Crowdfunding Establishment: A Bibliometric Analysis

(1)

Crowdfunding Establishment: A Bibliometric Analysis

M. Fauzy Tambi^1*, Azlina Hanif ², Ainul Azreen Adam², Wan Azani Mustafa³

1 MARDI, Persiaran MARDI – UPM, 43400, Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia

2 AAGBS, Universiti Teknologi MARA, 40450, Shah Alam, Malaysia

3 Faculty of Engineering Technology, Universiti Malaysia Perlis, 02600, Arau, Perlis, Malaysia

*Corresponding Author: [email protected] Accepted: 15 November 2022 | Published: 1 December 2022

DOI:https://doi.org/10.55057/ijaref.2022.4.4.2

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Abstract: Crowdfunding is a new era financing alternative. It has been well accepted worldwide and the sustainability has been empirically proven. The aim of this study is to analyze and assess literature published in the field of Crowdfunding. A comprehensive scientometric analysis utilizing Scopus database is performed to identify and summarize the intellectual landscape studies of this topic. This study identified academic publications related to crowdfunding as early as 2010 until 2021 which includes 1,934 publications published in Scopus database. The results show that the total h-index of retrieved documents was 72. The United States of America ranked first in publication on the subject matter with 495 publications or 25.59% published documents. China ranked second with 278 (14.37%) documents while Germany ranked third with 195(9.05%) documents. The core keywords utilized in literature pertaining to this study were Crowdfunding (53.05%), Crowdsourcing (25.96%), Finance (7.76%), Information system (6.98%) and Human (6.15%). From 2018 to 2020, the relative growth rate and doubling time of retrieved literature remained steady, demonstrating exponential growth in this discipline. Politecnico de Milano is the most productive organization. Meanwhile the top cited articles with regard to crowdfunding come from the field of Business, Management and Accounting. The magnitude of literature in crowdfunding obviously increased in the past few years. This shows that crowdfunding is a favorite subject matter for scholars. However, it seems to be anonymous to fields such as health, engineering and microbiology. Crowdfunding in these fields need to be encouraged due to the fact that it shall leverage financing and investment for technology development and advancement. This study aims to stipulate a better knowledge of the development trends that have arisen in this sector over the last 11 years, and be a reference point for future research.

Keywords: Crowdfunding, Crowdsourcing, FinTech, Bibliometric

___________________________________________________________________________

1. Introduction

Crowdfunding is currently Malaysia's fastest growing source of alternative finance for entrepreneurs and companies. It is an enticing opportunity for entrepreneurs with innovative ideas who would not otherwise have found capital to leverage the power of the audience to bring goods and projects from the ground. Crowdfunding has traditionally been the go-to funding solution for individuals, startups and entrepreneurs. But more recently, retailers and larger companies have been using crowdfunding as an investment route, market research tool or promotional technique. The obvious attraction of crowdfunding is that it sidesteps the need to convince a bank or investor you can make their investment worthwhile. Compounding to that, a crowdfunding campaign itself can raise awareness of a product brand or services to

(2)

offere, deliver valuable information about demand for a product or service, and create an already established customer base once a campaign is complete.

Up until 2015, little work can be found published in the open literature on crowdfunding indexed in Scopus database. However, given economic development, crowdfunding has become an alternative source of financing for businesses. It was recorded that crowdfunding market grew to RM 68 billion worldwide in 2014 and continued accelerating to RM 144.5 billion in 2015. In the Asia Pacific region, crowdfunding generated RM 4.7 billion in 2015 (Asian Institute of Finance, 2017). Crowdfunding is a millennial-inspired method enabling individuals, particularly entrepreneurs, to raise funds for their businesses without having to rely on traditional financial fundraising mechanisms like bank loans, schemes, or borrowings from family and friends. Crowdfunding has grown in popularity and acceptance among the general population. According to Sancak (2016) and Beaulieu et al. (2015), “crowdfunding” has emerged as a significant and novel form of financial aid for businesses.

In order to gain a reasonable comprehensive insight on crowdfunding research domain, a lot of researchers conducted the corresponding literature reviews. Pati, R. and Garud, N. (2021) discussed the applicability of reward-type crowdfunding analysis on factors that contribute to a success of technology-based project. Darmansyah et al. (2020) on their study on factors determining behavioural intentions to use Islamic financial technology has tested multiple constructs expended from three theories namely Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB), Technology Acceptance Theories (TAM1, 2 & 3) and Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT 1 & 2). In addition, Li et al. (2017) used the UTAUT model to examine the factors that influence donors' willingness to donate to philanthropic crowd-funding initiatives in China. Sense of trust (ST) and Experience expectancy (ExE) are also introduced as new independent variables to investigate in the study. Some studies and empirical review articles have presented overviews regarding crowdfunding research domain, for instance, venture capital in broad by Benzouai, M.C. & Djeffal, K. (2021) yet limited and to specific aspect only. Although the study of crowdfunding increased tremendously and many studies have been conducted in the past few years, however, just a few bibliometric analyses have been used to analyse crowdfunding research throughout its history, resulting in a lack of complete understanding in this field.

According to Liu et al., (2018) and Ellis et al., (2019) bibliometric approach is a quantitative analysis technique used to uncover the current status and development trend in various domains of specific subject matter. Bibliometric analysis have been applied in various area such as Safety Science journal (Merigo et al., 2019), Health care (Ellis et al., 2019), Laboratory safety (Yang et al., 2019) and Process management (Amin et al., 2019). The appropriate results to identify focal areas, explore future research possibilities, and pursue collaboration with other nations or institutes are big advantages and necessary for scholars. The science mapping technique is used in this study to review publications on crowdfunding extracted from the Scopus database, with the objectives to: 1) explore cooperative relationships in terms of countries, institutions, and authors; 2) identify the most influential journals, researchers, and articles; 3) understand current research topics in the crowdfunding domain; and 4) propose future research in the crowdfunding field. The findings on these questions are critical in providing comprehension for crowdfunding research domain which shall assist researchers to position their research. Bibliometrics shall offer temporal trend, geographical and institutional distribution, references, authors, and citations on Crowdfunding venture capital.

(3)

The outline of this work as follows: section 1 comprises the literature review of background information of the research topic, the problem statement, the objectives and the expected output, section 2 explains the methodology, section 3 highlighted the results, the discussion of the finding was explained in Section 4 and finally section 5 elaborate and summarized the conclusion of the research.

2. Methods

Bibliometrics is a statistical tool for assessing and quantifying the quantity of publications and related growth trend in that field. A bibliometric analysis programme VOSviewer (van Eck and Waltman, 2010) was used in this study to evaluate articles related to Crowdfunding in terms of geographical distribution, authorship, citations, keywords, and other factors. The impact factor (IF) is the most widely used metric for assessing a journal's impact. On the other hand, the H- index, on the other hand, refers to a period of time during which at least h articles by an author, a country, a journal, and an institution, among other things, have been mentioned at least h times (Mao et al., 2018). The H-index is also used to assess the impact of articles from various authors and countries/regions. The term utilized was “Crowdfunding” as the search topic revealed 1934 documents on Scopus as of 5 September 2021 with a time span of 11 years on the topics which popped-up in the search result between 2010 and 2021. The research flow strategy is shown in Figure 1 below and details results are illustrated and discussed as follows:

(4)

Figure 1: Flow diagram of the search strategy

Source: Zakaria, R., Ahmi, A., Ahmad, A. H., & Othman, Z. (2020) Worldwide Melatonin Research: A Bibliometric Analysis of the Published Literature between 2015 and 2019, Chronobiology International. https://doi.org/10.1080/07420528.2020.1838534.

Modified from PRISMA (Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group (2009). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med 6(7): e1000097. https://doi:10.1371/journal.pmed1000097).

3. Results

3.1 Publications information profile

Table 1 – 9 below depicts the documents profiles for the selected topic “Crowdfunding”. A total of 1934 documents were obtained from the Scorpus database on September 5, 2021. As shown in Table 1, there are 11 main document types in the publications. Journal articles (1182) were the most frequently utilized document type. They were followed by Conference paper (446; 23.06%), Book chapter (158; 8.17%), Review (52; 2.69%), Note (36, 1.86%); Short survey (15, 0.78%); Book (13, 0.67%). In addition, the remainder i.e. less than 0.6% includes Editorial (11), Erratum (11), Letter (9) and Data paper (1). Meanwhile, on the Source type as

Database: Scopus

Search Field: Article Title Time Frame: All

Language: All Source Type: All

TITLE ( crowdfunding )

Keywords & Search String

n = 1934 Record Identified &

Screened

Crowdfunding

ScreeningIncludedTopic, Scope & Eligability

Topic

Scope & Coverage

Record Included for Bibliometric Analysis

n = 0 Record Removed

n = 1934

5 September 2021 Date Extracted

(5)

portrayed in Chart 1, “Journal” seems to be the highest Source type with 1303 documents representing 67.37% of the total citations. Table 2 indicated that English is the prominent language applied in writing with 1848 publication (95.26%).

Table 1: Document Type

Document Type Total Publications (TP) Percentage (%)

Article 1182 61.12%

Conference Paper 446 23.06%

Book Chapter 158 8.17%

Review 52 2.69%

Note 36 1.86%

Short Survey 15 0.78%

Book 13 0.67%

Editorial 11 0.57%

Erratum 11 0.57%

Letter 9 0.47%

Data Paper 1 0.05%

Total 1934 100.00

Table 2: Languages

Language Total Publications (TP)* Percentage (%)

English 1848 95.26%

Spanish 34 1.75%

French 30 1.55%

Chinese 11 0.57%

Russian 5 0.26%

German 4 0.21%

Portuguese 4 0.21%

Italian 3 0.15%

Korean 1 0.05%

Total 1934 100.00

In view of Subject Area as Table 3, Business, Management and Accounting seems to be the pertinent field of research with 874 publications of nearly half (45.19%) of the citations.

Meanwhile, the top 5 Subject area of research on the topic “Crowdfunding” in Scopus database are Computer Science (568; 29.36%), Economics, Econometrics and Finance (496; 25.65%), Social Sciences (428; 22.13%) and Engineering (247; 12.77%). The bottom 5 Subject areas are Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (8; 0.41%), Chemical Engineering (6; 0.31%), Health Professions (6; 0.31%), Immunology and Microbiology (4; 0.21%) and Neuroscience (3; 0.16%) respectively.

1303, 67%

380, 20%

121, 6% 107, 6% 23, 1%

Chart 1: Source Type

Journal Conference Proceeding Book Book Series Trade Journal

(6)

Table 3: Subject Area

Subject Area Total Pub (TP) Percentage (%)

Business, Management and Accounting 874 45.19

Computer Science 568 29.36

Economics, Econometrics and Finance 496 25.65

Social Sciences 428 22.13

Engineering 247 12.77

Decision Sciences 203 10.50

Mathematics 105 05.43

Arts and Humanities 101 05.22

Medicine 93 04.81

Environmental Science 81 04.19

Psychology 64 03.31

Energy 62 03.21

Agricultural and Biological Sciences 34 01.76

Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 27 01.40

Multidisciplinary 23 01.19

Earth and Planetary Sciences 17 0.88

Materials Science 15 0.78

Physics and Astronomy 13 0.67

Nursing 11 0.59

Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics 8 0.41

Chemical Engineering 6 0.31

Health Professions 6 0.31

Immunology and Microbiology 4 0.21

Neuroscience 3 0.16

With regard to the highest mentioned article per year, years 2016, 2017 and 2018 seem to be the highest score of h-index denoted. These years signal the existence of interest among authors on crowdfunding research and publication. The highest year on publishing was year 2021 with 342 total publications, the highest number of of cited publication is 2014 with 4786 times. All these are shown in Table 4 below. Accordingly, on the trend over the years, we can see that the number of publications on Crowdfunding has significantly increased from year to year. This can be seen as data stipulated in Fig. 2: Total Publications and Citations by Year. In the beginning, for example in 2010, there were fewer Crowdfunding publications, with only 2 and another 2 for the next consecutive year. Between 2010 to 2013, there was a volatility in the number of publications (less than 50 documents). The noteable increase can be viewed from 2016 onwards with more that 200 documents published consistently each year. A stable increase on publication is portrayed from 2018 onwards. This phenomenon may be due to the increase of awareness on the Crowdfunding approaches throughout the world. This can be seen from Asian Institute of Finance report (2017) that highlighted tremendous crowdfunding market growth that lead to scholars showing interest in studying the said phenomenon.

Table 4: Year of Publication

Year TP NCP TC C/P C/CP h g

2021 342 338 338 1.17 1.00 10 12

2020 338 996 996 2.91 1.00 13 18

2019 292 2172 1086 3.21 0.50 22 28

2018 289 3319 1106.33 3.79 0.33 31 47

2017 216 4571 1142.75 5.29 0.25 37 63

2016 202 3713 742.6 3.68 0.20 35 57

2015 114 3837 639.5 5.61 0.17 26 61

2014 80 4786 683.71 8.55 0.14 22 69

2013 46 1741 217.63 4.63 0.13 17 41

2012 10 157 17.44 1.74 0.11 6 10

(7)

2011 2 103 10.3 5.15 0.10 2 2

2010 2 6 0.55 0.28 0.09 2 2

Total 1934

Notes: TP=total number of publications; NCP=number of cited publications; TC=total citations; C/P=average citations per publication; C/CP=average citations per cited publication; h=h-index; and g=g-index.

Figure 2: Total Publications and Citations by Year

3.2 Geographical Distribution Analysis

Furthermore, articles on Crowdfunding were examined to determine the distribution of countries and institutions based on the affiliations of the authors. There are 41 countries represented in the academic Crowdfunding materials. Accordingly, Table 5 lists the top 20 countries that contributed to the publication ranked by Total number of publications (TP), Number of cited publications (NCP), Total citations (TC), Average citations per publication (C/P), Average citations per cited publication (C/CP), h-index and g-index. The top 5 countries are already representing 62.7% of the overall publications.United States is the most productive country with a total publication of 495 publications followed by China (278 publications) and Germany (175 publications), United Kingdom (145 publications) and Italy (139 publications).

United States has the highest Number of cited publications (25.59%), Total citations (11401), Average citations per cited publication (495.05). Meanwhile, Indonesia is among the lowest Number of cited publications (1.55%), Total citations (38), and Average citations per cited publication (29.92).

Table 5: Top 20 Countries contributed to the publications

Country TP NCP TC C/P C/CP h g

United States 495 25.59% 11401 23.03 495.05 53 96

China 278 14.37% 2328 8.37 278.14 19 43

Germany 175 9.05% 4740 27.09 174.97 32 66

United Kingdom 145 7.50% 2823 19.47 144.99 27 50

Italy 139 7.19% 2414 17.37 138.98 22 46

France 95 4.91% 2602 27.39 95.00 20 50

Spain 87 4.50% 483 5.55 87.03 11 18

Canada 79 4.08% 2629 33.28 79.00 20 51

South Korea 58 3.00% 365 6.29 58.03 9 17

Taiwan 52 2.69% 366 7.04 52.00 9 18

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Total Publications (TP)

Total Citations (TC)

Years

TP TC

(8)

Country TP NCP TC C/P C/CP h g

Australia 43 2.22% 560 13.02 43.01 12 23

Hong Kong 43 2.22% 513 11.93 43.00 12 22

Sweden 39 2.02% 444 11.38 39.01 12 20

Malaysia 38 1.96% 75 1.97 38.07 5 7

Denmark 36 1.86% 375 10.42 35.99 10 18

India 36 1.86% 153 4.25 36.00 81 11

Netherlands 36 1.86% 536 14.89 36.00 10 23

Finland 32 1.65% 589 18.41 32.00 92 24

Indonesia 30 1.55% 38 1.27 29.92 3 5

Ireland 29 1.50% 327 11.28 29.00 9 17 Notes: TP=total number of publications; NCP=number of cited publications; TC=total citations; C/P=average citations per publication; C/CP=average citations per cited publication; h=h-index; and g=g-index.

Moreover, Figure 3 indicated the network relationship among countries in Crowdfunding research field portrayed via VOSviewer. VOSviewer is a tool for visualizing of bibliometric network. In this technique, maps representation via color, circle size, font size, thickness of the connecting lines were used to portray the density of parameters. For instance, units of similar color reflected that they belong to one cluster or group of close units such as countries or authors. The larger the circle or font size the greater are citations or productivity indicated.

Meanwhile, the strength of collaboration i.e. among countries, authors or institutions was measured by the thickness of the connecting lines. The result identifies collaboration among 48 countries. United States, United Kingdom and China were countries that have plenty of cooperation with other countries with more then 100 cooperations (211, 124 and 121 respectively). The frequency of cooperation is represented from the thickness of the link line.

Obviously, United States has intensive collaboration with Germany, United Kingdom with Italy and meanwhile China with United States and Taiwan.

Figure 3: Cooperation network among countries in Crowdfunding research

Further, productivity of institution in view of production crowdfunding documents were indicated by Table 7 (Top 20 institution on most publications) and Figure 4 (Cooperation network of instiutions in Crowdfunding research) as represented below. From Table 6, we can see that institution with the highest total number of publications (TP) was Politecnico di Milano with 27 TP. The highest institution on Number of cited publications (NCP) was SKEMA

(9)

Business school with 1657 NCP. Again Politecnico di Milano for total citations, with 23 TC.

Also SKEMA Business school recorded 10.36 for the highest average citations per publication (C/P). Meanwhile, Universiteit Gent obtained the highest average citations per cited publication (C/CP) with 0.25. The highest h-index and g-index were recorded by Università degli Studi di Bergamo (13) and Politecnico di Milano (27) respectively.

Table 6: Top 20 institutions on most publications

Affiliation Country TP NCP TC C/P C/CP h g

Politecnico di Milano Italy 27 902 23 4.18 0.13 10 27

Copenhagen Business

School Denmark 26 197 20 1.26 0.17 7 13

Simon Fraser University Canada 23 218 20 1.58 0.17 6 14

University of Science and

Technology of China China 23 93 15 0.67 0.17 7 9

University of Minnesota

Twin Cities United States 22 319 21 1.81 0.13 12 17

Southwestern University of

Finance and Economics China 21 584 19 3.97 0.14 10 21

SKEMA Business School France 20 1657 20 10.36 0.13 11 20

Università degli Studi di

Bergamo Italy 19 770 16 8.11 0.20 13 19

City University of Hong

Kong Hong Kong 16 104 9 1.30 0.20 4 10

National University of

Singapore Singapore 16 140 12 1.25 0.14 5 11

Universiteit Gent Belgium 16 513 16 8.02 0.25 11 16

Universität Kassel Germany 15 363 15 3.03 0.13 9 15

Indiana University

Bloomington United States 15 432 12 3.60 0.13 10 15

University of Oklahoma United States 15 933 11 8.89 0.14 8 15 Universität Liechtenstein Liechtenstien 15 253 15 2.11 0.13 8 15 Technische Universität

Darmstadt Germany 14 225 14 1.00 0.06 7 14

University College Cork Ireland 14 258 12 0.86 0.05 7 12

Universitat de València Spain 13 74 9 0.69 0.12 5 8

University of St. Gallen Switzerland 13 278 11 0.85 0.04 6 11

Université Côte d'Azur France 13 359 12 0.92 0.03 8 12

3.3 Author and co-authorship analysis

The number of publications, citations and H-index are best data to represent the prolific authors in a domain. These data were analyzed to identify the most active authors. Table 7 highlights Top 15 most profilic authors in the crowdfunding domain. The table summarized the authors, the institution he/she represented and related data on publications such as Total number of publications; Number of cited publications; Total citations; Average citations per publication;

Average citations per cited publication; h-index; and g-index. From the table we can see that Snyder, J. from Simon Frase University is the most productive author with regard to crowdfunding topic with 23 publications and 20 Total citations. However the most cited publication is from Schwienbacher, A. from SKEMA Business School with 1,642 citations altogether. Meanwhile, the author Vismara, S. has the highest h-inex publication number which is 13.

(10)

Table 7: 20 Most Productive Authors Author’s

Name Affiliation Country TP NCP TC C/P C/CP h g

Snyder, J.

Simon Fraser

University Canada 23 200 20 1681.74 0.10 6 13

Schwienbache r, A.

SKEMA

Business School France 18 1642 18 1934.00 0.01 11 18

Vismara, S.

Università degli

Studi di

Bergamo Italy 18 766 16 1719.11 0.02 13 16

Zheng, H.

Southwestern University of Finance and

Economics China 17 561 16 1820.24 0.03 9 16

Gleasure, R.

Copenhagen

Business School Denmark 14 239 11 1519.57 0.05 6 11

Benlian, A.

Technische Universität

Darmstadt Germany 12 213 12 1934.00 0.06 7 12

Bretschneider, U.

FernUniversität

in Hagen Germany 11 272 34 5977.82 0.13 7 11

Thies, F.

Universität

Liechtenstein Liechtenstein 11 218 11 1934.00 0.05 7 11 Wessel, M.

Copenhagen

Business School Denmark 11 197 10 1758.18 0.05 6 10 Burtch, G.

Carlson School

of Management United States 10 203 10 1934.00 0.05 8 10 Hornuf, L.

Germany

Universität Germany 10 457 10 1934.00 0.02 8 10

Leimeister, J.M.

University of

St. Gallen Germany 10 288 10 1934.00 0.03 7 10

Yang, L.

Eller College of

Management United States 10 34 6 1160.40 0.18 3 5 Allison, T.H.

Texas Christian

University United States 9 735 9 1934.00 0.01 7 9 Butticè, V.

Politecnico di

Milano Italy 9 190 8 1719.11 0.04 6 8

3.4 Journal analysis

There were 1303 journals which published crowdfunding research articles between 2010 and 5 September 2021. Table 8 below provides information on the Top 15 most productive journal articles regards to source titles. From the table, one shall view information with regard to Total number of publications (TP); Total citations (TC), Publisher and Cite Score. From the table it seems Small Business Economics from Springer has the highest TP (33 and TC (27). The lowest is New Media And Society with TP of 14 and TC of 14. The highest cite score was Entrepreneurship Theory And Practice by SAGE Journal with 17.7 score.

Table 8: Most Active Source Title

Source Title TP TC Publisher Cite

Score

SJR 2018

SNIP 2018

Small Business Economics 33 27 Springer 8.8 2.202 2.704

Sustainability Switzerland 33 27 MDPI 3.9 0.612 1.242

Proceedings Of The Annual Hawaii International Conference

On System Sciences 30 21 N.A N.A N.A N.A

(11)

Technological Forecasting And

Social Change 27 22 Elsevier B. V. 12.1 2.226 3.037

Conference On Human Factors In

Computing Systems Proceedings 21 20

Association for Computing

Machinery N.A N.A N.A

Venture Capital 21 21 Venture Capital 3.9 0.802 1.392

Entrepreneurship Theory And

Practice 20 19 SAGE Journals 17.7 5.365 4.836

ACM International Conference

Proceeding Series 18 7

Association for Computing

Machinery 1.2 0.182 0.296

Fgf Studies In Small Business And

Entrepreneurship 18 16 Springer 0.6 -1 -1

Journal Of Business Research 17 15 Elsevier B. V. 9.2 2.049 2.852 Journal Of Business Venturing 17 17 Elsevier B. V. N.A N.A N.A Journal Of Business Venturing

Insights 15 11 Elsevier B. V. 4.4 1.707 1.392

Lecture Notes In Computer Science Including Subseries Lecture Notes In Artificial Intelligence And Lecture Notes In

Bioinformatics 15 9 Springer 1.8 0.249 0.628

Revue Francaise De Gestion 15 9 Lavoisier 0.6 0.217 0.238

New Media And Society 14 14 SAGE Journals 11.4 3.501 3.915

Notes: TP=total number of publications; TC=total citations;

3.5 Citation Analysis

Table 9 below provides the citation metrics information. From the table, there were 1,934 papers on crowdfunding research between 2010 and 5 September 2021 pulled from Scopus database. There were 1,343 total cited papers with 25,735 number of citations. Meanwhile Table 10 indicates Top 15 Most cited articles in crowdfunding research. We notice that the paper titled : The dynamics of crowdfunding: An exploratory study” by E. Mollick is the most cited article with 1521 citations. The paper was published in 2014. From the table we noticed that among the most cited papers were papers published between 2013 and 2015. This table is important as it reflects the core or the principle papers on crowdfunding subject matters being highly cited.

Table 9: Citations Metrics

Metrics Data

Papers 1,934

Total cited papers 1,343

Number of Citations 25,735

Years 11

Citations per Year 2339.55

Citations per Paper 13.31

Author per Paper 2.66

h_index 71

g_index 125

Table 10: Top 20 Most cited articles

No. Authors Title Year Cites DOI No.

1 E. Mollick The dynamics of crowdfunding: An

exploratory study 2014 1521 10.1016/j.jbusven

t.2013.06.005 2 P. Belleflamme, T.

Lambert, A.

Schwienbacher

Crowdfunding: Tapping the right

crowd 2014 957 10.1016/j.jbusven

t.2013.07.003 3 G.K.C. Ahlers, D.

Cumming, C. Signaling in Equity Crowdfunding 2015 626 10.1111/etap.121 57

(12)

Gunther, D.

Schweizer

4 M.G. Colombo, C.

Franzoni, C. Rossi- Lamastra

Internal social capital and the attraction

of early contributions in crowdfunding 2015 442 10.1111/etap.121 18 5 A. Agrawal, C.

Catalini, A.

Goldfarb

Crowdfunding: Geography, Social Networks, and the Timing of Investment Decisions

2015 375 10.1111/jems.120 93 6 E.M. Gerber, J. Hui Crowdfunding: Motivations and

deterrents for participation 2013 358 10.1145/2530540 7 A. Agrawal, C.

Catalini, A.

Goldfarb

Some simple economics of

crowdfunding 2014 335 10.1086/674021

8 G. Bruton, S.

Khavul, D. Siegel, M. Wright

New financial alternatives in seeding entrepreneurship: Microfinance, crowdfunding, and peer-to-peer innovations

2015 315 10.1111/etap.121 43 9 T.H. Allison, B.C.

Davis, J.C. Short, J.W. Webb

Crowdfunding in a prosocial microlending environment: Examining the role of intrinsic versus extrinsic cues

2015 274 10.1111/etap.121 08 10 H. Zheng, D. Li, J.

Wu, Y. Xu

The role of multidimensional social capital in crowdfunding: A comparative study in China and US

2014 265 10.1016/j.im.201 4.03.003 11 S. Vismara Equity retention and social network

theory in equity crowdfunding 2016 241 10.1007/s11187- 016-9710-4 12 M. Lin, S.

Viswanathan

Home bias in online investments: An empirical study of an online crowdfunding market

2016 235 10.1287/mnsc.20 15.2206 13 P. Belleflamme, T.

Lambert, A.

Schwienbacher

Individual crowdfunding practices 2013 208 10.1080/1369106 6.2013.785151 14 D. Frydrych, A.J.

Bock, T. Kinder, B.

Koeck

Exploring entrepreneurial legitimacy in

reward-based crowdfunding 2014 203 10.1080/1369106 6.2014.916512 15 P. Belleflamme, N.

Omrani, M. Peitz

The economics of crowdfunding

platforms 2015 195 10.1016/j.infoeco

pol.2015.08.003

3.6 Keywords analysis

Keywords is the core representation on the content of any publications thus analysis of keywords is significant and important to reflect the research topic in crowdfunding research area. Table 11 below indicates the main key terms used. Among the main keywords used were crowdfunding itself, followed by crowdsourcing, finance, information system and economics.

Further more, keywords co-occurences network also can be used to denote the research terms in crowdfunding field.

Table 11: Top Keywords Author Keywords

Total Publications

(TP) Percentage (%)

Crowdfunding 1026 0.53

Crowdsourcing 502 0.26

Finance 150 0.08

Information Systems 135 0.07

Human 119 0.06

Economics 115 0.06

Equity Crowdfunding 110 0.06

Investments 110 0.06

Entrepreneurship 108 0.06

(13)

Social Media 102 0.05

Humans 81 0.04

Entrepreneurial Finance 78 0.04

Information Use 77 0.04

Funding 75 0.04

Financial Management 74 0.04

Social Networking (online) 66 0.03

Article 63 0.03

Innovation 61 0.03

Commerce 59 0.03

Kickstarter 56 0.03

4. Discussion

This paper aims to provide a systematic review and quantitative evaluation on documents regarding crowdfunding research area in Scopus database. This study focuses on bibliometrics analysis utilizing VOSviewer to evaluate articles related to Crowdfunding domain in terms of geographical distribution, authorship, citations, keywords, and other factors. Overall academia has shown interest to study on the crowdfunding research domain proved by the significant increases in the research documents from 2016 onwards. Although there appears to be a wide range on geographical distribution, yet United States, European countries and China indicate the most predominant territory with crowdfunding research interest. This indirectly shows the awareness on crowdfunding mechanism or availability in the said countries. Similarly, authors from China and Eauropean nation play a primary role in view of co-authorships and productivity. With respect to organizations, Crowdfunding research domain seems to be alien in the West Asian region. In view of journal analysis, crowdfunding research articles are mainly resourced from journal titles Small Business Economics (33), Sustainability Switzerland (33), Proceedings Of The Annual Hawaii International Conference On System Sciences (30), Technological Forecasting And Social Change (27), Conference On Human Factors In Computing Systems Proceedings (21), Venture Capital (21) with more then 20 articles produced from each of said journals. According to Table 4, with regards to subject matter interest, there were 24 subject matters or topics related to crowdfunding study.

There were overall 3, 489 counts summing 24 subject matters with 67.8% of them coming from topics or subject matters on Business, Management and Accounting, Computer Science, Economics, Econometrics and Finance, Social Sciences. There are plenty of unexplored study by topics of Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (8), Chemical Engineering (6), Health Professions (6), Immunology and Microbiology (4), Neuroscience (3) in which each respectively has a count of less then 10.

5. Conclusion

VOSviewer was used to create a bibliometric profile of the history and development of Crowdfunding research using 1,934 documents from the Scopus database. The material was provided in order to discover the study characteristics in the crowdfunding research domain, which included type of documents, authorship, citations, active and networking among countries/territories, institutions, authors and journal publications. In general, research on crowdfunding has increased greatly in the past 5 years. It can be observed by the number of publications reflected from 2016 onwards. The United States, China, Germany, United Kingdom and Italy are the top five from countries with the largest productivity in crowdfunding documents. Small Business Economics, Sustainability Switzerland, Proceedings Of The Annual Hawaii International Conference On System Sciences, Technological Forecasting And

(14)

Social Change and Conference On Human Factors In Computing Systems Proceedings are the five most active journals on this subject, with 144 journals publishing Crowdfunding-related publications. Snyder, J., Schwienbacher, A., Vismara, S. and Zheng, H. are the most productive authors in the field of crowdfunding with more then 15 publications compared to others. In view of keywords co-occurences, the research hot topics are emphasised within the areas of Business, Management and Accounting, Computer Science, Economics, Econometrics and Finance, and Social Sciences. Meanwhile, there are plenty of unexplored study by topics on Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics, Chemical Engineering, Health Professions, Immunology and Microbiology, Neuroscience which seems potentials for future research. Due to the increasing amount of attention to Crowdfunding research, this study can provide comprehensive information for future researchers to better understand the development trends in the said research realm. However, there are few limitations in the current research. First, the current research merely focused on “crowdfunding” as the keyword search. In the future, one can elaborate by incooperating a few other related keywords such as crowdsourcing or fintech.

Second, this study only focused on Scopus database. In the future, this can be further expanded to other databases such as Web of Science or Emerald and others.

Statements and declarations:

The authors hereby declared that the purpose of publication is for non financial interest and for knowledge expansion.

References

Agrawal, A., Catalini, C. & Goldfarb, A. (2015). Crowdfunding: Geography, Social Networks, and the Timing of Investment Decisions, Journal of Economics & Management Strategy. 24 (2), 253 – 274, http://doi.org/10.1111/jems.12093

Agrawal, A., Catalini, C. & Goldfarb, A. (2014). Some simple economics of crowdfunding, Innovation Policy and the Economy, 14 (1), 63-97, http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/674021

Ahlers, G.K.C., Cumming, D., Gunther, C., & Schweizer, D. (2015). Signaling in Equity Crowdfunding, Entrepreneurship, Theory and Practice. 39 (4), 955 – 980, http://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12157

Ahmi, A., & Mohamad, R. (2019). Bibliometric analysis of global scientific literature on web accessibility. International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering, 7(6), 250–

258.

Ahmi, A., & Mohd Nasir, M. H. (2019). Examining the trend of the research on extensible business reporting language (XBRL): A bibliometric review. International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change, 5(2), 1145–1167.

Allison, T.H., Davis, B.C., Short, J.C. & Webb, J.W. (2015). Crowdfunding in a prosocial microlending environment: Examining the role of intrinsic versus extrinsic cues, Entrepreneurship, Theory and Practice. 39 (1), 53 – 73, http://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12108

Amin, M.T., Khan, F., & Amyotte, P. (2019). A bibliometric review of process safety and risk analysis. Process Safety and Enviromental Protection, 126, 366-381

Beaulieu, T., Sarker, S., & Sarker, S. (2015). A conceptual framework for understanding crowdfunding communications of the association for information systems.

Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 37, 2-37.

Belleflamme, P., Lambert, T., & Schwienbacher, A. (2014). Crowdfunding: Tapping the right crowd, Journal of Business Venturing. 29 (5), 585 – 609, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2013.07.003

(15)

Belleflamme, P., Lambert, T., & Schwienbacher, A. (2013). Individual crowdfunding practices, Venture Capital: An International Journal of Entrepreneurial Finance, 15 (4), 313 – 333, http://doi.org/10.1080/13691066.2013.785151

Belleflamme, P., Omrani, N. & Peitz, M. (2015). The economics of crowdfunding platforms, Information, Economic and Policy, http://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoecopol.2015.08.003 Bruton, G., Khavul, S., Siegel, D. & Wright, M. (2015). New financial alternatives in seeding

entrepreneurship: Microfinance, crowdfunding, and peer-to-peer innovations, Entrepreneurship, Theory and Practice. 39 (1), 9-26, http://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12143

Colombo, M.G., Franzoni, C., & Rossi-Lamastra, C. (2015). Internal social capital and the attraction of early contributions in crowdfunding, Entrepreneurship, Theory and Practice. 39 (1), 75 – 100, http://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12118

Darmansyah, Fianto, B.A., Hendratmi, A & Aziz, P.F. (2020). Factors determining

behavioral intentions to use Islamic financial technology Three competing models, Journal of Islamic Marketing, 1759-0833, http://doi.org/10.1108/JIMA-12-2019- 0252

Ellis, L.A., Churruca, K., Clay-Williams, R., Pomare, C., Austin, E.E., Long, J.C., Grodahl, A., & Braithwaite, J. (2019). Patterns of resilience: a scoping review and

bibliometric analysis of resilient health care. Safety Science, 118, 241-257.

Frydrych, D., Bock, A.J., Kinder, T. & Koeck, B. (2014). Exploring entrepreneurial legitimacy in reward-based crowdfunding, Venture Capital, 16 (3), 247 – 269, http://doi.org/10.1080/13691066.2014.916512

Gerber, E.M., & Hui, J. (2013). Crowdfunding: Motivations and deterrents for participation, ACM Transactions on Computing-Human Interaction, 20 (6), Art 34, 1 – 32, http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2530540

Kushairi, N., & Ahmi, A. (2021). Flipped classroom in the second decade of the Millenia: A bibliometrics analysis with Lotka’s law. Education and Information

Technologies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10457-8

Li, Y.Z., He, T.L., Song, Y.R., Yang, Z., & Zhou, R.T. (2017). Factors impacting donors’

intention to donate to charitable crowd-funding projects in China: a UTAUT-based model, Information, Communication & Society,

https://doi:10.1080/1369118X.2017.1282530

Liu, H., Yu, Z.H., Chen, C., Hong, R., Jin, K., & Yang, C. (2018). Visualization and bibliometric analysis of research trends on human fatigue assessment. Journal of Medical System, 42 (179), 1-12.

Lin, M., & Viswanathan, S. (2016). Home bias in online investments: An empirical study of an online crowdfunding market, Management Science, 1 – 22, http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2015.2206

Mao, G.Z., Huang, N., Chen, L., & Wang, H.M. (2018). Research on biomass energy and environment from the past to the future: a bibliometric analysis. Science of Total Environment, 635, 1081-1090.

Merigo, J.M., Miranda, J., Modak, N.M., Boustras, G., & de la Sotta, C. (2019). Forty years of Safety Science: a bibliometric overview. Safety Science, 115, 66-88

Mollick, E. (2014). The dynamics of crowdfunding: An exploratory study, Journal of Business Venturing. 29 (1), 1 – 16, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2013.06.005

Sancak, I. E., (2016). Applicability and readiness of crowdfunding in Turkey. International Journal of Business & Social Science, 7(1), 99–110.

Shamsul, B., S., Joanna, C., Chin, W., M., & Chan Z., Y. (2017). Crowdfunding Malaysia’s sharing economy: alternative financing for micro, small and medium enterprise, Asian Institute of Finance Research Report, Kuala Lumpur.

(16)

Vismara, S. (2016). Equity retention and social network theory in equity crowdfunding, Small Business Economics, 46 (6), 579 – 590, http://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-016-9710-4 Wahid, R., Ahmi, A., & Alam, A. F. (2020). Growth and collaboration in massive open

online courses: a bibliometric analysis. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 21(4), 292-

322. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v21i4.4693

Wu, F., Geng, Y., Tian, X., Zhong, S.Z., Yu, S.T., & Xiao, S.J. (2018). Responding climate change: a bibliometric review on urban environmental governance, Journal of Cleaner Production, 204, 344-354.

Yang, Y.F., Reniers, G., Chen, G.H., & Goerlandt, F. (2019). A bibliometric review of laboratory safety in universities. Safety Science, 120, 14-24.

Zakaria, R., Ahmi, A., Ahmad, A. H., & Othman, Z. (2020). Worldwide melatonin research:

A bibliometric analysis of the published literature between 2015 and

2019, Chronobiology International. https://doi.org/10.1080/07420528.2020.1838534 Zheng, H., Li, D., Wu, J. & Xu, Y. (2014). The role of multidimensional social capital in

crowdfunding: A comparative study in China and US, Information & management, 51 (4), 488 – 496, http://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2014.03.003