The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0368-492X.htm

A review of research Entrepreneurship

and
on entrepreneurship and crowdfunding

crowdfunding: insights from

bibliometric analysis
Amit Kumar and Gaurav Agrawal Received 4 October 2022
Revised 12 February 2023
Department of Management Studies, Accepted 13 March 2023
Atal Bihari Vajpayee Indian Institute of Information Technology and Management,
Gwalior, India

Abstract
Purpose – The aim of the study is to examine the role of crowdfunding in entrepreneurial development with
the help of a systematic review of the literature and bibliometric analysis.
Design/methodology/approach – The present research employed bibliometric analysis to study collected
data from the database. Using proper keywords, data was retrieved from Scopus. With the scaler and analytical
method of bibliometric analysis, the research attempts to answer the following questions, including prominent
journals, authors, keywords and cluster analysis based on keyword occurrence. The mapping/networking
chart is created using the VOSviewer software.
Findings – The result of the study suggests that it is an attractive and emerging phenomenon for academicians.
The most papers were published in 2021, Small Business Economics and California Management Review are the
most prolific journals, while Vismara S is the most significant author with 4 publications and 488 citations. Short JC,
School of Management, Royal Holland and USA collaborate most. Cluster analysis of the study will help the future
researcher to broaden the existing literature utilising the distinct topics.
Research limitations/implications – This research aids entrepreneurs, academia, crowdfunding
practitioners and policymakers in identifying application areas for crowdfunding. In conclusion,
crowdfunding will enhance the entrepreneurial ecosystem.
Originality/value – This study elaborates the significance of crowdfunding in the development of
entrepreneurship, using SLR and bibliometric analysis. The study findings identified crowdfunding’s usage,
applications and potential future research areas, as well as evaluated, reviewed and assessed their significance
in entrepreneurial development. The theme-based cluster was determined based on the frequency of occurrence
of the keywords.
Keywords Entrepreneurship, Entrepreneurial finance, Crowdfunding, Financial system, Information
technology, Business system, Social network, Innovation, Bibliometric analysis, VOSviewer
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Entrepreneurship plays an important role in the development of the economy therefore it is
considered as the engine for economic growth; therefore, every country has made significant
investments for the development of the entrepreneurial ecosystem. It has been acknowledged
that entrepreneurship may bring beneficial results in a variety of disciplines (Hytti et al.,
2016). For instance, the rise of entrepreneurship in a community may result in sustained
employment and economic success (Jafarnejad et al., 2013). Entrepreneurial projects required
an adequate amount of finance to fund their ideas; suppose, if ideas are not supported by a
substantial quantity of capital, ideas will never become a reality. Due to their lack of a
mortgage, adequate cash flows and high creditworthiness, entrepreneurs typically encounter
several obstacles when attempting to raise capital for their businesses. Asymmetrical
information is also an issue that prevents the lenders from investing large sums of amount in Kybernetes
the start-ups/new ventures. Sometimes many entrepreneurs are unable to raised finance due © Emerald Publishing Limited
0368-492X
to lack of assets to pledge and fail to convince investors (Kirsch et al., 2009). DOI 10.1108/K-10-2022-1363
K In front of entrepreneurs, there are several types of financing modes to choose from. Still,
most of the ideas are financed by the entrepreneur’s own pockets, savings, credit cards,
borrowing from family and friends, and other options are also available for financing
ventures like banking finance, angel funding and venture capital, but which option is chosen
by the entrepreneurs, it depends on the circumstances. Only a few entrepreneurs get seed
financing for the venture, and still, two-third of entrepreneurs are unfinanced. The global
crisis of 2008, interrupt the supply and demand of capital these results, it being very hard for
entrepreneurs to get financing for their ideas, venture and start-ups. This scenario motivates
the entrepreneur to find some innovative way to finance their entrepreneurial and innovative
project (Alegre and Moleskis, 2016; Kim and Moor, 2017). In this scenario with the expansion
of digitalisation, crowdfunding emerges as a potential to democratise the expansion of capital
access via a reverse approach to conventional ones due to the innovation of the financing
methods and the interaction with innovators and investors (Kim et al., 2016).
In the era of digitalisation, finding finance for venture required innovative and creative
solutions and crowdfunding is the one of the modern ways of financing businesses (Amuna,
2019) and because the present economic environment is characterised by considerable
diversity and internationalisation, the search for financing sources transcends boundaries
and necessitates a thorough understanding of these sources.
Ordanini et al. (2011) define “Crowdfunding as the collective effort by consumers who network
and pool their money together, usually via Internet, in order to invest in and support efforts
initiated by other people or organizations.” This is a novel phenomenon which is helping to expand
the participation of people in investing. Kirby and Worner (2014) also define crowdfunding as “an
umbrella term describing the use of small amounts of money, obtained from a large number of
individuals or organizations to fund a project, a business or personal loan, and other needs through
an online web-based platform” and elaborate four sub-categories: Donation-based crowdfunding,
reward-based crowdfunding, peer-to-peer lending and equity-based crowdfunding.
This paper introduces the role of crowdfunding as a new method of financing that may
prove the viable source of finance for entrepreneurs. Further, the objective of this study to
examine all the articles that have been published on the theme of entrepreneurship and
crowdfunding over the last 13 years (since 2009 until 31st August 2022) in order to determine
the role of crowdfunding in the field of entrepreneurial development, and then point out the
important future research prospect relating to both. In addition, the study aims to examine,
describe and illustrate the role and techniques utilised to develop the entrepreneurship and
crowdfunding paradigm and to identify the domain structure, trends and main theme related
to entrepreneurship and crowdfunding using bibliometric analysis. As well as researching
keywords, authors and citations that blend and overlap entrepreneurship and crowdfunding,
it aims to project the intersection between entrepreneurship and crowdfunding and provide
the future direction to the academia for further research in this domain. There are many other
notable studies in this domain and Table 1 shows the similarities and difference between
present study and other studies such as Da Silva et al. (2019) and Gil-G
omez et al. (2021). The
objective of the study is to analyse the role of crowdfunding in entrepreneurial development
and contribution of crowdfunding in development of entrepreneurship. For purpose of
analysis following research questions (RQ) are included in the study:
RQ1. To identify the yearly publication in the domain of entrepreneurship and
crowdfunding?
RQ2. To find out the most influential journals in the area of the entrepreneurship and
crowdfunding?
RQ3. To identify the most-contributing articles in the area entrepreneurship and
crowdfunding?
Criteria Da Silva et al. (2019)
Keywords Entrepreneurship and
Crowdfunding
Database Web of Science
Time span 2014–2019
Focus Association between the
crowdfunding theme with
entrepreneurship
Methodology Systematic Literature
Review using NVIVO
program for the analysis of
the abstract content result
and gaps identification
Findings This article found that
crowdfunding studies
should link entrepreneurial
ideas to psychology and
marketing theories. (1)
Initiatives with a financial
focus; (2) Sustainability/
Social projects; and (3)
Projects concentrating on
individuals—analyses to
assist people understand the
process. This research
guides future research on
this growing area
Gaps Research Gaps
identification 1. Identification of
and future relationship among
directions crowdfunding and
entrepreneurial theories
2. Non-quantitative study
such as content
analysis, cluster
analysis and
characteristics analysis
3. Highlighting potential
area for future research
Source(s): Author’s own articulation
Gil-G
omez et al. (2021)
“Crowdfunding” with no
special focus on
entrepreneurship
Web of Science
1978–2018
Significance of
crowdfunding in the field
of scientific research
Comprehensive search
using keywords and the
most referred article, most
influential journal and
most productive countries,
network maps using
VOSviewer software
Some key aspects of
crowdfunding as an
entrepreneurial financing
tool, most influential
journal, annual citation,
annual publication,
influential articles, most
cited paper, country
productivity analysis, most
productive and influential
author and institution
Research Gaps
1. This report uses
bibliometrics to
quantify
crowdfunding
research
2. It examines if interest
in this topic is growing
and identifies its most
productive sources
3. The writers evaluate
crowdfunding
publications and
citations over time and
build cited papers
4. Finally, they examine
impact values from
authors, institutions,
and nations to
determine where this
topic is most active
and influential
Present study
Entrepreneurship
and
A comprehensive list of crowdfunding
crowdfunding and
entrepreneurship related
keywords
Scopus
2009–2022
Role of crowdfunding in the
development of
entrepreneurship
Rigorous literature study
involving descriptive
analysis, bibliometric
analysis, network analysis,
and cluster analysis
Key finding- Most
productive journal, yearly
publication, most influential
author in terms of citation,
most cited paper, cocitation
analysis, co-authorship
analysis author wise,
organisation-wise and
country-wise, keyword
analysis and cluster
analysis of keyword
occurrence, Future
directions for further
research
Research Gaps
1. Lack of studies on the
role of crowdfunding in
entrepreneurial
development
2. Lack of research on
some drivers of
entrepreneurial
development, such as
entrepreneurial funding
3. Lack of research into
the impact of
crowdfunding on
entrepreneurial
development
4. Lack of cross country
and multi country
studies
Table 1.
Results were compared
from previous review
with Current Research
K RQ4. To identify the most productive authors in terms of documents and citations in the
area of entrepreneurship and crowdfunding?
RQ5. To identify the pattern of citations and cocitation in the area of entrepreneurship
and crowdfunding?
RQ6. To identify the trend of intellectual collaboration in research in the area of
entrepreneurship and crowdfunding?
RQ7. To find out the research strings in the area of entrepreneurship and crowdfunding?
RQ8. To explore the important topics and themes published in entrepreneurship and
crowdfunding?
The following are some of the ways in which this study makes a contribution to the field of
crowdfunding and entrepreneurship. In the first place, by carrying out citation, cocitation and
cluster analysis, we provide a methodological contribution to the development of the area of
research being investigated. In addition to this, we traced the development of the research
pattern throughout the course of time and searched for emerging patterns. Second, based on
the bibliometric analysis, we propose six clusters that provide researchers who are wanting
to enhance the depth and breadth of their study on this subject distinct path in which to
pursue their interests. Third, the objective of this study is to educate business owners and
practitioners so that they have a comprehensive understanding of the notion of
crowdfunding and entrepreneurship. This will allow them to utilise crowdfunding for the
purpose of generating capital for their enterprises.
There are six parts to the article. A thorough assessment of the relevant literature is
provided in Section 2. In section 3, it is discussed how the study’s instruments, methodologies,
research methodology and data gathering database were employed. Section 4 of the report
explains the results and discussion. Section 5 presents the article’s conclusion. The last part,
i.e. section 6 provided the research’s limitations and potential future directions.

2. Literature review
An examination of literature is an important stage in determining the substantial contribution
from previous research for a better knowledge of the issue and discovering useful information in
the relevant field, which gives the future direction of study. The preferred reporting items for
systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) criteria were applied to ensure the literature
review was reproducible, fair, but also complete. The current analysis found widely referenced
articles from the Scopus database using the keywords “entrepreneurship and crowdfunding”.
Based on data from the previous twelve years, 399 papers were discovered, and after employing
an inclusion and exclusion method, 275 articles were chosen for study. After reading the paper
and abstract, 28 most significant articles were chosen for the literature review (Table 2). Based on
the existing literature, the following sections provide entrepreneurship, crowdfunding concepts
and role of crowdfunding in entrepreneurship.

2.1 Entrepreneurship
Entrepreneurship is one of the fundamental goals towards which human efforts are directed,
with people striving every day to develop new and inventive methods to make a livelihood,
launch a new initiative or capitalise on an idea. There are multiple types of entrepreneurs,
ranging from peddlers to advanced technology creators, and they are all united by the desire
to maximise their talents and resources, but what differentiates them is their success rate in
achieving goals that are dependent on the environment in which they work (Talla et al., 2018).
Using the “wisdom” of the crowd, entrepreneur may create products more quickly, learn more
Author(s) Title Focus Methodology Key findings

Mollick (2014) The dynamics of crowdfunding: An
exploratory study
Belleflamme et al. Crowdfunding: Tapping the right crowd
(2013)
Bruton et al. (2015) New Financial Alternatives in Seeding
Entrepreneurship: Microfinance,
Crowdfunding, and Peer-to-Peer
Innovations
Calic and Kicking Off Social Entrepreneurship:
Mosakowski How a Sustainability Orientation
(2016) Influences Crowdfunding Success
Brem et al. (2019) How crowdfunding platforms change the
nature of user innovation – from problem
solving to entrepreneurship
Brown et al. (2018) Working the Crowd: Improvisational
Entrepreneurship and Equity
Crowdfunding in Nascent
Entrepreneurial Ventures
Examination of the factors that drive
success in crowdfunding campaigns
Exploration of crowdfunding as a
financing mechanism for entrepreneurs
Examining new financial alternatives for
seeding entrepreneurship including
microfinance, crowdfunding and peer-to-
peer innovations
Examining the impact of a sustainability
orientation on the success of crowdfunding
for social entrepreneurship
This study analyses how user innovators
leverage crowdfunding to develop
enterprises and produce items on a wider
scale
Investigating the link between
improvisational entrepreneurship and
equity crowdfunding in new enterprises
Quantitative analysis of Success in crowdfunding campaigns is
Kickstarter data influenced by a combination of project
characteristics, such as the strength of the
team and the perceived uniqueness of the
idea, as well as the tactics used to engage
and motivate backers
Theoretical framework Crowdfunding may give entrepreneurs with
access to alternate forms of capital while
also allowing them to test the market
feasibility of their ideas and establish a
community of supporters
Review of literature Microfinance, crowdfunding and peer-to-
peer innovations provide new financial
options for seeding entrepreneurship, each
with distinct advantages and
disadvantages when compared to
traditional types of financing
Empirical study A focus on sustainability has a favourable
influence on the success of social enterprise
crowdfunding
Qualitative Analysis The study concluded that crowdfunding
(Empirical study) platforms can help more user entrepreneurs
start a company and sell their product or
service in a market they built. CFP users
were also driven by personal fulfilment,
peer recognition, and financial benefit.
Successful advertising on these platforms
needs user involvement, which increases
investment in creative ideas
Empirical study The study discovered a link between
improvisational entrepreneurship and
equity crowdfunding in new enterprises.
The adoption of improvisational methods
can help equity crowdfunding campaigns
succeed

(continued )
Entrepreneurship

articles on role of
Non-exhaustive list of
crowdfunding
and

entrepreneurial

citation)
crowdfunding in
Table 2.

from highest to lowest

development (sorted
 K

Table 2.
Author(s) Title Focus Methodology Key findings

Stevenson et al. Unleashing main street
(2018) entrepreneurship: Crowdfunding,
venture capital, and the democratisation
of new venture investments
Rey-Mart
ı et al. Crowdfunding and social
(2019) entrepreneurship: Spotlight on
intermediaries
Chen et al. (2018) Mechanism and Policy Combination of
Technical Sustainable Entrepreneurship
Crowdfunding in China: A System
Dynamics Analysis
Short and Anglin Is leadership language “rewarded” in
(2019) crowdfunding? Replicating social
entrepreneurship research in a rewards-
based context
Vealey and Rhetorical Work in Crowd-Based
Gerding (2016) Entrepreneurship: Lessons Learned from
Teaching Crowdfunding as an Emerging
Site of Professional and Technical
Communication
This study examines how crowdfunding
(CF) and venture financing (VC) affect US
main street companies. It investigates how
CF has opened new growth potential for
businesses, particularly in underserved
financing locations
This study examines how social
entrepreneurship crowdfunding platforms
gain and maintain credibility
Analysis of China’s technological
sustainable entrepreneurship
crowdfunding method and policy
combination
The purpose of this study is to examine the
relationship between the kind of language
employed in crowdfunding projects
offering incentives and the likelihood of
such campaigns’ success
Examining the role of rhetoric in crowd-
based entrepreneurship and the lessons
learned from teaching crowdfunding as an
emerging site of professional and technical
communication
Qualitative Analysis
(Empirical study)
Literature review and analysis
of case studies of social
entrepreneurship
crowdfunding intermediaries
System dynamics analysis
Quantitative Analysis
(Empirical study)
Empirical study
This study reveals how crowdfunding (CF)
has expanded main street businesses’
development potential, especially in
underdeveloped finance areas. By
allocating funding to industries venture
capital companies don’t support, CF
improves national and regional investment.
Finally, it discusses the practical and
theoretical effects of a shifting venture
financing paradigm and CF’s potential to
encourage US main street entrepreneurship
Crowdfunding may be an effective method
for social entrepreneurs to gain access to
capital and realise their social impact
objectives. However, intermediaries play a
significant role in the success of
crowdfunding campaigns for social
businesses
It was determined through this research
that China’s technological sustainable
entrepreneurship crowdfunding scene may
benefit from a mix of mechanisms and laws
The study found that the language
employed in rewards-based crowdfunding
campaigns varied little from one setting to
the next in terms of its potential effect on the
success of the campaigns. As such, it is clear
that replication studies are crucial for
elucidating the limits of entrepreneurial
phenomena
Crowdfunding is a new site of professional
and technical communication, and there are
useful lessons to be learnt from teaching
this kind of communication as it relates to
the function of rhetoric in crowd-based
entrepreneurship

(continued )
Author(s) Title Focus Methodology Key findings

Langley et al. Crowdfunding cities: Social This research aims to clarify the connection Qualitative Analysis In Berlin, crowdfunding represents a
(2020) entrepreneurship, speculation and between crowdfunding and urban (Empirical study) complicated relationship between social
solidarity in Berlin environments enterprise, speculation, and solidarity. The
authors investigate the influence of
crowdfunding on urban development and
emphasise the varied motives and
objectives of crowdfunding participants in
the city
Tenner and Crowdfunding sustainable The focus of the study is on the socio Qualitative Analysis Crowdfunding investors in sustainable
H€orisch (2021) entrepreneurship: What are the demographic characteristics and individual (Empirical study) entrepreneurship have certain
characteristics of crowdfunding values of supporters of sustainability characteristics, such as a higher willingness
investors? oriented crowdfunding projects to invest in projects with a strong
sustainability focus, and a preference for
investment opportunities with a clear social
impact
Chandna (2021) Social entrepreneurship and digital The focus of this study is to explore how Literature review and Social entrepreneurship can benefit from
platforms: Crowdfunding in the sharing- crowdfunding can be used in combination Qualitative Analysis crowdfunding in the era of sharing
economy era with digital platforms and the economy, but the success of crowdfunding
remobilisation of idling resources, to campaigns depends on various factors such
support social-entrepreneurial ventures as the platform used, the type of reward
offered, and the target audience
Rahman et al. Developing a Sharıʿah-compliant equity- The focus of the study is to develop a Literature review and Equity-based crowdfunding framework to
(2020) based crowdfunding framework for Sharıʿah compliant equity based qualitative analysis support entrepreneurship development in
entrepreneurship development in crowdfunding framework for Malaysia. The framework focuses on the
Malaysia entrepreneurship development in Malaysia implementation of Sharıʿah principles in
equity crowdfunding and addresses the
challenges of Sharıʿah compliance in the
crowdfunding process
Jancenelle et al. Cultural entrepreneurship and legitimate This research investigates the impact of Quantitative Analysis This study found that cultural alignment on
(2019) distinctiveness in international prosocial cultural variations on the dynamics of (Empirical study) two dimensions—temporal awareness and
crowdfunding crowdfunding commonality—is positively associated to
funding time, suggesting lenders favour
cultural misalignment. In prosocial
crowdfunding, nonconformity to local
culture may be considered unique

(continued )
Entrepreneurship
crowdfunding
and

Table 2.
 K

Table 2.
Author(s) Title Focus Methodology Key findings

Troise et al. (2021) Entrepreneurship and fintech
development: comparing reward and
equity crowdfunding
Bradley and Crowdfunding: A New Opportunity for
Luong (2014) Small Business and Entrepreneurship
Bergamini et al. Is Crowdfunding an Appropriate
(2017) Financial Model for Social
Entrepreneurship
Pabst et al. (2021) Coordinating contributions in
crowdfunding for sustainable
entrepreneurship
Elkuch et al. (2014) Reciprocal Crowdfunding as a Means to
Enable Student and Graduate
Entrepreneurship in Africa: A Case
Study of Rwanda
Yu and Fleming Regional crowdfunding and high-tech
(2022) entrepreneurship
The focus of this study is to propose some
research propositions comparing reward
crowdfunding (RCF) and equity
crowdfunding (ECF)
Examining the potential of crowdfunding
as a new opportunity for small businesses
and entrepreneurship
Examining the suitability of crowdfunding
as a financial model for social
entrepreneurship
The focus of this study is how different
types of sustainability seals help solve the
coordination problem in crowdfunding
Examining the potential of reciprocal
crowdfunding to enable student and
graduate entrepreneurship in Africa
This research examines how
Crowdfunding affects the rate and kind of
new venture development in an area, which
places are more likely to see Crowdfunding
activity, and which regions are more likely
to establish further firms after
Crowdfunding
Comparative analysis Both reward and equity crowdfunding can
contribute to fintech development and
entrepreneurship, but they have different
implications for the entrepreneurial process
Review of literature Crowdfunding provides a new opportunity
for small businesses and entrepreneurship
by allowing them to access alternative
sources of funding
Empirical study The results of the study on the suitability of
crowdfunding as a financial model for social
entrepreneurship are not provided in the
information given
Qualitative Analysis The results of the experiment showed that
(Empirical study) the choice of a signal is sensitive to the type
of crowdfunding project. • For
sustainability projects, it was found that a
nongovernmental seal (such as an EU or
regional seal) is more effective than other
types in helping solve coordination
problems and obtaining contributions for
such projects
Case study of Rwanda As revealed by a case study of Rwanda,
reciprocal crowdfunding has the potential
to encourage student and graduate
entrepreneurship in Africa
Empirical analysis Crowdfunding can be a valuable source of
finance for high-tech entrepreneurs,
particularly in regions with limited access
to traditional sources of funding

(continued )
Author(s) Title Focus Methodology Key findings

Parhankangas Indigenous Entrepreneurship and
and Colbourne Venture Creation: A Typology of
(2022) Indigenous Crowdfunding Campaigns
Aghdam et al. A system dynamics approach to
(2019) designing a crowdfunding model in
technological entrepreneurship
ecosystem with a focus on technology
incubator centers
Nespoli et al. A image’s entrepreneurial value creation
(2022) and crowdfunding: Entrepreneurship in
times of crisis
Greene et al. (2018) The future of entrepreneurship
education: educating for economic and
social impact
Dushnitsky and The Role of Crowdfunding in
Zunino (2018) Entrepreneurial Finance
The focus of this study is to investigate the
emancipatory potential of Indigenous
crowdfunding campaigns
This study aims to develop a crowdfunding
approach for the technological
entrepreneurship ecosystem, with a
particular emphasis on technology
incubators
This research examines how
crowdsourcing may produce non-monetary
value for a business, as well as the extra
value it delivers to an entrepreneurial
endeavour throughout its monetisation
phase
Proposal for a research agenda to advance
our understanding of the role of
crowdfunding in entrepreneurship
Examination of the role of crowdfunding on
firm performance and access to capital
Qualitative analysis
System Dynamics Approach
Case study analysis
Literature review and expert
interviews
Quantitative analysis
Crowdfunding may promote indigenous
entrepreneurship and venture formation;
however, the success of indigenous
crowdfunding campaigns depends on a
number of factors. Based on an
investigation of crowdfunding campaigns,
a typology of indigenous crowdfunding
initiatives has been developed
The findings indicate that technology
entrepreneurship ecosystem policy
combinations can successfully boost
crowdfunding, hence attracting more
entrepreneurs to submit ideas
Crowdfunding can be an effective tool for
entrepreneurs to create value, particularly
during times of crisis. The case of Aimage
demonstrates the potential of crowdfunding
for entrepreneurial value creation
Crowdfunding has the potential to
transform the landscape of
entrepreneurship by enabling greater
access to capital and reducing barriers to
entry for entrepreneurs. Future research
should focus on the development of
crowdfunding as a financing mechanism, as
well as its impact on entrepreneurial
outcomes and the broader economy
Crowdfunding can significantly increase a
firm’s access to capital and lead to improved
financial performance. Additionally, the
benefits of crowdfunding can be enhanced
by factors such as the use of social media
and the creation of a strong network of
backers and supporters

(continued )
Entrepreneurship
crowdfunding
and

Table 2.
 K

Table 2.
Author(s) Title Focus Methodology Key findings

Da Silva et al. Crowdfunding in entrepreneurship: A
(2019) review and future research agenda
Source(s): Author’s own articulation
Comprehensive review of the literature on
the role of crowdfunding in
entrepreneurship
Literature review Crowdfunding can provide a wide range of
benefits for entrepreneurs, including access
to capital, market validation, and customer
engagement. However, challenges such as
information asymmetry and the risk of
project failure can also arise. Future
research should focus on the role of different
types of reward-based and equity-based
crowdfunding, as well as the impact of
crowdfunding on the broader ecosystem of
entrepreneurship
about the industry, plan their company’s expansion into other areas, get access to new Entrepreneurship
networks and build brand recognition (Belleflamme et al., 2013; Bradley and Luong, 2014; and
Polzin et al., 2018; Wald et al., 2019).
crowdfunding
2.2 Crowdfunding
In the Internet era, it is one of the most significant financing sources that helps to activate the
sources of money for economic foundation, especially start-up enterprises. Additionally, it is
seen as a substitute for bank funding because it frequently does not correspond to the state of
small and medium-sized businesses at the beginning of the growth of their operation
(Pachouri and Sharma, 2016). “Crowdfunding stems from crowdsourcing notion, including
seen in some cases as a sub-branch owing to sharing qualities,” according to Hossain and
Oparaocha (2017). In this whim, the maiden institute refers to the method by which people use
an Internet platform to serve as funding agents to launch a new business (Aprilia and
Wibowo, 2017). Crowdfunding differs from traditional financing because of this subset of
inexperienced investors with varying contribution motivations, modest personal wealth and
little formal investment education (Alegre and Moleskis, 2016). This niche encourages
entrepreneurs to penetrate capital and build a net of the contacts (Stanko and Henard, 2017).
By enabling the application of the wisdom of the community (a collection of expertise and
knowledge) to capital investment, reviews and even product improvements, participating in
social interactions between business owners and the public on online platforms helps the
community (Bade, 2018). The entrepreneur (in charge of the concept or project), the persons
group (in charge of the suggested enterprise assistance) and the middleman (an online platform
that links the two interested parties) are the three key research agents, according to (Stevenson
et al., 2018). Even though crowdfunding platforms demonstrate a systemic ease of access to
financial sponsorship for business owners and investors with the major incentive being the
desire to support the artists and the issues they advocate for themselves, it must be highlighted
that obtaining supporters becomes a difficulty for a range of initiatives (Buttice et al., 2019;
Chandna, 2021).
2.2.1 Role of crowdfunding in entrepreneurship development. Crowdfunding helps
entrepreneurial development to test their ideas’ market feasibility and establish a network of
supporters (Belleflamme et al., 2010). Crowdfunding provides a new opportunity for small
businesses and entrepreneurship by allowing them to access alternative sources of funding.
Microfinance, crowdfunding and peer-to-peer innovations provide new financial alternatives for
seed entrepreneurship (Brem et al., 2019; Bruton et al., 2015). Crowdfunding can be an effective
tool for entrepreneurial ecosystems to create value, particularly during crisis through
crowdfunding platforms (Aghdam et al., 2019). Crowdfunding may help social entrepreneurs
fund their initiatives and Intermediaries are vital to social entrepreneur crowdfunding initiatives
(Bergamini et al., 2017). Crowdfunding investors in sustainable entrepreneurship have certain
characteristics (Pabst et al., 2021). Social entrepreneurship can benefit from crowdfunding in the
era of sharing economy (Chandna, 2021). A sustainability orientation has a positive impact on
the success of crowdfunding for social entrepreneurship (Calic and Mosakowski, 2016).
Crowdfunding can provide a wide range of benefits for entrepreneurship development, including
access to social capital market validation, and customer engagement (Neuhofer, 2016).
Crowdfunding can significantly increase a firms’ access to capital and lead to improved financial
performance of the firm (Zhao et al., 2021). Crowdfunding has the potential to transform the
landscape of entrepreneurship by enabling greater access to capital and reducing barriers to
entry for entrepreneurs (Bernardino and Santos, 2020). Crowdfunding can be a valuable source
of finance for high-tech entrepreneurs, particularly in regions with limited access to traditional
sources of funding (Yu and Fleming, 2022). Indigenous entrepreneurship and venture creation
can benefit from crowdfunding (Parhankangas and Colbourne, 2022). Brown et al. (2018)
K discovered a link between improvisational entrepreneurship and equity crowdfunding in early-
stage entrepreneurial firms.
The findings of the study revealed that there was relatively little consistency across
contexts when it came to rhetoric used in rewards-based crowdfunding campaigns and their
impact on potential campaign success. Future research should focus on the development of
crowdfunding as a financing mechanism, as well as its impact on entrepreneurial outcomes
and the broader economy. As a result, the current study will examine the available literature
from a broad perspective and contribute to the advancement of knowledge in the domains of
these two core themes and their relationships, primarily through cocitation, co-occurrence
analysis and recommendations for future research through Cluster analysis.

3. Methodology of the study

Bibliometric analysis is a research approach that uses quantitative and statistical analysis to
expound on the research trend of a topic over a certain time frame (Diodato and Gellatly, 1994).
Bibliometric analysis is a well-known technique for analysing and visualisation of literature
(Tijssen, 1992). For the purpose of the study, we used two approaches such as scaler techniques
and analytical techniques which is mentioned in Figure 1. The first approaches include
analysing a post as a whole or its characteristics, including citation analysis, keyword analysis,
documentation production and author identification. The second approach is to establish the
relationship between literature objects such as their co-occurrence and their cocitation analysis
(Gupta and Bhattacharya, 2004; Kumar et al., 2021; Pandey and Bajpai, 2022).
The first method employs scaler methods to directly quantify literature to describe the key
study findings of diverse participants (Debackere et al., 2002) (individual researchers,
countries, fields). This approach also explains the development and patterns across the time
in the domain (Gupta and Bhattacharya, 2004). According to Martin (1996), research effort
can be quantified properly for this strategy, but it only makes a little contribution to the goal
of learning bibliometric analysis.
The second approach of the bibliometric analysis is analytical approach which is used to
study the co-occurrence of certain components of literature such as co-authorship, cocitations,
co-occurrence of keywords and thematic analysis (Agrawal and Mishra, 2022; Gupta and
Bhattacharya, 2004; Kumar et al., 2021; Pandey and Bajpai, 2022). This is an effective way to
identify relationships based on symmetry and connections between certain study
publications. We used cocitation, co-authorship and keyword co-occurrence analysis for all
forms of co-occurrence analysis. The main assumptions of co-word analysis are to provide a
full explanation about the data and connection with other works and themes. The basic
principle of co-word analysis is that it goes into detail about the content and how it links to
other works of literature and themes.
According to Singh and Agrawal (2019), this facilitates comprehension of the relationships
between various keywords, which may be understood by taking into account the distance on the
map. The frequency with which two works, two authors or two sources are mentioned in the
same text is measured by cocitation analysis. When two or more authors collaborate on a project,
co-authorship is the most commonly recognised articulation of cognitive cooperation, creating
research output of higher quality or quantity than individual effort (Hudson, 1996). Scalar and
analytical methodologies are used to expand on the literature in this article.

3.1 Database for data collection

For data collecting, there are several databases available, including Web of Science, Scopus,
Google Scholar and EBSCO. The Scopus database was chosen for the current investigation. We
looked the Scopus database for the review of the literature. This analysis included articles and
 Entrepreneurship
and
crowdfunding

Figure 1.
Methodological
framework

reviews from 2009 to the 31st of August 2022. Scopus was chosen because it has a broader
classification of articles and journals such as business management, social-sciences and several
many other disciplines. For bibliometric analysis, Scopus is most reliable and central data base
which included the variety of journals and publishers. Scopus may also provide bibliometric
indications in a straightforward and straightforward manner (Sweileh et al., 2018).
K 3.2 Keyword selection
The terms entrepreneurship and crowdfunding in the title categories, summary and keywords
were fields to delimit search criteria. The search string uses keywords ((crowdfunding* OR
(“crowdinvesting”) AND (“entrepreneurship”)). The search results yielded 275 articles after
inclusion and exclusion criteria. The combination and selection of these keywords derived from
the literature review articles (Bhadauria and Singh, 2022; Singh, 2022).

3.3 Article collection and inclusion strategy

The search strategy inclusion and exclusion are refined by the document types, subject area
and language. Document types excluded book chapters, books and conference proceedings.
Subject area limits to business, management, accounting, economics, social science,
psychology, arts and humanities and multidisciplinary. Language is limit to English.
Following the implementation of this technique, a total of 275 documents, spanning the period
from 2009 to the 31st of July 2022, were completed for the purpose of the present research
study’s subsequent bibliometric analysis and visualisation.
All obtained results from search keywords with criteria of inclusion and exclusion were
entered into VOSviewer and biblioshiny to analyse bibliometric outcomes which including co-
authorship, cocitation, co-occurrence, thematic analysis and three field plots. There are several
software for the bibliometric analysis such as Gephi, VOSviewer, biblioshiny, bibexcel,
CiteSpace and Leximancer. For the purpose of study, we employed VOSviewer because it is the
most appropriate software for the bibliometric analysis. Most bibliometric mapping computer
programmes do not display such maps satisfactorily. van Eck and Waltman (2009) developed
“this software (VOS-viewer) as tool for creating and displaying bibliometric networks. These
networks can be built via citation, bibliographic coupling, co-citation, or co-authorship
relationships, and can comprise journals, researchers, or individual articles”. With the help of
this analysis, we deliver the better understanding on the evolution and structure of the domain,
i.e. Entrepreneurship and Crowdfunding from 2009 to 2022 (till 31st August).

4. Results and discussion

4.1 Top 10 most productive journals based on number of articles and citation reports
Table 3 demonstrates that small business economics holds the top spot because of its
maximum number of publications (14) in the study area under consideration (it accounts for
5.09% of the 275 papers in the field under consideration and has an h-index of 9), with a total
of 680 citations. Three journals (California management review, business horizons and journal
of business venturing insights) shared the second ranked with similar number of publications
(10 papers) along with 688, 338, 72 citations and h-index of 9, 7, 5 respectively. “Journal of
business venturing” and “Technological forecasting and social change” ranked third (9
publications and h-index 8, 7 respectively) with 917 and 141 citations. Two journals shared
the fourth rank with similar number of publications (8 papers). “Journal of cleaner production”
shared the 6th rank with 5 publications pursued by 163 citations and 4 h-index.
“Entrepreneurship and regional development” ranked ninth with 2 publications followed by
173 citations and 2 h-index. Journal of Management Studies, Journal of Management and
Industry and Innovation share the same rank with single paper. It concluded that, “small
business economics, Journal of cleaner production and journal of business venturing insight’s”
having a small number of publication but these journals arrogated more attention from the
research community in entrepreneurship and crowdfunding.

4.2 Publication’s year wise in the field of entrepreneurship and crowdfunding

Figure 2 shows the year-wise publication trend from 2009 to 2022 (till 31st June) with 275
documents. It has also been shown that academicians are interested in crowdfunding and its
 Article h-
Entrepreneurship
Position Source(s) published TC index and
crowdfunding
1 Small business economics 14 680 9
2 California management review 10 688 9
2 Business horizons 10 338 7
2 Journal of business venturing insights 10 72 5
3 Journal of business venturing 9 917 8
3 Technological forecasting and social change 9 141 7
4 Management science 8 691 6
4 Venture capital 8 525 7
5 International journal of entrepreneurial behaviour and 6 56 3
research
6 Journal of cleaner production 5 163 4
7 Entrepreneurship: theory and practice 4 385 2
7 Research policy 4 181 3
8 Organisation science 3 153 3
8 International journal of information management 3 141 2
Table 3.
9 Entrepreneurship and regional development 2 173 2 Top 10 most
10 Industry and innovation 1 476 1 productive journals
10 Journal of management studies 1 223 1 based on number of
10 Journal of management 1 216 1 articles and citation
Source(s): Author’s own articulation (Based on Scopus database) reports

Documents by year
60

50
50

41
40 37 37
33
30
30
24

20

10
10 8
4 Figure 2.
1 0 0 0 Publication by year
0 related to
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 entrepreneurship and
crowdfunding
Source(s): Scopus database

application to the growth of the entrepreneurial ecosystem. The first publication comes in the
year 2009 and with the passage of time number of documents increasing due to increase in the
interest of academicians in this domain. The greatest peak record, which represents a
considerable increase from 24 to 50 articles, occurred between 2016 and 2021.

4.3 Top 10 most influential author based on citations

The top ten most important writers are listed by NC in Table 4. Vismara S from Italy is the
most cited author (488 citations), followed by Khaval S from the United States (481 citations)
and Mollick E from the United States (409 citations). As can be seen, NC symbolises the
K Rank Author NC ND AC H-index G-index

1 Vismara S 488 4 122 4 4

2 Khavul S 481 2 240.5 2 2
3 Mollick E 409 2 204.5 2 2
4 Drover W 382 2 191 2 2
5 Renko M 359 3 119.67 3 3
6 Burtch G 333 3 111 3 3
7 Stevenson RM 325 5 65 4 5
Table 4. 8 Kuppaswamy V 310 2 155 2 2
Top 10 most influential 9 Parhankanga A 272 2 136 1 1
author based on 10 Calic G 256 3 85.33 2 2
citations Source(s): Author’s own articulation (Based on Scopus database)

contributions of research findings to the overall field. A high value does not always imply that
research findings have a major impact. There are four notable writers in the United States
who are committed to study in the subject of entrepreneurship and crowdfunding and have
significant impact and research ability.

4.4 Top 10 cited paper

Table 5 lists the most referenced papers in entrepreneurship and crowdfunding. Papers are
gathered based on the top ten most referenced papers from 275 papers. Table 5 included the
author’s name, year of publication, journal name and times cited for the relevant work. Bogers
M produced the most referenced work (first rated) in industry and innovation journal, with
476 citations. This article presents an outline of the key viewpoints and issues emerging in
research on open innovations. It also builds the interaction between entrepreneurship and
crowdfunding platforms to create a collegial atmosphere for entrepreneurship.
In the journal “entrepreneurship theory and practise,” Bruton G authored the second most
referenced article (379 citations). The author investigated new financing options for business,
such as microfinance, crowdfunding and peer-to-peer lending. This study incorporates new
developments in entrepreneurial financing. The third most cited paper published in the
“small business economics” with 355 citations titled “equity retention and social network
theory in equity crowdfunding” by Vismara (2016). The author uses the primary data of 271
projects listed on crowdfunding platforms in the period 2011–2014. The results revealed that
campaigns launched by entrepreneur who sold small amount of company and more social
capital had higher probabilities of success. They strengthen the link between traditional
finance with new alternatives of finance for seeding entrepreneurship.
Chen (2018) wrote a paper in “business horizons” with 166 citations titled “blockchain
tokens and the potential democratization of entrepreneurship and innovation.” According to
the author, Blockchain tokens may democratise (1) entrepreneurship by providing new
means for entrepreneurs to acquire funding and involve stakeholders, and (2) innovation by
providing innovators with a new mechanism to design, implement and distribute
decentralised apps.

4.5 Cocitation analysis

Cocitation analysis is a prominent tool for discovering similarities and study patterns in
management disciplines such as entrepreneurial finance. The frequency with which two
publications/authors/source titles are mentioned in the same research is determined by
cocitation analysis. Theoretical commonalities of articles are shown via cocitation analysis
 Year of Times
Entrepreneurship
S.no Author’s name Title publication cited Name of journals and
crowdfunding
1 Bogers M The open innovation research 2017 476 Industry and
landscape: established innovation
perspectives and emerging
themes across different levels of
analysis
2 Bruton G New Financial Alternatives in 2015 379 Entrepreneurship
Seeding Entrepreneurship: theory and practice
Microfinance, Crowdfunding,
and Peer–to–Peer Innovations
3 Vismara S Equity retention and social 2016 355 Small business
network theory in equity economics
crowdfunding
4 Parhankangas Linguistic style and 2017 253 Journal of business
A crowdfunding success among venturing
social and commercial
entrepreneurs
5 Mollick E Wisdom or Madness? 2016 241 Management science
Comparing Crowds with Expert
Evaluation in Funding the Arts
6 Calic G Kicking Off Social 2016 223 Journal of
Entrepreneurship: How A management science
Sustainability Orientation
Influences Crowdfunding
Success
7 Lehner OM Crowdfunding social ventures: a 2013 218 Venture capital
model and research agenda
8 Drover W A Review and Road Map of 2017 216 Journal of
Entrepreneurial Equity management
Financing Research: Venture
Capital, Corporate Venture
Capital, Angel Investment,
Crowdfunding, and
Accelerators
9 Kuppuswamy Does my contribution to your 2017 210 Journal of business
V crowdfunding project matter? venturing
10 Chen Y Blockchain tokens and the 2018 166 Business horizons
Table 5.
potential democratisation of Top 10 most cited
entrepreneurship and paper related to
innovation entrepreneurship and
Source(s): Author’s own articulation (Based on Scopus database) crowdfunding

(White and McCain, 1998). The influence of publications on the literature is revealed via
cocitation research (Udomsap and Hallinger, 2020). The VOSviewer depicts entrepreneurship
and crowdfunding literature. Cocitation analysis followed (Apriliyanti and Alon, 2017).
VOSviewer displays literature in coloured clusters/networks.
4.5.1 Summary of cocitation analysis of authors. Figure 3: In terms of author cocitation, we
developed a network diagram with a minimum threshold of 20 citations. The map is divided
into four clusters, each of which has 203 things. According to the study of the cocitation
network of referenced authors illustrated in Figure 3, the highest frequency nodes are Short
JC, Schwienbacker G, Vismara S, Cummings, Belleflamme P, Mollick E and Webb JW. They
are the most prominent and notable authors in the fields of entrepreneurship and
K

Figure 3.
Cocitation result
author wise

crowdfunding. Wright M, Vishwanathan S, Kuppaswamy V, Anglin A.H, and Goldfarb A are

among the other frequently referenced authors.
4.5.2 Co-authorship analysis author wise. The most well-known kind of intellectual
collaboration in research is co-authorship. When two or more people (authors) work together
on a research study, the end product is often superior to that of a single author (Besancenot
et al., 2017; Ductor, 2014; Hudson, 1996Ductor, 2014). VOSviewer software constructed a co-
authorship network map (shown in Figure 4) out of interconnected spheres of varying sizes.
Sphere size represents the number of times an author has published an article. Authors who
share a cluster are more likely to be linked or share research interests among their co-workers.
Figure 4 depicts eight clusters with varying numbers of co-authors. Only the fifth, third
and second clusters appeared, with the lowest frequency being the sixth, seventh and eighth.
Three writers collaborate the most frequently; the first two are in cluster 1 and work on the
same subjects, while the third is in cluster 3.
“Prof. Stevenson” received seventeen collaborations. The author focused on
entrepreneurship, crowdfunding and social network analysis collaborative networks using
network analysis. “Prof. Short J” received 12 partnerships in total. The author’s primary
research interests are crowdfunding success and campaign success. “Prof. Anglin”
collaborated on four publications about crowdfunding and entrepreneurship financing.
Similarly, others who have been very productive, such as “Prof. Sahaym” and “Prof. Drover,”
have developed clusters but collaborated less.
4.5.3 Organisational-wise analysis of co-authorship. The co-authorship network is
displayed institution-wise in Figure 5. The number of times authors work together and
their affiliation with the same institution are related. There are only two clusters (red and
green). Red cluster is very dense which shows this institution working very kin in this
 Entrepreneurship
and
crowdfunding

Figure 4.
Co-authorship result
author wise

Figure 5.
Organisation-wise
result of co-authorship

domain. According to Figure 5, shows that in red cluster school of management, royal
Holloway have more collaboration with other organisation and green cluster shows only two
organisation which have low co-authorship with the institutions.
4.5.4 Country-wise analysis of co-authorship. The country wise analysis of co-authorship is
showing the network of collaboration pattern between the two countries and multiple
countries showing by Figure 6. It is clear from the network map, software discovered
connections between 44 nations in terms of co-authorship. According to the network map
analysis, authors from the United States (106 publications), the United Kingdom (30
publications), Germany (28 publications), Italy (27 publications), Canada (20 publications),
China (14 publications), Malaysia (6 publications) and India (4 publications) have the most co-
authorships. In Figure 6, the circle with the title “United States” adjacent to the thickest lines
imaginable represents the greatest number of partnerships for the greatest number of
publications.

4.6 Analysis of keyword co-occurrence

The major purpose of the keyword co-occurrence network is to offer a picture of the literature
and terms associated with “crowdfunding” and “entrepreneurship” that are commonly used
K

Figure 6.
Country-wise result of
co-authorship

in current publications. This method gives the researcher a sense of the ongoing study and
historical context that was mostly selected by the other researcher. Keywords occurrence
technique used to understand the trend of the research, keyword connectivity, most frequent
keywords and visualise the keywords network map (van Eck and Waltman, 2009).
Figure 7 displays the 788 keywords gathered from the literature data collection. However,
only 42 terms fulfil the criterion with a minimum frequency of five and make up the network
map of keyword co-occurrence. The network map shows the smaller, more important spheres
connected by thick or thin lines. These lines show where two keywords appear together in
different articles. The network map of the author’s keywords that were utilised in database
articles is shown in Figure 7. The network map consists of different colour clusters.
According to the figure, the network maps show the frequency of the keyword that appears
the most frequently in the cluster. The two main terms in the cluster with the highest
frequency are crowdfunding (164) and entrepreneurship (134). Furthermore, Figure 7
indicates entrepreneurship (blue cluster) is mainly used with crowdfunding, motivation,
venture financing, web 2.0. While social entrepreneurship, digital platforms, sustainability
and innovation are often used to search for crowdfunding (a green cluster). The primary goal
is to investigate the most frequent occurrences of keywords in the dataset and give a
perspective for prospective researchers to employ fewer common keywords to conduct
research studies and provide value to the research gateway.

4.7 Cluster analysis

The current study is based on developing cluster based on keyword occurrence (Dash et al., 2022).
As a result, six distinct groups were discovered. On detailed analysis, it was determined that the
first cluster denotes keywords on the role of crowdfunding in female entrepreneurship and
economic development. The second cluster denotes keywords on the role of crowdfunding in
 Entrepreneurship
and
crowdfunding

Figure 7.
Co-occurrence of
keywords

venture financing. The third cluster denotes keywords on the role of crowdfunding in open
innovation. The fourth cluster denotes keywords on the role of crowdfunding in
social entrepreneurship. The fifth cluster denotes keywords on the role of crowdfunding in
sustainability. Lastly, the sixth cluster denotes keywords on the role of crowdfunding in fintech
development. The clustering of keywords well mentioned in Figure 8. The clustering of keywords
provides a research trend in domain; it also identified the existing research studies in cluster 1
discussed the encourage female entrepreneurship and economic development through
crowdfunding whereas, cluster 2 discussed the crowdfunding a venture financing tool. Later
other cluster discussed the crowdfunding as a tool for open innovation and promoting social
entrepreneurship and last, the cluster discussed the significance of crowdfunding in fintech and
startup financing.
The following sections delved into the many research avenues that surfaced during
keyword clustering and laid out a map for future researchers to follow in order to understand
the existing state of research studies in the area and to create their own contributions to the
research community.
4.7.1 Role of crowdfunding in female entrepreneurship and economic development.
Crowdfunding plays an increasingly vital role in promoting female entrepreneurship and
economic growth. By providing access to alternative funding sources, it enables women to launch
businesses, create jobs and contribute to economic growth (Alva et al., 2021). Crowdfunding also
reduces entrance hurdles, such as lack of access to conventional capital or networking, which
might disproportionately affect women entrepreneurs. In addition, crowdfunding platforms may
serve as a source of mentorship, guidance and community development, therefore bolstering the
expansion and success of female-led enterprises (Chandler et al., 2021; Zhao et al., 2021). Thus,
crowdfunding is seen as a powerful tool for empowering women and promoting gender equality in
entrepreneurship and economic development (Cicchiello et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2022).
K Motivates the entreprencurs
to access internet for
finance i.e., crwodfunding Promotes open innovation
To promotes With the assistance of social
entrepreneurship among networking
female
Cluster 2
Cluster 3
Cluster 1 ● Motivation
Promotes ● Internct ● Open innovation
development ● Equit crowdfunding ● Finance ● Net working
of economy ● Female entrepreneur ● Platforms
● Gender ● Strategy
● Community ● Social Media
● Microfinance
● Economy Entrepreneurship
and
Cluster 6 Crowdfunding Cluster 4
Development
of fintech ● Fintech ● Reward based CF Crowdfunding
● Startups ● Social Capital considered as
● Funding ● Equity based CF social capital
● Sharing economy Cluster 5
● Civic entrepreneurship
● Innovation ● Social entrepreneurship
● Sustainability
● Digital platform
Helps in financing ● Legitimacy
startups funding

Encourage
sustainability Promotes social
entreprepreneurship
with the help of
Figure 8. digital platforms
Cluster analysis
Source(s): Author’s own compilation

4.7.2 Role of crowdfunding in venture financing. Crowdfunding plays a role in venture capital
as an alternate funding source for start-ups and early-stage businesses (Allen et al., 2020;
Lehner et al., 2015). It enables businesses to gather funds from many individuals in exchange
for rewards or stock, generally using an Internet platform (Short and Anglin, 2019) This can
be especially valuable for businesses that are not yet qualified for conventional types of
financing, such as venture capital (Berns et al., 2018; Garaus et al., 2020). Crowdfunding can
also provide valuable market validation and customer insights for companies looking to
launch new products or services (Yu et al., 2022). Additionally, it can help companies build a
community of supporters and brand ambassadors, which can be valuable for future
fundraising and business development efforts (Cumming and Reardon, 2022; Langley et al.,
2020; Salvi et al., 2022). Before obtaining this sort of finance, it is essential to assess the
prospective costs, advantages and dangers.
4.7.3 Role of crowdfunding in open innovation. Crowdfunding may play a crucial role in
encouraging youth innovation by offering a forum for young entrepreneurs and innovators to
bring their ideas to reality (Chen, 2018). It offers a low-barrier-to-entry way for young people
to access funding and test the viability of their ideas and can help bridge the gap between
having an idea and turning it into a reality (Çubukçu et al., 2020; Stanko and Henard, 2017)
Crowdfunding also provides young entrepreneurs with the opportunity to build a network of
supporters, gain valuable feedback and build a following for their ideas (Wright, 2017). This
could be especially beneficial for young individuals who lack established relationships or
access to conventional financial sources (Wang et al., 2022). However, that success on a
crowdfunding site depends on a number of things, including a well-developed idea, a
captivating pitch and a well-executed marketing campaign (Hoos, 2022). Nonetheless,
crowdfunding may be a useful tool for young people seeking to bring their ideas to life and
positively influence the world.
4.7.4 Role of crowdfunding in promoting social entrepreneurship. Crowdfunding plays a
significant role in promoting social entrepreneurship by providing a platform for
entrepreneurs to raise funds for their projects and bring awareness to their cause
(Farhoud et al., 2021; Hoos, 2022). Crowdfunding also enables businesses to evaluate the Entrepreneurship
market demand for their products and services, as well as to establish a community of and
invested supporters (Schwienbacher, 2017). This helps to increase the visibility (Burtch et al.,
2014). By providing access to funding and a network of supporters, crowdfunding helps to
crowdfunding
break down barriers and provides opportunities for socially focused start-ups to make a
positive impact (Wachs and Vedres, 2021).
4.7.5 Role of crowdfunding in sustainability. Crowdfunding can play a role in promoting
sustainability by providing a platform for individuals, organisations and businesses to raise
funds for environmentally and socially responsible projects. Crowdfunding allows people to
invest in and support initiatives that align with their values and promote sustainable practices,
such as renewable energy, conservation and sustainable agriculture (Luca et al., 2019; Tenner
and H€orisch, 2021). This can also help to bridge the gap between projects that promote
sustainability and the financing they need to get off the ground (Bento et al., 2019). Additionally,
crowdfunding can help raise awareness and support for sustainability-related initiatives,
building a community of people who are committed to making a positive impact (Chan et al.,
2021). However, it’s important to note that not all crowdfunding campaigns are equal in their
sustainability impact, and it is crucial for individuals to carefully research and evaluate the
environmental and social impact of the projects they choose to support (Pabst et al., 2021).
4.7.6 Role of crowdfunding in the development of fintech. Crowdfunding has played a
significant role in the development of fintech, as it has helped to democratise access to capital
and disrupt traditional financing models (Troise et al., 2021). Crowdfunding platforms, such
as Kickstarter and Indiegogo, have paved the way for a new era of online fundraising and
investment, enabling people to raise money for a wide range of projects and initiatives (de
Larrea et al., 2022; Salvi et al., 2022; Short and Anglin, 2019). This has paved the way for the
growth of other fintech companies and services, such as peer-to-peer lending and equity
crowdfunding (Baccarne et al., 2020; Bruton et al., 2015).
Moreover, crowdfunding platforms have been instrumental in promoting financial
innovation and creativity, as they have allowed entrepreneurs and businesses to access
capital from a wider range of investors, including everyday people and small investors
(Wright, 2017). This has prompted the development of new financial products and services,
including investment options for social impact and sustainable ventures (Bruton et al., 2015).
In conclusion, crowdfunding has been a catalyst for change in the financial industry, bringing
new opportunities and innovation to the world of finance, and helping to make finance more
accessible, transparent and inclusive. Figure 8 depicts a proposed framework that is based on
the detected clusters and highlights the important aspects of each cluster. To add anything
new to the body of knowledge, future scholars might investigate the framework’s many
components.

5. Discussion and conclusion

The researcher works on the 275 articles on entrepreneurship and crowdfunding that were
evaluated for the research. The study focused on their relationship, reliance, impact of
crowdfunding on entrepreneurship, effect of crowdfunding on capital structure of the small
business entity and start-ups. Scalar and statistical/analytical methods were used to analyse
the 275 publications that make up the literature. The scalar methodologies employed are
based on counts from the Scopus database and include the top 15 authors, top journals and
most-cited publications. The analytical approach is to employ to visualise the co-occurrence
network, cocitation network and co-authorship map. The study identifies the cordial
relationship between entrepreneurship and crowdfunding by identifying the top cited paper,
most influential author, most cited author and co-occurrence of keywords analysis. The
bibliometric technique has depicted the current trend and development in the field.
K The present literature study has demonstrated the research trend, structure and research
stream of the entrepreneurship and crowdfunding with the help of no. of citations, publication
year by year and co-occurrence of keywords. This study concluded the following. Figure 2
shows that Short JC, Stevenson, Anglin and Vismara are the most productive author in terms of
publications. The presence of three authors namely, Boger M, Bruton and Vismara S, as shown
in Table 4, they are the highly cited authors in the topic. Table 3 depicted that Small Business
Economics, California Business Review, Journal for Business Venturing and Journal of Cleaner
Production are the most active and most influential journal in the international scientific
community. Figure 7 indicates that entrepreneurship and crowdfunding words are most
frequently used words dependably and interchangeably with sustainability, venture financing,
open innovation, start-ups, microfinance, digital platforms for financing and fintech.
Furthermore, co-authorship analysis of the authors, organisational-wise and country-wise
showed in (Figure 4–6). Figure 3 indicates the cocitation analysis, Schwienbacher is the
frequently cocited author in the field of entrepreneurship and crowdfunding. The research
study clustered terms (Figure 8) in the field, resulting in six groupings logically titled as
follows: (1) “The role of crowdfunding in female entrepreneurship and economic growth,” (2)
“The function of crowdsourcing in venture capital,” (3) “Fundraising’s role in open
innovation,” (4) “The role of crowdfunding in fostering social entrepreneurship,” (5) “The role
of crowdfunding in sustainability,” and (6) “The role of crowdfunding in the growth of
fintech.” In addition, the study provides a framework for future research that aspiring
scholars may use to produce creative contributions to the field of study.
It is clear from the above study there is a significant relationship between
entrepreneurship development and crowdfunding. Furthermore, shortage of literature
motivates the research community for the future work in this domain. The limitation of the
study only Scopus database has been used for the bibliometric analysis. Additionally, there
are certain limitations to the selection and analysis of the data in this study, such as the
potential exclusion of important papers. If the problem is beyond the scope of the selection,
methodological shortcomings are not to blame.

6. Research implication
Researchers, business owners, crowdfunding users and policymakers all gain benefits from the
current study. From a scholarly standpoint, the current analysis clarified the primary research
issues in the fields of entrepreneurship and crowdfunding and highlighted the top publications and
papers that would direct future research. This research enables business owners, organisations,
SMEs and start-ups to use crowdsourcing as a substitute source of funding (Vismara, 2021). This
study offers proof of the importance of crowdfunding for entrepreneurs to legislators so they may
create new policies for them. Practitioners can identify current trends, research gaps and research
streams in the disciplines of entrepreneurship and crowdfunding to conduct future research.

References
Aghdam, M.S., Alamtabriz, A., Qazvini, A.S. and Zandhessami, H. (2019), “A system dynamics
approach to designing a crowdfunding model in technological entrepreneurship ecosystem with
a focus on technology incubator centers”, Journal of Optimization in Industrial Engineering,
Vol. 13, pp. 113-122.
Agrawal, G.K. and Mishra, A. (2022), “Public health insurance for elderly: did researchers recognise
health as human right for elderly?”, International Journal of Human Rights in Healthcare, doi:
10.1108/IJHRH-08-2021-0155.
Alegre, I. and Moleskis, M. (2016), “Crowdfunding: a review and research agenda”, Banking and
Insurance EJournal, doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2900921.
Allen, J.S., Stevenson, R.M. and Wang, T. (2020), “Creative and resourceful: how human, social, and Entrepreneurship
psychological resources affect creative workers’ ability to rebound after failure”, Small Business
Economics, Vol. 57, pp. 705-719. and
Alva, E., Vivas, V. and Urcia, M. (2021), “Entrepreneurial bricolage: crowdfunding for female
crowdfunding
entrepreneurs during COVID-19 pandemic”, Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging
Economies, doi: 10.1108/JEEE-12-2020-0464.
Amuna, Y.M.A. (2019), “Crowdfunding financing model effect on entrepreneurship aspirations”,
Econometric Modeling: Corporate Finance and Governance EJournal, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 53-60.
Aprilia, Lady and Wibowo, S.S. (2017), “The impact of social capital on crowdfunding performance”,
South East Asian Journal of Management, Vol. 11, 181159.
Apriliyanti, I.D. and Alon, I. (2017), “Bibliometric analysis of absorptive capacity”, International
Business Review, Vol. 26, pp. 896-907.
Baccarne, B., Evens, T. and Marez, L. De. (2020), “Understanding civic crowdfunding as a mechanism
for leveraging civic engagement and urban innovation”, Technology Innovation Management
Review, Vol. 10, pp. 51-66.
Bade, M. (2018), “Bargaining over crowdfunding benefits”, Journal of Entrepreneurship and Public
Policy, Vol. 7, pp. 166-177.
Belleflamme, P., Lambert, T. and Schwienbacher, A. (2010), “Crowdfunding: an industrial organization
perspective”, Digital Business Models: Understanding Strategies, Paris, 25-26 June 2010, pp. 1-30,
available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228468454_Crowdfunding_An_
Industrial_Organization_Perspective.
Belleflamme, P., Lambert, T. and Schwienbacher, A. (2013), “Crowdfunding: tapping the right crowd”,
Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 585-609.
Bento, N., Gianfrate, G. and Thoni, M.H. (2019), “Crowdfunding for sustainability ventures”, Journal of
Cleaner Production, Vol. 237, 117751, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117751.
Bergamini, T.P., Navarro, C.L.-C. and Hilliard, I. (2017), “Is crowdfunding an appropriate financial
model for social entrepreneurship”, Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal, Vol. 23, p. 44.
Bernardino, S. and Santos, J.F. (2020), “Crowdfunding: an exploratory study on knowledge, benefits
and barriers perceived by young potential entrepreneurs”, Journal of Risk and Financial
Management, Vol. 13 No. 4, doi: 10.3390/jrfm13040081.
Berns, J.P., Figueroa-Armijos, M., da Motta Veiga, S.P. and Dunne, T. (2018), “Dynamics of lending-
based prosocial crowdfunding: using a social responsibility lens”, Journal of Business Ethics,
Vol. 161, pp. 169-185.
Besancenot, D., Huynh, K.P. and Serranito, F. (2017), “Co-authorship and research productivity in
economics: assessing the assortative matching hypothesis”, Economic Modelling, Vol. 66,
pp. 61-80.
Bhadauria, S. and Singh, V. (2022), “Blending absorptive capacity with open innovation: a bibliometric
review”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 1110-1136.
Bradley, D.B., III and Luong, C. (2014), “Crowdfunding: a new opportunity for small business and
entrepreneurship”, The Entrepreneurial Executive, Vol. 19, pp. 95-104.
Brem, A., Bilgram, V. and Marchuk, A. (2019), “How crowdfunding platforms change the nature of
user innovation – from problem solving to entrepreneurship”, Technological Forecasting and
Social Change, Vol. 144, pp. 348-360.
Brown, R., Mawson, S., Rowe, A. and Mason, C. (2018), “Working the crowd: improvisational
entrepreneurship and equity crowdfunding in nascent entrepreneurial ventures”, International
Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship, Vol. 36, pp. 169-193.
Bruton, G.D., Khavul, S., Siegel, D.S. and Wright, M. (2015), “New financial alternatives in seeding
entrepreneurship: microfinance, crowdfunding, and peer– to– peer innovations”,
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 39, pp. 26-29.
K Burtch, G., Ghose, A. and Wattal, S. (2014), “The hidden cost of accommodating crowdfunder privacy
preferences: a randomized field experiment”, Management Science, Vol. 61 No. 5, pp. 949-962.
Buttice, V., Colombo, M.G., Fumagalli, E. and Orsenigo, C. (2019), “Green oriented crowdfunding
campaigns: their characteristics and diffusion in different institutional settings”, Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 141, pp. 85-97.
Calic, G. and Mosakowski, E. (2016), “Kicking off social entrepreneurship: how a sustainability
orientation influences crowdfunding success”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 53 No. 5, pp.
738-767.
Chan, H.F., Moy, N., Schaffner, M. and Torgler, B. (2021), “The effects of money saliency and
sustainability orientation on reward based crowdfunding success”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 125, pp. 443-455, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.037.
Chandler, J.A., Short, J.C. and Wolfe, M.T. (2021), “Finding the crowd after exogenous shocks: exploring
the future of crowdfunding”, Journal of Business Venturing Insights, Vol. 15, p. e00245.
Chandna, V. (2021), “Social entrepreneurship and digital platforms: crowdfunding in the sharing-
economy era”, Business Horizons, Vol. 65 No. 1, pp. 21-31.
Chen, Y. (2018), “Blockchain tokens and the potential democratization of entrepreneurship and
innovation”, Business Horizons, Vol. 61 No. 4, pp. 567-575, doi: 10.1016/j.bushor.2018.03.006.
Chen, J., Chen, L., Chen, J. and Xie, K. (2018), “Mechanism and policy combination of technical
sustainable entrepreneurship crowdfunding in China: a system dynamics analysis”, Journal of
Cleaner Production, Vol. 177, pp. 610-620, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.217.
Cicchiello, A.F., Kazemikhasragh, A. and Monferra, S. (2020), “Gender differences in new venture
financing: evidence from equity crowdfunding in Latin America”, International Journal of
Emerging Markets, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 1175-1197.
Çubukçu, A., Ulusoy, T. and Boz, E. (2020), “Crowdfunding and open innovation together: a
conceptual framework of a hybrid crowd innovation model”, International Journal of Innovation
and Technology Management, Vol. 17 No. 8, doi: 10.1142/s0219877021500036.
Cumming, D.J. and Reardon, R.S. (2022), “COVID-19 and entrepreneurial processes in US equity
crowdfunding”, Journal of Small Business Management, doi: 10.1080/00472778.2022.2051178.
Da Silva, L., Apolinario, R. and Sousa, C. (2019), “Crowdfunding in entrepreneurship: a systematic review
and future directions”, XXII SEMEAD Semin
arios em Administraç~ao, available at: https://www.
researchgate.net/publication/337544087_CROWDFUNDING_IN_ENTREPRENEURSHIP_A_
SYSTEMATIC_REVIEW_AND_FUTURE_DIRECTIONS.
Dash, M.K., Sahu, R., Panda, G., Jain, D., Singh, G. and Singh, C. (2022), “Social media role in public
health development: a bibliometric approach”, Kybernetes, doi: 10.1108/k-02-2022-0294.
de Larrea, G.L., Park, J.-Y., Park, K. and Altın, M. (2022), “Cues that work: designing the optimal
restaurant crowdfunding campaign in the US”, International Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Administration, doi: 10.1080/15256480.2022.2038335.
Debackere, K., Verbeek, A., Luwel, M. and Zimmermann, E. (2002), “Measuring progress and evolution
in science and technology - ii: the multiple uses of technometric indicators”, International
Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 213-231.
Diodato, V. and Gellatly, P. (1994), Dictionary of Bibliometrics, 1st ed., Routledge, doi: 10.4324/
9780203714133.
Ductor, L. (2014), “Does Co-authorship lead to higher academic productivity?”, Oxford Bulletin of
Economics and Statistics, Wiley, Vol. 77 No. 3, pp. 385-407, doi: 10.1111/obes.12070.
Dushnitsky, G. and Zunino, D. (2018), “The role of crowdfunding in entrepreneurial finance”,
Handbook of Research on Crowdfunding, Forthcoming, doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3237356.
Elkuch, Brunner, C. and Marxt, C. (2014), “Reciprocal crowdfunding as means to enable student and
graduate entrepreneurship in Africa - a case study of Rwanda”, International Journal of
Entrepreneurship and Small Business, Vol. 19, doi: 10.1504/IJESB.2013.055489.
Farhoud, M., Farhoud, M., Shah, S., Stenholm, P., Kibler, E., Renko, M., Terjesen, S. and Terjesen, S. Entrepreneurship
(2021), “Social enterprise crowdfunding in an acute crisis”, Journal of Business Venturing
Insights, Vol. 15, e00211, doi: 10.1016/j.jbvi.2020.e00211. and
Garaus, C., Izdebski, N. and Lettl, C. (2020), “What do crowd equity investors do? Exploring
crowdfunding
postinvestment activities in equity crowd funding”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering
Management, pp. 1-12, doi: 10.1109/TEM.2020.3041073.
na, P.E.Z. (2021), “Crowdfunding: a
Gil-G
omez, H., Oltra-Badenes, R., Guerola-Navarro, V. and Salda~
bibliometric analysis”, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Vol. 19,
pp. 27-45.
Greene, P.G., Fetters, M.L., Bliss, R.T. and Donnellon, A. (2018), “The future of entrepreneurship
education: educating for economic and social impact”, A Research Agenda for Entrepreneurship
Education, pp. 62-80, doi: 10.4337/9781786432919.00009.
Gupta, B.M. and Bhattacharya, S. (2004), “A bibliometric approach towards mapping the dynamics of
science and technology”, DESIDOC Journal of Library and Information Technology, Vol. 24, pp. 3-8.
Hoos, F. (2022), “Showing off or showing impact? The joint signalling effect of reputation and
accountability on social entrepreneurs’ crowdfunding success”, Management Accounting Research,
Vol. 54, doi: 10.1016/j.mar.2021.100778.
Hossain, M. and Oparaocha, G.O. (2017), “Crowdfunding: motives, definitions, typology and ethical
challenges”, Entrepreneurship Research Journal, Vol. 7 No. 2, doi: 10.1515/erj-2015-0045.
Hudson, J. (1996), “Trends in multi-authored papers in economics”, Journal of Economic Perspectives,
Vol. 10, pp. 153-158.
Hytti, U., Blackburn, R., Fletcher, D.E. and Welter, F. (2016), Entrepreneurship, Universities and
Resources: Frontiers in European Entrepreneurship Research, Elgar, Online, doi: 10.4337/
9781786432544.
Jafarnejad, A., Abbaszadeh, M.A., Ebrahimi, M. and Abtahi, S.M. (2013), “Analysis of barriers to
entrepreneurship in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs)”, International Journal of
Academic Research in Economics and Management Sciences, Vol. 2.
Jancenelle, V.E., Javalgi, R., Raj, G. and Cavusgil, E. (2019), “Cultural entrepreneurship and legitimate
distinctiveness in international prosocial crowdfunding”, International Business Review, Vol. 28
No. 4, pp. 802-810, doi: 10.1016/j.ibusrev.2019.04.002.
Kim, H. and Moor, L. De. (2017), “The case of crowdfunding in financial inclusion: a survey”, Strategic
Change, Vol. 26, pp. 193-212.
Kim, P.H., Buffart, M. and Croidieu, G. (2016), “TMI signaling credible claims in crowdfunding
campaign narratives”, Group and Organization Management, Vol. 41, pp. 717-750.
Kirby, E. and Worner, S. (2014), “Crowd-funding: an infant industry growing fast”, International
Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) Research Department, pp. 1-63, available at:
https://www.iosco.org/research/pdf/swp/Crowd-funding-An-Infant-Industry-Growing-Fast.pdf.
Kirsch, D.A., Goldfarb, B.D. and Gera, A. (2009), “Form or substance: the role of business plans in
venture capital decision making”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 30 No. 5, pp. 487-515,
doi: 10.1002/smj.751.
Kumar, S., Maggino, F., Mahto, R.V., Sureka, R., Alaimo, L.S. and Lim, W.M. (2021), “Social indicators
research: a retrospective using bibliometric analysis”, Social Indicators Research, Vol. 162,
pp. 413-448.
Langley, P.A., Lewis, S., Mcfarlane, C., Painter, J. and Vradis, A. (2020), “Crowdfunding cities: social
entrepreneurship, speculation and solidarity in Berlin”, Geoforum, Vol. 115, pp. 11-20.
Lehner, O.M., Grabmann, E. and Ennsgraber, C. (2015), “Entrepreneurial implications of crowdfunding
as alternative funding source for innovations”, Venture Capital, Vol. 17, pp. 171-189.
Luca, V.V. De, Margherita, A. and Passiante, G. (2019), “Crowdfunding: a systemic framework of benefits”,
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 1321-1339.
K Martin, B.R. (1996), “The use of multiple indicators in the assessment of basic research”,
Scientometrics, Vol. 36, pp. 343-362.
Mollick, E. (2014), “The dynamics of crowdfunding: an exploratory study”, Journal of Business
Venturing, Vol. 29, pp. 1-16.
Nespoli, C., Kozan, A., Scuotto, V. and Giudice, M. Del. (2022), “Aimage’s entrepreneurial value
creation and crowdfunding: entrepreneurship in times of crisis”, The International Journal
of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 76-85, doi: 10.1177/
14657503221081355.
Neuhofer, B. (2016), “Innovation through co-creation: towards an understanding of technology-
facilitated co-creation processes in tourism”, in Egger Roman, W.D. and Gula, I. (Eds), Open
Tourism: Open Innovation, Crowdsourcing and Co-creation Challenging the Tourism Industry,
pp. 17-33, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-54089-9_2.
Ordanini, A., Miceli, L., Pizzetti, M. and Parasuraman, A. (2011), “Crowd-funding: transforming
customers into investors through innovative service platforms”, Journal of Service
Management, Vol. 22, pp. 443-470.
Pabst, S., Wayand, M. and Mohnen, A. (2021), “Coordinating contributions in crowdfunding for
sustainable entrepreneurship”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 319, 128677.
Pachouri, A. and Sharma, S. (2016), “Barriers to innovation in indian small and medium-sized
enterprises", ADBI Working Paper 588, doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2838109.
Pandey, P.K. and Bajpai, N. (2022), “Mapping the research pattern of cause-related marketing: a
bibliometric analysis of publications during 2000-2020”, Journal of Nonprofit and Public Sector
Marketing, doi: 10.1080/10495142.2022.2133066.
Parhankangas, A. and Colbourne, R. (2022), “Indigenous entrepreneurship and venture creation: a
typology of indigenous crowdfunding campaigns”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, doi:
10.1177/10422587221096907.
Polzin, F., Toxopeus, H. and Stam, E. (2018), “The wisdom of the crowd in funding: information
heterogeneity and social networks of crowdfunders”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 50,
pp. 251-273.
Rahman, M.P., Mohd Thas Thaker, M.A. and Duasa, J. (2020), “Developing a Sharıʿah-compliant
equity-based crowdfunding framework for entrepreneurship development in Malaysia”, ISRA
International Journal of Islamic Finance, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 239-252, doi: 10.1108/IJIF-07-
2018-0085.
Rey-Mart
ı, A., Mohedano-Suanes, A. and Sim
on-Moya, V. (2019), “Crowdfunding and social
entrepreneurship: spotlight on Intermediaries”, Sustainability, Vol. 11 No. 4, doi: 10.3390/
su11041175.
Salvi, A., Raimo, N., Petruzzella, F. and Vitolla, F. (2022), “The role of communication in restaurant
crowdfunding success”, British Food Journal, Vol. 124 No. 12, pp. 4323-4338, doi: 10.1108/BFJ-
07-2021-0797.
Schwienbacher, A. (2017), “Entrepreneurial risk-taking in crowdfunding campaigns”, Small Business
Economics, Vol. 51, pp. 843-859.
Short, J.C. and Anglin, A.H. (2019), “Is leadership language ‘rewarded’ in crowdfunding? Replicating
social entrepreneurship research in a rewards-based context”, Journal of Business Venturing
Insights, Vol. 11, e00121, doi: 10.1016/j.jbvi.2019.e00121.
Singh, P. (2022), “Weather index insurance viability in mitigation of climate change impact risk: a
systematic review and future agenda”, Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management,
doi: 10.1108/JSTPM-07-2021-0102.
Singh, P. and Agrawal, G. (2019), “Efficacy of weather index insurance for mitigation of weather risks
in agriculture: an integrative review”, International Journal of Ethics and Systems, Vol. 35 No. 4,
pp. 584-616, doi: 10.1108/IJOES-09-2018-0132.
Stanko, M.A. and Henard, D.H. (2017), “Toward a better understanding of crowdfunding, openness Entrepreneurship
and the consequences for innovation”, Research Policy, Vol. 46, pp. 784-798.
and
Stevenson, R.M., Kuratko, D.F. and Eutsler, J. (2018), “Unleashing main street entrepreneurship:
crowdfunding, venture capital, and the democratization of new venture investments”, Small
crowdfunding
Business Economics, Vol. 52, pp. 375-393.
Sweileh, W.M., Wickramage, K., Pottie, K., Hui, C., Roberts, B., Sawalha, A.F. and Zyoud, S.H. (2018),
“Bibliometric analysis of global migration health research in peer-reviewed literature (2000-
2016)”, BMC Public Health, Vol. 18 No. 1, doi: 10.1186/s12889-018-5689-x.
Talla, S.A. El, Shobaki, M.J. Al, Abu-Naser, S.S. and Amuna, Y.M.A. (2018), “Crowdfunding role in
boosting the entrepreneurial creativity of university students”, International Journal of
Academic Management Science Research (IJAMSR), Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 1-12.
Tenner, I. and H€orisch, J. (2021), “Crowdfunding sustainable entrepreneurship: what are the
characteristics of crowdfunding investors?”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 290, 125667.
Tijssen, R.J.W. (1992), “A quantitative assessment of interdisciplinary structures in science and
technology: co-classification analysis of energy research*”, Research Policy, Vol. 21, pp. 27-44.
Troise, C., Matricano, D., Candelo, E. and Sorrentino, M. (2021), “Entrepreneurship and fintech
development: comparing reward and equity crowdfunding”, Measuring Business Excellence,
Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 52-63.
Udomsap, A.D. and Hallinger, P. (2020), “A bibliometric review of research on sustainable
construction, 1994-2018”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 254, 120073.
van Eck, N.J. and Waltman, L. (2009), “Vosviewer: a computer program for bibliometric mapping”,
Scientometrics, Vol. 84 No. 2, pp. 523-538.
Vealey, K.P. and Gerding, J.M. (2016), “Rhetorical work in crowd-based entrepreneurship: lessons
learned from teaching crowdfunding as an emerging site of professional and technical
communication”, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, Vol. 59 No. 4, pp. 407-427,
doi: 10.1109/TPC.2016.2614742.
Vismara, S. (2016), “Equity retention and social network theory in equity crowdfunding”, Small
Business Economics, Vol. 46 No. 4, pp. 579-590.
Vismara, S. (2021), “Expanding corporate finance perspectives to equity crowdfunding”, The Journal
of Technology Transfer, Vol. 47, pp. 1629-1639.
Wachs, J. and Vedres, B. (2021), “Does crowdfunding really foster innovation? Evidence from the
board game industry”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 168, 120747, doi: 10.
1016/j.techfore.2021.120747.
Wald, A.E., Holmesland, M. and Efrat, K. (2019), “It is not all about money: obtaining additional
benefits through equity crowdfunding”, The Journal of Entrepreneurship, Vol. 28, pp. 270-294.
Wang, Y., Wang, B. and Yan, Y. (2022), “Does network externality affect your project? Evidences from
reward-based technology crowdfunding”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change,
Vol. 180, 121667, doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121667.
White, H.D. and McCain, K.W. (1998), “Visualizing a discipline: an author Co-citation analysis of
information science, 1972-1995”, Journal of the Association for Information Science and
Technology, Vol. 49, pp. 327-355.
Wright, F. (2017), “How do entrepreneurs obtain financing? An evaluation of available options and
how they fit into the current entrepreneurial ecosystem”, Journal of Business and Finance
Librarianship, Vol. 22, pp. 190-200.
Yu, S. and Fleming, L. (2022), “Regional crowdfunding and high tech entrepreneurship”, Research
Policy, Vol. 51 No. 9, 104348, doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2021.104348.
Yu, H., Oduro, M.S. and Huang, H. (2022), “Predicting the entrepreneurial success of crowdfunding
campaigns using model-based machine learning methods”, International Journal of Crowd
Science, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 7-16, doi: 10.26599/IJCS.2022.9100003.
K Zhao, Y., Xie, X. and Yang, L. (2021), “Female entrepreneurs and equity crowdfunding: the
consequential roles of lead investors and venture stages”, International Entrepreneurship and
Management Journal, Vol. 17, pp. 1183-1211, doi: 10.1007/s11365-020-00659-w.

Corresponding author
Amit Kumar can be contacted at: kumaramitdcac@gmail.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com