Innovation Management: A Bibliometric Analysis of 50 Years of Research Using VOSviewer^® and Scopus

Abstract

Using the bibliometric software VOSviewer^® version 1.6.20 and Scopus as a bibliographic database, this paper aims to investigate the research streams in terms of the co-occurrence network of authors, terms extracted from the title field, countries, keywords, and organizations researching on IM from publications between 1974 and 2024. Retrieved from Scopus and using science mapping bibliometric techniques with VOSviewer^®, 4756 documents published on IM from 1974 to 2024 were analyzed, divided in three phases (1974–1995, 1996–2019, and 2020–2024), and limited to BMA (Business, Management, and Accounting), EEF (Economics, Econometrics, and Finance), and SOC (Social Sciences). The main findings are as follows: (a) there is a tendency for a minimal relationship between authors from different organizations and countries to collaborate in research on IM; (b) almost half (45.12%) of the publications on IM were published by authors from the European Union, which rises to 55.24% in Europe if the United Kingdom is included. These results are far ahead of those of the United States (13.4%), China (7.6%), the Russian Federation (3.6%), and Japan (2.3%). (c) While the first publications on IM deal with aspects related to product development, management, technology, R&D, and competition, there is a recent trend to link IM to sustainable development, open innovation, ecosystems, stakeholders’ engagement, and entrepreneurship.

1. Introduction

Innovation management (IM) plays an essential role in organizations. In the era of the digital economy, IM has become an essential strategy for organizations to take advantage of digital transformation through business model innovation [1], corporate strategy, and business performance [2]. However, doing so requires a solid cultural willingness to innovate [3]. As a result, new competitive advantages emerge for organizations, strengthening their corporate competencies and leading positions in the market.

Knowledge is fundamental to accelerating and implementing this improvement process. Customers’ adoption of knowledge is a mediating factor between salespeople’s selling capabilities and the purchase of innovations [4], and the combination of business plan development linked to theoretical knowledge and learning-by-doing experience benefits firms, especially start-ups [5]. In addition, intrapreneur-generated innovation strengthens business models, incentivizing managers to implement disruptive ideas to drive business growth.

The importance of IM is crucial in high-risk scenarios and in maintaining good relationships with stakeholders. Therefore, how companies connect and satisfy stakeholders through IM is crucial for time efficiency and cost reduction to achieve the desired KPIs [6], which are essential for business success and sustainability.

Also, IM is essential for public administration as it improves efficiency and enhances e-government policies [7], especially when radical innovations appear [8]. A good application of IM in public administration optimizes management processes by reducing the time required to carry them out, which has a direct impact on reducing operational costs, and organizations can achieve a higher level of satisfaction with the end customer, which, in the case of public administrations, is the citizen. As a result, innovativeness and risk-taking significantly impact operational performance and organizational creativity, which positively impact IM [9], especially when it is promoted by top managers and customers [10].

For emerging market firms, internationalization fosters indigenous innovation and knowledge [11], considering that knowledge creation capability includes knowledge integration, knowledge sharing, and knowledge co-creation [12]. The co-creation process is fundamental for the company, especially when involved in innovation processes, including open innovation. Implementing innovation in organizations improves the company’s competitiveness. It tends to attract highly specialized intellectual capital, which leads the organization to achieve and maintain leadership positions within its sector or industry in the medium and long term. Therefore, it is essential for the company that such innovative processes continue over time in continuous improvement based on learning by doing and by attracting venture capital to the organization to enable the financing of such innovative processes.

Among these innovative organizations, cooperatives stand out when they develop their activities in cooperative innovation clusters. In this case, cooperatives as an organizational form become de facto powerful multinational companies owned by the workers, managers, and professionals who work in them. In this way, greater social justice is achieved within the organization. It has a solid socio-economic impact on the regions and countries where they operate, and collaborative innovation systems emerge [13].

Also, innovation helps to improve the performance of nonprofit organizations (NPOs) [14]. NPOs aim to impact civil society to achieve more significant social benefits and reduce societal inequalities, with particular attention to the most disadvantaged. Endowed with socially responsible innovation, NPOs can achieve a holistic kind of management integrated with stakeholder management, ethics, and sustainable development goals in a value-based vision of the requirements for social innovation in business and management [15]. The democratization of the Internet makes it easier for NPOs to find new donors and socially sensitive partners and increase the capillarity of the projects, thus reaching the most isolated population in need of help. Therefore, achieving good innovation management in NPOs is a prerequisite for success in alleviating social problems. Innovation management has an even more significant impact when it is carried out in a process of public–private cooperation, as is the case in the developed world.

This article aims to investigate research trends in innovation management over a 50-year period that we will divide into three phases (1974–1995, 1996–2019, and 2020–2024) based on the number of publications indexed in Scopus during those years. Unlike [16], who used Web of Science (WoS) as a citation database combined with Bibexcel and R Studio, in our work, the combination of Scopus and VOSviewer^® is used and added to the division and analysis of IM during three time periods to analyze the evolution of this topic in the literature. For this purpose, we use the bibliometric software VOSviewer^® and Scopus as a bibliographic database to investigate the research streams regarding the co-occurrence network of authors and terms extracted from the title field, countries, keywords, and organizations researching on IM from publications between 1974 and 2024. The paper makes a unique contribution with its comprehensive analysis covering a 50-year period, allowing for a temporal evolution analysis of IM. We have decided not to augment Scopus with Web of Science data in order to prevent potential duplication and/or similarities in the bibliometric results.

The contribution of this study to IM research is significant. It focuses on analyzing the bibliometric evolution of traditional concerns related to IM product-related issues, such as technology, product engineering, product development, and innovation. It also addresses modern trends in IM, analyzed with the bibliometric software VOSviewer^®. This approach connects traditional and modern issues on IM, addressing issues like digital transformation, green innovation, strategic foresight, new product development, and stakeholder engagement. Methodologically, this study follows a two-fold analysis: first, it studies co-authorship, keyword co-occurrence, citation, and bibliographic coupling, and creates a co-citation map based on bibliographic data. Second, it creates a term co-occurrence map based on text data, using Scopus as the database. The structural changes related to old and modern IM-related issues are shown for the bibliometric results in the network and overlay visualizations, as depicted in Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3, Figure 4, Figure 5, Figure 6, Figure 7, Figure 8, Figure 9 and Figure 10. These visualizations highlight the increasing global importance of processes linked to IM digitalization, underscoring the relevance and applicability of the research.

2. Theoretical Framework

IM is the systematic process of generating (idea generation), developing (innovation strategy), and implementing (prototyping) new value-added products, services, and processes within organizations to enhance competitiveness and penetrate new market segments. Employee engagement and retention and R&D efforts are pivotal in improving efficiency and productivity, as well as accelerating business growth. Consequently, IM facilitates the identification of challenges and opportunities; conceiving, testing, and evaluating business ideas; and attracting new customers, ultimately benefiting the firm.

This ameliorative process underscores the critical role of professionalized innovation management. This broader function, encompassing new product development [17], necessitates a blend of scientific knowledge and specialized expertise [18]. To surmount barriers associated with business model innovation, organizations must leverage experimentation, effectuation, and effective leadership of organizational change [19]. Integrating technology, particularly quantum computing, offers significant growth potential and impacts scientific and global markets when coupled with best practices in IM rooted in R&D investments [20].

Since the latter half of the 20th century, IM has evolved significantly. It adopted a more systemic approach, viewing innovation as a complex process influenced by numerous internal and external organizational factors. Innovation emerged as a strategic tool for business success, with technology playing a pivotal role. Technological advancements have been instrumental in shaping the development of IM. The advent of the internet and subsequent globalization accelerated the adoption of technology-driven strategies to penetrate global markets. As a result, the focus shifted from an endogenous to an exogenous perspective, especially following the concept of open innovation [21].

Moreover, the proliferation of social networks and digital platforms has facilitated the creation of innovation ecosystems, enabling companies to collaborate with startups, universities, research centers, and other relevant stakeholders to co-create innovative solutions. These solutions often focus on environmental sustainability (environmental innovation and green innovation management), knowledge creation (knowledge innovation), and collaborative network processes (open innovation) [22]. Green innovation management, in particular, has gained prominence in recent years as a global response to environmental challenges through eco-friendly practices [23], aligning with circular economy objectives. Additionally, competitive advantage, cost reduction, market benefits, improved reputation, and innovation opportunities drive the development of green product innovation, and external factors, such as current and anticipated environmental regulations and market demand, exert significant influence [24].

Currently, the rise of Artificial Intelligence (AI) is opening new research avenues within IM. Recent papers [25] outline promising research opportunities related to Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) in IM.

3. Materials and Methods

The bibliometric approach has been employed to discern statistical patterns in bibliography studies across various research fields over time [26]. Software-based methods and digital information have transformed the researcher’s ability to quickly and cheaply collect data and subject it to different analyses [27]. Science mapping or bibliometric mapping is a spatial representation of how disciplines, fields, specialties, and individual papers or authors relate [28,29].

The choice of bibliometric analysis was made because meta-analysis, although it combines the results of multiple studies to produce a quantitative summary of a particular topic, is limited by the availability of individual participant data and the tendency to be less diverse compared to bibliometric analysis. In addition, the qualitative systematic literature review (SLR), defined as conducting comprehensive research on a specific topic followed by an analysis and synthesis of the findings, is limited by its lack of data and tendency to be less diverse than bibliometric analysis.

This research uses the bibliometric software VOSviewer^® [30,31], version 1.6.20, supported by the Centre for Science and Technology Studies of Leiden University (The Netherlands) to carry out a two-fold analysis: first, to study co-authorship, keyword co-occurrence, citation, bibliographic coupling, and to create a co-citation map based on bibliographic data, and second, to create a term co-occurrence map based on text data, using Scopus as database. As a result, two independent raw data CSV files (authors, text) have been created and downloaded. As an online bibliographic database, Scopus has been chosen for the analysis. Out of all the bibliometric analysis programs available (such as BibExcel, Bibliometrix, BiblioTools/BiblioMaps, CATAR, CiteSpace, CitNetExplorer, CRExplorer, Gephi, HistCite, Pajek, Sci2 Tool, and SciMAT, among others), the bibliometric analysis program VOSviewer^® is used in this paper for its user-friendly interface, and it requires no programming in R, so it has been widely adopted due to its cost-free nature. This comprehensive tool quantifies and analyzes a search query string defined by the authors and the number of publications, including journal articles, books, conference proceedings, and book chapters, whose titles and abstracts deal with the relationship between entrepreneurship and innovation management (Figure 1). These publications have been indexed in Scopus and published in the last 50 years. The graphical and numerical results of this analysis are included in the paper. As with [32], the primary reason for selecting Scopus as this study’s source of bibliometric records is its extensive abstract and citation database of peer-reviewed literature covering a wide range of disciplines.

A co-occurrence cluster visualization analysis of high-frequency keywords was performed. The type of analysis selected was “co-occurrence”, the unit of analysis “keywords”, and the counting method “full counting”, instead of the “fractional counting” approach, as suggested by [33]. In the keyword co-occurrence clustering graph, each circular node represents a keyword, with the node’s size indicating its frequency of occurrence. Lines indicate co-occurrence relationships between two keywords, with line thickness and length correlating with the strength of the relationship. The node color indicates the cluster to which a keyword belongs. A keyword occurrence timeline analysis was conducted to observe the evolution of the research topics, where blue node colors indicate earlier keyword appearances and yellow node colors denote recent research tendencies.

As with [34], a hybrid similarity measure combining bibliographic coupling and textual information to create bibliometric networks and cluster the literature on IM is used. The search query strings used as a parameter in the software code have been formulated as follows: TITLE-ABS-KEY (“innovation management”) and TITLE-ABS-KEY (“innovation management”) AND (LIMIT-TO (SUBJAREA, “BUSI”) OR LIMIT-TO (SUBJAREA, “ECON”)). The search focused exclusively on identifying “MI” in the title, abstract, and keywords. As a result, the preliminary research sample of 6778 documents (all 27 research fields) was compared to 4902 documents after being limited to the BMA (Business, Management, and Accounting), EEF (Economics, Econometrics, and Finance), and SOC (Social Sciences) areas to enrich the analyses, as IM is essentially a multidisciplinary research area. We used only the term “Innovation Management” to capture all possible results without limiting the findings to aspects related explicitly to IM.

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Scopus Results

The number of papers published on IM shows an increasing trend and can be divided into three stages. There were barely any papers on this subject in the first period (1974–1995), averaging three publications yearly. In the second stage (1996–2019), the annual number of papers on IM exhibited consistent growth, averaging 45 papers per year. The third period (2020–present) shows rapid development, with an average of 262 papers per year. As of 23 July 2024, 323 papers have been published (Figure 2). Top-5 journals, top-10 countries and top-5 funding sponsors by number of Scopus publications related to IM between 1974 and 2024 are shown in

Table 1. Top 5 journals by number of Scopus publications related to “Innovation Management” between 1974 and 2024 (as of 23 July 2024).

Journal	# of Papers
Journal of Product Innovation Management	173
International Journal of Innovation Management	114
Asian Journal of Technology Innovation	102
Technovation	95
European Journal of Innovation Management	91

Source: Author.

,

Table 2. Top 10 countries by number of Scopus publications related to “Innovation Management” between 1974 and 2024 (as of 23 July 2024).

Country	# of Documents	Country	# of Documents
Germany	945	Brazil	343
United States	748	Russian Federation	288
China	634	France	264
United Kingdom	534	Spain	263
Italy	369	Finland	234

Source: Author.

, and

Table 3. Top 5 funding sponsors by number of Scopus publications related to “Innovation Management” between 1974 and 2024 (as of 23 July 2024).

Funding Sponsor	Country	# of Docs
National Natural Science Foundation of China	China	113
European Commission	---	68
Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico	Brazil	49
Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior	Brazil	41
Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung	Germany	37

Source: Author.

respectively.

4.2. VOSviewer^® Results: Bibliometric Maps

4.2.1. Co-Occurrence Network of Authors

RQ1—Do authors who publish on IM in Scopus tend to collaborate internationally, or do they have their own research teams?

Regarding the authors who have published on IM limited to BMA, EEF, and SOC areas, the number of authors (cited at least once included) and Scopus publications related to the following periods, 1974–1995, 1996–2019, and 2020–2024, are shown in

Table 4. Number of authors for the time periods 1974–1995, 1996–2020, and 2020–2024 limited to BMA, EEF, and SOC areas.

1974–1995		1996–2019		2020–2024
Total	Cited	Total	Cited	Total	Cited
59	50	2818	2329	1985	1409

Source: Author.

and

Table 5. Number of publications for the time periods 1974–1995, 1996–2020, and 2020–2024 limited to BMA, EEF, and SOC areas.

Area	# of Docs
	1974–1995	1996–2019	2020–2024
BMA	54	2798	1709
EEF	5	719	528
SOC	12	615	536
Total	71	4132	2773

Legend: BMA (Business, Management, and Accounting), EEF (Economics, Econometrics, and Finance), SOC (Social Sciences). Source: Author.

, respectively. For each of the cited authors, the total strength of the co-authorship links with other authors was calculated.

As shown in Figure 3, Figure 4 and Figure 5, the authors’ lack of connecting lines indicates a tendency towards non-collaboration and a lack of a predominant current within this research topic. However, the potential for a greater degree of collaboration among researchers is immense. It could lead to more global studies that transcend specific areas of application of IM in organizations, inspiring a new wave of research with global impact.

Regarding the authors who have published on IM for all 27 IM-related areas from 1974 to 2024, 6122 authors appear in Scopus. Of these authors, 4496 of their papers are cited at least once. For each of the 4496 authors, the total strength of the co-authorship links with other authors was calculated, and the 100 authors with the highest TLS (Total Link Strength) were selected. Over the years, researchers exploring information management in various countries, as with BMA, EEF, and SOC areas, have often overlooked opportunities for collaboration.

As shown in Figure 6, there is no apparent trend in author collaboration in IM research, so research teams tend to work independently. One reason that can explain this result is the different cultural contexts where research is developed, as business practices related to IM must be adapted to the economic, social, and cultural contexts where they are applied. Despite this, more profound collaborative research would be welcomed among research groups that could be boosted by developing public policies to stimulate investment in collaborative research.

4.2.2. Co-Occurrence Network of Terms Extracted from the Title Field

RQ2—What are the most common words in the title of IM publications in Scopus over the last 50 years?

In addition to the author analysis, and also limited to BMA, EEF, and SOC areas, VOSviewer^® was used to create a bibliometric map based on textual data. The terms were extracted from the title field using a full counting technique to sum up all occurrences of a term in each document; the analysis was made for the time periods 1974–1995, 1996–2019, and 2020–2024; the number of occurrences of a keyword (NOK) were set for each period, and for each of the terms, a 60% relevance score was set. The results are shown in

Table 6. Number of keywords for the time periods 1974–1995, 1996–2020, and 2020–2024 limited to BMA, EEF, and SOC areas.

1974–1995			1996–2019			2020–2024
NOK	KW	KM	NOK	KW	KM	NOK	KW	KM
2	141	21	5	9511	633	5	7627	476

Legend: KM (keywords meeting the threshold), KW (keywords), NOK (number of occurrences of a keyword).

.

Between 1974 and 1995, as shown in Figure 7, the literature related to IM dealt with the terms “mathematical models” and “data analysis” that were analyzed to solve problems related to IM and “product development”, with “industrial management” and “technology” also being relevant items.

Between 1996 and 2019, as depicted in Figure 8, keywords related to innovation, such as “innovation process”, “open innovation”, “technological innovation”, “product innovation”, and “innovation”, have become more critical than in the previous phase. Also, the item “entrepreneurship” emerges as one of the determinants of boosting IM, as well as “product development” and keywords related to management (“project management”, “technology management”, “industrial management”, “research and development management”, and “knowledge management”) to foster business growth.

Between 2020 and 2024, as shown in Figure 9, new items emerge linked to how to attract consumers with products (“product design”, “innovations”, “new product development”, “strategic foresight”) and increase efficiency and productivity while reducing environmental impact with items such as “environment”, “ecosystem”, “stakeholder engagement”, and “green innovation”. Also, the concern to protect knowledge, with terms such as “patents” and “intellectual property”, arises in the organizations given the globalization process in which they compete.

Respecting the bibliometric map based on textual data for all 27 IM-related areas related to IM, terms were also extracted from the title field using a full counting technique, to sum up all occurrences of a term in each document. As the minimum number of occurrences of a term is set to five, of the 20,512 terms, 1709 met the threshold. For each of the 1709 terms, a 60% relevance score was set, so 1025 terms were chosen, of which 43 were connected, as shown in Figure 10.

When analyzing innovation management across the 27 knowledge areas in Scopus, the results are integrated due to the interdisciplinary nature of the topic. This enriches the analysis, resulting in the formation of four clusters. The first cluster (blue) is led by innovation and aims to achieve sustainable development and foster greater entrepreneurial impulse within organizations (including intrapreneurship). The second cluster (green) is driven by competition and focuses on open innovation, creating quadruple propeller models involving public administrations, universities, companies, and the third sector (non-governmental organizations). It also emphasizes the importance of the Innovation Process and Information Systems. The third cluster (yellow) concentrates on product development to ensure sustainable profits at micro- and macroeconomic levels, emphasizing long-term benefits. The fourth cluster (red) focuses on management, including both technological aspects in R&D and industrial aspects, promoting technology transfer and research in related fields.

The co-occurrence network of terms extracted from the title, abstract, and keywords fields for all 27 IM-related areas are analyzed in Figure 9b. An overlay visualization using VOSviewer^® was applied to comprehensively analyze the literature over the past 50 years. Figure 1 shows three stages in innovation management research. (a) The Initial Stage (1974–1995) is characterized by a near-zero publication rate, indicating a relative lack of interest in this research topic within the international scientific community. This stage saw the emergence of seminal papers that would later lay the foundation for subsequent research. (b) The Expansion Stage (1996–2019) is represented by violet and green clusters; this stage is dominated by aspects related to technology (technology transfer, technology management), innovation (innovation process, technological innovation), R&D, commerce, and development (R&D management, sustainable development, new product development, competition, commerce), industrial processes, and engineering (industrial management, product development, information systems, engineering research). (c) The Decline Stage (2020-present) is defined by the yellow cluster, this stage is characterized by aspects related to innovation (open innovation), entrepreneurship, and sustainability. The advent of AI is expected to provide a new impetus for this area of knowledge.

As shown in

Table 7. Occurrence and relevance of terms related to “Innovation Management”.

Term	Occurrence	Relevance (≥1.50)
Corporate Innovation	7	2.90
Meta-Analysis	6	2.44
Strategic	5	2.33
17th Americas Conference	5	1.97
Amcis	5	1.97
Innovation Capacity	7	1.90
Smart City	5	1.82
Information Systems	7	1.78
Decision Support System	6	1.74
Taiwan	8	1.72
Standardization	8	1.67
Finland	6	1.66
Digital Economy	5	1.63
Product Design	5	1.63
Innovative Development	6	1.63
Innovation Management Tool	7	1.61
Frugal Innovation	7	1.59
Product Life Cycle	6	1.56
Disruptive Innovation	7	1.54
Biotechnology	9	1.54
Lab	14	1.52
Digital Twin	5	1.50

Source: Author.

, the term “lab” has the highest frequency (14) but is not the most relevant (1.52), with “corporate innovation” being the most relevant (2.90) for innovation management. This shows the importance of making innovation part of the organization’s culture so that investing in innovation is constant over time. Of the 305 terms, Table 7 shows only those terms and occurrences with a relevance greater than or equal to 1.50.

Table 8. Terms’ co-occurrence results for “Innovation Management” between 1974 and 2024 limited to BMA, EEF, and SOC areas.

Cluster 1 (42 items)	Cluster 2 (33 items)	Cluster 3 (28 items)
Digital Innovation Management Internationalization Standardization	Frugal Innovation Innovativeness Organizational Culture	Open Innovation Uncertainty Strategic Innovation
Cluster 4 (27 items)	Cluster 5 (27 items)	Cluster 6 (5 items)
Absorptive Capacity Entrepreneurial Orientation Financial Performance	Corporate Social Responsibility Entrepreneurial Leadership Organizational Change	Collaborative Innovation Innovation Capacity Technology Road Mapping
Cluster 7 (21 items)	Cluster 8 (20 items)	Cluster 9 (19 items)
Organizational Learning Disruptive Innovation Innovation Manager	Information Systems Social Innovation Management Digitalization	Innovative Capability Corporate Innovation Management Sustainable Innovation Management
Cluster 10 (17 items)	Cluster 11 (15 items)	Cluster 12 (14 items)
Digital Innovation Social Innovation Innovation Intermediary	R & D Management Systems Approach Big Data	Change Management Green Innovation Responsibility
Cluster 13 (7 items)	Cluster 14 (7 items)	Cluster 15 (6 items)
Intellectual Capital Blockchain Quality Management	Information Management	Product Innovation Management

Source: Author.

shows the 15 clusters created, grouping 305 terms and 1101 links with a total TLS (Total Link Strength) of 1764 after creating a bibliometric map based on text data. Only the three most significant terms related to innovation management have been chosen.

Table 9. Terms’ co-occurrence results for “Innovation Management” between 1974 and 2024 for all 27 IM-related areas.

Cluster 1 (13 items)	Cluster 2 (12 items)	Cluster 3 (11 items)
Engineering Research Industrial Management Information Technology	Competitive Advantage Digital Transformation Information Management	Sustainable Development Entrepreneurship Decision-making
Cluster 4 (6 items)	Cluster 5 (1 item)
New Product Development Product Innovation Product Design	Industry

Source: Author.

shows, for all 27 IM-related areas, the 5 clusters created, grouping 43 terms and 865 links with a total TLS (Total Link Strength) of 15,904 after creating a bibliometric map based on text data. Only the three most significant terms related to IM have been chosen.

The results of keyword clustering exhibit a greater inclination towards business-focused topics (clusters 2, 3, and 5) when compared to those aligned with engineering processes characterized by a robust technological foundation (clusters 1 and 4). Engineering research (cluster 1), information technology (cluster 1), and industrial management (cluster 1) are interconnected fields that play a crucial role in driving innovation and economic growth. Engineering research provides the foundation for developing new technologies and processes, while industrial management focuses on optimizing the production and distribution of goods and services. Information technology is the backbone of modern industries, enabling efficient communication, data analysis, and automation. The convergence of these fields has led to significant advancements in areas such as manufacturing, supply chain management, product design (cluster 4), and new product development (cluster 4). This transformation process in the industry (cluster 5) is achieved thanks to entrepreneurship (cluster 3) fostering digital transformation (cluster 2), product innovation (cluster 4), and product design (cluster 4). Industrial processes focused on digital transformation (cluster 2), effective decision-making processes (cluster 3), and sustainable development (cluster 3).

4.2.3. Co-Authorship Co-Occurrences Related to Countries

RQ3—In which countries and organizations is IM research mainly conducted, and has there been an evolution among them?

Of the 198 countries with IM-related publications limited to BMA, EEF, and SOC areas, 18 meet the threshold of having a minimum number of 100 documents published.

Table 10. Terms’ co-occurrence results for “Innovation Management” limited to BMA, EEF, and SOC areas between 1974 and 2024 (as of 23 July 2024).

	Country	Documents	Citations	TLS
1	UK	444	17,240	292
2	USA	588	26,514	280
3	Germany	618	13,763	237
4	Italy	285	9508	174
5	Sweden	186	5598	121
6	France	190	3859	118
7	China	337	5083	117
8	Denmark	144	4117	117
9	The Netherlands	173	8163	106
10	Australia	183	4617	96
11	Switzerland	112	4142	91
12	Canada	120	3607	78
13	Finland	180	5391	74
14	Spain	204	5123	72
15	India	108	1583	47
16	Brazil	256	2358	42
17	Russian Federation	160	1854	37
18	Japan	100	881	31
	TOTAL	4388	123,401	---

Legend: TLS (Total Link Strength). Source: Author.

shows that of the 4388 publications on IM from these 18 countries, almost half were by authors from the European Union (45.12%, 1980 publications), a percentage that rises to 55.24% in Europe if the United Kingdom is included. These results are far ahead of those of the United States (13.4%), China (7.6%), the Russian Federation (3.6%), and Japan (2.3%).

As shown in Figure 11, the first countries to start researching on IM-related topics limited to BMA, EEF, and SOC areas are the USA, Japan, Australia, the Netherlands, Germany, Finland, and Switzerland (early adopters, in dark blue); followed by France, Denmark, Brazil, Spain, China, the UK, and Canada (followers, in green); and Sweden, Italy, India, and the Russian Federation (laggards, in yellow).

Of the 234 countries with IM-related publications for all 27 IM-related areas, 21 meet the threshold of having a minimum number of 100 documents published.

Table 11. Terms’ co-occurrence results for “Innovation Management” for all 27 IM-related areas between 1974 and 2024 (as of 23 July 2024).

	Country	Documents	Citations	TLS
1	USA	745	29,375	369
2	Germany	940	16,995	366
3	UK	533	19,413	363
4	Italy	368	10,817	230
5	France	263	4543	172
6	The Netherlands	216	9450	152
7	Sweden	230	7097	152
8	Denmark	168	4515	151
9	China	636	6581	138
10	Australia	225	5097	125
11	Finland	232	6163	117
12	Switzerland	156	4916	115
13	Spain	264	5798	108
14	Canada	162	4371	98
15	Austria	111	2309	85
16	Brazil	341	3012	74
17	India	144	1994	69
18	Portugal	108	1271	60
19	Russian Federation	288	2554	48
20	Japan	133	1199	38
21	Poland	114	614	36
	TOTAL	6377	148,084	---

Legend: TLS (Total Link Strength). Source: Author.

shows that of the 6377 publications on IM from these 21 countries, more than half were by authors from the European Union (54.23%, 3458 publications), a percentage that rises to 62.58% in Europe if the UK is included. These results are far ahead of those of the USA (11.68%), China (9.97%), the Russian Federation (4.51%), and Japan (2.08%).

These countries can be grouped in four clusters as follows: Canada, Finland, France, Italy, Russia, Sweden, and UK (cluster 1); Australia, China, India, Japan, Poland, and USA (cluster 2); Austria, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, and Switzerland (cluster 3); and Brazil, Portugal and Spain (cluster 4). The composition of each cluster is shaped by the geographic, cultural, and linguistic proximity of each nation to other countries. This close connection is particularly striking in cluster 4, where there exists a strong cultural and linguistic resemblance between Brazil and Portugal and a profound geographical and historical bond between Spain and Portugal.

As shown in Figure 12, the first countries to start researching on IM-related for all 27 areas of knowledge are the USA, Japan, the Netherlands, and Switzerland (early adopters, in dark blue); followed by China, Australia, UK, France, Denmark, Germany, Finland, Canada, Spain, and Brazil (followers, in blue and green); and Austria, Portugal, Sweden, Italy, India, Poland, and the Russian Federation (laggards, in yellow).

4.2.4. Co-Authorship Co-Occurrences Related to Organizations

Regarding co-authorship in organizations, of the 8288 organizations, the minimum number of Scopus publications on IM was set at five, so only 21 met the threshold. This number was reduced to ten by counting only those with TLS > 0, all European except for Portland State University. As shown in

Table 12. Top 10 organizations for publications on IM limited to BMA, EEF, and SOC areas between 1974 and 2024 (as of 23 July 2024).

	Organization	Country	Documents	CIT	TLS
1	Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnbern	Germany	6	5	14
2	University of Southern Denmark	Denmark	6	5	14
3	Portland State University	USA	5	7	12
4	University of Exeter	UK	14	112	19
5	Aalborg University	Denmark	5	2	8
6	Koblenz University of Applied Sciences	Germany	6	0	6
7	KTH Royal Institute of Technology	Sweden	11	9	6
8	MNCCI, Jüchen	Germany	6	0	6
9	Bucharest University of Economic Studies	Romania	10	27	3
10	Technical University of Cluj-Napoca	Romania	6	20	3

Legend: CIT (citations), TLS (Total Link Strength). Source: Author.

, the University of Exeter has the highest productivity (documents) and impact (citations) on IM research.

Out of the 11,559 organizations for all 27 IM-related areas, only 36 met the threshold of a minimum of five Scopus publications on IM. This select group, which was further narrowed down to 15 by considering only those with TLS > 0, is predominantly European, with the exceptions being Portland State University and Queensland University of Technology. As shown in

Table 13. Top 15 organizations for publications on IM for all 27 IM-related areas between 1974 and 2024 (as of 23 July 2024).

	Organization	Country	Documents	CIT	TLS
1	Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnbern	Germany	7	6	14
2	University of Southern Denmark	Denmark	6	6	14
3	Portland State University	USA	5	10	12
4	University of Sussex	UK	6	7	12
5	KTH Royal Institute of Technology	Sweden	12	11	11
6	Aalberg University	Denmark	5	4	8
7	University of Exeter	UK	9	11	7
8	Koblenz University of Applied Sciences	Germany	6	0	6
9	MNCCI, Jüchen	Germany	6	0	6
10	Bucharest University	Romania	11	29	3
11	Technical University of Cluj-Napoca	Romania	6	21	3
12	Delft University of Technology	The Netherlands	7	5	1
13	Queensland University of Technology	Australia	5	12	1
14	Samara University	Russia	6	25	1
15	Southern Federal University	Russia	8	29	1

Legend: CIT (citations), DOC (documents), TLS (Total Link Strength). Source: Author.

, the KTH Royal Institute of Technology leads in productivity (documents), while the University of Bucharest and the Southern Federal University stand out for their impact (citations) on IM research.

4.2.5. Keywords Co-Occurrence and Future Trends

RQ4—What are the future trends in IM research?

Of the 13,576 keywords limited to BMA, EEF, and SOC areas, as the minimum number of occurrences of a keyword has been set to 100, 24 keywords meet the threshold, of which 20 are shown in

Table 14. Top 20 keywords’ co-occurrence results for “Innovation Management” limited to BMA, EEF, and SOC areas between 1974 and 2024.

	Keyword	Occurrences	TLS
1	Innovation Management	2075	2767
2	Innovation	1244	1977
3	Product Development	211	580
4	Industrial Management	204	577
5	Management	218	481
6	Knowledge Management	219	463
7	Competition	168	453
8	Sustainable Development	171	431
9	Information Management	141	395
10	Technology	126	377
11	Project Management	141	369
12	R&D Management	112	358
13	Industry	109	347
14	Open Innovation	249	336
15	Technological Innovation	143	303
16	Technology Transfer	122	295
17	New Product Development	131	288
18	Decision-making	114	287
19	Innovation Process	148	286
20	Research and Development	110	279

Legend: TLS (Total Link Strength). Source: Author.

. While the first publications on IM touched on aspects related to product development, management, technology, R&D, and competition, as shown by the dark blue links in Figure 8, there is a current trend to link IM (yellow links) in aspects related to sustainable development, open innovation, and entrepreneurship. As will be seen below, these lines of research are considerably expanded with the study of innovation management in the 27 areas of knowledge included in Scopus.

Limited to BMA, EEF, and SOC areas, keywords’ co-occurrence results for IM show that “product development” has the strongest TLS (=580) followed closely by “industrial management” (TLS = 577), which shows the seamless integration of product development and industrial management is essential for achieving organizational success. While product development focuses on creating innovative and marketable products, industrial management ensures that these products are manufactured efficiently and cost-effectively. By aligning these two functions, companies can streamline operations, reduce time-to-market, and improve product quality.

Of the 20,512 keywords for all 27 IM-related areas, as the minimum number of occurrences of a keyword has been set to 100, 46 keywords meet the threshold, of which 20 are shown in

Table 15. Top 20 keywords’ co-occurrence results for “Innovation Management” for all 27 IM-related areas between 1974 and 2024.

	Keyword	Occurrences	TLS
1	Innovation Management	3222	6050
2	Innovation	1783	3924
3	Product Development	318	1163
4	Competition	303	1109
5	Knowledge Management	365	1023
6	Industrial Management	277	1016
7	Management	333	936
8	Information Management	237	801
9	Sustainable Development	248	771
10	Industry	197	759
11	Project Management	228	755
12	Decision-making	219	692
13	Technology	190	689
14	Commerce	197	681
15	R&D Management	167	667
16	Open Innovation	335	613
17	Innovation Process	234	603
18	Technological Innovation	214	553
19	New Product Development	167	529
20	Engineering Research	155	522

Legend: R&D (research and development), TLS (Total Link Strength). Source: Author.

. While the first publications on IM touched on aspects related to product development, management, technology, R&D, and competition, as shown by the dark blue links in Figure 13, there is a current trend to link IM (yellow links) in aspects related to sustainable development, open innovation, innovation performance, and human-related aspects linked to entrepreneurship. Some of these research areas agree with [35], which establishes cross-functional collaboration, open innovation, and staged product development processes.

Linked to aspects related to sustainable development, open innovation, and entrepreneurship as well-established topics (areas or subdomains), topics such as technological innovation intertwined with AI, marketing strategies paired with new product development, multidisciplinary decision-making processes inserted into global contexts, research lines linking entrepreneurship, sustainability and open innovation, and innovation process focused on global markets are research trends related to IM, as shown in Figure 14.

5. Conclusions

The theoretical contribution of this paper comes from the analysis of the evolution of innovation management in the literature during the last half-century. Using Scopus, three periods are observed in its evolution; the scarce number of publications on this topic characterizes the first one (1974–1995). The first period (1974–1995) was characterized by a few publications on this topic, generally directed toward resolving business problems in product development, technological innovation, industrial management, production engineering, and information processing. In the next stage (1996–2019), there was a change of focus to direct efforts to analyze issues related to innovation, entrepreneurship, product development, and issues linked to management. Finally, in the third stage (2020–2024), the analysis of innovation management focuses on consumer attraction strategies given the process of economic globalization in which the planet is inserted, which leads to a greater need for business efficiency and productivity, a fact that is reflected in the business literature. In addition, studies that relate IM to environmental impact are becoming increasingly important.

In this study, both the results of statistical analysis and co-cited authors, articles, organizations, and keywords have formed the basis for the formulation of the answers to the following research questions:

RQ1—Do authors who publish on IM in Scopus tend to collaborate internationally, or have their research teams?

There is a tendency for a minimal relationship between authors from different organizations and countries to collaborate in research on IM, which can be seen in the very high number of clusters formed (98 out of 100 authors) and the meager number of links (8) between them. As a result, it is vital to establish global networks that foster increased collaboration among researchers, a process facilitated by the dynamic forces of globalization.

RQ2: What are the most common words in the titles of IM publications in Scopus over the last 50 years?

The term “lab” has the highest frequency (14) but is not the most relevant (1.52), with “corporate innovation” being the most relevant (2.90) for innovation management. This shows the importance of making innovation part of the organization’s culture so that investing in innovation is constant over time. In the expansive realm of MI, an array of disciplines converges. In the domain of business engineering research, terms like “Innovation” (Occurrences = 1783; TLS = 3924), “Product Development” (Occurrences = 318; TLS = 1163), “Industrial Management” (Occurrences = 277; TLS = 1016), and “Information Management” (Occurrences = 237; TLS = 801) are abound. Meanwhile, articles in the economic and business sphere are replete with prominent terms such as “Competition” (Occurrences = 303; TLS = 1109), “Knowledge Management” (Occurrences = 365; TLS = 1023), “Sustainable Development” (Occurrences = 248; TLS = 771), and “Commerce” (Occurrences = 197; TLS = 681).

RQ3—In which countries and organizations is IM research mainly conducted, and has there been an evolution among them?

The first countries to start research on IM were the USA, Japan, Australia, the Netherlands, Germany, Finland, and Switzerland (early adopters); followed by France, Denmark, Brazil, Spain, China, the UK, and Canada (followers); and Sweden, Italy, India, and the Russian Federation (laggards). Except for Portland State University, all the leading organizations in the field are European.

Additionally, publications related to IM limited to BMA, EEF, and SOC areas are mainly published by European authors, showing that almost half (45.12%) of the publications on IM were published by authors from the European Union, which rises to 55.24% in Europe if the UK is included, with the University of Exeter being the organization with the highest productivity (documents) and impact (citations) on IM research. These results are far ahead of those of the USA (13.4%), China (7.6%), the Russian Federation (3.6%), and Japan (2.3%). The findings emphasize the potential for international collaboration in the field of IM. Upon examining the number of Scopus publications on IM in 27 areas of knowledge, it is evident that Europe, with more than half of the publications (54.23%, 3458 publications), is a significant contributor. This percentage increases to 62.58% in Europe when the United Kingdom is included. These results, when compared to those of the United States (11.68%), China (9.97%), the Russian Federation (4.51%), and Japan (2.08%), highlight the opportunity for researchers to engage in global collaboration in the field of IM.

RQ4—What are the future trends in IM research?

Innovation management (IM) initially focused on product development, management, technology, research and development, and competition. Current research trends in IM are characterized by their interdisciplinary nature, which links to economics and business. They involve integrating IM-related marketing strategies with open innovation, multi-disciplinary decision-making processes in global contexts, and innovation targeting international markets. In terms of engineering, IM is linked to technological innovation in AI, new product development, and new solutions in engineering, among other areas. About sociology and labor psychology, IM research lines link human behavior with entrepreneurship, labor productivity, and sustainability.

The advent of AI is poised to foster novel research trajectories by intertwining innovation management with technological advancements, productivity enhancements, knowledge acquisition, and market penetration. Among the research lines linking AI and IM, we can mention those related to AI-driven innovation, such as the use of AI algorithms to identify new business opportunities from large volumes of data, the study of optimizing innovation processes through the application of machine learning techniques to improve efficiency in products and services, and research on innovation portfolio management within companies. In addition, other aspects related to the relationship between AI and innovation management are given by research lines related to its impact on creativity, organizational change, leadership, ethics and governance, and new forms of competition. As these research lines develop, there is expected to be an increase in the number of papers published on these relationships in the coming years.

The primary limitation of this study is that its data were sourced from Scopus. To bolster the validity of future research on this topic, it is recommended that future studies extract the data from other data sources. A future line of research is to analyze the bibliometric impact between AI and IM to see if its evolution and development are of growing interest in the global scientific community.