Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38149211›Full record

ReviewHeliyon2023

Crowdfunding A bibliometric analysis and future research Agenda.

Shahab Aziz, Muhammad Rizwan Nazir, Muhammad Imran Nazir, Sidra Gazali

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. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Shahab AzizIRC for Finance and Digital Economy, KFUPM Business School, King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia.
Muhammad Rizwan NazirBusiness Studies Department, Bahria University, Karachi, Pakistan.
Muhammad Imran NazirBusiness Studies Department, Bahria University, Islamabad, Pakistan.
Sidra GazaliUIMS, Arid Agriculture University Rawalpindi Pakistan, Pakistan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study offers a bibliometric and Scientometric examination of the existing body of literature on crowdfunding. The analysis incorporates a total of 1156 articles from the Scopus database. The data is presented using the bibliometric technique, employing R-studio and VOS viewer software. A Scientometric analysis was undertaken to ascertain the discoveries and patterns of research themes, current and future research orientations, impact, co-occurrence, co-citations, as well as trends in impact and collaboration. The literature on crowdfunding has exhibited significant growth from 2010 to 2023. The number of publications pertaining to crowdfunding has experienced substantial growth between the years 2020 and 2023. The highlighted research trends and collaboration trends encompass various aspects of crowdfunding and resource mobilization, including crowdfunding, fundraising, social capital, peer-to-peer lending, venture capital, and crowdfunding success. Additionally, this study offers an expanded scope for the study based on a comprehensive examination of existing literature. The outcomes of our study have the potential to offer valuable insights for forthcoming scholars, corporations, and regulatory bodies seeking to comprehend the present patterns and anticipated advancements in the field of crowdfunding research.

Indexed as

Bibliometric analysisCitation structureCrowdfundingEquity crowdfundingKnowledge mapping

Identifiers

PMID38149211
PMCPMC10750037

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.