In this perspectives article, we analyze 20 years of research on the topics of “innovation management” and “new product development” in the technology and innovation management (TIM) domain. More specifically, we investigate the questions related to three issues: (i) Performance: Which authors, institutions, countries, journals, and papers have been most productive (number of papers) and most influential (number of citations)? (ii) Networks: What are the links between authors, between countries, between institutions, between journals and co-citation? (iii) Attention: What has been the shift in research attention (i.e., stated keywords) over time? To do this, we use the VOSViewer bibliographic method to assess the domain’s performance and its changes in research attention and present maps of the knowledge structure and networks. Our study adds to and improves upon previous bibliometric reviews in terms of extensivity (i.e., data from 7,612 papers), scope, and accuracy. In addition to the descriptive evaluations of the domain, we also suggest several implications from these results. For performance, we highlight a weak link between productive authors and influential authors, which could be explained by productive authors being part of extensive co-authorship networks, being selective and publishing less but in the highest quality journals, and working in countries with institutions that pioneer research on the topic (and conversely, less influential authors working in countries with an incentive structure that rewards quantity but not quality). Our network results help explain that collaborations are linked to research productivity rather than influential research. Further, our network results reveal collaborations based on country linkages that might create research echo chambers in which research attention is augmented or reinforced by a geographical network. From our results on research attention, we discuss how the dominant keywords are restricted to TIM topics and highly influenced by seminal papers and authors outside the TIM domain. Thus, the field is predominantly inward-looking, drawing from other cognate business and management fields, and hardly drawing from other academic fields. These findings elucidate and extend the concerns other innovation management scholars have raised, noting that the lack of varied and cooperative authorship within the TIM domain has led to stale, repeated methods and metrics in TIM papers, potentially reducing the field’s future influence. We conclude by outlining some adverse implications of our paper. We explain how its evaluations could further produce confirmation biases author and institution standing and motivate publication strategies and incentives that exacerbate research misconduct.

在这篇观点文章中，我们分析了 20 年来在技术与创新管理 (TIM) 领域对“创新管理”和“新产品开发”主题的研究。更具体地说，我们调查与三个问题相关的问题：(i)表现：哪些作者、机构、国家、期刊和论文的生产力（论文数量）和影响力（引用次数）最高？(ii)网络：作者之间、国家之间、机构之间、期刊和共引之间有什么联系？(iii)注意：随着时间的推移，研究注意力（即陈述的关键词）发生了什么变化？为此，我们使用 VOSViewer 书目方法来评估领域的性能及其在研究注意力方面的变化，并呈现知识结构和网络的地图。我们的研究在广泛性（即来自 7,612 篇论文的数据）、范围和准确性方面对先前的文献计量评论进行了补充和改进。除了对领域的描述性评估之外，我们还提出了这些结果的几个含义。为了表现，我们强调了高产作者和有影响力的作者之间的薄弱环节，这可以解释为高产作者是广泛的合着网络的一部分，有选择性，出版较少，但在最高质量的期刊上，并在拥有该主题研究先驱的国家工作（相反，在具有奖励数量而不是质量的激励结构的国家工作的影响力较小的作者）。我们的网络结果有助于解释合作与研究生产力有关，而不是与有影响力的研究有关。此外，我们的网络结果揭示了基于国家联系的合作，这些合作可能会创建研究回音室，其中研究注意力通过地理网络得到增强或加强。根据我们关于研究关注的结果，我们讨论了主导关键词如何被限制在 TIM 主题中，并受到 TIM 领域之外的开创性论文和作者的高度影响。因此，该领域主要是内向的，从其他同源的商业和管理领域中汲取灵感，并且几乎不从其他学术领域借鉴。这些发现阐明并扩展了其他创新管理学者提出的担忧，并指出 TIM 领域内缺乏多样化和合作的作者身份导致 TIM 论文中的方法和指标陈旧、重复，可能会降低该领域的未来影响力。最后，我们概述了我们论文的一些不利影响。我们解释了它的评估如何进一步产生作者和机构地位的确认偏见，并激发了加剧研究不端行为的出版策略和激励措施。可能会降低该领域未来的影响力。最后，我们概述了我们论文的一些不利影响。我们解释了它的评估如何进一步产生作者和机构地位的确认偏见，并激发了加剧研究不端行为的出版策略和激励措施。可能会降低该领域未来的影响力。最后，我们概述了我们论文的一些不利影响。我们解释了它的评估如何进一步产生作者和机构地位的确认偏见，并激发了加剧研究不端行为的出版策略和激励措施。