Scholar's policy recommendations for open innovation in SMEs: a systematic literature review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are currently showing an increasingly open innovation (OI) approach. Public policies supporting the adoption of OI by SMEs are becoming a priority for policymakers. Therefore, the aim of this article is to contribute to the literature by mapping scholars' policy recommendations for implementing OI among SMEs. Design/methodology/approach The authors conducted a systematic review of the literature (SRL) on the topic to achieve this purpose. A total of 99 academic articles were selected from the Web of Science and Scopus databases to suggest the main scholars' policy recommendations to implement OI among SMEs. Findings Results indicated that scholars' policy recommendations for OI adoption in SMEs can be organized into: research and development (R&D), networking, collaboration, knowledge and intellectual property rights (IPR), ecosystem, managerial capabilities, funding and incentives and sustainability policies. Research limitations/implications Only relevant articles about this topic have been included due to the reliance on the interpretations of the authors. The analysis of the literature revealed that the authors did not always distinguish policies dedicated to SMEs and those dedicated to large companies. Moreover, policies are not matched according to each OI dimensions (e.g. inbound, outbound and coupled OI). Originality/value The article uses a systematic literature review method that combines qualitative and quantitative analyses. This method contributes to theoretical development of OI policies dedicated, in particular to SMEs. This paper also provides policymakers and researchers with insights on the scope of OI policies that could support economic growth.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it