. Over time, the area of entrepreneurship, which was relatively underexplored in zone-1, shifted prominently within the research community and emerged as a subject of extensive investigation in zone-2 during 2011-2013. In addition, in zone-2, several new topics have emerged, including networks, entrepreneurship, innovation, India, entrepreneurs, business development, entrepreneurialism, motivation, and generic technology. Zone-3 has undergone a remarkable and unparalleled transformation by incorporating terms such as entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial learning, entrepreneurs, entrepreneurial intention, leadership, motivation, gender, and academic entrepreneurship. Considerable efforts have been dedicated to exploring and analyzing the topic of entrepreneurship during the period from 2014 to 2020 within the confines of zone-3.
Figure 21. Thematic evolution.
Source: Authors’ development using R-4.1.0.
5.6 Conceptual structure map using multiple correspondence analysis method
Conceptual structure mapping aims to ascertain the degree of clustering density exhibited by topics investigated over a period. Figure 22 illustrates the clustering of red corner themes with a notable emphasis on intellectual domains, such as “innovation, technology-based firms, startups, knowledge, strategy, future challenges, survival, entrepreneurship, adsorptive capacity, industry, and management. These clusters exhibit remarkable density, indicating a strong interconnection and concentration of these intellectual pursuits. This observation suggests that these particular domains have garnered attention within the academic community and are poised to remain prominent subjects of inquiry in entrepreneurial motivation and to examine associated challenges in the foreseeable future. As we proceed to the subsequent cluster, it becomes evident that emerging domains, such as motivation, self-efficacy, model, personality, self-employment, intentions, orientation, achievement motivation, opportunity, determinant, behavior, and creation, are emerging and being recognized as exhibiting a lower level of concentration than the preceding cluster. This indicates that the above fields have received less study focus than their predecessors.
Figure 22. Conceptual structure map of entrepreneurial drivers and inhibitors articles.
Source: Authors’ development using R-4.1.0.
5.7 Collaboration map
According to the data depicted in Figure 23, it is evident that the United States and the Netherlands exhibit the most pronounced degree of collaboration in the field of entrepreneurial driver and inhibitor research. The United Kingdom collaborated with Germany and Italy by jointly authoring five articles from each country. The United Kingdom has also collaborated with Belgium and Norway, resulting in the authorship of four papers in each country.
Figure 23. Country collaboration map.
Source: Authors’ development using R-4.1.0.
As mentioned in Table 8, the United States published four more research articles in collaboration with Germany. Similarly, Germany collaborated with the Netherlands, Norway collaborated with Belgium, Sweden engaged with Finland, and the United Kingdom once again collaborated with Canada, resulting in the publication of three research articles for each collaboration.
6. Discussion
6.1 Theoretical contributions
The study’s findings demonstrate an increasing volume of scholarly articles focused on the subject of entrepreneurial drivers and inhibitors within the discipline of business and management. Upon analyzing publications from 1991 to 2020, it was observed that the pace of publication growth exhibited a considerably slow pace throughout the period. A notable surge in the number of publications commenced in 2008. The field of scholarly inquiry appears to be dominated by three distinct researchers: Davidsson, Van Gelderen, and Singh. However, it is worth noting that Roy Thurik has emerged as the most prolific author, having published the largest number of papers. Concerning the aforementioned journals, it is not unexpected that most of the publications have been disseminated through esteemed entrepreneurship journals. Notably, the “Emerald Emerging Markets Case Studies” journal holds a prominent position, followed by the “International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal” in business publications. Scholarly exploration of entrepreneurial drivers and inhibitors has reached a commendable level of sophistication, particularly in the USA and the United Kingdom, where a genuine pursuit of knowledge and understanding has propelled it. The findings indicate that, regarding collaborative efforts on both national and institutional scales, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany emerge as frontrunners at the country level.
Meanwhile, Erasmus University in the Netherlands, Linköping University in Sweden, and the National University in Singapore exhibit the highest levels of collaboration at the institutional level. By contrast, it is noteworthy that India and Malaysia lack collaborative partnerships with other nations in the context of research publications. This facilitates expedited access for affiliated researchers to collaborate with other academics, promoting collaborative efforts to explore entrepreneurial drivers and inhibitors. Examining the authors’ keywords for entrepreneurial drivers and inhibitors in relation to entrepreneurship, innovation, and startups is common practice when considering keywords. In terms of potential areas of investigation pertaining to the factors that drive and impede entrepreneurship, the thematic mapping conducted indicates that Entrepreneurship, Innovation, startups, entrepreneurial ecosystems, small businesses, and entrepreneurial motivation may be fruitful subjects for further scholarly exploration.
Consequently, the study has successfully addressed the seven research questions:
RQ1. What is the annual scientific production of articles on entrepreneurial drivers and inhibitors?
RQ2. Who are the most prolific authors in entrepreneurial drivers and inhibitors?
RQ3. What are the most cited documents of the incorporated domain?
RQ4. What are the most prolific journals publishing the maximum number of articles in terms of research in the field of startup entrepreneurs?
RQ5. What is the inter-country collaboration ratio of research article publications?
RQ6. What are the most prolific affiliations and countries?
RQ7.What are the most widely used authors’ keywords for entrepreneurial drivers and inhibitors?
The findings of this study surpass the boundaries of the current body of literature pertaining to the factors that drive and hinder the growth of entrepreneurship.
6.2 Practical contribution
Whilst the primary target audience of this manuscript pertains to the scientific community, it is worth noting that the findings have the potential to yield practical implications. Examining the factors that drive and hinder entrepreneurship has led to a substantial increase in academic interest in recent years. This study contributes to the understanding of the factors that favorably drive entrepreneurial behavior and the inhibitors that pose obstacles. It holds significant utility in informing decision-making across various contexts. Within the current framework, emphasizing the growing significance of comprehending the factors that drive and hinder entrepreneurship across many sectors (such as Manufacturing, Service, or Trading), such knowledge holds the potential to enhance the overall efficacy of entrepreneurial endeavors.
Furthermore, it is worth noting that the subject matter and its subsequent elaboration could benefit from a strong partnership between scholars and executives within organizations. Engaging in these activities can enhance our understanding of the factors that drive and hinder entrepreneurship within the field of business and management. In addition, collaborating with others increases the probability of generating solutions that are deemed valuable and influential. Consequently, this may enhance the likelihood of implementing these solutions within a newly established business venture. Identifying prominent scholars and influential academic publications within the discipline of entrepreneurial drivers and inhibitors can serve as valuable resources for practitioners and researchers, aiding them in locating trustworthy and pertinent sources of knowledge. Collaborating with esteemed experts and disseminating research findings through respectable academic journals can significantly augment the exposure and influence of scholarly endeavors. The results underscore the preeminent position of the United States and the United Kingdom in entrepreneurial endeavors and the investigation of factors that hinder or promote such pursuits. This phenomenon presents ample opportunities for researchers from diverse nations to collaborate with these esteemed countries and institutions, thereby fostering the exchange of knowledge and facilitating joint research efforts. The utilization of performance analysis and science mapping methodologies in this study exemplifies the pertinence of these approaches in furthering our understanding of entrepreneurial drivers and inhibitors within the field. Practitioners and researchers can adopt these approaches to acquire in-depth knowledge of the evolution and trends within the research field. This could facilitate the development of productive strategies and procedures. The collective welfare of an entrepreneurial society can be enhanced through an enhanced understanding and knowledge of the various motivational drivers and challenges that influence the growth of entrepreneurship. By recognizing the presence of diverse motivational drivers and inhibitors encountered by entrepreneurs and their consequential ramifications, individuals and organizations can endeavor to establish a durable and nurturing entrepreneurial environment. This has the potential to foster the dissemination of invaluable wisdom and insights, thereby fostering societal advancement, ingenuity, and resolution of complex challenges.
7. Conclusion
Considerable knowledge can be obtained from our understanding of the intricate patterns exhibited by entrepreneurial life cycles. Some people have been successful over many decades, while others have not due to their failure to adopt the latest technological environment (Martin & Sunley, 2011). Perseverance of entrepreneurial decision to commit to existing business despite the number of enticing options and opposing forces, it is essential for entrepreneurs to exploit their entire potential related to business and register economic gains (Patel & Thatcher, 2014).
Similar to other research endeavors, this study has certain limitations. The selected research technique may have failed to comprehensively incorporate all the existing literature pertaining to entrepreneurial drivers and inhibitors within the domain of business and management. The results outlined in this manuscript illustrate the prevailing conditions of the discipline at a particular juncture. In addition, due to the study’s unique focus on business, management, and accounting, it is necessary to limit the scope of the research fields that can be included. There may exist other domains, especially those that are interconnected, which have examined the factors that encourage and hinder entrepreneurship, but were not taken into account in this study.
Nevertheless, knowledge acquired from these fields could be valuable in enhancing and progressing our knowledge of the evolutionary aspects of entrepreneurship across history. Since 2011, research on entrepreneurial drivers and inhibitors has increased due to greater access to prestigious databases and low-cost Internet availability. Development trends for startup entrepreneurs have focused on reviewing how their development of startup entrepreneurs relates to sustainable development. Therefore, researchers need to focus on innovation, sustainable innovation, entrepreneurial development, and starting new ventures that can contribute to the country’s economy. Another problem exists in the form of lack of unification in startup entrepreneurs’ motivational factors and challenges. Many studies have been conducted on the same topic, but it is suggested that there is a need to conduct more research in this field to clearly understand the concept. If we have a clear vision, we can take necessary steps to eliminate challenges and increase motivation among startup entrepreneurs.
The present study contributes to the field of investigation because the first authors and documents of related topics are based on bibliometric analysis. In this study, we conducted an in-depth review to help future and current researchers set a starting point for further research on startups. This study provides a theoretical framework that allows researchers to connect steps to create a business venture to identify the cognitive aspects of startups and the temporal dynamics in the literature. Finally, it contributes to recognizing, generating, seizing, testing, and reconfiguring multiple entrepreneurial options.
During the analysis, we identified that the countries producing the maximum number of research articles on entrepreneurship were the USA, the United Kingdom, and Germany. The business journal “Emerald Emerging Markets Case Studies” produced the maximum number of research articles, followed by the International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, which publishes a maximum number of articles in the relevant field. Words such as entrepreneurial, startup, entrepreneurs, business, innovation, challenges, and motivation stand out as the study keywords. However, more comparative studies are needed on entrepreneurship development at different stages. A comparative analysis of entrepreneurial drivers and inhibitors is possible in future research. The present bibliometric study reviewed several attempts to understand the evolution of startup entrepreneurs over time. The diverse positive and negative experiences of startup entrepreneurs, along with the multiple paths their ventures follow, indicate that theoretical frameworks should account for the heterogeneity among them.
Download
Export To
metrics
| Views | Downloads | |
|---|---|---|
| F1000Research | - | - |
|
PubMed Central
Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.
|
- | - |
Citations
CITE
how to cite this article
Kumar M, Yadav M, Rani P et al. Navigating entrepreneurship: insights from a bibliometric review of entrepreneurial drivers and inhibitors in business and management [version 1; peer review: awaiting peer review]. F1000Research 2025, 14:1154 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.169967.1)
NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
track
receive updates on this article
Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.
Open Peer Review
Current Reviewer Status:
AWAITING PEER REVIEW
AWAITING PEER REVIEW
Key to Reviewer Statuses
VIEW
HIDE
ApprovedThe paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested
Approved with reservations
A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.
Not approvedFundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions
Comments on this article Comments (0)