ArticlePloS one2026
Bridging the gaps in innovation research: A bibliometric analysis and multi-level framework integrating meso-perspectives and well-being.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Innovation and innovativeness frameworks are crucial for guiding progress, yet often remain fragmented, failing to connect individual behaviors, organizational ecosystems, and systemic goals, and frequently overlooking well-being. This study addresses these limitations through a large-scale bibliometric analysis of 49,398 innovation and 1,346 innovativeness publications. We employed a mixed-methods approach, combining citation network clustering with a qualitative content analysis of seminal works to map the field's evolutionary trajectory. Our analysis confirms a structural divide: innovation frameworks typically adopt a macro-level perspective (e.g., systems, policy), while innovativeness frameworks focus on the micro-level (e.g., individual adoption). Critically, the meso-level-essential for bridging micro-actions and macro-outcomes-remains underdeveloped, and well-being is marginalized. To bridge these gaps, we propose the Integrated Framework for Innovation and Well-being (IFIW). Grounded in a multi-level architecture (Micro, Meso, Macro) and eight guiding principles, the IFIW leverages meso-level mechanisms for scalability and explicitly embeds well-being, ethics, and sustainability as core priorities. This research contributes an empirically grounded taxonomy of evolving research streams and a unified model to guide the development of innovation ecosystems that are effective, equitable, and aligned with long-term well-being.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.