Customer behavior and adoption · Abstract-supported systematic review and bibliometric analysis
Artificial intelligence adoption dynamics and knowledge in SMEs and large firms: A systematic review and bibliometric analysis
Samuel Godadaw Ayinaddis (2025). Journal of Innovation & Knowledge.
Plain-English take
The review addresses fragmented evidence and compares tools, implementation and outcomes across firm sizes; detailed synthesized results require the full paper. For a founder, use this as a question to test in your own context, not a universal playbook.
How much weight to give this
2.5/5 Exploratory evidence; interpret cautiously
The 1–5 evidence-check score is a practical reading aid, not a formal peer review or a probability that a conclusion is true. It combines design strength (2 points), sample reporting (1), comparison/control clarity (1), and how much of the paper could be checked (1). Access affects how confidently this directory can assess a study, not the study's underlying quality. Blinding is reported separately because it is not relevant to every design.
Synthesis or analytical design addresses the question, but conclusions depend on included literature or model assumptions.
The accessible source does not report a usable sample size.
The comparison structure is limited or depends on the paper's model/context.
Only publisher abstract/metadata was retrieved; full methods and robustness could not be checked.
Double-blind? Blinding was not established from the captured source; it may not apply to this study design.
Research question
What the authors investigated
How do AI-adoption dynamics and knowledge differ between SMEs and large firms?
Design
Systematic literature review combined with bibliometric analysis of research on firm-size differences in AI adoption and implementation.
Sample and setting
Published literature on SMEs and larger firms; the accessible publisher page does not state the final article count in the scraped excerpt.
Reported result
What the study found
The review addresses fragmented evidence and compares tools, implementation and outcomes across firm sizes; detailed synthesized results require the full paper.
This is a paraphrase of the source. Check the original paper for definitions, estimates, statistical uncertainty and analysis details.
Scope and transfer
Limitations to keep in view
The accessible publisher record supplies the review question and design but not detailed limitations or a complete result table.
Possible founder application
Treat this as evidence for the specific customer behavior and adoption question studied. Compare the setting and sample to your company before changing a growth decision; use a local experiment where the paper does not match your context.
Evidence access
Publisher abstract/metadata retrieved; full text not reviewed
Publisher DOI record and accessible article/abstract directly support the bibliographic record and the summary fields; editorial review remains appropriate for duplicate checking against the unseen 300-study library. Correction notices were not separately verified in this collection; consult the current publisher record before applying the findings.
If only an abstract or metadata was available, the profile is limited to claims supported there. A paper's paywall does not change its evidentiary status, but it limits what we can substantiate from accessible text.