Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37455984›Full record

ReviewHeliyon2023

A review and analysis of the business model innovation literature.

WenJun Huang, Takeyasu Ichikohji

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Heliyon, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

WenJun HuangGraduate School of Economics and Management, Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan.
Takeyasu IchikohjiGraduate School of Economics and Management, Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Business model innovation (BMI) is an emerging field that has attracted much attention from scholars and practitioners. However, the literature on BMI is fragmented and inconsistent, lacking a comprehensive and systematic framework. This study aims to fill this gap by conducting a literature review of 272 peer-reviewed articles on BMI published between 2010 and 2022. We analyze the articles based on six dimensions: antecedents, processes, types, barriers, outcomes, and moderators/mediators of BMI. We synthesize the findings and propose an integrated theoretical model that captures the complex relationships among these dimensions. We also identify several research gaps and directions for future studies. This study contributes to the BMI literature by providing a clearer understanding of this phenomenon and offering practical guidance for various types of businesses.

Indexed as

Business model innovationResearch agendaSystematic literature reviewTheoretical framework

Identifiers

PMID37455984
PMCPMC10344766

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.