Academic Entrepreneurship Evolution: A Systematic Review of University Incubators and Startup Development (2018–2024)

Abstract

This study explores the evolution of academic entrepreneurship, emphasizing the crucial role of universities in fostering innovation and economic development. Through a systematic review guided by the PRISMA methodology, the research identifies six critical dimensions in academic entrepreneurship: university entrepreneurial ecosystems, organizational structures, capacity building, impact evaluation, contextual influences, and sustainability. The review highlights the integration of sustainability principles, digital transformation, and innovative financing models as central themes driving contemporary university entrepreneurship. Additionally, it underscores the necessity for adaptive governance frameworks and interdisciplinary collaborations to address diverse socioeconomic contexts. The findings offer theoretical insights and practical recommendations for policymakers and university administrators, with the aim of enhancing the design and implementation of effective entrepreneurial ecosystems. This work contributes to a deeper understanding of the mechanisms and strategies that enable universities to act as catalysts for innovation and sustainable economic growth.

1. Introduction

Academic entrepreneurship has undergone significant evolution in recent decades, fundamentally transforming the role of universities in society. The literature reveals that this transformation has been driven by fundamental changes in understanding the role of academic institutions in economic and social development [1]. Universities have moved from a traditional model focused on teaching and research to a more entrepreneurial paradigm, where the commercialization of knowledge and the creation of economic value have become key objectives. The historical background of academic entrepreneurship dates to the implementation of the Bayh–Dole Act in 1980, which marked a turning point in how universities approach technology transfer and entrepreneurship. This transformation has led to the creation of various organizational structures designed to support entrepreneurial activity, with university incubators being one of the most prominent mechanisms [2]. The evolution of these structures has been marked by the need to adapt to increasingly dynamic and complex environments, where innovation and entrepreneurship play a central role in economic development. The contemporary literature on academic entrepreneurship has been enriched by various theoretical perspectives. The theory of resources and capabilities has provided a fundamental framework for understanding how universities can develop and sustain competitive advantages in entrepreneurship [3]. In parallel, the entrepreneurial ecosystem approach has gained prominence, highlighting the importance of interactions between multiple actors in the process of creating and developing new academic ventures [4]. A crucial aspect in the evolution of academic entrepreneurship has been the recognition of the importance of human capital and social networks. Recent research has shown that the success of academic entrepreneurship initiatives is closely linked to the ability of institutions to develop and maintain effective collaborative networks [5]. In this context, university incubators have emerged as spaces that not only provide physical resources but also facilitate the creation of valuable connections between entrepreneurs, mentors, and investors.

The institutional perspective has been particularly relevant in understanding how organizational structures and institutional norms influence entrepreneurial behavior within the university context. Studies have indicated that the success of entrepreneurial initiatives is strongly influenced by institutional support and the existence of specific policies and programs designed to foster entrepreneurship [6]. However, significant variation has also been observed in the way different institutions implement these programs and in their relative effectiveness. Recently, there has been a growing interest in understanding how universities can adapt their entrepreneurial support strategies to respond to the specific needs of different cultural and economic contexts. Research by [7] has revealed that there is no single model of university incubation that is effective in all contexts, underlining the importance of developing approaches tailored to local and regional realities. Critical analysis of the literature reveals important research gaps in the field of academic entrepreneurship and university incubator development. In this regard, ref. [8] have identified a limited understanding of the interactions and mutual influences between the different elements of the entrepreneurial ecosystem. This gap becomes particularly relevant when considering the diversity of institutional and cultural contexts in which university incubators operate, suggesting the need for a deeper and more contextualized analysis. In parallel, ref. [9] have highlighted a second significant gap related to the evaluation of the long-term impact of university incubator initiatives. Current studies tend to focus on short-term metrics, such as the number of startups created or initial funding raised, neglecting more comprehensive indicators of long-term sustainability and growth. This methodological limitation hinders the effective evaluation of incubation strategies and their real impact on sustainable economic development. In this context, ref. [10] have identified a third fundamental gap related to understanding how different institutional support structures influence the development of entrepreneurial capabilities. Despite the exponential growth of entrepreneurial support programs, there is still limited understanding of what specific combination of resources and services is most effective for different types of academic entrepreneurial programs. The existing literature reveals key categories that deserve special attention; the first category identified relates to university entrepreneurial ecosystems. In this area, ref. [1] have identified three key components: institutional infrastructure, collaborative networks, and support systems. Complementarily, ref. [4] emphasize the importance of the dynamic interaction between these elements to create an enabling environment for academic entrepreneurship.

A second significant category comprises organizational structures and support mechanisms. In this regard, ref. [3] have documented different institutional configurations that facilitate academic entrepreneurship, including technology transfer offices, incubators, and accelerators. Ref. [9]’s research delves into how these structures evolve and adapt to the changing needs of the entrepreneurial ecosystem.

The third category focuses on the development of entrepreneurial skills and competencies. In this context, ref. [10] have analyzed how training and mentoring programs influence the development of entrepreneurial skills among academics and students. In parallel, ref. [11] highlight the importance of integrating these skills into the traditional academic curriculum.

Impact measurement and outcome evaluation emerge as a crucial fourth category. Studies by [7] have proposed evaluation frameworks that consider both quantitative and qualitative metrics. Along these lines, ref. [12] emphasize the need to develop more sophisticated indicators that capture the long-term impact of academic entrepreneurship initiatives.

The fifth category addresses contextual and cultural factors. The research by [13] highlights how different institutional and cultural environments influence the success of entrepreneurial initiatives. Complementarily, ref. [14] analyze the necessary adaptations of incubation models in different geographical and economic contexts.

Finally, sustainability and scalability constitute the sixth relevant category. In this regard, ref. [6] examine the factors that contribute to the long-term sustainability of academic entrepreneurship initiatives. Ref. [15] analyze the conditions necessary to successfully scale university entrepreneurship programs.

Faced with these identified gaps, this research aims to systematically analyze how different institutional and structural configurations influence the success of university incubators, considering the diversity of existing cultural and economic contexts [14]. It also seeks to examine the mechanisms by which universities develop and maintain effective entrepreneurial ecosystems, paying particular attention to the interaction between the various actors and resources involved [1].

The relevance of this research is underpinned by multiple critical aspects. On the one hand, as [13] point out, there is a pressing need to better understand how universities can adapt their incubation strategies to the changing demands of the entrepreneurial environment. On the other hand, ref. [15] emphasize the importance of identifying and replicating best practices in the development of university entrepreneurial ecosystems.

Methodologically, this systematic review adopts a rigorous approach based on the PRISMA guidelines, following the recommendations of [16]. This methodological process involves an exhaustive search of the main academic databases, the implementation of clearly defined inclusion and exclusion criteria, and a structured thematic analysis of the findings. The thoroughness of this approach allows for a comprehensive synthesis of the existing literature and the identification of significant patterns and trends in the field.

The expected contributions of this research are both theoretical and practical. From the theoretical perspective, it provides an integrative framework for understanding the mechanisms that drive the success of university incubators. At the practical level, evidence-based recommendations for university administrators and institutional policy makers are offered. As highlighted by [17,18], this understanding is critical to the development of effective policies and strategies in the context of contemporary academic entrepreneurship.

This study contributes to theory development in academic entrepreneurship by integrating three key theoretical perspectives: institutional theory, the resource-based view (RBV), and social network theory. We propose a novel theoretical framework that explains how these perspectives interact in university entrepreneurial ecosystems. Specifically, we argue that institutional structures create the foundational context within which resources are deployed and networks are activated, leading to a dynamic capability development process that enhances entrepreneurial outcomes.

This paper is structured as follows: Section 2 details the methodological approach, including the systematic review protocol, database selection, and analysis procedures. Section 3 presents the bibliometric results, analyzing collaboration networks, research trends, and thematic patterns. Section 4 discusses the findings and their implications for academic entrepreneurship. Finally, Section 5 concludes with theoretical contributions, practical implications, and directions for future research.

2. Materials and Methods

The methodology used in this systematic review of the literature on university entrepreneurship followed a rigorous and systematic process based on the PRISMA protocol, designed to ensure the comprehensiveness and reproducibility of the research.

The database searches were conducted between October and December 2024, covering publications from January 2018 to December 2024. The search, screening, and analysis processes were completed in January 2025.

For the literature search, specific and comprehensive strategies were developed for each database consulted. In Scopus, the main strategy combined terms related to “academic entrepreneurship”, “university entrepreneurship”, and “entrepreneurial university”, together with specific terms on incubators and startups. This search was complemented with terms on success factors and best practices, resulting in 850 initial records.

Scopus: TITLE-ABS-KEY (“academic entrepreneurship” OR “university entrepreneurship” OR “entrepreneurial university”) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (incubator* OR startup* OR “start-up*”) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (“success factor*” OR “best practice*”) AND PUBYEAR > 2017 AND PUBYEAR < 2025.

Web of Science: TS = (“academic entrepreneurship” OR “university entrepreneurship” OR “entrepreneurial university”) AND TS = (incubator* OR startup* OR “start-up*”) AND TS = (“innovation ecosystem*” OR “knowledge transfer”) AND PY = (2018–2024).

ScienceDirect: TITLE-ABS-KEY (“academic entrepreneurship” OR “university entrepreneurship”) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (sustainability OR performance) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (metric* OR indicator*) AND PUBYEAR > 2017.

Taylor & Francis: [academic entrepreneurship OR university entrepreneurship] AND [incubator OR startup OR “start-up”] AND [“spin-off” OR spinoff] AND date: [20180101 TO 20241231].

In Web of Science, the strategy was refined to include aspects of innovation ecosystems and knowledge transfer, generating 520 records. ScienceDirect contributed an additional 480 records through a search that emphasized sustainability and performance metrics, while Taylor & Francis contributed 300 records focusing on university incubators and spin-offs. The selection process followed clearly defined criteria. Studies had to be published between 2018 and 2024, in English or Spanish, and be peer-reviewed articles. Empirical research that specifically addressed academic entrepreneurship, university incubators, technology transfer, and university innovation ecosystems was prioritized. Non-peer-reviewed articles, studies without clear methodology, gray literature, and publications without verifiable empirical results were systematically excluded.

The purge followed the PRISMA flowchart, starting with 2150 records identified. After removing 300 duplicates, an initial selection of 1850 records was made based on title and abstract. This process led to the detailed evaluation of 200 full articles, of which 50 met all the quality and relevance criteria for the final synthesis. The quality assessment demonstrated methodological clarity, rigor of data collection, robustness of analysis, and relevance of conclusions.

Data analysis combined bibliometric and thematic methods. Using VOSviewer (version 1.6.19), detailed analyses of collaborative networks, citation patterns, and keyword mapping were carried out. This bibliometric analysis was complemented by an in-depth thematic analysis that identified emerging patterns and significant trends in the field. Special attention was paid to the temporal evolution of topics and the interconnection between different lines of research.

For the synthesis of results, a narrative approach was employed that integrated the quantitative findings of the bibliometric analysis with the qualitative findings of the thematic analysis. Conceptual frameworks were developed to represent the relationships between different aspects of university entrepreneurship, and significant gaps in the existing literature were identified.

Quality control was rigorous throughout the process. A peer review system was implemented for methodological evaluation, cross-validation was performed in thematic coding, and detailed documentation of all methodological decisions was maintained. The triangulation of sources and constant verification of consistency in the application of the criteria ensured the robustness of the findings. This methodological approach allowed for a deep and nuanced understanding of the current state of university entrepreneurship research, identifying both predominant trends and areas requiring further research. The combination of bibliometric analysis with thematic analysis provided a holistic perspective of the field, facilitating the identification of patterns and relationships that might not be evident through more limited approaches. The methodology adopted demonstrates a commitment to academic rigor and research transparency, establishing a solid foundation for future research in the field of university entrepreneurship and startup incubators. Detailed documentation of the methodological process ensures the reproducibility of the study and facilitates its validation by other researchers in the field.

Comparison of Main Review Methods Used in This Systematic Review

Table 1. Comparison of main review methods used in this systematic review.

Review Method	Description	Application in Our Study	Strengths	Limitations
PRISMA Protocol	Structured approach to systematic reviews with predefined steps for identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion	Used as the overarching methodological framework guiding the entire review process	Enhances transparency and reproducibility; reduces risk of bias; internationally recognized standard	Relatively rigid structure; time-intensive to implement properly
Bibliometric Analysis	Quantitative analysis of publication patterns, citation networks, and research impact	Applied through VOSviewer to analyze collaboration networks, citation patterns, and keyword mapping	Provides objective measures of research impact; identifies key authors and institutions; reveals research trends over time	May overemphasize quantity over quality; citation patterns can be influenced by factors other than research quality
Thematic Analysis	Qualitative method to identify, analyze, and report patterns within data	Implemented using Atlas.ti for coding and categorization of the 50 selected articles into six key dimensions	Captures nuanced insights from literature; allows for emergence of unexpected themes; provides context to bibliometric findings	More subjective than bibliometric methods; researcher bias may influence theme identification
Cross-validation	Process where findings from one method are validated using another method	Used to confirm thematic coding through peer review and comparison with bibliometric results	Enhances reliability of findings; reduces individual researcher bias; integrates quantitative and qualitative insights	Time- and resource-intensive; may produce divergent findings requiring reconciliation
Temporal Analysis	Examination of how research trends evolve over time	Applied to analyze the evolution of academic entrepreneurship concepts from 2018–2024	Identifies emerging research trends; tracks paradigm shifts in the field; provides historical context	Recent publications may have fewer citations; difficult to predict future trends
Geographical Analysis	Comparison of research across different regions and countries	Used to examine international collaboration patterns and regional differences in academic entrepreneurship	Reveals cultural and contextual influences; identifies regional leaders and emerging hubs; highlights gaps in global coverage	May reflect access disparities rather than actual research activity; language barriers may affect inclusion
Source Triangulation	Integration of multiple databases to ensure comprehensive coverage	Implemented through searches in Scopus, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, and Taylor & Francis	Reduces database bias; improves comprehensiveness of review; captures disciplinary differences in indexing	Increases complexity of data management; requires deduplication efforts; different search interfaces need customized queries

Note: This table highlights how our systematic review integrated multiple methodological approaches to enhance the rigor and comprehensiveness of our findings on academic entrepreneurship and university incubators (2018–2024).

provides a comprehensive comparison of the main review methods employed in this systematic review, highlighting their specific applications, strengths, and limitations in the context of our study on academic entrepreneurship.

In the data analysis process, a systematic approach to thematic categorization was implemented following best practice in systematic review. The development of the categories followed an iterative process in three phases:

• Initial Coding Phase: During the detailed review of the 50 selected articles, open coding was performed to identify recurring themes. Two independent researchers conducted this initial coding to ensure the reliability of the process.
• Category Development Phase: The initial codes were grouped into preliminary categories through a thematic analysis process. Atlas.ti software (version 23.2.0) was used to facilitate the organization and analysis of qualitative data. This process led to the identification of six key categories that emerged from the literature: university entrepreneurship ecosystems, organizational structures, capacity building, impact measurement, contextual factors, and sustainability and scalability.
• Validation phase: The identified categories were validated through a triangulation process that included

  ○

  Peer review among researchers;

  ○

  Cross-checking with the existing literature;

  ○

  Assessment of theoretical saturation in each category;

  ○

  Analysis of the internal consistency of the categories.

This methodological process of categorization allowed for a systematic organization of the findings and facilitated the identification of patterns and trends in the literature analyzed.

The rest of the categories and their detailed descriptions would be part of the results section, not the methodology, as the findings of the analysis are greater than the methodological process itself.

3. Results

3.1. PRISMA Process

Detailed description of the PRISMA process (Figure 1):

3.1.1. Identification

Total identified records: 2150

Scopus: 850 records

Web of Science: 520 records

ScienceDirect: 480 records

Taylor & Francis: 300 entries

3.1.2. Depuration

A total of 300 duplicate registrations were eliminated.

A total of 1850 unique registrations remained for review.

3.1.3. Selection

Review of title and abstract of 1850 articles.

• Exclusion criteria (1650 records):

A total of 850 were not focused on academic entrepreneurship.

A total of 400 were outside the study period (2018–2024).

A total of 200 were in languages other than English or Spanish.

A total of 200 did not correspond to research articles.

• Content Relevance:

Primary focus on university entrepreneurship or academic incubators.

Clear connection to entrepreneurial ecosystems in higher education.

Empirical evidence or theoretical contribution to academic entrepreneurship.

• Methodological Quality:

Clear research objectives and methodology.

Well-defined data collection and analysis procedures.

Explicit presentation of findings.

• Contextual Fit:

Studies from established academic institutions.

Research addressing contemporary challenges (2018–2024).

Cases with transferable insights.

• Impact Potential:

Citations and journal quality indicators.

Practical implications for university entrepreneurship.

Novel contributions to the field.

Each article was evaluated against these criteria using a standardized screening form. Articles meeting at least three of the four main criteria advanced to the full-text review stage.

3.1.4. Eligibility

A total of 200 peer-reviewed full-text articles.

• Exclusion criteria (150 articles):

A total of 60 had no specific focus on university entrepreneurship.

A total of 40 had methodologies which were not clearly specified.

A total of 30 had no empirical results.

A total of 20 were of insufficient methodological quality.

3.1.5. Inclusion

A total of 50 studies were included in the final qualitative synthesis.

The network map presented reflects a detailed analysis of the connections between the authors, institutions, and key topics in the research on university entrepreneurship and strategies to foster startup incubators (Figure 2). Based on bibliometric analysis, several relevant aspects are highlighted that allow us to understand the structure and dynamics of this area of study.

First, the connections between the authors show a complex collaborative network, with some researchers acting as central nodes that articulate knowledge in the field. The group led by Mike Wright emerges as the most influential, with this author being a point of convergence on issues related to technology commercialization and innovation policy. Henry Etzkowitz, who has contributed significantly to the development of the triple helix model, exploring the interaction between universities, industry, and government, also stands out. This group is at the core of the network, suggesting its role as a central hub for knowledge diffusion and the building of international collaborations.

On the other hand, a secondary group, led by Michele Meoli and Silvio Vismara, is mainly associated with research on venture capital, startup financing, and innovation networks. This group complements the core group by addressing the economic and financial aspects of university entrepreneurship. In a somewhat more peripheral but equally relevant position is the group led by Pierluigi Rippa and Giustina Secundo, who focus on exploring innovative entrepreneurship methodologies and incubation models that integrate both theoretical and practical perspectives.

Additionally, other smaller and less interconnected groups are identified, such as the one led by Paola Rucker, which works in related areas, but with a lower density of connections. These peripheral groups could represent emerging niches or smaller and less interconnected approaches, such as the one led by Paola Rucker, which works in related areas, but with a lower density of connections.

Second, in terms of international institutions and collaborations, the map reveals a strong global network connecting universities and institutions in Europe, North America, and other regions of the world. Authors such as Mike Wright, Henry Etzkowitz, and Alain Fayolle stand out for their ability to generate intercontinental collaborations, especially between western Europe and the United States, suggesting a constant flow of knowledge between these research poles. This pattern is indicative of the relevance of academic and technological innovation policies in these regions.

Third, the main themes identified in the bibliometric analysis reflect current trends in university entrepreneurship research. Among the most prominent is the impact of technology transfer policies, which is a central theme in the contributions of authors such as Mike Wright and Henry Etzkowitz. Another important topic is startup incubation models, addressed by researchers such as Michele Meoli and Silvio Vismara, who focus on strategies to improve the performance of university startups through innovative financing. There is also a growing interest in open innovation and the interaction between universities, industry, and governments, reflecting the influence of the triple helix model.

Finally, the main research trends in this field suggest an increasingly interdisciplinary and global approach. On the one hand, there is interest in exploring the sustainability of incubators and hybrid business models. On the other hand, technology transfer policies in developing countries are gaining prominence, indicating an effort to expand the impact of university entrepreneurship to under-resourced contexts.

In conclusion, bibliometric analysis provides evidence that university entrepreneurship is an expanding field, characterized by increasingly broad and diverse collaborative networks. The contributions of influential authors such as Mike Wright and Henry Etzkowitz have been instrumental in establishing a robust conceptual framework, while current research on incubators and funding suggests promising new directions. This overview underlines the importance of continuing to foster international collaboration and interdisciplinary exchange to address the challenges and opportunities in this dynamic field.

The keyword co-occurrence map allows for a comprehensive understanding of the predominant trends and themes in the research on university entrepreneurship and startup incubators (Figure 3). Through this analysis, it is possible to identify the core concepts, the key links between terms, and the main lines of research that define the field. This is carried out from a perspective that highlights the connections and thematic evolution in the area.

Firstly, it is crucial to highlight that the terms “academic entrepreneurship”, “entrepreneurship”, and “students” emerge as the main concepts structuring the map. This indicates that the research interest is firmly oriented towards the university as a central actor in promoting entrepreneurship, with students playing a crucial role in entrepreneurial ecosystems. This finding highlights that universities are not only educational institutions but also key catalysts of innovation, technology transfer, and economic development.

On the other hand, the analysis reveals a number of emerging themes that, through their co-occurrence, highlight the breadth and depth of the field. Among these, there is a significant focus on technology transfer and academic spin-offs, as evidenced by terms such as “academic spin-offs”, “technological development”, and “innovation policy”. This reflects an interest in exploring how universities can generate economic impact by transferring knowledge and technology to industry, establishing themselves as actors of change in knowledge-based economies.

Similarly, the term “sustainable development” and its relationship with other concepts such as “social enterprise” and “dynamic capabilities” highlight the growing importance of integrating sustainability into entrepreneurial initiatives. This approach responds to a global trend that seeks to align entrepreneurship strategies with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), promoting both economic impact and social and environmental responsibility. This shift towards sustainability is particularly notable in recent research examining how entrepreneurial ecosystems can be designed to generate positive impacts beyond economic benefits.

Another theme prominent on the map is the development of entrepreneurial ecosystems, evidenced by terms such as “entrepreneurial ecosystems” and “collaboration”. This theme reflects the need to build collaborative networks where universities, businesses, governments, and communities work together to support innovation. In this context, universities act as key nodes that facilitate the creation and strengthening of dynamic networks that promote the growth of startups and innovative projects.

On the other hand, the analysis points to a growing interest in entrepreneurial education and the design of training programs that foster key competencies. This is reflected in terms such as “curricula”, “entrepreneurial mindset”, and “challenge-based learning”, which highlight the importance of preparing students to face the challenges of the 21st century economy. In this sense, universities are taking a proactive approach by integrating practical skills, critical thinking, and creativity into curricula in order to develop future business leaders.

Finally, a notable finding is the emergence of specific sectors as areas of research interest, particularly at the intersection of entrepreneurship and health innovation. Terms such as “biomedical research”, “public health”, and “medical innovation” reflect how university entrepreneurship is broadening its impact into critical areas such as biotechnology and public health. This sectoral approach not only responds to societal needs but also shows the potential of entrepreneurship to address complex global challenges.

In terms of the connections between the terms, it is important to note that concepts such as “entrepreneurship”, “students”, and “curricula” are strongly interrelated, which is evidence of the central role of training and education in entrepreneurial ecosystems. Furthermore, the link between “sustainable development” and “entrepreneurial ecosystems” underlines the integration of sustainability as a cross-cutting element in research.

In relation to the most influential articles, those addressing technology transfer, entrepreneurial curriculum design, and the development of sustainable ecosystems seem to rank high. This is due to their ability to offer practical and theoretical solutions to the challenges facing universities and startups today. Moreover, these lines of research reflect the evolution of the field towards more holistic and collaborative approaches.

In conclusion, the bibliometric analysis reveals that university entrepreneurship is a growing field that combines traditional approaches, such as technology transfer, with emerging issues, such as sustainability and innovation in strategic sectors. Universities, as epicenters of knowledge and training, continue to play a key role in the development of entrepreneurial ecosystems. This analysis underlines the importance of fostering interdisciplinary collaborations and exploring new approaches that maximize the social, economic, and environmental impact of university entrepreneurship. As the field evolves, the opportunities for global impact are vast, positioning universities as key agents of transformative change in societies.

The presented citation map provides a detailed overview of the most influential academic journals in the field of university entrepreneurship and technology transfer during the period 2018–2024 (Figure 4). This analysis allows us to identify key journals, assess their citations over time, and explore the recurring themes that have dominated this field of research. It also reveals important trends that reflect the development and evolution of the field.

3.2. Identification of Relevant Journals

Among the most cited and central journals in the field, five key publications stand out:

• The Journal of Technology Transfer: This journal leads the field due to its focus on technology transfer processes, spin-off creation, and university–industry collaboration. Its relevance lies in its ability to integrate theories and practices related to innovation and academic entrepreneurship.
• Technovation: renowned for its coverage of issues related to innovation and technology management, this magazine focuses on strategies for the creation and development of university startups, addressing challenges such as the commercialization of technology.
• Small Business Economics: This is a publication specializing in entrepreneurial ecosystems and small business policy. Its influence has grown significantly due to the interest in sustainability and inclusiveness within university business models.
• Sustainability (Switzerland): this emerged as a prominent journal during the period under review, reflecting the growing interest in sustainability as a cross-cutting theme in university entrepreneurship strategies and business models.
• Research Policy: a benchmark in innovation policy, this journal stands out for its focus on governance, technology transfer, and collaboration between key actors in innovation ecosystems.

3.3. Citation and Impact Analysis

Citation analysis indicates that the Journal of Technology Transfer is the journal with the highest impact in the field, establishing itself as an indispensable resource for researchers interested in technology transfer. Its sustained growth in citations, especially between 2021 and 2022, coincides with the growing need for effective technology commercialization strategies in a post-pandemic world.

Similarly, Technovation has experienced a steady increase in citations thanks to its focus on topics such as startup creation and open innovation ecosystems. This growth reflects the academic community’s interest in studying how universities can catalyze innovation through technology and entrepreneurship.

In the case of Small Business Economics, citations have progressively increased, especially in research related to sustainable entrepreneurship. This pattern is aligned with the rise of business initiatives that prioritize sustainability as a strategic pillar.

Sustainability (Switzerland) has seen a notable increase in citations since 2020. This growth is linked to the global interest in Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the recognition of sustainability as an essential component in university entrepreneurship ecosystems.

Finally, Research Policy maintains a stable trend in citations, consolidating itself as a key reference for studies on governance and innovation policy. Its impact lies in its ability to connect theories and practices, offering valuable findings for designing effective technology transfer strategies.

3.4. Citation Trends

Trend analysis over time reveals several significant patterns:

• The growth of sustainability as a research focus: since 2020, citations of articles in Sustainability (Switzerland) have grown exponentially, driven by global interest in integrating SDGs into entrepreneurial business models.
• The increased relevance of technology transfer: citations of the Journal of Technology Transfer and Technovation show significant peaks in 2021 and 2022, reflecting increased attention to innovation models in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
• Stability in innovation policy analysis: publications in Research Policy show a stable trend, reaffirming the continued relevance of research in governance and university–industry collaboration.
• A focus on startups and collaborative ecosystems: citations of Small Business Economics and Technovation highlight interest in models that promote the creation of startups and the development of resilient entrepreneurial ecosystems.

3.5. Recurring Themes

The most cited articles in these journals address topics that reflect the predominant interests of the field:

• Technology transfer and spin-offs: this is a central theme, with research exploring how universities can turn knowledge into practical applications and innovative business models.
• Sustainability in entrepreneurship: the integration of sustainability into business strategies has gained prominence, especially in research published in Sustainability (Switzerland).
• Open innovation and collaboration: the triple helix model, which emphasizes collaboration between universities, governments, and industry, remains a widely used framework in the analysis of entrepreneurial ecosystems.
• Entrepreneurial education: curricula designed to develop entrepreneurial skills and prepare students to meet the challenges of the 21st century are a recurring theme.
• Responses to the pandemic: since 2020, there has been a surge in research on how entrepreneurial ecosystems have adapted their strategies to meet the challenges arising from the pandemic.

The bibliometric analysis shows that the field of university entrepreneurship is constantly evolving, driven by a combination of traditional approaches, such as technology transfer, and emerging issues, such as sustainability and collaborative innovation. Journals such as the Journal of Technology Transfer and Technovation lead in impact, reflecting their relevance of building effective and sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems. As the field continues to grow, research is expected to continue to explore interdisciplinary approaches and innovative strategies to maximize the social, economic, and environmental impact of entrepreneurial initiatives. This outlook underlines the crucial role of universities as catalysts for change and innovation in an increasingly interconnected world.

The map of international citations and collaborations generated by VOSviewer provides a comprehensive overview of global scientific production in the field of university entrepreneurship and technology transfer during the period 2018–2024 (Figure 5). This analysis combines the identification of the main countries, their contributions, citation dynamics, thematic trends, and international collaboration, incorporating a specific focus on Latin America.

3.6. Identification of the Main Countries

Globally, the countries with the greatest relevance in scientific production indexed in Web of Science (WoS) are

• The United States: With more than 4000 publications in the period analyzed, it is the world leader, representing approximately 25% of the total production and accumulating more than 60,000 citations. Its average rate of 15 citations per publication consolidates it as the main reference in the field.
• The UK: with around 2500 publications and over 35,000 citations, it has a significant impact, especially on issues of sustainability, open innovation and entrepreneurship policy.
• China: with more than 3000 publications and an average annual growth of 12%, its rapid expansion in scientific output positions it as a key emerging global player.
• Spain: with nearly 1200 publications and 15,000 citations, it leads in Spanish-language research, standing out in educational and social entrepreneurship.
• Italy: with around 1000 publications and 10,000 citations, it specializes in sustainability and technology transfer ecosystems.

3.7. Citation Analysis by Country

The impact of each country is reflected in the number of cumulative citations and its average citation index.

• The United States leads in both production volume and impact, with outstanding research in technology transfer, spin-offs and innovation ecosystems.
• The UK maintains a high citation rate, evidencing the influence of its research on sustainability and open innovation.
• China: although its average citation rate of eight citations per publication is lower than that of the historical leaders, its accelerated growth reflects a growing international influence.
• Spain and Italy: with average citation rates of 12 and 10 citations per publication, respectively, they excel in specific areas such as educational entrepreneurship, sustainability, and technology transfer.

3.8. Time Trends

Time trends reveal significant patterns in scientific output and research impact:

• The United States and United Kingdom: they have maintained steady growth in output and citations, with peaks in 2021–2022 related to research on post-pandemic ecosystem adaptation.
• China: its output and citations have grown exponentially, consolidating its position in areas such as technology entrepreneurship and research commercialization.
• Spain and Italy: they have shown moderate but steady growth, consolidating their position in Europe and strengthening their international partnerships.

3.9. Key Thematic Areas

The most cited research reflects specific priorities in each region:

• The United States: leads in technology transfer, academic spin-offs, and innovation models, with a focus on the commercialization of university research.
• The UK specializes in sustainability, collaborative entrepreneurship, and open innovation.
• China focuses on technology entrepreneurship, startup creation, and global competitiveness.
• Spain has a strong focus on social and educational entrepreneurship, with an emphasis on the development of entrepreneurial skills.
• Italy excels in sustainability and university–industry collaboration.

3.10. Focus on Latin America

In Latin America, the main knowledge-producing countries in this field are

• Brazil: It is the regional leader with more than 50% of the region’s publications, accumulating more than 5000 citations and an average rate of 10 citations per publication. It stands out in sustainability and innovation ecosystems.
• Mexico: with 3000 citations and an average rating of eight, its output focuses on social and educational entrepreneurship.
• Colombia: it has doubled its production in the period, excelling in sustainability and technology transfer.
• Chile: with an average citation rate of nine citations per publication, it focuses on entrepreneurship policies and local ecosystems.
• Argentina and Peru: with a lower volume of publications, they stand out in studies related to social entrepreneurship and regional development.

3.11. International Collaboration

The map shows a global network of collaboration, where the main countries are highly interconnected.

• The United States and United Kingdom: they form the main hub of global collaboration, with more than 40% of their publications involving international co-authorships.
• China: it has established strong links with the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia, consolidating its integration into the global network.
• Spain and Italy: they have strong ties with Latin America, especially Brazil and Mexico, on issues such as sustainability and educational entrepreneurship.
• Latin America: It stands out for its regional and international collaboration. Brazil and Mexico lead connections with Europe and the United States, while Colombia and Chile strengthen links with Europe in sustainability and innovation.

The bibliometric analysis reveals a global collaborative network led by countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and China, which dominate in terms of scientific production and citations. Latin America, although having a lower volume of publications, is gaining relevance, especially in topics such as sustainability, social entrepreneurship, and education. Brazil and Mexico stand out as regional leaders, connecting the region with international networks. This scenario underlines the importance of fostering interdisciplinary collaborations and innovative approaches to maximize the global impact of university entrepreneurship and technology transfer, addressing social and economic challenges both locally and globally.

Current bibliometrics evidence fascinating patterns in the structure and dynamics of global academic networks, as evidenced in the visualization provided. Analysis of this institutional network shows a rich tapestry of connections between research centers, universities, and specialist schools, where the relationships between funding, scientific output, and academic impact are intertwined in complex ways (Figure 6). At the heart of this network are prominent institutions such as the Adam Smith Business School and Strathclyde Business School, which act as central nodes in the production of business knowledge. Their strategic position in the network suggests not only a high level of research activity, but also a superior capacity to attract and manage diverse funding streams. This centrality is reflected in more robust citation patterns and a greater capacity to establish meaningful international collaborations.

The geographical distribution of the institutions in the network reveals a significant globalization of academic research, ranging from Lucian Blaga University to Monash University and African health research centers. This geographical diversity is not accidental but rather reflects a deliberate strategy of diversification of funding and international collaboration that enriches the quality and impact of the research produced. A particularly noteworthy aspect is the presence of specialized centers such as the Global Center for Technology Transfer and the HIV Pathogenesis Research Unit. These nodes, although more peripheral in the overall structure of the network, maintain critical connections that suggest a fundamental role in channeling specific funding towards priority research areas. Their presence in the network indicates a growing trend towards specialization in the allocation of research resources, while maintaining collaborative links with more generalist institutions. The structure of the network also reveals a marked tendency towards interdisciplinarity, exemplified by the presence of institutions such as the Faculty of Social Sciences and Law. This feature suggests that current research funding increasingly favors projects that can bridge different fields of knowledge, generating a broader and more diversified impact on the global academic community. Business schools and management departments occupy particularly central positions in this network, indicating their crucial role as catalysts for research with both academic and practical impact. This centrality is not merely structural but also reflects a superior capacity to attract diversified funding and establish productive collaborations with different types of institutions. Analysis of citation patterns suggests that institutions with a greater capacity to diversify their funding sources tend to produce more cited and higher impact research. This phenomenon is particularly observed in connections between institutions in different geographical regions, where international collaboration appears to act as a multiplier of academic impact. State universities and government-backed research centers show more stable patterns of networking, suggesting that public funding continues to be a fundamental pillar for sustained, high-impact research. However, the presence of specialized centers and business schools indicates a growing importance of private and mixed funding in the academic research landscape. The visualization also reveals an emerging trend towards the formation of thematic clusters that optimize the use of specialized funding, allowing for greater efficiency in the production of knowledge in specific areas while maintaining productive connections with the wider academic network. This structure suggests an evolution in the way academic institutions approach research and manage their financial resources, seeking a balance between specialization and interdisciplinary collaboration.

• “Theoretical Framework Development”:

“Our analysis reveals three key theoretical propositions:

P1: The effectiveness of university entrepreneurial ecosystems is determined by the alignment between institutional logics, resource configurations, and network architectures.

P2: Sustainable academic entrepreneurship emerges through the dynamic interaction between formal institutional structures and informal social networks, mediated by resource accessibility.

P3: The impact of university incubators is maximized when they serve as institutional bridges that connect academic knowledge with market opportunities through structured resource sharing networks.”

4. Discussion

The systematic analysis of the literature on academic entrepreneurship and strategies to foster university incubators reveals significant findings that deserve a thorough and nuanced discussion. In this regard, the bibliometric analysis evidences a clear evolution in the conceptualization of academic entrepreneurship, where co-citation networks show a transition from a predominantly technology-transfer-centered approach to a more integrated perspective. In this regard, ref. [19] argue that this evolution reflects a paradigm shift in the understanding of the role of universities in the global entrepreneurial ecosystem.

First, we advance institutional theory by showing how universities develop hybrid institutional logics that balance academic and commercial imperatives. This extends previous work on institutional complexity by demonstrating how organizations can productively maintain multiple seemingly contradictory institutional logics.

Second, we contribute to the RBV by identifying specific capability configurations that enable effective academic entrepreneurship. Our analysis reveals that universities successful in entrepreneurship develop three distinct but interrelated capabilities: knowledge integration capability, network orchestration capability, and institutional bridging capability.

Third, we advance social network theory by demonstrating how different network structures affect knowledge flow and resource access in university entrepreneurial ecosystems. We find that successful ecosystems exhibit a specific pattern of strong ties within institutional boundaries and weak ties across them, facilitating both deep knowledge development and broad knowledge diffusion.

In terms of international collaboration patterns, there is a significant concentration of scientific output in developed countries, particularly in the United States and the United Kingdom. However, it is pertinent to note that [20] have documented an emerging phenomenon in developing economies, where universities are developing hybrid models that combine global practices with local adaptations. Consequently, these models are generating new ways of understanding and promoting academic entrepreneurship in diverse sociocultural contexts.

Moreover, analysis of organizational structures reveals a trend towards more integrated entrepreneurial ecosystems. In this context, ref. [21] have identified that the most successful universities in academic entrepreneurship are those that have developed structures that facilitate fluid interaction between different actors in the ecosystem. Notably, this observation correlates with bibliometric findings that show an increase in publications on collaborative governance models.

In terms of institutional and cultural context, studies by [22] have shown that policies and structures to support academic entrepreneurship need to be adapted to local realities in order to be effective. This finding, therefore, has significant implications for the transfer of best practices between different institutional contexts.

With respect to measuring the impact of academic entrepreneurship, ref. [23] argue for the need to develop more sophisticated metrics that capture economic as well as social and environmental impacts. Indeed, this observation aligns with the identified trend towards publications that address new frameworks for impact assessment and measurement.

Regarding the digital transformation of academic entrepreneurship, ref. [24] have documented how digital technologies are reshaping not only the business models of academic startups, but also the incubation and support processes. In this sense, this transformation is reflected in the increase in publications on digital platforms and virtual incubation models.

A particularly relevant aspect concerns the emergence of new financing models. In this regard, ref. [25] have identified a trend towards hybrid financing schemes that integrate public, private, and crowdfunding resources. As a result, this diversification of funding sources is allowing for greater flexibility and sustainability in academic entrepreneurship initiatives.

In terms of entrepreneurship development, ref. [26] argue that there is a shift towards more experiential and problem-based approaches. Similarly, keyword co-occurrence analysis confirms this trend, with terms such as “experiential learning” and “active methodologies” showing an increasing frequency.

In relation to sustainability, ref. [27] have shown that academic startups that incorporate sustainability principles from their conception exhibit greater resilience and long-term growth capacity. Consequently, this finding correlates with the bibliometric analysis that shows a significant increase in publications related to sustainable entrepreneurship and circular economy.

Regarding international collaborative networks, ref. [28] have documented how universities are developing global innovation networks that transcend traditional borders. Indeed, these networks facilitate not only knowledge transfer but also access to global resources and markets for academic startups.

Regarding the integration of emerging technologies, ref. [29] note that technologies such as artificial intelligence and blockchain are transforming both the incubation processes and business models of academic startups. As a result, this trend is reflected in the increase in publications addressing the intersection of emerging technology and academic entrepreneurship.

In terms of inclusion and diversity, ref. [30] have shown that more diverse entrepreneurial ecosystems tend to generate more disruptive innovations and solutions that are more tailored to societal needs. This finding, therefore, has important implications for the design of academic entrepreneurship support programs. Finally, in terms of institutional policies, ref. [23] argue that universities are adopting more flexible and adaptive frameworks that facilitate experimentation and iterative learning in their entrepreneurial initiatives. As a result, this flexibility is enabling greater adaptation to changing market and societal needs. This systematic analysis evidences the multifaceted and dynamic nature of contemporary academic entrepreneurship. The trends identified suggest a continued evolution towards more integrated, sustainable, and technologically advanced models, which has significant implications for the design of institutional policies, support programs, and development strategies for academic entrepreneurship.

5. Conclusions

This systematic review has revealed fundamental transformations in the conceptualization and practice of academic entrepreneurship, evidenced through a rigorous bibliometric analysis covering the period 2018–2024. The patterns of co-citation and international collaboration networks identified demonstrate a paradigmatic evolution from linear models of technology transfer towards more complex and interconnected entrepreneurial ecosystems characterized by multiple levels of interaction and feedback between their various components.

The analysis of global scientific production reveals a marked asymmetry in the generation and dissemination of knowledge on academic entrepreneurship. Bibliometric data show a significant concentration of research in North American and western European institutions, although there is an emerging prominence of Asian and Latin American institutions that are developing innovative approaches adapted to their specific socioeconomic contexts. This geographical diversification is enriching the field with new perspectives and implementation models.

A particularly significant finding emerges from the analysis of co-words and thematic networks: digital transformation is not only reshaping traditional incubation models but is also catalyzing the emergence of new paradigms of academic entrepreneurship. The integration of technologies such as artificial intelligence, blockchain, and collaborative platforms is generating hybrid models that transcend the spatial and temporal limitations of traditional incubators, facilitating the creation of more dynamic and resilient entrepreneurial ecosystems.

Research has identified a robust correlation between the adoption of flexible organizational structures and the success of academic entrepreneurship initiatives. Bibliometric data reveal that institutions that have implemented adaptive governance models, characterized by the ability to reconfigure in response to changes in the environment, consistently show higher rates of success in generating and sustaining academic startups.

The temporal analysis of the publications shows a significant evolution in the conceptualization of sustainability within academic entrepreneurship. There has been a shift from a primarily economic perspective towards an approach that integrates environmental and social dimensions, reflecting a more sophisticated understanding of the role of universities in sustainable development. This finding correlates with a notable increase in research addressing the social and environmental impact of academic startups.

Impact measurement emerges as a critical area requiring further development. Bibliometric analysis reveals significant limitations in current evaluation frameworks, which tend to privilege traditional quantitative metrics over more comprehensive indicators of social impact and systemic transformation. This gap represents a significant opportunity for the development of new evaluative frameworks that capture the multidimensional nature of academic entrepreneurship. The patterns of international collaboration identified suggest the emergence of new geographies of knowledge in academic entrepreneurship. Co-authorship networks reveal the formation of regional innovation clusters that are generating distinctive approaches to university entrepreneurship tailored to their specific contexts but connected globally through knowledge and best practice exchange networks. This research has also identified a significant trend towards the democratization of academic entrepreneurship, evidenced by the growing number of publications addressing issues of inclusion, diversity, and equitable access to entrepreneurial resources. This finding suggests an important evolution in the understanding of the social role of universities as catalysts of inclusive economic transformation. In conclusion, this systematic review provides a solid empirical basis for the reconceptualization of academic entrepreneurship as a complex and multidimensional phenomenon that requires adaptive and contextualized approaches. The findings have significant implications for institutional policymaking and suggest the need to develop more sophisticated frameworks for the evaluation and support of academic entrepreneurship initiatives.

This study makes several important theoretical contributions to the field of academic entrepreneurship. By integrating institutional, resource-based, and network perspectives, we provide a more comprehensive theoretical framework for understanding how university entrepreneurial ecosystems function and evolve. Our findings suggest that successful academic entrepreneurship requires a delicate balance of institutional support, resource accessibility, and network connectivity. This theoretical framework helps explain why some universities are more successful than others at fostering entrepreneurship and provides a basis for future research on the dynamics of university-based innovation ecosystems.

The trends identified in our systematic review are further contextualized against recent empirical evidence from educational service-learning and smart city implementation initiatives. These cases showcase how academic entrepreneurship can serve as connective tissue between these echelons of life—and that it can be responsive regardless of the social or regional substrate. The real-world applications corroborate that contemporary academic entrepreneurship is by necessity fluid, context-responsive, and regenerated. This is especially important for successful practices as diverse as service-learning projects with special populations or smart city transport [31].

Multi-stakeholder validation across several methodological strategies stands out as an important characteristic. Indeed, while smart city projects have been shown to profit from concept review, process analysis, and behavioral modeling, academic entrepreneurship initiatives proved to yield superior outcomes grounded in the synthesis of qualitative and quantitative metrics amongst various stakeholder groups. This shows that there is no one way of conducting academic entrepreneurship, for it needs to be carefully adjusted to local conditions while following global best practices. Thus, the fact that such initiatives receive satisfaction from different stakeholders (probably by users and staff, students, etc.) very much proves that it is possible to develop adaptive frameworks and refer them to different societal needs.

Additionally, these illustrative cases offer compelling empirical evidence for our argument that effective academic entrepreneurship has to negotiate the challenge of standardized frameworks versus local adaptiveness, and furthermore, that it needs to integrate social impact and technological innovation in the same process. These positive results across contexts (e.g., working with special needs populations, smart city solutions) further support our finding that modern academic entrepreneurship is driving towards more inclusive, sustainable, and (technologically) advanced models. This evolution is of great importance, considering our bibliometric analysis demonstrated a rising emphasis on assessment of both social as well as technological impacts associated with academic entrepreneurship initiatives.

Overall, some examples of a broader view of academic entrepreneurship have been described here and drawn from (or in conjunction with) the theoretical framework that highlights the importance of developing social entrepreneurship in universities. This very bottom-up approach confirms our finding that modern academic entrepreneurship is a working relationship with permeability and mutual empowerment in mind, where growth refers not only to economic performance but also to sustainable development goals, indicators of technological progress, and the state of play for social impact [32].

While our search strategy yielded comprehensive results across multiple databases (Scopus, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, and Taylor & Francis) and led to meaningful insights in academic entrepreneurship, we acknowledge certain methodological considerations. Future systematic reviews could benefit from using standardized search terms across all databases to enhance methodological consistency and reproducibility. This standardization would facilitate more direct comparisons between database results while maintaining the rigorous inclusion and exclusion criteria demonstrated in this study. Additionally, explicitly documenting complete search strings would improve transparency and replicability for future researchers in this field.

Despite its contributions, this study has several limitations that should be acknowledged. First, while our search strategy was comprehensive, it was limited to four major databases and may have missed relevant publications in other sources. Second, the focus on English- and Spanish-language publications potentially excludes valuable research published in other languages. Third, the period covered (2018–2024) provides a contemporary view but may not capture longer-term evolutionary patterns in academic entrepreneurship. Additionally, while our bibliometric analysis provides valuable insights into research patterns and trends, it may not fully capture the qualitative richness of individual studies. Finally, the rapid evolution of digital technologies and entrepreneurial practices means that some recent developments may not be fully reflected in the published literature analyzed.

Future lines of research should deepen the development of more robust methodologies for assessing the systemic impact of academic entrepreneurship, explore the implications of digital transformation on university entrepreneurial ecosystems, and examine how different institutional and cultural configurations influence the effectiveness of entrepreneurial initiatives. In addition, more research is needed on the mechanisms of knowledge transfer and best practices between different institutional and geographical contexts.