# A thematic review of 45 years of The Journal of Technology Transfer

Nabila Abid, James A Cunningham, José-Luis Perea-Vicente

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## To cite this version:

Nabila Abid, James A Cunningham, José-Luis Perea-Vicente. A thematic review of 45 years of The Journal of Technology Transfer. Journal of Technology Transfer, 2024, 10.1007/s10961-024-10154-x. hal-04980007

HAL Id: hal-04980007

https://hal.science/hal-04980007v1

Submitted on 6 Mar 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# A thematic review of 45 years of *The Journal of Technology Transfer*

Nabila Abid<fnref n="1" /> ID · James A. Cunningham<fnref n="2" />,<fnref n="3" /> ID · José-Luis Perea-Vicente<fnref n="4" /> ID

Accepted: 9 October 2024
© The Author(s) 2024

## Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to examine the thematic evolution of *The Journal of Technology Transfer* over 45 years. Over this period, there have been significant changes to the practice and organization of technology transfer. There also has been a significant growth in scholarship attention from different disciplinary areas on different aspects of technology transfer from macro, meso, and micro perspectives. We take a bibliometric approach to undertake an analysis to identify key phases and themes. We identified five distinct phases, namely *foundational*, *technology transfer* and *university industry collaboration*, *technology transfer* and *entrepreneurial dynamics*, *academic entrepreneurship* and *sustainable technology transfer*. Furthermore, based on this analysis, we reflect on key drivers that will influence and shape future research avenues.

**Keywords** Technology transfer · Entrepreneurship · Innovation · Universities · R&D · Patents · Licences · Policy · Academic entrepreneurship

## 1 Introduction

In the continuously evolving realm of technological progress, the processes of technology transfer plays a central, often an invisible role in propelling economic development, societal advancement, and organizational growth (Bozeman et al., 2013; Carayannis et al., 2015; Klofsten et al., 2019). At the forefront of fostering scholarly discussion in

<footnote>James A. Cunningham
james.cunningham@newcastle.ac.uk

Nabila Abid
nabid@em-normandie.fr

José-Luis Perea-Vicente
joseluis.perea@uca.es</footnote>

<footnote n="1">¹ Department of Strategy & Entrepreneurship, EM Normandie Business School, Métis Lab, Le Havre, France</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² Newcastle University Business School, Newcastle University, Newcastle, UK</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ Centre for Innovation Research (CIRCLE), Lund University, Lund, Sweden</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴ Business Management Department, University of Cadiz, Cádiz, Spain</footnote>
this domain is *The Journal of Technology Transfer*. Over time, *The Journal of Technology Transfer* has garnered a global recognition as a premier scholarly publication and has been ranked as a 3* star journal in the innovation category of Academic Journal Guide (AJG) by the Chartered Association of Business Schools (ABS) (Academic Journal Guide, 2024). It is indexed in well-established and recognised databases, including Web of Science, Scopus, and Journal Citation Reports. Over the years, *the Journal* has shown its commitment to exploring the economic, managerial, and policy frameworks and implications of technology transfer, entrepreneurship, and innovation and guided researchers and practitioners in exploring and understanding the dynamics of technology-induced transformations across industries and societies (Hayter et al., 2023; Kariv et al., 2024). By covering the broad spectrum of research in the mentioned domains, *The Journal of Technology Transfer* has enriched the academic landscapes while continuously evolving in dynamic environments. *The Journal* focus on examining the relationship between organizations and the external environment (Guerrero et al., 2016; Neumeyer et al., 2019; Schoen et al., 2014). It also has shown the interconnectedness between socio-economic factors and techno-innovation processes (Lamine et al., 2018; Toma et al., 2018; Urbano et al., 2019).

An approach adopted by *the Journal* has enabled scholars to delve into the nuanced and multifaceted aspects of technology transfer, entrepreneurship and innovation within various organizational and industrial settings (Audretsch, 2014; Audretsch & Caiazza, 2016; Hayter et al., 2023). However, *The Journal of Technology Transfer* not only focuses on the mentioned disciplinary boundaries but also engages in scholarly discourse covering stakeholders such as governmental bodies, public and private agencies, and organizations, such as universities, small firms, multi-national corporations etc. (Jefferson et al., 2017; Kochenkova et al., 2016) and encourages diverse empirical analyses, theoretical frameworks, thereby fostering methodological diversity. The amalgamation of disciplinary perspectives, stakeholder engagement, robust theoretical underpinnings, and methodological variety broadens the scope of scholarly inquiry, allowing researchers to explore a multitude of viewpoints through diverse approaches. These inclusive methodologies have enabled *The Journal of Technology Transfer* to offer evidence-based insights for policymaking and strategic decision-makers. In doing so, *the Journal* disseminates and illuminates effective initiatives and development strategies aimed at advancing technology transfer, stimulating entrepreneurial endeavours, and fostering innovation-driven economic growth (Audretsch & Caiazza, 2016; Carayannis et al., 2015; Kollmann et al., 2023; Urbano et al., 2019). Maintaining this approach over the years, *the Journal* has played a pivotal role in bridging the gap between academia and practice, facilitating the translation of research findings into tangible real-world impacts.

In order to commemorate 45 years of publications to bridge the gap between industry and academia in realms of innovation, entrepreneurship and technology, our study presents a comprehensive overview of *the Journal's* achievements, emerging themes, and dominant research trends over different periods and *the Journal's* developmental trajectories. The main objective is to track *the Journal's* developments and to trace its evolution. It is important to have such a restrictive assessment for a leading journal, as Rigby (2016) suggested. We also performed a retrospective analysis of *The Journal of Technology Transfer*.

Aligned with *the Journal's* mission to promote scholarly discourse in technology transfer, entrepreneurship, and innovation, our study seeks to trace the trajectory of research themes within *The Journal of Technology Transfer*. We have delineated three primary objectives; the first one is to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the technology transfer literature, revealing its evolution over time and providing relevant insights for evaluating various aspects such as author credibility, institutional affiliations, and
prevalent themes across different time frames. Our findings offer a comprehensive overview of technology transfer research, encompassing publication frequency per year, prevalent thematic areas, notable contributors to the field, and institutions (along with their respective countries) with the highest research output. We strive to identify the most significant themes since *the Journal's* inception in 1977 and to recognize prominent researchers globally, thus illuminating recent advancements in the field and revealing thematic intersections. Our second objective involves mapping the technology transfer research community through a co-authorship analysis, positing that scientific collaborations primarily lead to the generation of new knowledge reflected in scholarly publications (Abbasi et al., 2011). Our third objective is to identify areas of interest and prospective research directions by grouping research subjects according to thematic similarities (Braun & Clarke, 2006). This endeavour results in the identification of five principal research streams and associated topics, allowing us to consider the role of *The Journal of Technology Transfer* in catalyzing and advancing new research frontiers.

To accomplish our stated objectives, we employ two distinct methodological approaches: *bibliometric performance analysis* and *scientific mapping analysis*. The bibliometric analysis enables a comprehensive examination of selected time frames, providing insights into scientific productivity, quality, impact, and the evolution of literature over those periods, thus introducing objectivity into the inherently subjective process of literature evaluation (Rodriguez-Ledesma et al., 2015). While, science mapping visually represents interconnections among various scientific fields, authors, and published papers within a specific research area, facilitating the identification and representation of specific topics or general thematic areas, as well as their development over time. The software tool utilized for this study is SciMAT (Science Mapping Analysis Software Tool), which seamlessly integrates bibliometric mapping and performance analysis techniques (Cobo et al., 2011b; López-Herrera et al., 2012). A total of 1,688 documents published between 1977 and 2023 were retrieved and analyzed using SciMAT (Cobo et al., 2011a, 2012).

Our study findings highlight the significance of established scholars, influential organizations, and the evolving research themes relevant to technology transfer. Our findings reveal distinct phases in *the Journal's* evolution. In the *foundational phase* spanning from 1977 to 2006, innovation served as a focal point, paving the way for subsequent explorations into technology transfer, R&D, knowledge, and patents. The second phase—*technology transfer and university industry collaboration* (2007–2011), *the Journal* expanded its focus to prominently feature technology transfer alongside themes such as university-industry collaboration, emerging nanotechnology, and entrepreneurial studies. The third phase (2012–2016) *technology transfer and entrepreneurial dynamics* saw a surge in entrepreneurial dynamics, with technology transfer remaining central, while innovation continued to hold significance, particularly emphasizing university-industry collaboration and innovation ecosystems. Moving into the fourth phase *academic entrepreneurship* (2017–2020), *the Journal* diversified into nine core themes, with *startups and academic entrepreneurship* taking centre stage, highlighting academic entrepreneurial maturity. Innovation intersected with entrepreneurship within university-industry collaborations, emphasizing significant stakeholders. In the latest emerging phase *sustainable technology transfer* (2021–2023), themes aligned with global sustainability initiatives emerged, notably sustainable innovation and digital transformation. These themes signify a contemporary shift in *the Journal's* approach, addressing environmental concerns and exploring the role of digital technologies in addressing contemporary challenges and opportunities in technology transfer and development.
Our study makes the following contributions. Our study contributes to the nuanced understanding of dynamic technology transfer research. Through identifying the progressions of central themes within *the Journal*, we offer a constructive understanding of technology transfer processes, innovation and entrepreneurial dynamics, and the role of university-industry partnerships in advancing technology integration within economic frameworks. Such a comprehensive overview enhances our understanding of the intricate interactions among diverse actors and contexts that shape technology transfer phenomena within the field. Secondly, our study introduces a robust methodological framework that integrates bibliometric analysis and scientific mapping to examine trends within the field. This approach allows for comprehensive tracking of publication patterns, the evolution of thematic frameworks, and scholarly contributions within the domain. Lastly, in addition to theoretical and methodological implications, our research offers practical insights for stakeholders involved in technology transfer processes, including technology transfer professionals, policymakers, and academics striving to enhance technology transfer and innovation ecosystems to foster economic growth.

The remainder of our paper follows a structured approach: Sect. 2 outlines the methodology employed in the study, elucidating its significance, while Sect. 3 presents, interprets, and explains the identified themes and trends within *The Journal of Technology Transfer*. Finally, Sect. 4 concludes the paper by offering insights, implications, and directions for future research.

## 2 Methodology

Our study comprises two main methodological parts: bibliometric performance analysis and scientific mapping analysis. The utilization of a quantitative approach, such as bibliometric analysis, contributes to a more comprehensive understanding of potential developmental patterns within a knowledge domain. This approach offers a detailed analysis of the selected time frames, providing insight into the scientific productivity, quality, impact, and evolution of the literature during those periods. Discerning the primary themes within the field of knowledge is attainable through bibliometric analysis, especially when utilizing a science mapping methodology (Santana & Cobo, 2020). An inherent advantage of employing bibliometric methods lies in their capacity to infuse objectivity into the essentially subjective process of literature evaluation (Paul & Criado, 2020). In this context, science mapping serves to visually represent the interconnections among various scientific fields, authors, and published papers within a specific research area. This is a valuable contribution to journal analysis, allowing the identification and representation of specific topics or general thematic areas, as well as their development over time.

The software tool used for this study is SciMAT (Science Mapping Analysis software Tool). SciMAT seamlessly integrates the benefits of bibliometric mapping and performance analysis techniques to discern general and specific themes within a research area, while providing a dynamic visualization of their evolution over a specified period (see Cobo et al., 2011a, 2011b; López-Herrera et al., 2012; Rodriguez-Ledesma et al., 2015). The process on which SciMAT is based for discovering the main topics in the studied area of knowledge involves a co-word analysis of all the documents in the core corpus of the study, followed by the use of a clustering algorithm (Coulter et al., 1998). The thematic network and strategy diagrams are used to visualize the progression of noteworthy themes. These tools assess the centrality and density of each theme (Callon et al., 1991; He, 1999).
*Centrality* indicates the strength of network interactions, while *density* indicates the internal strength of the network (Cobo et al., 2015). The result of the combination of these two metrics is a strategic diagram in which four distinct quadrants can be identified (Fig. 1).

*Motor themes* contain highly developed themes which exhibit significant centrality and density and are externally linked to relevant concepts in closely associated themes. These motor themes have a crucial impact on shaping a research field. Conversely, themes categorized as *highly developed and isolated themes*, demonstrate strong internal connections but marginal external importance. *Emerging or declining themes* are characterized by limited development, marginal significance, showing low density and centrality. Themes that are considered significant but require further development, known as *basic and transversal themes*.

For the purpose of offering a comprehensive overview of *The Journal of Technology Transfer* and its impact, as well as to highlight its most significant research themes, we used a method based on bibliometric techniques. Therefore, all documents published in this journal were retrieved and additionally evaluated. Our search was conducted using Scopus, a reputable database that has been used extensively in other studies (see Anand et al. 2021; Calof et al., 2022; Eito-Brun & Ledesma, 2016). Thus this ensures the suitability and reliability of the publications, as Scopus has an established reputation as a solid source for bibliometric studies (see Albahari et al., 2022). In our study, documents were retrieved with a specific query using the International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) of the journal: "ISSN (0892-9912)". The data collection was conducted on 9th January 2024. This query resulted in 1,688 documents, published from 1977 to 2023. All of these documents were entered into SciMAT to perform an additional analysis.

Analyzing the evolution of a research area's major themes is a valuable technique for gaining a deeper understanding. It provides an opportunity to explore developmental connections, evolutionary paths, and time-related tendencies in content and thematic structures. It is recommended to analyze data evolution annually. However, in some cases, aggregating the data into periods can be beneficial to ensure an adequate volume of publications for analysis. In this scenario, partitioning the time frame into five comparable periods was found to be the optimal strategy. For this purpose, the main corpus was divided into the following time periods: 1977-2006, 2007-2011, 2012-2016, 2017-2020 and 2021-2023, with 637, 185, 265, 300 and 301 publications, respectively.

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 1** Strategic diagram. Adapted from Cobo et al. (2015)</figcaption></figure>
**2.1 Key contributions in The Journal of Technology Transfer: a bibliometric study**

The main bibliometric indicators and performances of the *Journal* are outlined and discussed this section. As mentioned already, the bibliometric performance measures used in our analysis are published articles, citations received, journal impact factor, most cited publications, most cited and productive authors, most prolific affiliations, and geographical distribution of publications.

**2.1.1 Publications, citations, and journal impact factor**

*The Journal of Technology Transfer* has been publishing articles since 1977 (see Fig. 3). From 1977 to 2005, *the Journal* published between 20 and 30 articles annually. However, in 2006, *the Journal* began to increase its number of publications. In recent years, *the Journal* has attracted the attention of researchers. Therefore, the number of issues published per year has increased. Prior to 2006, *the Journal* published between 3 and 4 issues per year, with only 2 issues published in its early years and only 1 issue published in 1987 and 1988. The increase in productivity was staggered. Between 2006 and 2015, the number of articles published ranged from 30 to 50 per year. This number increased to 60 to 80 articles per year between 2016 and 2022. The previous year was the most productive in *the Journal's* history, with a total of 134 articles published.

Figure 4 shows the distribution of citation counts achieved by these articles. It is evident that *the Journal* began an upward trend in 1998, with a doubling of citations in the following year (506 citations), and a nearly seven-fold increase in 2001 (3,318 citations). Despite two drops in citation counts in 2003 and 2004 (436 and 507, respectively), the trend has remained upward, with an average of 2,000 citations per year from 2001 to 2020. Over the past three years, the citation time-window, which represents the length of time it takes for an article to reach many citations, has had a significant impact. However, it is worth noting that articles published in 2021 have already received over 1,160 citations. Of the published articles, 6.28 per cent have 100 or more citations, 16.29 per cent have more than

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 2** Journal impact factor by year (2009–2022). Source: Author's elaboration based on WoS</figcaption></figure>
50 citations, and over half have more than 10 citations (51.95 per cent). Additionally, 85.60 per cent of all published articles have received at least one citation.

Table 1 displays *the Journal's* impact factor based on the Science Journal Citation Reports (Thomson Reuters) and its quartile within the category for each year. Furthermore, Fig. 2 illustrates *the Journal's* progression in the Academic Journal Guide and its position in the Innovation category, ranking fourth out of forty. It is evident that *the Journal* maintains a high position in both indicators among journals in the same field of knowledge.

## 2.1.2 Most cited papers, most cited authors, and most productive authors

Identifying the most cited and productive authors, their geographical distribution, affiliations, and funding agencies is crucial to understanding the evolution of *The Journal of Technology Transfer*. Table 2 highlights the most productive authors. D.B: Audretsch is the most prolific writer. He published his first article in *the Journal* in 2002, and over 50 per cent of his articles have been published in the last six years. Moreover, he is the most cited author, as can be seen in Table 3, where the most cited authors are represented. As shown in both tables, many of the most productive authors are also the most cited.

The United States (US) is the country with the highest number of published articles in terms of geographical distribution (714). Italy and the United Kingdom (UK) represent the second tier with a similar number of articles published (190 and 186, respectively). Germany, with 162, and Spain, with 105, round out the top 5 most productive countries (see Table 4). The list of affiliations shows a similar trend, with many of the most productive organizations originating from the US. Following them are Italian, British, German, and Spanish organizations (see Table 5).

Figures 3 and 4 illustrate the growth of *the Journal* in terms of the number of published documents and citations since its foundation. The curve in Fig. 3 shows the cumulative number of documents, demonstrating a steady increase over time.

## 2.1.3 Most relevant articles and authors

The H-Classic method can be used to display all the publications in *The Journal of Technology Transfer* that have received a much higher number of citations. This method

<table><caption>**Table 1** Academic journal guide (AJG). Source: Author's elaboration based on Chartered Association of Business Schools</caption><thead><tr><th>Journal title</th><th>Publisher name</th><th>AJG 2021</th><th>AJG 2018</th><th>AJG 2015</th><th>AJG 2010</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Research Policy</td><td>Elsevier</td><td>4*</td><td>4*</td><td>4</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Journal of Product Innovation Management</td><td>Wiley-Blackwell</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Industry and Innovation</td><td>Taylor & Francis</td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Journal of Technology Transfer</td><td>Springer Nature</td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>R&D Management</td><td>Wiley-Blackwell</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Technological Forecasting and Social Change</td><td>Elsevier</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Technovation</td><td>Elsevier</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>**Table 2** Most productive authors. Source: Author's elaboration based on Scopus</caption><thead><tr><th>Publications</th><th>Author(s) (Citations)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>35</td><td>Audretsch, D.B. (2.471)</td></tr><tr><td>21</td><td>Goel, R.K. (336)</td></tr><tr><td>17</td><td>Link, A.N. (785)</td></tr><tr><td>15</td><td>Shapira, P. (228)</td></tr><tr><td>14</td><td>Antonelli, C. (227); Carayannis, E.G. (842); Lehmann, E.E. (1.033); Meissner, D. (250); Youtie, J. (326)</td></tr><tr><td>13</td><td>Guerrero, M. (1.047); Vonortas, N.S. (414); Wright, M. (1.850)</td></tr><tr><td>12</td><td>Jolly, J.A. (22); Scott, J.T. (392)</td></tr><tr><td>11</td><td>Hayter, C.S. (605)</td></tr><tr><td>10</td><td>Bozeman, B. (823); Vismara, S. (589)</td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td>Belitski, M. (656); Blind, K. (179); Cunningham, J.A. (644); Segman, R. (5); Wolek, F.W. (5)</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>**Table 3** Most cited authors. Source: Author's elaboration based on Scopus</caption><thead><tr><th>Citations</th><th>Author(s) (Publications)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2.471</td><td>Audretsch, D.B. (35)</td></tr><tr><td>1.850</td><td>Wright, M (13)</td></tr><tr><td>1.047</td><td>Guerrero, M. (13)</td></tr><tr><td>1.033</td><td>Lehmann, E.E. (14)</td></tr><tr><td>842</td><td>Carayannis, E.G. (14)</td></tr><tr><td>823</td><td>Bozeman, B. (10)</td></tr><tr><td>785</td><td>Link, A.N. (17)</td></tr><tr><td>656</td><td>Belitski, M. (9)</td></tr><tr><td>644</td><td>Cunningham, J.A. (9)</td></tr><tr><td>605</td><td>Hayter, C.S. (11)</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>**Table 4** Geographical distribution of published articles. Source: Author's elaboration based on Scopus</caption><thead><tr><th>Publications</th><th>Countries</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>714</td><td>US</td></tr><tr><td>190</td><td>Italy</td></tr><tr><td>186</td><td>UK</td></tr><tr><td>162</td><td>Germany</td></tr><tr><td>105</td><td>Spain</td></tr><tr><td>76</td><td>China</td></tr><tr><td>75</td><td>Netherlands</td></tr><tr><td>67</td><td>France</td></tr><tr><td>48</td><td>Sweden</td></tr><tr><td>46</td><td>Canada</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>**Table 5** Most productive affiliations. Source: Author's elaboration based on Scopus</caption><thead><tr><td>Publications</td><td>Affiliation</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>51</td><td>Georgia Institute of Technology (US)</td></tr><tr><td>46</td><td>Indiana University Bloomington (US)</td></tr><tr><td>34</td><td>The George Washington University (US)</td></tr><tr><td>30</td><td>Università degli Studi di Torino (Italy)</td></tr><tr><td>25</td><td>The University of Manchester (UK); HSE University (Russian Federation)</td></tr><tr><td>22</td><td>Illinois State University (US)</td></tr><tr><td>20</td><td>Universität Augsburg (Germany); Alliance Manchester Business School (UK)</td></tr><tr><td>19</td><td>Alma Mater Studiorum Universita di Bologna (Italy)</td></tr><tr><td>18</td><td>Universitat Politecnica de Valencia (Spain); California State University, Sacramento (US); The University of North Carolina at Greensboro (US); Lunds Universitet (Sweden); Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung GmbH (Germany)</td></tr><tr><td>17</td><td>Università degli Studi di Bergamo (Italy); KU Leuven (Belgium); CSIC-UPV (Spain)</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 3** Distribution of publications by year from 1997 to 2023. Source: Author's elaboration based on WoS</figcaption></figure>

also allows the identification of countries, institutions, and authors that have had a significant impact on the development of *the Journal*. This methodology, which is based on the h-index, is applied precisely because it captures the peculiarities of each scientific field and its evolution (López-Robles et al., 2021; Moral-Muñoz et al., 2015). Based on the articles published and citations received up to 2023, *the Journal* has an h-index of 103. Appendix A provides a compilation of pertinent articles, totaling 20,527 citations, averaging 199.29 citations per publication. Figure 5 illustrates the publication years of these articles and their citation distribution up to 2023.

Among the most relevant articles, some authors have multiple publications. For instance, Wright, M. has 8 publications, Audretsch, D.B. has 7, Feldman, M. has 4, and Bozeman B., Carayannis E.G., Del Giudice M., Guerrero M., Lehmann E.E., and Urbano D. have 3 each. Additionally, the following group of authors have published 2
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 4** Distribution of citations by year from 1997 to 2023. Source: Author's elaboration based on WoS</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 5** Distribution of most cited publications by year from 1997 to 2023. Source: Author's elaboration based on WoS</figcaption></figure>

articles, which are Asheim B.T., Bercouitz J., Colombo M.G., Cooke P., Cunningham J.A., Dilts D.M., Grimaldi R., Hackett S.M., Hall B.H., Hayter C.S., Leydesdorff L., Link A.N., Lockett A., Mustar P., Siegel D.S., Thursby J.G. and Thursby M.C.
# 3 Science mapping analysis of *The Journal of Technology Transfer*

Scientific mapping utilizes a spatial representation to illustrate the relationships among disciplines, fields, specialties, documents, and authors. This technique has extensive applications in various research fields, facilitating the unveiling and exploration of key elements such as documents, authors, institutions, and themes (Cobo et al., 2011a; Santana & Cobo, 2020).

## 3.1 Thematic analysis of the published papers

Over the years, *The Journal of Technology Transfer* has been continuously expandings its research themes. Based on our analysis we identified the evolution of themes between 1997 and 2023 (see 1977–2023) (see Fig. 6). The following five strategic diagrams are presented to analyze the most important topics covered in *the Journal* during each time period. Additionally, there is a direct correlation between the size of the sphere and the number of publications for each research topic.

### 3.1.1 Foundational phase

The *Foundational Phase* (1977–2006) for this initial period, only one theme is presented, which is *Innovation* (see Fig. 7). This theme is a motor theme and exhibits high values of network interaction strength (centrality) and inner network strength (density). In this period, this theme received a total of 2,894 citations. It is one of the three main pillars of *the Journal's* scope. This period is mainly characterized by those works conducted

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 6** Evolution of the themes (1977–2023). Source: SciMAT</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 7 Strategic Diagram for the foundational phase. Source: SciMAT</figcaption></figure>

around technology transfer, the impact of these technology transfer on the development of regions, research and development (R&D), knowledge and patents (see Appendix B). During its early stages, *the Journal* established the foundation for its growth and became one of the main publications in the field of innovation in the economic context of the different regions, also studying some of the crucial actors. Scholars such as Leydesdorff (2006), Karkalakos (2005) and Cooke and Leydesdorff (2006) focused on the regional development. Several case studies were published that provided some deeper understandings of technology transfer, including those by Teece (2004), Golob (2006), Hemais et al. (2005), Davis and Sun (2006), and the well-known Bercovitz and Feldman study in 2006, where they proposed a conceptual framework.

### 3.1.2 Technology transfer and university industry collaborations

The second phase *Technology Transfer and University Industry Collaborations* (2007–2011): During this period, *the Journal* focused on five main themes (see Fig. 8). One of the two motor themes remains *innovation*, which maintains a high level of centrality, although its internal network strength is medium to high. Innovation is the theme with the most published articles (57), but it is not the most cited nor the one with the highest h-index. During this period, several papers were published addressing aspects of patents, such as Göktepe-Hulten and Mahagaonkar (2010), and Huang et al. (2011) (see Appendix C). This research line continues from the previous phase, delving deeper into aspects such as the legal process for the appropriation of rights (Cremers, 2009) and the development of
<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 8** Second Phase Strategic Diagram: Technology Transfer and University Industry Collaborations.
Source: SciMAT</figcaption></figure>

patenting for innovation or creation (Landry et al., 2007a, 2007b; Nagaoka, 2009). *Technology-Transfer* is a basic and transversal theme, i.e., it is a very important theme for the *Journal*, although it has not yet been fully developed during this period. It is the theme with the highest number of citations (3,021) and the highest h-index (31) in this period. Universities and technology transfer offices arise as issues related to this main theme, being published articles such as Muscio (2010), Sellenthin (2009) and Van der Berghe and Guild (2008) (see Appendix D). *Nanotechnology* is an emerging theme, with 55 articles published in this period receiving a total of 2,179 citations, demonstrating its ability to capture researchers' attention. It is worth noting that this theme has the highest h-index during this period. Additionally, studies during this phase were also beginning to be published on entrepreneurship and its relationship with innovation (Hackett & Dilts, 2008; Salvador, 2011) and technology transfer (Colombo et al., 2010; Stephan and El-Ganainy, 2007).

### 3.1.3 Technology transfer and entrepreneurial dynamics

The third phase–*technology transfer and entrepreneurial dynamics* (2012–2016), based on our analysis we found four research themes (see Fig. 9). All these topics share a common factor: the entrepreneurial aspect. This topic is studied in the previous phase and gains even greater research attention during this phase. While it is not one of the main themes, it does have an impact and influence on all of them.

The motor theme now is *Technology-Transfer*, which is supported by the performance indicators as it has the highest productivity (106 published articles), the most
<figure><img src="image_11.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 9 Third phase strategic diagram: technology transfer and entrepreneurial dynamism. Source: SciMAT</figcaption></figure>

citations (6,105 citations), and the highest h-index (46) in this period. In this instance, it is the theme that presents the strongest network interaction. As highlighted already, the entrepreneurial aspect appears in publications such as Audretsch and Link (2012), Kim (2013) and Rasmussen and Wright (2015). An in-depth study of entrepreneurship is conducted during this period and the process of its analysis is further refined, resulting in the publication of many papers focusing on academic entrepreneurship, such as the articles by Davey et al. (2016), Goel & Göktepe-Hulten (2015), Shane et al. (2015), and Wright (2014). Some others focus on other subthemes such as spin-offs (Algieri et al., 2013; Festel, 2013) or entrepreneurship policy (Qian & Haynes, 2014) (see Appendix E). Furthermore, in this period, *Innovation* remains one of the most attractive topics, although it presents lower levels of centrality and density than usual. It is the second most productive topic, with 87 published papers, and the second most cited, with more than 4,000 citations and an h-index of 36. Patents remains a subtheme studied in this main theme. In this period there are many publications centered on how universities have developed the patenting process (Fisch et al., 2015; Grimm & Jaenicke, 2012; Lawson, 2013). Knowledge transfer arises as another important subtheme, and several papers are published that delve into its role in achieving the third mission and fostering economic development in the region (Cesaroni & Piccaluga, 2016; Diez-Vial et al., 2015; Grosse Kathoefer & Leker, 2012) (see Appendix F).

Universities are a crucial actor that arises transversally in several main themes due to their influence, such as in the case of technology transfer where they play a critical role. Many papers are published that deepen our knowledge on this topic (Carree et al.,
2014; Chen et al., 2016; Siegel & Wessner, 2012). Regarding innovation, there has been extensive research on collaborations between universities and industries. A state-of-the-art review was published during this period (Bozeman et al., 2013), along with other articles that focus on possible cognitive differences (Muscio & Pozzali, 2013), deepening the dynamics of collaboration (Thune and Gulbrandsen, 2014), its effects on the region where it occurs (Lehmann & Menter, 2016), and even some case studies (Giunta et al., 2016). In addition, papers on entrepreneurial universities are also published as a sub-theme in the main topic of Institutional Economics. It is worth highlighting studies by Audretsch (2014), Carayannis et al. (2016), Guerrero and Urbano (2012), and Guerrero et al. (2014) for their efforts to address more specific aspects of this interesting sub-theme.

### 3.1.4 Academic entrepreneurship

The fourth phase *academic entrepreneurship* (2017–2020), *the Journal* focused on nine main themes (see Fig. 10). There are two new motor themes, named *Start-ups* and *Academic-Entrepreneurship*. Although these are neither the most prolific, nor the most cited, nor the ones with the highest h-index, as these are two of the three basic and transversal themes *University-Industry-Collaboration* (96 documents, 3,938 citations and 36 h-index) and *Innovation* (84 documents, 2,684 citations and 31 h-index). Academic entrepreneurship is consolidated as a main theme in *the Journal* in this period, where in addition to publishing papers that go much deeper into this topic (Hayter et al., 2018), there are

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 10** Fourth phase strategic diagram – academic entrepreneurship. Source: SciMAT</figcaption></figure>
articles that focus on investigating its possible particularities (Fischer et al., 2018), some of its main actors (Hayter et al., 2017), and even case studies (Barbieri et al., 2018; Urban and Chantson, 2019). Closely related to this topic is the sub-theme *University spin-off*, on which is intended to expand knowledge, so *the Journal* publishes studies such as those by Mathisen & Rasmussen (2019), Marzocchi et al. (2019) and Ben-Hafaïedh et al. (2018) (see Appendix G). Actually, both motor themes are closely related, so that it could be said that in the articles that compose *Start-up* motor theme is the result of the process of deepening on topics such as entrepreneurship, innovation and technology transfer. As a result of this process of deepening the understanding, these new niches of knowledge emerge: the research on start-ups (Van Stijn et al., 2018; Van Weele et al., 2018) and the sub-theme that focuses on the ecosystem that favors entrepreneurship -named entrepreneurial-ecosystem (see Appendix H). Focusing on the latter, papers such as Audretsch et al. (2019), Corrente et al. (2018) and Cunningham & O'Reilly (2018) were published.

*Innovation* is again one of the main themes, and in this period has a particular focus on its relationship with entrepreneurship, which is one of the sub-themes (see Appendix I). Therefore, studies such as those conducted by Cunningham et al. (2019), Mrożewski and Kratzer (2017), Caiazza et al. (2020), and Audretsch et al. (2018) provide valuable insights into various aspects, such as the impact of certain policies on technology transfer and entrepreneurship, or the influence of entrepreneurship and innovation on a country's development. Additionally, attention is being paid to science parks -another sub-theme of innovation-, through the publication of articles that focus on learning more about their contribution in recent years (Lecluyse et al., 2019), their role in innovation (Lamperti et al., 2017), and even a study that elaborates their conceptual structure (Mora-Valentín et al., 2018). Another main theme is *University-Industry-Collaboration* which is composed of several closely related sub-themes such as technology transfer (Cunningham et al., 2017; Ferreira et al., 2019; Kruger and Steyn, 2020), R&D collaborations (Fox et al., 2017; Messeni and Murgia, 2020) and knowledge transfer (Hsiao et al., 2017; Schaeffer et al., 2020; Ye et al., 2020) (see Appendix J). *Universities* is another main theme that focuses on the specific aspects of commercializing results and the role of technology transfer offices (Kalantaridis, 2019; Lafuente & Berbegal-Mirabent., 2019; M'chirgui et al., 2018).

### 3.1.5 Sustainable technology transfer

The fifth phase, which spanned from 2021 to 2023, was dedicated to the advancement of *Sustainable Technology Transfer*. During this period, *the Journal* concentrated its attention on five principal themes (see Fig. 9). *Technology Transfer* is the motor theme in this last phase, exhibiting high values of network interaction strength (centrality) and inner network strength (density). It is the theme with the most published articles (84), the most cited (672) and the one with the highest h-index(15) in *the Journal* in this period. Connected to this motor theme are subthemes such as academic entrepreneurship. In her 2021 study, Di Paola examine the phenomenon of female academic entrepreneurship, investigating the conditions under which antecedents of entrepreneurial intentions explain it, thus contributing to closing the gender gap. Another subtheme connected to the motor theme is university-industry collaboration, where articles like Apa et al. (2021) and Spithoven et al. (2021) were published. Invention licenses (Aksoy et al., 2021) and technology transfer offices (Bolzani et al., 2021) arises also in connection with this principal theme (see Appendix K) (Fig. 11).
<figure><img src="image_13.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 11 Fifth phase strategic diagram: sustainable technology transfer</figcaption></figure>

*Entrepreneurship* and *Innovation* are basic and transversal themes. They are the next two topics with the highest number of published papers (41 and 49, respectively), the highest number of citations (335 and 315, respectively) and with the highest h-index (11 and 9, respectively) after the theme engine. These are topics that have consistently been at the core of *the Journal's* focus, as evidenced by studies such as those conducted by Duval-Couetil et al. (2021) and O'Kane et al. (2021) pertaining to entrepreneurship, and the work of Menter (2024) and Salles-Filho et al. (2023) related to innovation.

## 4 Some considerations of future technology transfer influential drivers

Against the backdrop of the emergence themes in the *Sustainable Technology Transfer Phase* it is also necessary to consider some future influential drivers that are and will influence technology and knowledge transfer researchers, policy and practice over the coming years. First, it is evident from our retrospective review of *The Journal of Technology Transfer* that sustainability like in many other academic fields is a growing area of interest and importance. This is in part is being currently influenced by public policy investments and public entrepreneurship programmes that address sustainability challenges and issues. This focus raises some interesting questions about how technology and knowledge transfer practices and activities will adapt and evolve. In practical terms it opens up questions about the exclusive and properitary nature that currently predominates and pervades technology
transfer practices. As sustainability becomes a more predominant issue for businesses along with growing demands for more stakeholder transparency and effective measurement of such activities, a key consideration will be how technology transfer processes and mechanisms will need to change and evolve, particularly university to industry. Consequently, with the growing focus on sustainability there is a need for future scholars, practitioners and policymakers to reflect and consider what is the core purpose and impact of technology transfer concerning sustainability.

Linked to sustainability considerations another influential driver is how technology transfer incorporates and integrates social value and engenders prosocial behaviours among for example technology transfer professionals and academic entrepreneurs. Therefore there is a need to undertake multilevel analysis - mirco, meso and macro -of prosocial behaviours among technology and knowledge transfer actors (Guerrero & Siegel, 2024; Penner et al., 2005). Moreover, with national governments increasingly adopting mission focused research programmes designed to address what is termed grand challenges, how do organisational level technology transfer strategies incorporate and realise social value? Furthermore, firms are increasingly aware that consumers are becoming more attuned to how their activities products/services contribute to creating societal value. Therefore, technology transfer strategies adopted by different actors will need incorporate social value. Moreover, organisations will also need to be able to demonstrate social value along with economic value using robust and credible measures. So how should technology and knowledge transfer practitioners incorporate social value into their technology strategies and processes? Furthermore, actors need to be mindful that technology transfer strategies can excaberate societal disparaties rather than alleviating them as well as lessening the social value and benefits. For example, the Covid-19 pandemic highlighted some of the social value benefits of technology transfer and also highlighted the practical constraints and disparities regarding social value, reach and impact. With an increasing focus on social value this will influence how actors involved in the technology transfer process adopt prosocial behaviours to create social value. At a micro and meso-levels scholars need to better understand the prosocial behaviours of technology transfer actors involved in the technology transfer process, irrespective of the technology transfer mechanism mix or the type of organisational actor configuration.

As with all academic and practice fields technology transfer has not been immune to the impact of digitalisation and in particular the advancement of artificial intelligence. We can see the early shoots of this influential driver has in the current evolution phase that we identified from our thematic analysis. Technology transfer digitalisation can further the effectiveness and efficiency of the technology transfer process and thereby overcoming information asymmetries experienced by different actors. Moreover, technology transfer digitalisation has the potential to reduce the time, efforts, and costs of technology transfer mechanisms. It also could lead to changes in professional technology transfer work practices and behaviours involved in managing the technology transfer process for different technology transfer mechanisms. Furthermore, with the advent of greater technology transfer digitalisation this in turn influences the future shape of the technology and knowledge transfer human capital capabilities and competences that are required by for example firms, universities, intermediary and advisory organisations. It also opens a key question about the future core and requisite skills of technology transfer practitioners irrespective of their organisation setting. Fundamentally digitalisation has the potential to radically change our current technology transfer norms and practices, eliminate or alter the various current job roles of technology transfer professionals and opens up new possibilities to reconfigure processes that support different technology transfer mechanisms. Technology transfer
digitalisation has the potential to radically move technology transfer systems from a pro-
pretiary to a truly open based system with different underpinning legislative regimes, tech-
nology transfer mechanisms business, economic and social models.

Finally, there are non market strategy factors that can influence technology transfer practice in different country contexts through for example advocacy and lobbying (Doh et al., 2012). In contexts with institutional voids, weak or developing institutions this can lead to technology, knowledge and intellectual property leakage and the technology transfer value destruction. It can also lead to other actors free-riding from the efforts of other firms that have been successful in their technology transfer efforts to support their enhancement and creation of their products or services. As political, legal and social environments change and traditional norms are being challenged, this poses new opportunities and challenges for actors to use technology transfer effectively to manage non-market environments.

**5 Conclusions**

This paper presents a bibliometric study of all articles published in *The Journal of Technology Transfer* from its inaugural issue in 1977 to the last issue of the year 2023. The bibliometric study has enabled an analysis of the evolution of the main topics in the Journal, confirming that over the last 47 years the Journal has remained consistent with its stated mission, while continuously following and anticipating the latest developments in the field. The analysis presents a number of implications for future research and identifies several potential avenues for further investigation.

**5.1 Study limitiations**

Our study is not without limitations. While this study is intended to provide guidance to
academic researchers in considering future research topics and methodologies, it is not
intended to provide exhaustive coverage of all developments. The methodology employed
serves to identify research topics and trends that have been most frequently cited, have
been the subject of the greatest number of publications, or have the highest h-indexes. It
is therefore possible that some pioneering contributions did not gain widespread attention
or influence other research trends. It would therefore be beneficial to analyse these lesser-
known but significant subjects.

The data collection was limited to the Scopus database, as *the Journal* was not indexed
in the Web of Science until 2007. In addition to the bibliometric analysis, we present a
qualitative interpretation of the most influential publications and suggest future research
directions, introducing an interpretive aspect. Notwithstanding these constraints, this study
offers a valuable retrospective account of the evolution of research themes since *the Jour-
nal*'s inception in 1977, together with insights into potential future research avenues.

**5.2 Final reflections**

Based on our analysis it is clear that *The Journal of Technology Transfer* has been to the
fore in embracing new perspectives as well as enabling critical considerations and extend-
ing knowledge along well established research themes. This approach has stood the test of
time and it important that *the Journal* continues to the embrace this tradition. Over the last
four decades, *The Journal of Technology Transfer* has played a pivotal role in establishing,
legitimising and developing this field of research and this is reflected in the various metrics, its inclusion in journal and national ranking lists. *The Journal* has been a focal point for the building of a vibrant and growing community of scholars as is reflected in the spread of authors across the globe and the annual volume of published papers.

As *the Journal* that is at the forefront of engaging with new perspectives the importance of engaging with practice and policy cannot be overlooked. Relative to other disciplines such as marketing, accounting, finance etc. the technology transfer practice and policy communities are smaller by comparison. Therefore, it is important for *the Journal* to be proactive and explicitly engage in public policy issues that are relevant to policy makers and practitioners irrespective of their contextual setting. For authors is to be conscious and proactive in how they share and disseminate their research but also within their articles to explicitly outline and discuss the implications of their research for policy and practice. For *the Journal* to continue to grow and evolve multi level engagement with policy and practice is a necessity given our field is grounded and has it roots in the practice of technology transfer.

One of the positive features of *the Journal* is its openness to different methodological and disciplinary perspectives. This openness has enriched the development of *the Journal* and of the technology transfer field. Looking ahead it is important for *the Journal* to maintain this openness and to encourage multidisciplinary collaboration and perspectives. With the advent of new methodological and study designs driven by the availability of data and technology it is important that *the Journal* embraces these evolutions. Moreover, a distinct attribute of *the Journal* is the embracing of macro, meso and micro level studies and perspectives. The openness to different methodological approaches continues to be a distinctive attribute of *the Journal*. In the last decade micro level studies have grown and this is reflected in the papers published in *the Journal*. However, there continues to be a need for comparative cross country technology transfer studies and meta analysis studies. While there is a predominant geographical distribution of published articles particularly North America and Europe there is a need to grow contributions from the global south.

Finally, the question posed by Elasser and Schneider (1977:69) in the first volume of *The Journal of Technology Transfer* was “why be concerned about technology transfer?”. This remains a fundamental question for scholars in our field, policy and practice as the nature of technology, knowledge creation and exploitation are evolving at a more rapid and dynamic pace. For over more than four decades editors, associate editors, authors and reviewers have contributed to the addressing this question in *the Journal*. There are many aspects of technology transfer strategies and activites that are invisible to society. In reality it does matter and does influence the lived daily experiences of individuals and societies across the globe.

## Appendix A: List of H-classics of The Journal of Technology Transfer

<table><thead><tr><td>Rank</td><td>Title</td><td>Authors</td><td>Year</td><td>Cited by</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>Regional innovation systems: The integration of local 'sticky' and global 'ubiquitous' knowledge</td><td>Asheim and Isaksen (2002)</td><td>2002</td><td>908</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Why do academics engage with industry? The entrepreneurial university and individual motivations</td><td>D'Este and Perkmann (2011)</td><td>2011</td><td>673</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th>Rank</th><th>Title</th><th>Authors</th><th>Year</th><th>Cited by</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>3</td><td>Entreprenarial universities and technology transfer: A conceptual framework for understanding knowledge-based economic development</td><td>Bercovitz and Feldman (2006)</td><td>2006</td><td>556</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>The sustainability of university-industry research collaboration: An empirical assessment</td><td>Lee (2000)</td><td>2000</td><td>498</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>Objectives, characteristics and outcomes of University Licensing: A survey of major U.S. Universities</td><td>Thursby et al. (2001)</td><td>2001</td><td>467</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>Entrepreneurial ecosystems in cities: establishing the framework conditions</td><td>Audretsch and Belitski (2017)</td><td>2017</td><td>448</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>From the entrepreneurial university to the university for the entrepreneurial society</td><td>Audretsch (2014)</td><td>2014</td><td>433</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>Regional development in the knowledge-based economy: The construction of advantage</td><td>Cooke and Leydesdorff (2006)</td><td>2006</td><td>429</td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td>The development of an entrepreneurial university</td><td>Guerrero and Urbano (2012)</td><td>2012</td><td>419</td></tr><tr><td>10</td><td>Research collaboration in universities and academic entrepreneurship: The state-of-the-art</td><td>Bozeman et al. (2013)</td><td>2013</td><td>373</td></tr><tr><td>11</td><td>To patent or not: Faculty decisions and institutional success at technology transfer</td><td>Owen-Smith and Powell (2001)</td><td>2001</td><td>360</td></tr><tr><td>12</td><td>Academic and surrogate entrepreneurs in university spin-out companies</td><td>Franklin et al. (2001)</td><td>2001</td><td>347</td></tr><tr><td>13</td><td>The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 and university-industry technology transfer: A model for other OECD governments?</td><td>Mowery and Sampat (2004)</td><td>2004</td><td>338</td></tr><tr><td>14</td><td>The regional innovation paradox: Innovation policy and industrial policy</td><td>Oughton et al. (2002)</td><td>2002</td><td>293</td></tr><tr><td>15</td><td>Contextualising regional innovation systems in a globalising learning economy: On knowledge bases and institutional frameworks</td><td>Asheim and Coenen (2006)</td><td>2006</td><td>274</td></tr><tr><td>16</td><td>Determinants and consequences of university spinoff activity: A conceptual framework</td><td>O'Shea et al. (2008)</td><td>2008</td><td>269</td></tr><tr><td>17</td><td>Creating entrepreneurial universities in the UK: Applying entrepreneurship theory to practice</td><td>Kirby (2006)</td><td>2006</td><td>256</td></tr><tr><td>18</td><td>Ambidexterity, external knowledge and performance in knowledge-intensive firms</td><td>Vrontis et al. (2017)</td><td>2017</td><td>250</td></tr><tr><td>19</td><td>Entrepreneurship and university technology transfer</td><td>Wright et al. (2004a)</td><td>2004</td><td>247</td></tr><tr><td>20</td><td>Regional innovation systems: General findings and some new evidence from biotechnology clusters</td><td>Cooke (2002)</td><td>2002</td><td>242</td></tr><tr><td>21</td><td>Entrepreneurial ecosystems: economic, technological, and societal impacts</td><td>Audretsch et al. (2019)</td><td>2019</td><td>241</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th>Rank</th><th>Title</th><th>Authors</th><th>Year</th><th>Cited by</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>22</td><td>Valleys of death and Darwinian seas: Financing the invention to innovation transition in the United States</td><td>Auerswald and Branscomb (2003)</td><td>2003</td><td>238</td></tr><tr><td>23</td><td>Do academic spin-outs differ and does it matter?</td><td>Drilhe and Garnsey (2004)</td><td>2004</td><td>236</td></tr><tr><td>24</td><td>Observations on the post-bayh-dole rise of patenting at American Universities</td><td>Nelson (2001)</td><td>2001</td><td>231</td></tr><tr><td>25</td><td>Organizational structure as a Determi- nant of Academic Patent and Licens- ing Behavior: An exploratory study of Duke, Johns Hopkins, and Pennsylva- nia State Universities</td><td>Bercouitz et al. (2001)</td><td>2001</td><td>226</td></tr><tr><td>26</td><td>Spinouts from academic institutions: A literature review with suggestions for further research</td><td>Djokovic and Souitaris (2008)</td><td>2008</td><td>219</td></tr><tr><td>27</td><td>Barriers inhibiting industry from partnering with universities: Evidence from the Advanced Technology Program</td><td>Hall et al. (2001)</td><td>2001</td><td>219</td></tr><tr><td>28</td><td>Persistence of innovation: Stylised facts and panel data evidence</td><td>Peters (2009)</td><td>2009</td><td>211</td></tr><tr><td>29</td><td>Reframing the role of Universities in the development of regional innovation systems</td><td>Gunasekara (2006)</td><td>2006</td><td>210</td></tr><tr><td>30</td><td>The knowledge-based economy: Con- ceptual framework or buzzword?</td><td>Godin (2006)</td><td>2006</td><td>207</td></tr><tr><td>31</td><td>Capturing technological opportunity Via Japan's Star Scientists: Evidence from Japanese firms' biotech patents and products</td><td>Zucker and Darby (2001)</td><td>2001</td><td>201</td></tr><tr><td>32</td><td>How and why do research-based start- ups differ at founding? A resource- based configurational perspective</td><td>Heirman and Clarysse (2004)</td><td>2004</td><td>200</td></tr><tr><td>33</td><td>Interactive relations between universi- ties and firms: Empirical evidence for Austria</td><td>Schartinger et al. (2001)</td><td>2001</td><td>195</td></tr><tr><td>34</td><td>The effect of social networking sites and absorptive capacity on SMES' innova- tion performance</td><td>Scuotto et al. (2017)</td><td>2017</td><td>193</td></tr><tr><td>35</td><td>Becoming an entrepreneurial university? A case study of knowledge exchange relationships and faculty attitudes in a medium-sized, research-oriented university</td><td>Martinelli et al. (2008)</td><td>2008</td><td>192</td></tr><tr><td>36</td><td>Exploring the patent explosion</td><td>Hall (2004)</td><td>2004</td><td>192</td></tr><tr><td>37</td><td>An emerging ecosystem for student start-ups</td><td>Wright et al. (2017)</td><td>2017</td><td>191</td></tr><tr><td>38</td><td>Business Model Innovation as Lever of Organizational Sustainability</td><td>Carayannis et al. (2015)</td><td>2015</td><td>185</td></tr><tr><td>39</td><td>Knowledge transfer in university-indus- try research partnerships: a review</td><td>de Wit-de Vries et al. (2019)</td><td>2019</td><td>183</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th>Rank</th><th>Title</th><th>Authors</th><th>Year</th><th>Cited by</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>40</td><td>Adverse selection and financing of innovation: Is there a need for R&D subsidies?</td><td>Takalo and Tanayama (2010)</td><td>2010</td><td>176</td></tr><tr><td>41</td><td>Factors fostering academics to start up new ventures: An assessment of Italian founders' incentives</td><td>Fini et al. (2009)</td><td>2009</td><td>171</td></tr><tr><td>42</td><td>Overcoming weak entrepreneurial infrastructures for academic spin-off ventures</td><td>Degroof and Roberts (2004)</td><td>2004</td><td>171</td></tr><tr><td>43</td><td>Entrepreneurial activity and regional competitiveness: evidence from European entrepreneurial universities</td><td>Guerrero et al. (2016)</td><td>2016</td><td>166</td></tr><tr><td>44</td><td>Entrepreneurial universities in two European regions: A case study comparison</td><td>Guerrero et al. (2014)</td><td>2014</td><td>164</td></tr><tr><td>45</td><td>What drives the university use of technology transfer offices? Evidence from Italy</td><td>Muscio (2010)</td><td>2010</td><td>163</td></tr><tr><td>46</td><td>Designing efficient institutions for science-based entrepreneurship: Lesson from the US and Sweden</td><td>Henrekson and Rosenberg (2001)</td><td>2001</td><td>163</td></tr><tr><td>47</td><td>The engaged university</td><td>Breznitz and Feldman (2012)</td><td>2012</td><td>162</td></tr><tr><td>48</td><td>Determinants of knowledge transfer: Evidence from Canadian university researchers in natural sciences and engineering</td><td>Landry et al. (2007a)</td><td>2007</td><td>162</td></tr><tr><td>49</td><td>Governmental venture capital for innovative young firms</td><td>Colombo et al. (2016)</td><td>2016</td><td>160</td></tr><tr><td>50</td><td>A real options-driven theory of business incubation</td><td>Hackett and Dilts (2004)</td><td>2004</td><td>160</td></tr><tr><td>51</td><td>How can universities facilitate academic spin-offs? An entrepreneurial competency perspective</td><td>Rasmussen and Wright (2015)</td><td>2015</td><td>158</td></tr><tr><td>52</td><td>The causal relation between entrepreneurial ecosystem and productive entrepreneurship: a measurement framework</td><td>Nicotra et al. (2018)</td><td>2018</td><td>152</td></tr><tr><td>53</td><td>Does knowledge diffusion between university and industry increase innovativeness?</td><td>Lööf and Broström (2008)</td><td>2008</td><td>151</td></tr><tr><td>54</td><td>Conceptualizing academic entrepreneurship ecosystems: a review, analysis and extension of the literature</td><td>Hayter et al. (2018)</td><td>2018</td><td>146</td></tr><tr><td>55</td><td>The impact of gender and department climate on job satisfaction and intentions to quit for faculty in science and engineering fields</td><td>Callister (2006)</td><td>2006</td><td>145</td></tr><tr><td>56</td><td>The formation of high-tech university spinouts: The role of joint ventures and venture capital investors</td><td>Wright et al. (2004b)</td><td>2004</td><td>145</td></tr><tr><td>57</td><td>Proximity as a resource base for competitive advantage: University-industry links for technology transfer</td><td>Lindelöf and Löfsten (2004)</td><td>2004</td><td>145</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th>Rank</th><th>Title</th><th>Authors</th><th>Year</th><th>Cited by</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>58</td><td>Entrepreneurship from the Ivory Tower: Do incentive systems matter?</td><td>Markman et al. (2004)</td><td>2004</td><td>143</td></tr><tr><td>59</td><td>Social web knowledge sharing and innovation performance in knowledge-intensive manufacturing SMEs</td><td>Soto-Acosta et al. (2017)</td><td>2017</td><td>141</td></tr><tr><td>60</td><td>Nanoscience and technology publications and patents: A review of social science studies and search strategies</td><td>Huang et al. (2011)</td><td>2011</td><td>140</td></tr><tr><td>61</td><td>Business incubators and accelerators: a co-citation analysis-based, systematic literature review</td><td>Hausberg and Korreck (2021)</td><td>2020</td><td>139</td></tr><tr><td>62</td><td>Global knowledge intensive enterprises and international technology transfer: emerging perspectives from a quadruple helix environment</td><td>Del Giudice et al. (2017)</td><td>2017</td><td>139</td></tr><tr><td>63</td><td>University technology transfer through entrepreneurship: faculty and students in spinoffs</td><td>Boh et al. (2016)</td><td>2016</td><td>138</td></tr><tr><td>64</td><td>The performance of university spin-offs: An exploratory analysis using venture capital data</td><td>Zhang (2009)</td><td>2009</td><td>138</td></tr><tr><td>65</td><td>University-industry cooperation in the context of the European Framework Programmes</td><td>Caloghirou et al. (2001)</td><td>2001</td><td>137</td></tr><tr><td>66</td><td>Technology transfer offices and academic spin-off creation: The case of Italy</td><td>Algieri et al. (2013)</td><td>2013</td><td>136</td></tr><tr><td>67</td><td>Why university inventions rarely produce income? Bottlenecks in university technology transfer</td><td>Swamidass and Vulasa (2009)</td><td>2009</td><td>134</td></tr><tr><td>68</td><td>Informal university technology transfer: A comparison between the United States and Germany</td><td>Grimpe and Fier (2010)</td><td>2010</td><td>133</td></tr><tr><td>69</td><td>Assessing the nature of nanotechnology: Can we uncover an emerging general purpose technology?</td><td>Youtie et al. (2008)</td><td>2008</td><td>133</td></tr><tr><td>70</td><td>The importance of R&D for innovation: A reassessment using French survey data</td><td>Mairesse and Mohnen (2004)</td><td>2004</td><td>133</td></tr><tr><td>71</td><td>The influence of organizational culture and climate on entrepreneurial intentions among research scientists</td><td>Huyghe and Knockaert (2015)</td><td>2015</td><td>132</td></tr><tr><td>72</td><td>Academic entrepreneurship, technology transfer and society: Where next?</td><td>Wright (2014)</td><td>2014</td><td>131</td></tr><tr><td>73</td><td>Technology transfer in a global economy</td><td>Audretsch et al. (2014)</td><td>2014</td><td>130</td></tr><tr><td>74</td><td>Gender and commercial science: Women's patenting in the life sciences</td><td>Whittington and Smith-Doerr (2005)</td><td>2005</td><td>130</td></tr><tr><td>75</td><td>The entrepreneurial society</td><td>Audretsch (2009)</td><td>2009</td><td>129</td></tr><tr><td>76</td><td>How leadership enhances employees' knowledge sharing: The intervening roles of relational and organizational identification</td><td>Carmeli et al. (2011)</td><td>2011</td><td>128</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th>Rank</th><th>Title</th><th>Authors</th><th>Year</th><th>Cited by</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>77</td><td>Researchers' industry experience and productivity in university-industry research centers: A "scientific and technical human capital" explanation</td><td>Lin and Bozeman (2006)</td><td>2006</td><td>124</td></tr><tr><td>78</td><td>Academic capitalism and university incentives for faculty entrepreneurship</td><td>Renault (2006)</td><td>2006</td><td>124</td></tr><tr><td>79</td><td>The economics of science and technology</td><td>Audretsch et al. (2002)</td><td>2002</td><td>123</td></tr><tr><td>80</td><td>The contribution of university research to the growth of academic start-ups: An empirical analysis</td><td>Colombo et al. (2010)</td><td>2010</td><td>119</td></tr><tr><td>81</td><td>How scientists commercialise new knowledge via entrepreneurship</td><td>O'Gorman et al. (2008)</td><td>2008</td><td>119</td></tr><tr><td>82</td><td>Mapping the field: a bibliometric analysis of the literature on university-industry collaborations</td><td>Skute et al. (2019)</td><td>2019</td><td>118</td></tr><tr><td>83</td><td>Faculty entrepreneurs and research productivity</td><td>Lowe et al. (2007)</td><td>2007</td><td>117</td></tr><tr><td>84</td><td>Gender patterns of research and licensing activity of science and engineering faculty</td><td>Thursby and Thursby (2005)</td><td>2005</td><td>117</td></tr><tr><td>85</td><td>Inter-organisational technology/knowledge transfer: a framework from critical literature review</td><td>Battistella et al. (2016)</td><td>2016</td><td>115</td></tr><tr><td>86</td><td>Business incubators and the networks of technology-based firms</td><td>Soetanto and Jack (2013)</td><td>2013</td><td>115</td></tr><tr><td>87</td><td>Convergence or path dependency in policies to foster the creation of university spin-off firms? a comparison of France and the United Kingdom</td><td>Mustar and Wright (2010)</td><td>2010</td><td>115</td></tr><tr><td>88</td><td>Welfare implications of user innovation</td><td>Henkel and Hippel (2004)</td><td>2004</td><td>114</td></tr><tr><td>89</td><td>National systems of innovation</td><td>Acs et al. (2017)</td><td>2017</td><td>113</td></tr><tr><td>90</td><td>Are service profiles incubator-specific? Results from an empirical investigation in Italy</td><td>Zedtwitz and Grimaldi (2006)</td><td>2006</td><td>113</td></tr><tr><td>91</td><td>Entrepreneurship, secrecy, and productivity: A comparison of clinical and non-clinical life sciences faculty</td><td>Louis et al. (2001)</td><td>2001</td><td>113</td></tr><tr><td>92</td><td>The future location of research and technology transfer</td><td>Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff (1999)</td><td>1999</td><td>112</td></tr><tr><td>93</td><td>In search of the profit-maximizing actor: Motivations and definitions of success from nascent academic entrepreneurs</td><td>Hayter (2011)</td><td>2011</td><td>111</td></tr><tr><td>94</td><td>Inside the black box of business incubation: Study B—Scale assessment, model refinement, and incubation outcomes</td><td>Hackett and Dilts (2008)</td><td>2008</td><td>110</td></tr><tr><td>95</td><td>A control group study of incubators' impact to promote firm survival</td><td>Schwartz (2013)</td><td>2013</td><td>109</td></tr><tr><td>96</td><td>Industry-University Cooperative Research Centers</td><td>Adams et al. (2001)</td><td>2001</td><td>109</td></tr><tr><td>97</td><td>Types of Knowledge and Their Roles in Technology Transfer</td><td>Gorman (2002)</td><td>2002</td><td>108</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><td>Rank</td><td>Title</td><td>Authors</td><td>Year</td><td>Cited by</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>98</td><td>Inventing and patenting activities of scientists: In the expectation of money or reputation?</td><td>Göktepe-Hulten and Mahagaonkar (2010)</td><td>2010</td><td>107</td></tr><tr><td>99</td><td>Inter-temporal patterns of R&D collaboration and innovative performance</td><td>Belderbos et al. (2015)</td><td>2015</td><td>106</td></tr><tr><td>100</td><td>The university and the start-up: Lessons from the past two decades</td><td>Lerner (2004)</td><td>2004</td><td>106</td></tr><tr><td>101</td><td>The importance of "spillovers" in the policy mission of the Advanced Technology Program</td><td>Jaffe (1998)</td><td>1998</td><td>106</td></tr><tr><td>102</td><td>Technology commercialization: a literature review of success factors and antecedents across different contexts</td><td>Kirchberger and Pohl (2016)</td><td>2016</td><td>105</td></tr><tr><td>103</td><td>"To have and have not": Founders' human capital and university start-up survival</td><td>Criaco et al. (2014)</td><td>2014</td><td>105</td></tr></tbody></table>

## Appendix B: Subthemes of innovation in the foundational phase

<figure><img src="image_14.png" /></figure>
Appendix C: Subthemes of innovation in the second period

<figure><img src="image_15.png" /></figure>
Appendix D: Subthemes of technology-transfer in the second period

<figure><img src="image_16.png" /></figure>
Appendix E: Subthemes of technology-transfer in the third period

<figure><img src="image_17.png" /></figure>
Appendix F: Subthemes of innovation in the third period

<figure><img src="image_18.png" /></figure>
# Appendix G: Subthemes of academic-entrepreneurship in the fourth period

<figure><img src="image_19.png" /></figure>
Appendix H: Subthemes of start-ups in the fourth period

<figure><img src="image_20.png" /></figure>
# Appendix I: Subthemes of innovation in the fourth period

<figure><img src="image_21.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_22.png" /><figcaption>Appendix J: Subthemes of university-industry-collaboration in the fourth period</figcaption></figure>
Appendix K: Subthemes of technology-transfer in the fifth period

<figure><img src="image_23.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_24.png" /><figcaption>Appendix L: Subthemes of entrepreneurship in the fifth period</figcaption></figure>
# Appendix M: Subthemes of emerging-economies in the fifth period

<figure><img src="image_25.png" /></figure>
# Appendix N: Subthemes of equity-crowdfunding in the fifth period

<figure><img src="image_26.png" /></figure>

**Acknowledgement** The authors wish to thank Professor Al Link for his insightful guidance and support in developing this paper. The authors wish to thank Professor M.J. Cobo for his advice and support when we applied his SciMAT software for the methodological part of this paper.

**Open Access** This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

## References

Abbasi, A., Hossain, L., Uddin, S., & Rasmussen, K. J. (2011). Evolutionary dynamics of scientific collaboration networks: Multi-levels and cross-time analysis. *Scientometrics*, *89*(2), 687–710.

Academic Journal Guide Methodology 2024 Chartered Association of Business Schools (2024) https://charteredabs.org/academic-journal-guide-2021/ (Accessed 24 January 2024)

Acs, Z. J., Audretsch, D. B., Lehmann, E. E., & Licht, G. (2017). National systems of innovation. *The Journal of Technology Transfer*, *42*, 997–1008.

Adams, J. D., Chiang, E. P., & Starkey, K. (2001). Industry-university cooperative research centers. *The Journal of Technology Transfer*, *26*, 73–86.
Aksoy, A. Y., & Beaudry, C. (2021). How are companies paying for university research licenses? Empirical evidence from university-firm technology transfer. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 46*(6), 2051–2121.

Albahari, A., Barge-Gil, A., Pérez-Canto, S., & Landoni, P. (2022). The effect of science and technology parks on tenant firms: A literature review. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 48*, 1–43.

Algieri, B., Aquino, A., & Succurro, M. (2013). Technology transfer offices and academic spin-off creation: The case of Italy. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 38*, 382–400.

Anand, A., Argade, P., Barkemeyer, R., & Salignac, F. (2021). Trends and patterns in sustainable entrepreneurship research: A bibliometric review and research agenda. *Journal of Business Venturing, 36*(3), 106092.

Apa, R., De Marchi, V., Grandinetti, R., & Sedita, S. R. (2021). University-SME collaboration and innovation performance: The role of informal relationships and absorptive capacity. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 46*, 961–988.

Asheim, B. T., & Coenen, L. (2006). Contextualising regional innovation systems in a globalising learning economy: On knowledge bases and institutional frameworks. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 31*, 163–173.

Asheim, B. T., & Isaksen, A. (2002). Regional innovation systems: The integration of local ‘sticky’ and global ‘ubiquitous’ knowledge. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 27*(1), 77–86.

Audretsch, D. B. (2009). The entrepreneurial society. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 34*, 245–254.

Audretsch, D. B., & Belitski, M. (2017). Entrepreneurial ecosystems in cities: Establishing the framework conditions. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 42*, 1030–1051.

Audretsch, D. B., Bozeman, B., Combs, K. L., Feldman, M., Link, A. N., Siegel, D. S., & Wessner, C. (2002). The economics of science and technology. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 27*, 155–203.

Audretsch, D., & Caiazza, R. (2016). Technology transfer and entrepreneurship: Cross-national analysis. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41*, 1247–1259.

Audretsch, D. B., Cunningham, J. A., Kuratko, D. F., Lehmann, E. E., & Menter, M. (2019). Entrepreneurial ecosystems: Economic, technological, and societal impacts. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 44*, 313–325.

Audretsch, D. B., Lehmann, E. E., & Wright, M. (2014). Technology transfer in a global economy. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 39*, 301–312.

Audretsch, D. B., & Link, A. N. (2012). Entrepreneurship and innovation: Public policy frameworks. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 37*, 1–17.

Audretsch, D. B., Mamtora, A., & Menendez, H. (2018). Creating an entrepreneurial society in Europe. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 43*, 1437–1448.

Auerswald, P. E., & Branscomb, L. M. (2003). Valleys of death and Darwinian seas: Financing the invention to innovation transition in the United States. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 28*(3–4), 227–239.

Barbieri, E., Rubini, L., Pollio, C., & Micozzi, A. (2018). What are the trade-os of academic entrepreneurship? An investigation on the Italian case. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 43*, 198–221.

Battistella, C., De Toni, A. F., & Pillon, R. (2016). Inter-organisational technology/knowledge transfer: A framework from critical literature review. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41*, 1195–1234.

Belderbos, R., Carree, M., Lokshin, B., & Fernández Sastre, J. (2015). Inter-temporal patterns of R&D collaboration and innovative performance. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 40*, 123–137.

Ben-Hafaïedh, C., Micozzi, A., & Pattitoni, P. (2018). Academic spin-offs' entrepreneurial teams and performance: A subgroups approach. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 43*(3), 714–733.

Bercovitz, J., & Feldman, M. (2006). Entreprenarial universities and technology transfer: A conceptual framework for understanding knowledge-based economic development. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 31*, 175–188.

Bercovitz, J., Feldman, M., Feller, I., & Burton, R. (2001). Organizational structure as a determinant of academic patent and licensing behavior: An exploratory study of Duke, Johns Hopkins, and Pennsylvania State Universities. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 26*, 21–35.

Boh, W. F., De-Haan, U., & Strom, R. (2016). University technology transfer through entrepreneurship: Faculty and students in spinoffs. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41*, 661–669.

Bolzani, D., Munari, F., Rasmussen, E., & Toschi, L. (2021). Technology transfer offices as providers of science and technology entrepreneurship education. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 46*, 335–365.

Bozeman, B., Fay, D., & Slade, C. P. (2013). Research collaboration in universities and academic entrepreneurship: The state-of-the-art. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 38*(1), 1–67.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. *Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3*(2), 77–101.

Breznitz, S. M., & Feldman, M. P. (2012). The engaged university. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 37*, 139–157.
Caiazza, R., Belitski, M., & Audretsch, D. B. (2020). From latent to emergent entrepreneurship: The knowledge spillover construction circle. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 45*(3), 694–704.

Callister, R. R. (2006). The impact of gender and department climate on job satisfaction and intentions to quit for faculty in science and engineering fields. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 31*, 367–375.

Callon, M., Courtial, J. P., & Laville, F. (1991). Co-word analysis as a tool for describing the network of interactions between basic and technological research: The case of polymer chemis try. *Scientomet- rics*, 22, 155–205.

Calof, J., Søilen, K. S., Klavans, R., Abdulkader, B., & El Moudni, I. (2022). Understanding the struc- ture, characteristics, and future of collective intelligence using local and global bibliometric analyses. *Technological Forecasting and Social Change*, 178, 121561.

Caloghirou, Y., Tsakanikas, A., & Vonortas, N. S. (2001). University-industry cooperation in the context of the European framework programmes. *The Journal of Technology Transfer*, 26(1–2), 153–161.

Carayannis, E. G., Cherepovitsyn, A. Y., & Ilinova, A. A. (2016). Technology commercialization in entre- preneurial universities: The US and Russian experience. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41*, 1135–1147.

Carayannis, E. G., Sindakis, S., & Walter, C. (2015). Business model innovation as lever of organizational sustainability. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 40*, 85–104.

Carmeli, A., Atwater, L., & Levi, A. (2011). How leadership enhances employees’ knowledge sharing: The intervening roles of relational and organizational identification. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 36*, 257–274.

Carree, M., Malva, A. D., & Santarelli, E. (2014). The contribution of universities to growth: Empirical evi- dence for Italy. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 39*, 393–414.

Cesaroni, F., & Piccaluga, A. (2016). The activities of university knowledge transfer offices: Towards the third mission in Italy. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41*, 753–777.

Chen, A., Patton, D., & Kenney, M. (2016). University technology transfer in China: A literature review and taxonomy. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41*, 891–929.

Cobo, M. J., López-Herrera, A. G., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2011a). Science mapping software tools: Review, analysis, and cooperative study among tools. *Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology*, 62(7), 1382–1402.

Cobo, M. J., López-Herrera, A. G., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2011b). An approach for detecting, quantifying, and visualizing the evolution of a research field: A practical application to the Fuzzy Sets Theory field. *Journal of Informetrics*, 5(1), 146–166.

Cobo, M. J., López-Herrera, A. G., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2012). SciMAT: A new science mapping analysis software tool. *Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Tech- nology*, 63(8), 1609–1630.

Cobo, M. J., Martínez, M. Á., Gutiérrez-Salcedo, M., Fujita, H., & Herrera-Viedma, E. (2015). 25 years at knowledge-based systems: A bibliometric analysis. *Knowledge-Based Systems*, 80, 3–13.

Colombo, M. G., Cumming, D. J., & Vismara, S. (2016). Governmental venture capital for innovative young firms. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41*, 10–24.

Colombo, M. G., D'Adda, D., & Piva, E. (2010). The contribution of university research to the growth of academic start-ups: An empirical analysis. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 35*(1), 113–140.

Cooke, P. (2002). Regional innovation systems: General findings and some new evidence from biotechnol- ogy clusters. *The Journal of Technology Transfer*, 27(1), 133–145.

Cooke, P., & Leydesdorff, L. (2006). Regional development in the knowledge-based economy: The con- struction of advantage. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 31*, 5–15.

Corrente, S., Greco, S., Nicotra, M., Romano, M., & Schillaci, C. E. (2019). Evaluating and comparing entrepreneurial ecosystems using SMAA and SMAA-S. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 44*, 485–519.

Coulter, N., Monarch, I., & Konda, S. (1998). Software engineering as seen through its research litera- ture: A study in co-word analysis. *Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49*(13), 1206–1223.

Cremers, K. (2009). Settlement during patent litigation trials. An empirical analysis for Germany. *The Jour- nal of Technology Transfer, 34*, 182–195.

Criaco, G., Minola, T., Migliorini, P., & Serarols-Tarrés, C. (2014). “To have and have not”: Founders’ human capital and university start-up survival. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 39*, 567–593.

Cunningham, J. A., Lehmann, E. E., Menter, M., & Seitz, N. (2019). The impact of university focused technology transfer policies on regional innovation and entrepreneurship. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 44*, 1451–1475.

Cunningham, J. A., Menter, M., & Young, C. (2017). A review of qualitative case methods trends and themes used in technology transfer research. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 42*, 923–956.
Cunningham, J. A., & O'Reilly, P. (2018). Macro, meso and micro perspectives of technology transfer. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 43*, 545–557.

D'Este, P., & Perkmann, M. (2011). Why do academics engage with industry? The entrepreneurial university and individual motivations. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 36*, 316–339.

Davey, T., Rossano, S., & Van Der Sijde, P. (2016). Does context matter in academic entrepreneurship? The role of barriers and drivers in the regional and national context. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41*, 1457–1482.

Davis, C. H., & Sun, E. (2006). Business development capabilities in information technology SMEs in a regional economy: An exploratory study. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 31*, 145–161.

De Wit-de Vries, E., Dolfsma, W. A., van der Windt, H. J., & Gerkema, M. P. (2019). Knowledge transfer in university–industry research partnerships: A review. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 44*, 1236–1255.

Degroof, J. J., & Roberts, E. B. (2004). Overcoming weak entrepreneurial infrastructures for academic spin-off ventures. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 29*(3–4), 327–352.

Del Giudice, M., Carayannis, E. G., & Maggioni, V. (2017). Global knowledge intensive enterprises and international technology transfer: Emerging perspectives from a quadruple helix environment. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 42*, 229–235.

Díez-Vial, I., & Fernández-Olmos, M. (2015). Knowledge spillovers in science and technology parks: How can firms benefit most? *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 40*, 70–84.

Djokovic, D., & Sitouraris, V. (2008). Spinouts from academic institutions: A literature review with suggestions for further research. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 33*, 225–247.

Doh, J. P., Lawton, T. C., & Rajwani, T. (2012). Advancing nonmarket strategy research: Institutional perspectives in a changing world. *Academy of Management Perspectives, 26*(3), 22–39.

Druilhe, C., & Garnsey, E. (2004). Do academic spin-outs differ and does it matter? *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 29*(3–4), 269–285.

Duval-Couetil, N., Ladisch, M., & Yi, S. (2021). Addressing academic researcher priorities through science and technology entrepreneurship education. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 46*(2), 288–318.

Eito-Brun, R., & Ledesma Rodriguez, M. (2016). 50 years of space research in Europe: A bibliometric profile of the European Space Agency (ESA). *Scientometrics, 109*(1), 551–576.

Elsasser, T., & Schneider, R. (1977). Two conflicting approaches to adaptation of technology transfer. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 2*, 69–75.

Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (1999). The future location of research and technology transfer. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 24*(2–3), 111–123.

Ferreira, J. J., Fernandes, C., & Ratten, V. (2019). The eects of technology transfers and institutional factors on economic growth: Evidence from Europe and Oceania. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 44*(5), 1505–1528.

Festel, G. (2013). Academic spin-offs, corporate spin-outs and company internal start-ups as technology transfer approach. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 38*, 454–470.

Fini, R., Grimaldi, R., & Sobrero, M. (2009). Factors fostering academics to start up new ventures: An assessment of Italian founders' incentives. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 34*, 380–402.

Fisch, C. O., Hassel, T. M., Sandner, P. G., & Block, J. H. (2015). University patenting: A comparison of 300 leading universities worldwide. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 40*, 318–345.

Fischer, B. B., Schaeer, P. R., Vonortas, N. S., & Queiroz, S. (2018). Quality comes rst: University-industry collaboration as a source of academic entrepreneurship in a developing country. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 43*, 263–284.

Fox, M. F., Real, M. L., Rueda, D. R., & Morn, J. (2017). International research collaboration among women engineers: Frequency and perceived barriers, by regions. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 42*, 1292–1306.

Franklin, S. J., Wright, M., & Lockett, A. (2001). Academic and surrogate entrepreneurs in university spin-out companies. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 26*(1–2), 127–141.

Giunta, A., Pericoli, F. M., & Pierucci, E. (2016). University–industry collaboration in the biopharmaceuticals: The Italian case. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41*, 818–840.

Godin, B. (2006). The knowledge-based economy: Conceptual framework or buzzword? *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 31*, 17–30.

Goel, R. K., Göktepe-Hultén, D., & Ram, R. (2015). Academics' entrepreneurship propensities and gender differences. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 40*, 161–177.

Göktepe-Hulten, D., & Mahagaonkar, P. (2010). Inventing and patenting activities of scientists: In the expectation of money or reputation? *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 35*, 401–423.

Golob, E. (2006). Capturing the regional economic benefits of university technology transfer: A case study. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 31*, 685–695.
Gorman, M. E. (2002). Types of knowledge and their roles in technology transfer. *The Journal of Technology Transfer*, 27(3), 219-231.

Grimm, H. M., & Jaenicke, J. (2012). What drives patenting and commercialisation activity at East German universities? The role of new public policy, institutional environment and individual prior knowledge. *The Journal of Technology Transfer*, 37, 454–477.

Grimpe, C., & Fier, H. (2010). Informal university technology transfer: A comparison between the United States and Germany. *The Journal of Technology Transfer*, 35, 637–650.

Grosse Kathoefer, D., & Leker, J. (2012). Knowledge transfer in academia: An exploratory study on the Not-Invented-Here Syndrome. *The Journal of Technology Transfer*, 37, 658–675.

Guerrero, M., & Siegel, D. S. (2024). Prosocial Technology transfer and academic entrepreneurship: Lessons learned and new directions. *Academy of Management Perspectives*. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2024.0079

Guerrero, M., & Urbano, D. (2012). The development of an entrepreneurial university. *The Journal of Technology Transfer*, 37, 43–74.

Guerrero, M., Urbano, D., Cunningham, J., & Organ, D. (2014). Entrepreneurial universities in two European regions: A case study comparison. *The Journal of Technology Transfer*, 39, 415–434.

Guerrero, M., Urbano, D., & Fayolle, A. (2016). Entrepreneurial activity and regional competitiveness: Evidence from European entrepreneurial universities. *The Journal of Technology Transfer*, 41, 105–131.

Gunasekara, C. (2006). Reframing the role of universities in the development of regional innovation systems. *The Journal of Technology Transfer*, 31, 101–113.

Hackett, S. M., & Dilts, D. M. (2004). A real options-driven theory of business incubation. *The Journal of Technology Transfer*, 29(1), 41–54.

Hackett, S. M., & Dilts, D. M. (2008). Inside the black box of business incubation: Study B—scale assessment, model refinement, and incubation outcomes. *The Journal of Technology Transfer*, 33, 439–471.

Hall, B. H. (2004). Exploring the patent explosion. *The Journal of Technology Transfer*, 30, 35–48.

Hall, B. H., Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2001). Barriers inhibiting industry from partnering with universities: Evidence from the advanced technology program. *The Journal of Technology Transfer*, 26(1–2), 87–98.

Hausberg, J. P., & Korreck, S. (2021). Business incubators and accelerators: A co-citation analysis-based, systematic literature review (pp. 39–63). Edward Elgar Publishing.

Hayter, C. S. (2011). In search of the profit-maximizing actor: Motivations and definitions of success from nascent academic entrepreneurs. *The Journal of Technology Transfer*, 36, 340–352.

Hayter, C. S., Link, A. N., & Schaer, M. (2023). Identifying the emergence of academic entrepreneurship within the technology transfer literature. *The Journal of Technology Transfer*, 48(5), 1800–1812.

Hayter, C. S., Lubynsky, R., & Maroulis, S. (2017). Who is the academic entrepreneur? The role of graduate students in the development of university spinos. *The Journal of Technology Transfer*, 42, 1237–1254.

Hayter, C. S., Nelson, A. J., Zayed, S., & O'Connor, A. C. (2018). Conceptualizing academic entrepreneurship ecosystems: A review, analysis and extension of the literature. *The Journal of Technology Transfer*, 43, 1039–1082.

He, Q. (1999). Knowledge discovery through co-word analysis.

Heirman, A., & Clarysse, B. (2004). How and why do research-based start-ups differ at founding? A resource-based configurational perspective. *The Journal of Technology Transfer*, 29(3–4), 247–268.

Hemais, C. A., Barros, H. M., & Rosa, E. O. (2005). Technology competitiveness in emerging markets: The case of the Brazilian polymer industry. *The Journal of Technology Transfer*, 30, 303–314.

Henkel, J., & Hippel, E. V. (2004). Welfare implications of user innovation. *The Journal of Technology Transfer*, 30, 73–87.

Henrekson, M., & Rosenberg, N. (2001). Designing efficient institutions for science-based entrepreneurship: Lesson from the US and Sweden. *The Journal of Technology Transfer*, 26(3), 207–231.

Hsiao, Y. C., Chen, C. J., Lin, B. W., & Kuo, C. I. (2017). Resource alignment, organizational distance, and knowledge transfer performance: The contingency role of alliance form. *The Journal of Technology Transfer*, 42, 635–653.

Huang, C., Notten, A., & Rasters, N. (2011). Nanoscience and technology publications and patents: A review of social science studies and search strategies. *The Journal of Technology Transfer*, 36, 145–172.

Huyghe, A., & Knockaert, M. (2015). The influence of organizational culture and climate on entrepreneurial intentions among research scientists. *The Journal of Technology Transfer*, 40, 138–160.

Jaffe, A. B. (1998). The importance of “spillovers” in the policy mission of the advanced technology program. *The Journal of Technology Transfer*, 23(2), 11–19.
Jefferson, D. J., Maida, M., Farkas, A., Alandete-Saez, M., & Bennett, A. B. (2017). Technology transfer in the Americas: Common and divergent practices among major research universities and public sector institutions. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 42*, 1307–1333.

Kalantaridis, C. (2019). Is university ownership a sub-optimal property rights regime for commercialisation? Information conditions and entrepreneurship in Greater Manchester, England. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 44*, 231–249.

Kariv, D., Krueger, N., Kashy, G., & Cisneros, L. (2024). Process innovation is technology transfer too! How entrepreneurial businesses manage product and process innovation. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 1–25*

Karkalakos, S. (2005). Regional technological differences: The case of southern european union. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 30*, 315–326.

Kim, Y. (2013). The ivory tower approach to entrepreneurial linkage: Productivity changes in university technology transfer. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 38*, 180–197.

Kirby, D. A. (2006). Creating entrepreneurial universities in the UK: Applying entrepreneurship theory to practice. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 31*, 599–603.

Kirchberger, M. A., & Pohl, L. (2016). Technology commercialization: A literature review of success factors and antecedents across different contexts. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41*, 1077–1112.

Klofsten, M., Fayolle, A., Guerrero, M., Mian, S., Urbano, D., & Wright, M. (2019). The entrepreneurial university as driver for economic growth and social change-Key strategic challenges. *Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 141*, 149–158.

Kochenkova, A., Grimaldi, R., & Munari, F. (2016). Public policy measures in support of knowledge transfer activities: A review of academic literature. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41*, 407–429.

Kollmann, T., Hensellek, S., Jung, P. B., & de Cruppe, K. (2023). How bricoleurs go international: A European crosscountry study considering the moderating role of governmental entrepreneurship support programs. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 48*(3), 1126–1159.

Kruger, S., & Steyn, A. A. (2020). Enhancing technology transfer through entrepreneurial development: Practices from innovation spaces. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 45*(6), 1655–1689.

Lafuente, E., & Berbegal-Mirabent, J. (2019). Assessing the productivity of technology transfer offices: An analysis of the relevance of aspiration performance and portfolio complexity. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 44*(3), 778–801.

Lamine, W., Mian, S., Fayolle, A., Wright, M., Klofsten, M., & Etzkowitz, H. (2018). Technology business incubation mechanisms and sustainable regional development. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 43*, 1121–1141.

Lamperti, F., Mavilia, R., & Castellini, S. (2017). The role of Science Parks: A puzzle of growth, innovation and R&D investments. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 42*, 158–183.

Landry, R., Amara, N., & Ouimet, M. (2007a). Determinants of knowledge transfer: Evidence from Canadian university researchers in natural sciences and engineering. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 32*, 561–592.

Landry, R., Amara, N., & Saihi, M. (2007b). Patenting and spin-off creation by Canadian researchers in engineering and life sciences. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 32*, 217–249.

Lawson, C. (2013). Academic patenting: The importance of industry support. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 38*(4), 509–535.

Lecluyse, L., Knockaert, M., & Spithoven, A. (2019). The contribution of science parks: A literature review and future research agenda. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 44*, 559–595.

Lee, Y. S. (2000). The sustainability of university-industry research collaboration: An empirical assessment. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 25*(2), 111–133.

Lehmann, E. E., & Menter, M. (2016). University-industry collaboration and regional wealth. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41*, 1284–1307.

Lerner, J. (2004). The university and the start-up: Lessons from the past two decades. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 30*, 49–56.

Leydesdorff, L. (2006). "While a storm is raging on the Open Sea": Regional development in a knowledge-based economy. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 31*, 189–203.

Lin, M. W., & Bozeman, B. (2006). Researchers' industry experience and productivity in university-industry research centers: A "scientific and technical human capital" explanation. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 31*, 269–290.

Lindelöf, P., & Löfsten, H. (2004). Proximity as a resource base for competitive advantage: University-industry links for technology transfer. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 29*(3–4), 311–326.

Lööf, H., & Broström, A. (2008). Does knowledge diffusion between university and industry increase innovativeness? *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 33*, 73–90.
López-Herrera, A. G., Herrera-Viedma, E., Cobo, M. J., Martínez, M. A., Kou, G., & Shi, Y. (2012). A conceptual snapshot of the first decade (2002–2011) of the international journal of information technology & decision making. *International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 11*(02), 247–270.

López-Robles, J. R., Cobo, M. J., Gutiérrez-Salcedo, M., Martínez-Sánchez, M. A., Gamboa-Rosales, N. K., & Herrera-Viedma, E. (2021). 30th Anniversary of Applied Intelligence: A combination of bibliometrics and thematic analysis using SciMAT. *Applied Intelligence, 51*, 6547–6568.

Louis, K. S., Jones, L. M., Anderson, M. S., Blumenthal, D., & Campbell, E. G. (2001). Entrepreneurship, secrecy, and productivity: A comparison of clinical and non-clinical life sciences faculty. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 26*, 233–245.

Lowe, R. A., & Gonzalez-Brambila, C. (2007). Faculty entrepreneurs and research productivity. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 32*, 173–194.

M'chirgui, Z., Lamine, W., Mian, S., & Fayolle, A. (2018). University technology commercialization through new venture projects: An assessment of the French regional incubator program. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 43*, 1142–1160.

Mairesse, J., & Mohnen, P. (2004). The importance of R&D for innovation: A reassessment using French survey data. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 30*(1–2), 183–197.

Markman, G. D., Gianiodis, P. T., Phan, P. H., & Balkin, D. B. (2004). Entrepreneurship from the ivory tower: Do incentive systems matter? *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 29*(3–4), 353–364.

Mathisen, M. T., & Rasmussen, E. (2019). The development, growth, and performance of university spin-offs: A critical review. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 44*(6), 1891–1938.

Martinelli, A., Meyer, M., & Von Tunzelmann, N. (2008). Becoming an entrepreneurial university? A case study of knowledge exchange relationships and faculty attitudes in a medium-sized, research-oriented university. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 33*, 259–283.

Marzocchi, C., Kitagawa, F., & Sánchez-Barriolenguè, M. (2019). Evolving missions and university entrepreneurship: Academic spin-os and graduate start-ups in the entrepreneurial society. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 44*, 167–188.

Menter, M. (2024). From technological to social innovation: Toward a mission-reorientation of entrepreneurial universities. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 49*(1), 104–118.

Messeni Petruzzelli, A., & Murgia, G. (2020). University-industry collaborations and international knowledge spillovers: A joint-patent investigation. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 45*(4), 958–983.

Mora-Valentín, E. M., Ortiz-de-Urbina-Criado, M., & Nájera-Sánchez, J. J. (2018). Mapping the conceptual structure of science and technology parks. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 43*(5), 1410–1435.

Moral-Muñoz, J. A., Cobo, M. J., Chiclana, F., Collop, A., & Herrera-Viedma, E. (2015). Analyzing highly cited papers in intelligent transportation systems. *IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 17*(4), 993–1001.

Mowery, D. C., & Sampat, B. N. (2004). The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 and university-industry technology transfer: A model for other OECD governments? *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 30*, 115–127.

Mrożewski, M., & Kratzer, J. (2017). Entrepreneurship and country-level innovation: Investigating the role of entrepreneurial opportunities. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 42*, 1125–1142.

Muscio, A. (2010). What drives the university use of technology transfer offices? Evidence from Italy. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 35*, 181–202.

Muscio, A., & Pozzali, A. (2013). The effects of cognitive distance in university-industry collaborations: Some evidence from Italian universities. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 38*, 486–508.

Mustar, P., & Wright, M. (2010). Convergence or path dependency in policies to foster the creation of university spin-off firms? A comparison of France and the United Kingdom. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 35*, 42–65.

Nagaoka, S. (2009). Does strong patent protection facilitate international technology transfer? Some evidence from licensing contracts of Japanese firms. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 34*, 128–144.

Nelson, R. R. (2001). Observations on the post-Bayh-Dole rise of patenting at American universities. *Journal of Technology Transfer, 26*(1–2), 13.

Neumeyer, X., Santos, S. C., & Morris, M. H. (2019). Who is left out: Exploring social boundaries in entrepreneurial ecosystems. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 44*, 462–484.

Nicotra, M., Romano, M., Del Giudice, M., & Schillaci, C. E. (2018). The causal relation between entrepreneurial ecosystem and productive entrepreneurship: A measurement framework. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 43*, 640–673.

O'Gorman, C., Byrne, O., & Pandya, D. (2008). How scientists commercialise new knowledge via entrepreneurship. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 33*, 23–43.
O'Kane, C., Cunningham, J. A., Menter, M., & Walton, S. (2021). The brokering role of technology transfer offices within entrepreneurial ecosystems: An investigation of macro-meso-micro factors. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 46*, 1814-1844.

O'Shea, R. P., Chugh, H., & Allen, T. J. (2008). Determinants and consequences of university spinoff activity: A conceptual framework. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 33*, 653-666.

Oughton, C., Landabaso, M., & Morgan, K. (2002). The regional innovation paradox: Innovation policy and industrial policy. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 27*(1), 97-110.

Owen-Smith, J., & Powell, W. W. (2001). To patent or not: Faculty decisions and institutional success at technology transfer. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 26*(1-2), 99-114.

Paul, J., & Criado, A. R. (2020). The art of writing literature review: What do we know and what do we need to know? *International Business Review, 29*(4), 1017-1027.

Penner, L. A., Dovidio, J. F., Piliavin, J. A., & Schroeder, D. A. (2005). Prosocial behavior: Multilevel perspectives. *Annual. Review of Psychology, 56*, 365-392.

Peters, B. (2009). Persistence of innovation: Stylish facts and panel data evidence. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 34*, 226-243.

Qian, H., & Haynes, K. E. (2014). Beyond innovation: The small business innovation research program as entrepreneurship policy. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 39*, 524-543.

Rasmussen, E., & Wright, M. (2015). How can universities facilitate academic spin-offs? An entrepreneurial competency perspective. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 40*, 782-799.

Renault, C. S. (2006). Academic capitalism and university incentives for faculty entrepreneurship. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 31*, 227-239.

Rigby, J. (2016). A long and winding road: 40 years of R&D Management. *R&D Management, 46*(S3), 1062-1083.

Rodriguez-Ledesma, A., Cobo, M. J., Lopez-Pujalte, C., & Herrera-Viedma, E. (2015). An overview of animal science research 1945-2011 through science mapping analysis. *Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics, 132*(6), 475-497.

Salles-Filho, S., Fischer, B., Juk, Y., Feitosa, P., & Colugnati, F. A. (2023). Acknowledging diversity in knowledge-intensive entrepreneurship: Assessing the Brazilian small business innovation research. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 48*(4), 1446-1465.

Salvador, E. (2011). Are science parks and incubators good “brand names” for spin-os? The case study of Turin. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 36*(2), 203-232.

Santana, M., & Cobo, M. J. (2020). What is the future of work? A science mapping analysis. *European Management Journal, 38*(6), 846-862.

Schaeffer, V., Öcalan-Özel, S., & Pénin, J. (2020). The complementarities between formal and informal channels of university-industry knowledge transfer: A longitudinal approach. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 45*, 31-55.

Schartinger, D., Schibany, A., & Gassler, H. (2001). Interactive relations between universities and firms: Empirical evidence for Austria. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 26*(3), 255-268.

Schoen, A., & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B., & Henkel, J. (2014). Governance typology of universities' technology transfer processes. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 39*, 435-453.

Schwartz, M. (2013). A control group study of incubators' impact to promote firm survival. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 38*, 302-331.

Scuotto, V., Del Giudice, M., & Carayannis, E. G. (2017). The effect of social networking sites and absorptive capacity on SMES' innovation performance. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 42*, 409-424.

Sellenthin, M. O. (2009). Technology transfer offices and university patenting in Sweden and Germany. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 34*, 603-620.

Shane, S., Dolmans, S. A., Jankowski, J., Reymen, I. M., & Romme, A. G. L. (2015). Academic entrepreneurship: Which inventors do technology licensing officers prefer for spinoffs? *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 40*, 273-292.

Siegel, D. S., & Wessner, C. (2012). Universities and the success of entrepreneurial ventures: Evidence from the small business innovation research program. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 37*, 404-415.

Skute, I., Zalewska-Kurek, K., Hatak, I., & de Weerd-Nederhof, P. (2019). Mapping the field: A bibliometric analysis of the literature on university-industry collaborations. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 44*, 916-947.

Soetanto, D. P., & Jack, S. L. (2013). Business incubators and the networks of technology-based firms. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 38*, 432-453.

Soto-Acosta, P., Popa, S., & Palacios-Marqués, D. (2017). Social web knowledge sharing and innovation performance in knowledge-intensive manufacturing SMEs. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 42*, 425-440.
Spithoven, A., Vlegels, J., & Ysebaert, W. (2021). Commercializing academic research: A social network approach exploring the role of regions and distance. *The Journal of Technology Transfer*, *46*(4), 1196–1231.

Stephan, P. E., & El-Ganainy, A. (2007). The entrepreneurial puzzle: Explaining the gender gap. *The Journal of Technology Transfer*, *32*, 475–487.

Swamidass, P. M., & Vulasa, V. (2009). Why university inventions rarely produce income? Bottlenecks in university technology transfer. *The Journal of Technology Transfer*, *34*, 343–363.

Takalo, T., & Tanayama, T. (2010). Adverse selection and financing of innovation: Is there a need for R&D subsidies? *The Journal of Technology Transfer*, *35*, 16–41.

Teece, D. J. (2004). Technology and technology transfer: Mansfieldian inspirations and subsequent developments. *The Journal of Technology Transfer*, *30*(1–2), 17–33.

Thune, T., & Gulbrandsen, M. (2014). Dynamics of collaboration in university–industry partnerships: Do initial conditions explain development patterns? *The Journal of Technology Transfer*, *39*, 977–993.

Thursby, J. G., Jensen, R., & Thursby, M. C. (2001). Objectives, characteristics and outcomes of university licensing: A survey of major US universities. *The Journal of Technology Transfer*, *26*, 59–72.

Thursby, J. G., & Thursby, M. C. (2005). Gender patterns of research and licensing activity of science and engineering faculty. *The Journal of Technology Transfer*, *30*(4), 343–353.

Toma, L., Barnes, A. P., Sutherland, L. A., Thomson, S., Burnett, F., & Mathews, K. (2018). Impact of information transfer on farmers’ uptake of innovative crop technologies: A structural equation model applied to survey data. *The Journal of Technology Transfer*, *43*, 864–881.

Urban, B., & Chantson, J. J. T. J. (2019). Academic entrepreneurship in South Africa: Testing for entrepreneurial intentions. *The Journal of Technology Transfer*, *44*, 948–980.

Urbano, D., Aparicio, S., & Audretsch, D. (2019). Twenty-five years of research on institutions, entrepreneurship, and economic growth: What has been learned? *Small Business Economics*, *53*(1), 21–49.

Van den Berghe, L., & Guild, P. D. (2008). The strategic value of new university technology and its impact on exclusivity of licensing transactions: An empirical study. *The Journal of Technology Transfer*, *33*, 91–103.

van Stijn, N., van Rijnsoever, F. J., & van Veelen, M. (2018). Exploring the motives and practices of university-start-up interaction: Evidence from Route 128. *The Journal of Technology Transfer*, *43*, 674–713.

Van Weele, M., van Rijnsoever, F. J., Eveleens, C. P., Steinz, H., van Stijn, N., & Groen, M. (2018). Start-EU-up! Lessons from international incubation practices to address the challenges faced by Western European start-ups. *The Journal of Technology Transfer*, *43*, 1161–1189.

Von Zedtwitz, M., & Grimaldi, R. (2006). Are service profiles incubator-specific? Results from an empirical investigation in Italy. *The Journal of Technology Transfer*, *31*, 459–468.

Vrontis, D., Thrassou, A., Santoro, G., & Papa, A. (2017). Ambidexterity, external knowledge and performance in knowledge-intensive firms. *The Journal of Technology Transfer*, *42*, 374–388.

Whittington, K. B., & Smith-Doerr, L. (2005). Gender and commercial science: Women’s patenting in the life sciences. *The Journal of Technology Transfer*, *30*(4), 355–370.

Wright, M. (2014). Academic entrepreneurship, technology transfer and society: Where next? *The Journal of Technology Transfer*, *39*, 322–334.

Wright, M., Birley, S., & Mosey, S. (2004a). Entrepreneurship and university technology transfer. *The Journal of Technology Transfer*, *29*(3–4), 235–246.

Wright, M., Siegel, D. S., & Mustar, P. (2017). An emerging ecosystem for student start-ups. *The Journal of Technology Transfer*, *42*, 909–922.

Wright, M., Vohora, A., & Lockett, A. (2004b). The formation of high-tech university spinouts: The role of joint ventures and venture capital investors. *The Journal of Technology Transfer*, *29*(3–4), 287–310.

Ye, Y., De Moortel, K., & Crispeels, T. (2020). Network dynamics of Chinese university knowledge transfer. *The Journal of Technology Transfer*, *45*, 1228–1254.

Youtie, J., Iacopetta, M., & Graham, S. (2008). Assessing the nature of nanotechnology: Can we uncover an emerging general purpose technology? *The Journal of Technology Transfer*, *33*, 315–329.

Zhang, J. (2009). The performance of university spin-offs: An exploratory analysis using venture capital data. *The Journal of Technology Transfer*, *34*, 255–285.

Zucker, L. G., & Darby, M. R. (2001). Capturing technological opportunity via Japan’s star scientists: Evidence from Japanese firms’ biotech patents and products. *The Journal of Technology Transfer*, *26*(1–2), 37–58.