Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 394

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Innovation, entrepreneurial, knowledge, and business ecosystems: Old wine in new bottles?

Open access
Scaringella, Laurent, Radziwon, Agnieszka·2018·Technological Forecasting and Social Change
DOI 10.1016/j.techfore.2017.09.023
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Rooted in the territorial approach, this theoretical paper offers a systematic literature review (SLR) of ecosystems based on a selection of 104 articles and books and their archetypes. First, we identify and discuss the four main types of ecosystems – business, innovation, entrepreneurial, and knowledge ecosystems – and indicate the presence of other transversal concepts. Second, we provide an overview of related and well-established theories from the territorial approach that have been largely omitted although they are ecosystem archetypes. Third, we identify the invariants across the four diverging streams from the ecosystem approach and the seven diverging streams from the territorial approach. Finally, we propose a research framework based on the comparison between key invariants from both approaches and discuss their similarities and differences that could serve as a foundation for future empirical research. This study therefore links the ecosystem and territorial approaches under the complex evolutionary system umbrella by creating a theoretical framework that reflects the complex interconnection between models, theories, and emerging concepts.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.techfore.2017.09.023

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 394

Metadata

Authors
Scaringella, L., & Radziwon, A.
Venue
Technological Forecasting and Social Change
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-11
Volume
136
Pages
59-87
ISSN
0040-1625 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.techfore.2017.09.023
OpenAlex
W2770500514
Cited by
394
References
9
FWCI
29.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.