Platforms · Systematic literature review (abstract-only)

Digital entrepreneurial ecosystems: A systematic literature review

Technological Forecasting and Social Change · 2023

Melissa Bejjani, Lutz Göcke, Matthias Menter

Summary

The fetched metadata identifies this peer-reviewed work as addressing digital entrepreneurial ecosystems: a systematic literature review. Detailed findings were not exposed in the fetched abstract.

For your marketing

Possible founder application

Use the study’s platform, complementor, API, ecosystem, open-source, or standards implications to guide governance, partner incentives, integration priorities, and ecosystem experimentation; validate in the founder’s market.

Reported result

What the study found

The fetched metadata identifies this peer-reviewed work as addressing digital entrepreneurial ecosystems: a systematic literature review. Detailed findings were not exposed in the fetched abstract.

Research question

What the authors investigated

How does the study’s stated design explain its reported outcome in this setting?

Design

Systematic literature review (abstract-only)

Sample and setting

Abstract-only; sample/context details were not reported in the fetched metadata.

Scope and transfer

Limitations to keep in view

Abstract/metadata-only evidence; detailed sampling, measures, causal identification, and external-validity limits require the full paper.

Research sources

abstract_only

Study strength

3.5/5 Abstract-level evidence is useful for framing questions; verify full methods before transfer.

How this was assessed

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.

Design transparency · 2/2

Based on the reported study design in the retrieved source.

Sample and setting · 1/1

The sample context is stated; a numerical count is preserved only when reported.

Outcome clarity · 1/1

The finding is summarized from publisher or article metadata.

Access for checking · 0.5/1

Only abstract or bibliographic access was confirmed.

Double-blind? The retrieved publisher record does not establish whether participants or outcome assessors were blinded.

Read the paper