Introduction

With the rise of the internet in the 1990s, companies such as Google, Facebook, Amazon, Alibaba, and Dropbox, which rely on digital technologies, have emerged as global business giants. The rapid expansion of the digital economy is closely tied to entrepreneurial activities driven by digital technologies, a phenomenon known as digital entrepreneurship, which has broken the boundaries between physical and digital enterprises and become a paradigm of business innovation (Zaheer et al., 2019; Berman et al., 2023; Huang et al., 2017). According to an IDC report, the global digital economy grew by 10.3% between 2020 and 2021, significantly outpacing traditional economic growth (IDC, 2021). During the COVID-19 pandemic, Zoom leveraged digital technologies to meet global remote work demands, while TikTok revolutionized social media business models through algorithmic innovation (Forbes, 2021). McKinsey reports that 58% of enterprises accelerated digital transformation during the pandemic, and Shopify supported 1.5 million small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in establishing digital sales channels, effectively alleviating economic and employment pressures (McKinsey & Company, 2020; Shopify Annual Report, 2021). The critical role of digital entrepreneurship in driving economic growth and social transformation has become increasingly evident (Sahut et al., 2021; Nambisan et al., 2019). Meanwhile, the European Union has introduced the “Digital Europe Program” to promote technological innovation and create 2 million jobs, while China’s “Digital Economy Development Strategy Outline” identifies digital entrepreneurship as a central measure for fostering regional coordination and sustainable development (European Commission, 2020; State Council of China, 2021). Research on digital entrepreneurship not only holds practical significance for advancing economic and social development but also provides valuable insights for future policy formulation and implementation.

The origins of research in digital entrepreneurship can be traced back to investigations into the factors influencing the formation of digital entrepreneurial enterprises (Rosenbaum and Cronin, 1993). Digital entrepreneurship involves organizational innovation utilizing digital technologies (Liu et al., 2024) and is characterized by entrepreneurial activities focused on developing businesses within digital ecosystems such as the Internet of Things (IoT), data security, connectivity solutions, cloud platforms, networking software, management solutions, and smart homes (Song, 2019). It encompasses value creation activities on both existing and new trajectories (industries/paths) (Le Dinh et al., 2018) and fundamentally represents the commercial application and value transformation of digital technology knowledge at the business level (Sussan and Acs, 2017; Elia et al., 2020; Nambisan and Baron, 2021). Current research on digital entrepreneurship primarily focuses on exploring its theoretical logics (Liu et al., 2024; Nambisan and Baron, 2021; Nambisan et al., 2017; Urbinati et al., 2020; Berger et al., 2021), digital business models (Kraus et al., 2019; Sahut et al., 2021; Fernandes et al., 2022), the processes of digital entrepreneurship (Kraus et al., 2019; Sahut et al., 2021), digital ecosystems(Kraus et al., 2019; Sahut et al., 2021; Fernandes et al., 2022), platform strategies (Kraus et al., 2019; Fernandes et al., 2022), entrepreneurship education (Kraus et al., 2019), social digital entrepreneurship (Kraus et al., 2019), the creation of digital startups (Sahut et al., 2021), and empirical analyses of the impact mechanisms of digital entrepreneurship from various perspectives (Liu et al., 2024; Nambisan and Baron, 2021; Von Briel et al., 2018; Vahid et al., 2021). While the field has garnered significant scholarly attention, a systematic and integrative review that synthesizes its key developments, interdisciplinary linkages, and future directions remains lacking, underscoring the necessity for a comprehensive study to advance its theoretical foundation and practical applications.

Building upon the above, we reviewed the existing literature on digital entrepreneurship and identified key characteristics of current research methodologies. Most studies rely on approaches such as bibliometrics, PRISMA methods, and systematic literature reviews (SLR). Scholars predominantly draw data from single databases, such as Business Source Premier, Scopus, or Web of Science, with some occasionally using two databases like Harvard Hollis and Web of Knowledge. Among these, Web of Science and Scopus are the most frequently utilized. However, these reviews often analyze a limited number of articles, typically fewer than 200, which restricts the breadth and depth of their findings. From a research perspective, the literature mainly focuses on established domains within digital entrepreneurship, offering methodological insights and examining developmental trends. As summarized in Table 1, there is no existing study that sufficiently broadens or systematically explores the phenomenon of digital entrepreneurship using a large dataset across multiple databases. This study aims to address this gap by providing an integrated and comprehensive review of 2090 articles, thereby offering a deeper and more expansive understanding of the field.

Table 1 Digital entrepreneurship literature review.
Full size table

The need for reviewing the field of digital entrepreneurship stems from several critical gaps in the existing literature:

  1. (1)

    Over the past 26 years, digital entrepreneurship has seen remarkable growth, with over 937 articles published in Web of Science and 1,160 in Scopus. However, comprehensive reviews that integrate findings from both databases remain limited. This lack of synthesis makes it challenging for scholars and practitioners to fully grasp the field’s current developments, emerging trends, and future trajectories.

  2. (2)

    Digital entrepreneurship is characterized by its diversity, spanning fields such as information systems, innovation, management, policy, and strategy. Despite its interdisciplinary nature, the field inherits the fragmented characteristics of entrepreneurship studies, lacking a unified framework or consensus on its scope and boundaries. A systematic review is essential to address these ambiguities and provide clear guidance for future research.

  3. (3)

    Although digital entrepreneurship is often discussed in relation to specific fields—such as management, engineering, or environmental sciences—and technologies like IT and mobile communication, it is rarely studied as an independent subject. Consequently, its developmental trajectory, research hotspots, and future directions remain insufficiently explored. This review seeks to bridge these gaps by examining the global evolution and interdisciplinary linkages of digital entrepreneurship, offering valuable insights into its foundational elements and practical applications.

Given these considerations, this study adopts bibliometric and content analysis methodologies to systematically examine the field of digital entrepreneurship. Over the past 26 years, digital entrepreneurship has experienced substantial growth. However, there remains a lack of comprehensive understanding regarding its global evolution, interdisciplinary connections, and emerging research directions. To address these gaps, this study is guided by the following objectives:

  1. (1)

    Map the development trajectory of digital entrepreneurship by identifying key milestones and patterns across countries, disciplines, institutions, and Authors.

  2. (2)

    Examine research hotspots and their influence on the progression of the field, highlighting both established and emerging themes.

  3. (3)

    Explore future research frontiers in digital entrepreneurship, providing insights into areas that require further investigation.

  4. (4)

    Construct a foundational framework for digital entrepreneurship by integrating entrepreneurial structure, technology, and strategy, laying a theoretical basis for future studies.

Additionally, this study contributes both theoretically and practically. Theoretically, the study:

  1. (1)

    Is one of the latest literature reviews in the field of digital entrepreneurship and provides a comprehensive framework that enables scholars and entrepreneurs to gain a thorough overview, enhancing their understanding and knowledge of digital entrepreneurship, fostering and aiding interdisciplinary communication;

  2. (2)

    Studies the current state and hotspots of digital entrepreneurship, visually displaying its relationship with other disciplines and themes through charts, creating a multi-dimensional framework for further research.

  3. (3)

    Studies the countries and authors researching digital entrepreneurship, helping to understand the developmental trajectory of the field.

  4. (4)

    Focuses on the past 26 years’ hotspots and corresponding developments in the field of digital entrepreneurship.

  5. (5)

    Explores and summarizes the frontier development areas and trends of digital entrepreneurship, providing new research ideas and identifying more research opportunities, creating a future direction for digital entrepreneurship.

Practically, the study:

  1. (1)

    Provides an objective evaluation and report on the volume of literature in the field of digital entrepreneurship, such as the number of publications, countries, institutions, disciplines, and authors in databases like WoS and Scopus.

  2. (2)

    Highlights the changes in the developmental trajectory of the field, such as changes in countries, disciplines, and main authors.

  3. (3)

    Presents objective and reliable quantitative research results, providing the latest research findings in digital entrepreneurship for research institutions, governments, or scholars.

  4. (4)

    Provides clear pathways for future research to advance and solidify the knowledge in the field of digital entrepreneurship, enabling researchers to use the most advanced insights in their studies.

This paper is structured into six sections. Following this introduction, “Materials and methods” section describes the research methods and provides details of the data used. “Bibliometric analysis results” section presents the bibliometric analysis results, including the investigation of annual publication trends, the introduction of relevant countries, institutions, disciplines, and authors, the analysis of the evolving research focus, and the categorizationof digital entrepreneurship development into three stages. “Fundamental framework for digital entrepreneurship” section establishes a fundamental framework for digital entrepreneurshipthrough an intensive literature review and explores the interactions between the three core segments within this framework. “Discussion” section discusses the theoretical contributions, practical implications, and limitations of this study. Finally, “Conclusions” section summarizes the research findings and provides insights into future research prospects.

Materials and methods

Research methods

Scientific knowledge maps: Also known as scientometrics mapping (Chen, 2017), this is a technique used to reveal relationships among knowledge clusters (Mukherjee et al., 2022), commonly referred to as the visualization of bibliometric networks. Scientific knowledge maps display many implicit and complex relationships between units or groups of knowledge, including networks, structures, interactions, intersections, evolutions, or derivations (Chaomei et al., 2015). These maps can visualize the scientific forefront of a field and provide intuitive information, facilitating researchers’ and users’ understanding of study results and the extraction of value from vast amounts of data (Yue and Zeyuan, 2005).

Bibliometrics

Bibliometrics is a rigorous method used for exploring and analyzing large volumes of scientific data (Khatun et al., 2021), enabling researchers to reveal the development of a specific field and elucidate emerging research directions (Donthu et al., 2021). CiteSpace is a bibliometric analysis tool used to measure literature in a specific field, determine key paths and knowledge turning points in the evolution of topic areas, analyze potential dynamic mechanisms of discipline evolution, and explore the frontier of topic development through a series of visual graphs. This study utilizes CiteSpace software (version 6.2.R4) to construct various scientific knowledge maps, including annual publication counts, distribution graphs of countries, institutions, and disciplines, as well as keyword co-occurrence, clustering clusters, and time zone views, for further analysis of the field of digital entrepreneurship.

Content analysis

Contrary to bibliometric methods, content analysis serves as a qualitative approach designed to enrich the understanding of scholarly texts (Duriau et al., 2007). By grouping studies from the same field, it adeptly identifies trends and overlooked areas, effectively clustering them (Massaro et al., 2016; Gaur and Kumar, 2018). For example, co-word analysis, a specific method of content analysis, utilizes terms from the titles, abstracts, keywords, or entire texts of documents to construct a domain’s conceptual framework (Zupic and Cater, 2015). This technique generates a network of interconnected themes representing the intellectual landscape of the field. Such a network of organized keywords enhances comprehension of emerging research topics (Lanzolla et al., 2020). It also assists in pinpointing emerging fields and formulating evidence-backed recommendations for academics engaged in these areas. Moreover, by integrating content analysis with other evaluative methodologies, such as the structured literature review (SLR) (Massaro et al., 2016; Machado et al., 2022), scholars can evaluate both mature and emerging research themes, identify literature deficiencies, and illuminate pathways for future studies (Machado et al., 2022; Bretas and Alon, 2021).

Data sources

Based on related literature, the primary term for our research is “digital entrepreneurship.” Hence, the following retrieval methods were utilized to obtain the necessary data for analysis:

Given that the first article related to digital entrepreneurship appeared in 1998, both databases started this year for data retrieval, with the search updated to January 14, 2024. Direct searches using the exact keyword “digital entrepreneurship” in both databases yielded insufficient data for a comprehensive and systematic study of the field. Therefore, a broader search was employed, allowing for 1–4 words between “digital” and “entrepreneurship” and using the root forms “digit” and “entrepreneur” for concurrent searches. After retrieval, articles lacking titles, authors, or keywords from WoS and Scopus were manually excluded, and duplicate data were automatically removed using CiteSpace software. The search string in the WoS database was as follows: ((TS = (digital near/4 entrepreneurship)) OR TS = (digit* near/4 entrepreneur*)) AND PY = (1998–2024) AND (DT = (‘ARTICLE’ OR ‘REVIEW’)), retrieving a total of 937 articles. In the Scopus database, the search string was: TITLE-ABS-KEY (digital W/4 entrepreneurship) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (digit* W/4 entrepreneur*) AND (LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE, “ar”) OR LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE, “re”)), yielding 1153 effective articles. These datasets were imported into CiteSpace for duplicate literature removal and relevant literature information analysis.

The rationale for selecting WoS and Scopus for comparative analysis is as follows: Firstly, due to their different scopes and emphases, bibliometric analysis results may vary depending on the database used. Scopus covers more journals and articles than WoS (Singh et al., 2021). WoS primarily includes articles detailing basic research, whereas Scopus encompasses both basic and applied research (Stahlschmidt and Stephen, 2020). Secondly, these databases are the most commonly used in bibliometrics (Mongeon and Paul-Hus, 2016). Using two authoritative databases rather than a single database for bibliometric analysis mitigates bias from relying on a single source (Kraus et al., 2022), allowing for the identification of similarities and differences between WoS and Scopus, thus enhancing the credibility of the results(Yubo et al., 2023). The methodologies and data filtering processes used in this study are illustrated in Fig. 1, as shown below:

Fig. 1
figure 1

Technical roadmap of this paper.

Full size image

Bibliometric analysis results

Annual publication trends

Using Microsoft Excel, a trend graph depicting the number of articles published on digital entrepreneurship over the past 26 years was created, as shown in Fig. 2. From a comparison between the two databases, the annual publication volume in Scopus has consistently exceeded that in WoS from 1998 to 2023, although the difference in their quantities is not substantial. WoS exhibited lower publication volumes with stable variations from 2003 to 2017, whereas Scopus showed similar trends from 1999 to 2015, with a modest increase in publications from 2016 to 2018. Common to both databases, publication volumes began to increase rapidly after 2018, with explosive growth starting in 2021. Overall, the publication trends in both WoS and Scopus show a relatively consistent pattern of increase over the years, reflecting a dynamic development process.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Annual publication trends in digital entrepreneurship—from 1998 to 2023 based on WoS and Scopus data.

Full size image

Notably, digital entrepreneurship was not only unaffected by the global COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns but also stimulated more related research, leading to a faster and more significant increase in publications post-2021. Potential reasons include: firstly, many traditional businesses faced challenges of closure or restricted operations during the pandemic, prompting them to accelerate digital transformation to meet market demands; secondly, the implementation of social distancing and lockdown measures spurred the emergence of numerous online service platforms, such as online education, remote work tools, and video conferencing; lastly, many technology companies accelerated the pace of technological innovation to address new challenges and demands, with technologies like artificial intelligence, big data analytics, and the Internet of Things seeing broader application during the pandemic. These factors have stimulated the development of digital entrepreneurship.

Based on the above, we boldly predict that the growth rate in the field of digital entrepreneurship will continue or slightly decline and the total number of published articles may continue to grow in 2024 and subsequent years. This prediction is based on the fact that the number of articles published in 2023 on both WoS and Scopus shows an upward trend, indicating sustained interest in the field of digital entrepreneurship. Using the same search criteria, the research found 371 articles published on Scopus and 312 on WoS in 2023. It is anticipated that the total number of articles published on Scopus will maintain significant growth in 2024, while the increase in WoS will be more modest.

Country distribution and collaboration

In CiteSpace, “country” was selected as the node type to analyze the distribution and collaboration of digital entrepreneurship among countries, as shown in Figs. 3 and 4. Nodes in the graph represent countries, with node size indicating the number of articles published by that country. Figure 3 displays 93 nodes (N = 93), indicating that the 937 articles in WoS originated from 93 different countries or regions. Figure 4 displays 104 nodes (N = 104), indicating that the 1153 articles in Scopus came from 104 different countries or regions.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Country distribution and collaboration in WoS.

Full size image
Fig. 4
figure 4

Country distribution and collaboration in Scopus.

Full size image

According to Figs. 3, 4, and Table 2, China is represented by the largest node, showing that it has the highest number of publications in both WoS and Scopus, followed by the United States and the United Kingdom. Together, these three countries contribute nearly 40.0% of the total publications in both databases. This leading position can be attributed to several factors. For the USA, its well-established funding systems, such as the National Science Foundation (NSF), prioritize emerging fields like digital entrepreneurship and provide support for interdisciplinary research. The UK benefits from initiatives like Innovate UK, which encourages collaboration between academia and industry, leading to practical applications of research. In the case of China, national policies such as the “Digital Silk Road” and government funding programs have significantly promoted research on digital technologies and digital entrepreneurship. These strategies not only support higher publication volumes but also help shape global research directions by fostering international collaborations and influencing the focus of academic studies in digital entrepreneurship. The linguistic advantage of the USA and the UK, as English-speaking countries, further enhances their dominance, given that WoS and Scopus are primarily English-based databases. The top 10 countries with the most publications are consistent across both databases, reflecting a high level of global influence. At the same time, unique patterns are observed. For instance, Russia appears exclusively in WoS, while Indonesia is unique to Scopus. Scopus’s inclusion of regional journals enhances visibility for countries like Indonesia, which has robust localized research networks. On the other hand, WoS’s focus on high-impact international journals underscores the contributions of countries like Russia, highlighting differences in publication strategies and research priorities.

Table 2 Country distribution in WoS and Scopus.
Full size table

The timeline of research development shows that Germany and the United States began publishing on digital entrepreneurship as early as 2002 and 2003, respectively, followed by Spain, the United Kingdom, and others. China, however, entered this field later in 2016. These findings underscore the leadership of developed countries in laying the groundwork for digital entrepreneurship research over the past 26 years. Meanwhile, countries such as Russia, Germany, France, and India exhibit high centrality (>0.1), as indicated by the purple outer rings in the graphs. This suggests their growing importance in the field, driven by national initiatives and policies aimed at developing their digital ecosystems. For instance, Germany’s focus on digital transformation and Russia’s government-backed innovation programs have helped these countries emerge as key contributors to the global digital entrepreneurship landscape. Collaboration patterns indicate that the USA, the UK, Italy, and Australia are highly connected and collaborate extensively in both WoS and Scopus. These collaborations include academic exchanges and practical partnerships, often supported by multinational projects and co-authored publications. For example, institutions in the USA and the UK frequently partner with industry to align theoretical research with practical applications, driving both academic innovation and industrial growth. Such partnerships not only facilitate the exchange of knowledge but also contribute to addressing real-world challenges in digital entrepreneurship. In contrast, despite China’s leading position in publication volume, its betweenness centrality is low (<0.1), highlighting limited international collaboration. Several factors may contribute to this, including language barriers that restrict broader participation in international academic networks, domestic research priorities that emphasize local development, and geopolitical considerations that influence collaborative strategies. Enhancing China’s international presence through greater participation in global conferences, fostering co-authorship with international scholars, and establishing bilateral research programs could help strengthen its role in global digital entrepreneurship research.

Institutional distribution

In CiteSpace, “institution” was selected as the node type to analyze the distribution and collaboration of digital entrepreneurship among institutions, as shown in Figs. 5 and 6. In WoS, Universidade da Beira Interior published 15 articles, followed by Polytechnic University of Milan with 13, Indian Institute of Management (IIM System) with 11, and University of Naples Federico II with 10, making up a significant proportion. In Scopus, the University of Birmingham published 9 articles, followed by Jilin University with 9 and Tongji University with 8, also holding a high proportion. The institutions University of Birmingham, Indian Institute of Management (IIM System), Jilin University, Tongji University, and University of Turin are common to both databases, showing a high degree of consistency. Additionally, Italy and China are particularly prominent in both WoS and Scopus databases because institutions from these two countries are among the top ten in terms of the number of published articles. According to Table 3, Italy has the most research institutions (3 in WoS and 2 in Scopus), followed by China (2 in WoS and 2 in Scopus), while other countries do not have more than two institutions each. Thus, it is evident that Italian and Chinese institutions are relatively concentrated and leading in research on digital entrepreneurship, playing a crucial role in the development of the field. In contrast, despite the USA ranking second in the number of published articles, no American institution made it into the top ten, indicating that research on digital entrepreneurship in the USA is relatively dispersed and lacks leading institutions. Institutions from Portugal (Universidade da Beira Interior), India (Indian Institute of Management), the UK (University of Birmingham), France (Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique), Australia (Queensland University of Technology and La Trobe University), Russia (University of Johannesburg), and Greece (University of Macedonia) also made it into the top ten, contributing significantly to the field of digital entrepreneurship.

Fig. 5
figure 5

Institutional distribution in WoS.

Full size image
Fig. 6
figure 6

Institutional distribution in Scopus.

Full size image
Table 3 Institutional distribution in WoS and Scopus.
Full size table

Discipline distribution

According to the disciplinary statistics from WoS and Scopus databases, Table 4 displays the distribution of the top ten disciplines in the field of digital entrepreneurship. In WoS, BUSINESS appears 336 times, accounting for 35.86% of the total articles, followed by MANAGEMENT (279, 29.78%), ECONOMICS (93, 9.93%), and ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES (82, 8.75%). In Scopus, Business, Management and Accounting appear 670 times, accounting for 57.76% of the total articles, followed by Social Sciences (488, 42.07%), Economics, Econometrics and Finance (229, 19.74%), and Computer Science (217, 18.71%). Disciplines such as Business, Management, Economics, Environmental Science, and Computer Science are common to both, but there are differences in emphasis: WoS leans more towards green and sustainable sciences, urban planning, and information science, while Scopus tends more toward accounting, social sciences, econometrics and finance, decision sciences, energy, psychology, and arts and humanities. The results also indicate that disciplines like engineering and environmental science occupy a significant proportion of these databases. The fierce market competition and the advocacy for sustainable development force many companies to innovate through technology to improve their production speed and product quality, reduce costs, provide better services, and enhance company reputation. This can only be achieved through effective planning, organizing, and integrating multidisciplinary activities across functional departments, and by effectively integrating new disciplinary knowledge. Effective knowledge in engineering, computer science, and environmental science is crucial for businesses to survive in a competitive environment. Business, management, engineering, computer science, and environmental science have become the top five disciplines in the field of digital entrepreneurship, reflecting the strong cross-disciplinary connections between management disciplines, engineering technologies, and environmental sciences.

Table 4 Discipline distribution in WoS and Scopus.
Full size table

Distribution and collaboration of authors

Using CiteSpace software, co-authorship network maps were generated for both the WoS and Scopus databases to analyze the academic contributions, status, and collaborative relationships of different authors within the field of digital entrepreneurship, as shown in Figs. 7 and 8. In these figures, the larger the font size of the author nodes, the greater the number of publications by that author. Academic collaborations between authors are represented by lines, with stronger relationships indicated by thicker and denser lines. In WoS, the most prolific authors are Cavallo, Angelo; Kraus, Sascha; and Ghezzi, Antonio, each with 8 publications. They are followed by Franco, Mario (7 publications), Ammirato, Salvatore (6), and Dana, Leo-Paul (5). In Scopus, Kraus, S has published 11 articles, followed by Franco, M (7), Dana, L-P (6), and Wang, Y (6). Table 5 lists the top 10 authors from the WoS and Scopus databases, showing that Kraus, Sascha; Ghezzi, Antonio; Franco, Mario; Ammirato, Salvatore; and Dana, Leo-Paul are common to both databases and can be considered authoritative figures in the field. Analyzing the collaborative relationships of these authoritative authors, in WoS, Kraus, Sascha has 8 co-authors, while Ghezzi, Antonio; Franco, Mario; Ammirato, Salvatore; and Dana, Leo-Paul each have 3 co-authors. Notably, Ghezzi, Antonio has a close collaboration with Cavallo, Angelo. In Scopus, Kraus, Sascha has 6 co-authors, Ghezzi, Antonio; Franco, Mario; and Dana, Leo-Paul each have 3 co-authors, and Ammirato, Salvatore has 2 co-authors. It is evident that the results are roughly the same in both databases, and Kraus, Sascha, having the highest number of publications and the most co-authors, is recognized as the most authoritative figure in the field of digital entrepreneurship, engaging in extensive and close research collaborations with other authors.

Fig. 7
figure 7

Co-occurrence of authors in WoS.

Full size image
Fig. 8
figure 8

Co-occurrence of authors in Scopus.

Full size image
Table 5 Distribution and collaboration of Authors in WoS and Scopus.
Full size table

From a temporal perspective, the authoritative figure Kraus, Sascha began researching in the digital entrepreneurship field as early as 2015, laying the foundation for the development of this domain, as shown in Figs. 9 and 10. Between 2017 and 2020, other authoritative figures such as Ghezzi, Antonio, and Ghezzi, A emerged. Since 2021, new authoritative figures like Dana, L-P, and Li, Y have been appearing in the field, suggesting that the future of digital entrepreneurship may witness the emergence of more authoritative figures, potentially bringing more valuable collaboration opportunities and new research findings.

Fig. 9
figure 9

Timeline distribution of authors in WoS.

Full size image
Fig. 10
figure 10

Timeline distribution of authors in Scopus.

Full size image

Keyword analysis

Keyword co-occurrence network analysis

Using CiteSpace, keyword co-occurrence networks were generated for the WoS and Scopus databases to analyze the research focus within the field of digital entrepreneurship, as shown in Figs. 11 and 12. These figures highlight keywords that appeared more than 45 times, where the size of the nodes represents the frequency of occurrence of each keyword, and the thickness of the links illustrates the strength of the relationships between keywords. Larger nodes indicate more frequently occurring keywords; thicker lines suggest stronger relationships between them. In WoS, as shown in Fig. 11, the keywords “digital entrepreneurship,” “innovation,” “technology,” “performance,” and “impact” occupy central positions in the network with the highest frequencies (238, 227, 136, 126, and 101 times, respectively). These keywords are indicative of the mainstream research hotspots in the field of digital entrepreneurship. Other highly utilized keywords include “perspective,” “business,” “management,” “digital transformation,” and “social media.” In Scopus, as depicted in Fig. 12, the keywords “digital entrepreneurship,” “entrepreneurship,” “entrepreneur,” “digitization,” “innovation,” “digital transformation,” and “digital technology” are centrally positioned, with the highest frequencies (242, 220, 137, 121, 105, 93, and 91 times, respectively). Keywords such as “covid 19,” “social media,” “china,” “digital economy,” and “digital innovation” also show very high usage rates.

Fig. 11
figure 11

Keyword co-occurrence network in WoS.

Full size image
Fig. 12
figure 12

Keyword co-occurrence network in Scopus.

Full size image

Table 6 lists the top 20 most frequent keywords in both databases, where the “Year” column indicates the year these keywords first appeared, revealing the research evolution within the digital entrepreneurship field. The listed keywords span multiple domains, including business, enterprise management, strategy, information technology, and digitization. Comparing the top 20 keywords in WoS and Scopus, the following are common to both: “digital entrepreneurship,” “innovation,” “technology,” “digital transformation,” “social media,” and “entrepreneurship.

Table 6 Top 20 most frequent keywords.
Full size table

Table 7 lists the top 20 keywords with the highest centrality in both databases, where keyword centrality reveals the significance of the keywords in research. In WoS, no keyword has a centrality ≥0.1, with “impact” and “management” having the highest centrality at 0.09, followed by “digital innovation,” “community,” and “innovation” with centralities of 0.08, 0.08, and 0.07, respectively. In Scopus, keywords with a centrality ≥0.1 include “entrepreneurship,” “entrepreneur,” “digital entrepreneurship,” “information technology,” “innovation,” and “competition,” with centralities of 0.36, 0.23, 0.12, 0.11, 0.10, and 0.10, respectively. Higher centrality values indicate that these keywords are central to converging research themes and active research within the domain of digital entrepreneurship.

Table 7 Top 20 keywords with the highest centrality.
Full size table

From this comprehensive analysis, it is evident that “entrepreneurship,” “technology,” and “strategy” are the three standout keywords in the research field of digital entrepreneurship.

Keyword clustering analysis

Using CiteSpace for keyword clustering analysis, hotspots within the field of digital entrepreneurship were identified, providing insight into prevailing research themes in this area. The clustering method applied to the WoS database was the LSI algorithm, while the LLR algorithm was used for the Scopus database. Based on the automatic clustering results, which were refined using cluster labels from the keyword timeline maps, final clustering outcomes were obtained. Figure 13’s clustering parameter, Modularity Q, is 0.402, which is greater than 0.3, and the Mean Silhouette is 0.7273, which is greater than 0.7, indicating that the clustering structure is significant and the results are highly reliable. Figure 14’s parameters show a Modularity Q of 0.5164 and a Mean Silhouette of 0.7706, also indicating significant and reliable clustering results. The detailed information is shown in Table A1.

Fig. 13
figure 13

Keyword clustering in WoS.

Full size image
Fig. 14
figure 14

Keyword clustering in Scopus.

Full size image

In the WoS database, as shown in Fig. 13, the cluster #0 “digital entrepreneurship” is centrally positioned within the network, illustrating its pivotal role from which other clusters have gradually formed. In the Scopus database, as depicted in Fig. 14, cluster #0 “entrepreneurial ecosystem” occupies a central position, showing that these clusters are highly influential. It is evident that the clusters #digital entrepreneurship, #entrepreneurship, #entrepreneur are common to both databases. By summarizing the clustering results, digital entrepreneurship in WoS is categorized into digital ecosystems, digital transformation, digital technologies, entrepreneurs, and value creation. In Scopus, it is divided into digital ecosystems, sustainable development, digital platforms, entrepreneurs, and SMEs.

By comparing keywords and clustering results, it is evident that the focal points of digital entrepreneurship mainly concentrate on the following aspects:

Digital entrepreneurship ecosystems

Over the years, many governments have recognized the importance of digital entrepreneurship and have started to formulate policies to support and promote it, making digital entrepreneurship ecosystems a focus for policymakers and researchers. Academically, digital entrepreneurship ecosystems are complex and intriguing subjects involving multiple disciplines, such as economics, sociology, environmental science, and computer science, providing rich research topics and challenges.

Digital technology: From a data-driven decision-making perspective, digital technology allows companies to collect and analyze vast amounts of data to make better business decisions. Digital technology also automates many traditional manual tasks, thus enhancing efficiency and productivity. For instance, using artificial intelligence and machine learning, companies can automate their customer service, sales, and marketing activities.

Entrepreneurs

With the widespread adoption of the internet and mobile devices, digitalization offers entrepreneurs a broad market and numerous opportunities. They can use digital technology to innovate and provide new products and services to meet consumer demands. Moreover, compared to traditional physical businesses, the costs of digital entrepreneurship are usually lower.

Sustainable development

Sustainable development is crucial for businesses because digitalization, finance, and technology are key strategic and competitive elements for business survival and growth. ICT can improve resource efficiency, reduce waste, and support sustainable business practices. However, resources for SMEs in this regard are often limited, making sustainable development a research hotspot. Additionally, sustainable development often requires changes in strategy and structure, so when businesses undergo digital transformation, choosing the right strategy and leveraging it to develop new digital business models to drive continuous development becomes a hot topic.

Keyword timeline analysis

Using CiteSpace, keyword co-occurrence networks were generated for the WoS and Scopus databases to analyze the research focus within the field of digital entrepreneurship, as shown in Figs. 15 and 16. Each node in the graph represents a hotspot topic. Larger nodes indicate higher academic attention and frequency of occurrence, while the connections between keyword nodes demonstrate the progression and continuity of research themes. Additionally, Tables 8–10 list the top 5 keywords from three distinct stages of development in digital entrepreneurship.

Fig. 15
figure 15

Keyword timeline in WoS.

Full size image
Fig. 16
figure 16

Keyword timeline in Scopus.

Full size image
Table 8 Top 10 keywords from 1998–2017.
Full size table
Table 9 Top 10 keywords from 2018–2020.
Full size table
Table 10 Top 10 keywords from 2021 onwards.
Full size table

From Fig. 15, initial hot topics related to digital entrepreneurship in 2003 included “performance,” “perspective,” “strategy,” and “dynamic capability.” By 2006, the research focus shifted to “impact” and “management,” further evolving the concept of digital entrepreneurship. In 2011, “technology” emerged as a key driver, followed by extensive research on “innovation” in 2014, which led to the formal introduction of “digital entrepreneurship” as a prominent topic by 2015. This period also highlighted “social media,” “internet,” and “opportunity,” indicating the significant impact of social media and the internet in providing platforms for online entrepreneurship. The keyword “firms” suggests a focus on micro-level impacts. In 2017, prominent topics included “creation,” “capability,” and “gender”; by 2018, “knowledge” and “information technology” became prevalent, highlighting the growing need for digital skills across businesses and individuals. By 2019, “business,” “digital transformation,” “entrepreneurship,” “business models,” and “growth” dominated discussions, linking digital entrepreneurship directly with economic growth and corporate digital transformation. The year 2020 focused on “transformation,” reflecting the business adaptations required due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Over the past three years, emerging topics such as “digital technology,” “models,” “information systems,” “bibliometric analysis,” “network,” “moderating role,” and “big data analytics” have become prevalent, mainly concerning the impacts of digital entrepreneurship.

From Fig. 16, the initial hot topics in 1999 were “competitiveness,” “design,” and “digital printing,” followed by “competition” in 2002, reflecting the growing need for competitiveness. By 2003, “information technology” became a focal point, leading to “entrepreneurship” in 2006, which laid the groundwork for “digital entrepreneurship.” Since 2007, both “entrepreneurship” and “digital entrepreneurship” have dominated the field. By 2011, “digital technology” and “digital economy” gained prominence, showing the economic impact of digital entrepreneurship. In 2013, “digital innovation” surged, followed by “entrepreneur” and “innovation” in 2014, reflecting the entrepreneurial response to digital technology adoption. The year 2015 marked the rise of “social media” within digital entrepreneurship, further popularizing this field. In 2016, “China” became a focus due to government initiatives promoting digital innovation. In 2017, “entrepreneurial ecosystem” highlighted the role of supportive environments in fostering entrepreneurship. By 2018, “digital platforms” and “technology” became key due to the rise of platforms like Amazon and Facebook. The years 2019 and 2020 saw “digitization” and “digital transformation” as critical, driven by ongoing digital advancements and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, with “covid 19” and “sustainability” emerging as significant topics due to the need for adaptive and sustainable business strategies. Over the past three years, new research topics such as “social entrepreneurship,” “ecosystems,” “information and communication technology,” “bibliometric analysis,” “business model innovation,” and “entrepreneurial activity” have surfaced, mostly relating to the effects of digital entrepreneurship.

To facilitate analysis and understanding of the evolutionary trends in digital entrepreneurship, the period from 1998 to 2023 is broadly divided into three stages. The initial stage, spanning from 1998 to 2017, is characterized by a focus on the definition, behaviors, impacts, and technologies associated with digital entrepreneurship. During this phase, the top five keywords in WoS were “digital entrepreneurship,” “innovation,” “technology,” “performance,” and “impact,” and in Scopus were “digital entrepreneurship,” “entrepreneurship,” “entrepreneur,” “innovation,” and “digital technology,” with “digital entrepreneurship” being common to both databases. This stage marks the inception of digital entrepreneurship as a distinct field of study.

The second stage extends from 2018 to 2020, during which there was a shift towards multidisciplinary studies on business and its related aspects within digital entrepreneurship. The top five keywords in WoS during this period were “business,” “digital transformation,” “knowledge,” “entrepreneurship,” and “business models”; in Scopus, they were “digitization,” “digital transformation,” “covid 19,” “digital platforms,” and “sustainability,” with “digital transformation” being a common focus. This period also saw sustainable development emerge as a crucial theme, driven by the pressing global challenges of population growth, energy demands, and environmental pollution, highlighting the necessity for sustainability in digital entrepreneurship. Additionally, the emergence of e-commerce platforms during the COVID-19 pandemic shifted research focus towards digital platforms.

The third stage, from 2021 onward, is marked by a significant increase in the volume of literature and an expansion in the scope of research within the field. This stage saw the emergence of studies on “social entrepreneurship,” “information and communication technology,” “students,” “bibliometric analysis,” “artificial intelligence,” and more, indicating that digital entrepreneurship is extending into diverse areas including societal impacts and education. Notably, the integration of digital entrepreneurship with emerging technologies such as information and communication technology and artificial intelligence signifies robust development in the field with increasing impactful outcomes.

Fundamental framework for digital entrepreneurship

Cornerstones

Through the content analysis of co-occurrence, clustering, and timeline graphs of prominent authors and keywords, it was observed that the genesis of digital entrepreneurship research stemmed from “entrepreneurship” around 2006, extensively covering all major aspects of entrepreneurial theory and frameworks (Zaheer et al., 2019). From this observation, we infer that the entrepreneurship framework serves as a critical theoretical foundation for digital entrepreneurship research. By 2011, as various technologies gained prominence, information technology and digital technology emerged as focal points for researchers in this field. Challenges such as how businesses use digital entrepreneurship to create value for potential customers, capture value shares, and pursue innovation have continually influenced enterprises, especially under the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. This influence has gradually led to a realization of the importance of articulating the right entrepreneurial strategies. Consequently, post-2019, topics like digital transformation and other digital entrepreneurship strategies began to garner significant attention from researchers. Overall, the entrepreneurship structure, technology, and strategy form the three pillars of digital entrepreneurship research, as depicted in Fig. 17.

Fig. 17
figure 17

Cornerstones of digital entrepreneurship.

Full size image

Fundamental framework

Initially, we established a preliminary framework for digital entrepreneurship based on three fundamental pillars: entrepreneurial structure, technology, and strategy. Using CiteSpace software, we filtered keywords derived from digital entrepreneurship literature, selecting those frequently mentioned or particularly representative. These keywords were then organized and categorized. We then conducted an in-depth content analysis of 75 key articles related to these terms, including highly cited studies within the field, allowing us to gain a detailed understanding of the segments within the overall framework of digital entrepreneurship. This process facilitated further refinements and enhancements, culminating in a comprehensive framework for digital entrepreneurship.

Entrepreneurship structure

Based on our research and a content analysis of the literature, we posit that the structure of digital entrepreneurship encompasses types of digital entrepreneurship, directions, factors, and capabilities, with more detailed explanations of these themes provided below:

  1. (1)

    Types of digital entrepreneurship:

  • Defined as a process focused on creating social value for humanity and communities, it is often seen as entrepreneurial efforts aimed at improving the status of marginalized and disadvantaged groups (Alvord et al., 2004; Mair and Martí, 2006; Martin and Osberg, 2007). Digital social entrepreneurship acts as a bridge between stakeholder needs and digital social initiatives (Ibáñez et al., 2022). Recent studies highlight how digital entrepreneurial narratives embed social entrepreneurship elements into authentic or fictional scenarios, creating immersive experiences that attract attention and build shared social values. Realistic narratives foster a sense of shared purpose, while fictional narratives offer alternative paths to capturing attentional resources (Zhao et al., 2023).

  • Women entrepreneurship: Recognized as a critical factor for economic development (Acs et al., 2005; Sharma, 2018), there is a growing emphasis on research into how women entrepreneurs are increasingly adapting to digital work (Rajahonka and Villman, 2019; Sharafizad, 2016) and becoming digital entrepreneurs (Dy et al., 2017). Beyond digital adaptation, recent studies show that women entrepreneurs’ innovativeness significantly enhances entrepreneurial performance, mediated by opportunity identification and psychological capital, while gender stereotypes negatively affect these processes (Huang et al., 2022). Recent research has also explored the intersection of women’s entrepreneurship and innovation, highlighting the untapped potential and the need to rethink “innovation” to build a more inclusive entrepreneurial ecosystem (Mari et al., 2024).

  • Social media entrepreneurship: A new type of entrepreneurship conducted via social networking sites (Brahem and Boussema, 2023), where digital technologies provide new learning spaces like online communities, enabling entrepreneurs to conduct business and learn entrepreneurship skills via social media (Schou et al., 2022). Recent studies show that social media not only connects entrepreneurs with potential customers and enhances brand awareness but also supports sustainable entrepreneurship by fostering ecosystem thinking and enabling advanced data analysis tools like machine learning (Gupta et al., 2024).

  • Academic entrepreneurship: Defined as the process by which universities engage in entrepreneurial activities to realize their entrepreneurial visions (O’Shea et al., 2004; Shane, 2004; Rasmussen et al., 2015). Recent developments in digital transformation necessitate a revised focus on academic entrepreneurship, highlighting digitalization. New propositions introduce digital academic entrepreneurship, characterized by the extensive use of new digital technologies to enhance forms of academic entrepreneurship, such as developing digital products and alumni startups, creating and enhancing entrepreneurial talents with support from digital platforms, and conducting innovative activities beyond local regions (Rippa and Secundo, 2019).

  • Rural entrepreneurship: Defined as creating new organizations, introducing new products, services, or markets, or utilizing new technologies in rural areas (Wortman, 1990). The ICT revolution empowers rural e-commerce, elevating rural development in China to a new level, with internet opportunities providing new vitality to existing rural industries, and migrant workers becoming transformers of rural digital transformation (He, 2019).

  • Corporate entrepreneurship: Digital technologies are redesigning traditional methods for large and established organizations to explore and exploit entrepreneurial opportunities, reshaping traditional corporate entrepreneurship (Satalkina and Steiner, 2020), and making it increasingly robust and productive (Arvidsson and Mønsted, 2018).

  1. (2)

    Directions of digital entrepreneurship:

  • Digital business models: Current research studies entrepreneurial opportunities, strategic formulation, and entrepreneurial processes within frameworks of business models, agile, and lean startup methodologies (Zaheer et al., 2019). Scholars have explored the role of business models in the innovation processes of digital startups (Doganova and Eyquem-Renault, 2009). For rapid revenue growth and global expansion, digital startups need to innovate their business models during the scaling phase (Cavallo et al., 2023).

  • Digital entrepreneurship ecosystems: The concept of digital entrepreneurship ecosystems, a new addition (Elia et al., 2020), is defined as a combination of various elements within a region that supports the growth of startups pursuing opportunities brought by digital technologies (Du et al., 2018). Collective collaboration efforts among “digital species” can overcome the resource limitations of individual companies, accelerating the creation of digital startups (Li et al., 2017).

  • Digital entrepreneurship processes: Numerous articles in digital entrepreneurship research explore the developmental process of digital entrepreneurship, summarizing the development of digital business models (Le et al., 2018) and the history of digital entrepreneurship (Kollmann et al., 2022) into three main stages.

  • Digital capabilities: Defined as the ability to utilize digital technologies to create value (DeLone et al., 2018; Warner and Wäger, 2019), current mainstream research explores digital capabilities from both organizational and individual perspectives (Salamzadeh et al., 2021). These capabilities significantly influence how digital technologies are applied within businesses (Li et al., 2023). There are also studies assessing the acquisition of digital entrepreneurship by students during their university studies and the impact of different socio-demographic characteristics on their digital entrepreneurship(Simovic et al., 2023).

  1. (3)

    Factors of digital entrepreneurship:

  • Determining factors: Essential prerequisites for digitalization include dynamic changes in business transformation, innovation in digital business models, and affordability of digital commerce (Satalkina and Steiner, 2020).

  • Success factors: Researchers recognize that artificial intelligence (Fernandes et al., 2022), entrepreneurial orientation (Wang, 2020), and entrepreneurial ecosystems (Nambisan and Baron, 2021) play crucial roles in enhancing company performance and growth. Additional factors such as measures against uncertainty, process optimizations, effective outcomes, resources, skilled entrepreneurs, a strong entrepreneurial image, internal and external funding, and artificial intelligence (Fernandes et al., 2022) are considered vital for the success of digital entrepreneurship.

Entrepreneurial technology

In the field of entrepreneurship, digital technology is manifested through digital products, digital platforms, digital infrastructure, and information technology (Nambisan, 2017). Based on this classification, research on technology is divided into two types: enabling means and technological attributes:

  1. (1)

    Enabling means:

  • Information Technology: IT has catalyzed numerous new opportunities (Kondratieff and Stolper, 1935), transforming society, the economy, and industries globally. IT serves four main roles in entrepreneurial operations: as a facilitator, a mediator for startup operations, a result of entrepreneurial operations, and as an omnipresent element within the business model itself (Steininger, 2019). Specific information technologies like artificial intelligence, big data, and blockchain are examined for their potential to drive entrepreneurship by enhancing automation capabilities and predictive power at various stages of the entrepreneurial process (Shane and Venkataraman, 2000).

  • Digital platforms: Defined as sets of digital resources that enable interactions between external producers and consumers to create (Parker et al., 2016). Research on digital platforms typically involves a systematic analysis of their structure and governance, with a focus on how digital entrepreneurs strategize, benefit from, and mitigate risks associated with these platforms (Srinivasan and Venkatraman, 2018). There have also been studies of how digital platforms affect the performance of start-ups using a structural equation model based on entrepreneurial bricolage and environmental strategy performance theory (Usman and Sun, 2023).

  • Digital infrastructure: Digital infrastructure refers to the technological tools and systems that support communication, collaboration, and computing essential for innovation and entrepreneurship, including cloud computing, data analytics, and digital maker spaces (Nambisan, 2017). These infrastructures are critical for the effective operation of businesses and industries (Tilson et al., 2010). Recent studies emphasize the dynamic nature of digital infrastructures, where systems interconnect and evolve through parallel, competitive, or spanning processes, forming diverse infrastructure models such as silofied, regenerated, or unified systems (Fürstenau et al., 2019). Moreover, digital infrastructures act as external enablers, enhancing knowledge acquisition and transformation to drive entrepreneurial innovation. They provide resources for overcoming constraints and accessing broader markets, which is vital for creating inclusive and sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems (Saeedikiya et al., 2024).

  • Digital products: These are digital components, applications, or media content that form parts of new products or services, offering specific functions or value to end-users (Ekbia, 2009; Kallinikos et al., 2013). The integration of information with its physical form, as seen in smart devices, extends to various products and services like apps on smartwatches and the Amazon Dash button (Lusch and Nambisan, 2015), creating vast opportunities for entrepreneurs across different industries (Porter and Heppelmann, 2014).

  1. (2)

    Technological attributes:

  • Reprogrammability: Reprogrammability refers to the capability of digital technologies to be accessed and modified by entities external to the object controlling its own behavior (Kallinikos et al., 2013). This attribute transforms how organizations create, deliver, and capture value (Autio et al., 2021).

  • Recombinability: Recombinability involves the ability to associate with and develop other digital products or components (Nambisan, 2017). By separating content from the medium, digital components can access and combine data and functions from different sources, transcending industry, market, and product boundaries (Yoo et al., 2010).

  • Generativity: Generativity describes the potential of digital technologies to facilitate innovation inputs by a broad audience without the need for explicit prompting or coordination (Autio et al., 2018). This attribute is crucial for analyzing the cascading effects produced by the continually evolving boundaries of digital entrepreneurship initiatives, enriching the diversity and intensity of entrepreneurial opportunities (Nambisan, 2017).

Entrepreneurial strategy

We have broken down the entrepreneurial strategy into 6 segments as follows:

  • Venture capital: Ventures are essential for innovation within companies, making venture capital a significant component of the overall innovation strategy (Dushnitsky and Lenox, 2005), crucial for fostering high-growth in entrepreneurship (Bustamante Viveros, Mingo del Rio (2023)). Recent trends show that digital entrepreneurship in venture capital has gained broad attention. Some scholars view digital entrepreneurship as a quality signal that increases the success rate of securing venture capital from financial institutions and enriches the signaling mechanism in entrepreneurial finance (Liu et al., 2023). Others argue that venture capital can embrace the spirit of Industry 4.0 digital entrepreneurship to support sustainable development goals comprehensively (Popkova et al., 2021).

  • Sustainable development: Entrepreneurship, a multifaceted and evolving process, faces challenges like environmental uncertainty and resource limitations (Daradkeh, 2023). Digitalization plays a pivotal role in achieving the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals. Without transforming existing businesses, economic and environmental challenges cannot be addressed sustainably (Bican and Brem, 2020). Multi-case analysis of successful digital enterprises in Italy has shown that knowledge and resource networks are vital for maintaining new business development and success (Passaro et al., 2020). Furthermore, the adaptation of entrepreneurs to the digital environment is crucial for the future of enterprises, as evidenced by various management approaches adopted for digital sustainability in Romania (Nicolau et al., 2022). Open innovation pathways, by fostering collaboration with external stakeholders, support sustainable innovation and market expansion, though they may also pose risks such as exposing sensitive information to external partners (Camilleri et al., 2023).

  • Digital transformation: Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, digital transformation has experienced a significant boom, with more individuals engaging in digital entrepreneurship (DE) (Moh’d Anwer, 2024). Research in this area explores how digital transformation can facilitate entrepreneurship, innovation, and social outputs (Audretsch et al., 2023). Studies on the intrinsic mediation mechanisms and contextual conditions between digital transformation and disruptive innovation reveal that digital transformation in entrepreneurial firms positively impacts disruptive innovation, with inter-organizational collaboration mediating this relationship (Pang and Wang, 2023). Moreover, digital transformation can be understood as a continuous socio-structural change that influences organizations’ ability to create new value (Saeedikiya et al., 2025). This perspective highlights that digital transformation extends beyond technological advancements to encompass profound organizational and societal transformations, offering novel opportunities for value creation.

  • Digital options: Emphasizing that organizations must continually identify and develop feasible options to generate new value (Sandberg et al., 2014), digital options arise from current capabilities, future environmental opportunities, and associated uncertainties (Rolland et al., 2018). Information technology is pivotal as a generator of digital options in contemporary enterprises (Sambamurthy et al., 2003).

  • Value creation: Value Creation: Entrepreneurial activities are potent sources of value creation (Carree and Thurik, 2010; Audretsch et al., 2015) and are seen as channels for achieving social justice and escaping poverty. Research focusing on the adoption of digital technologies within digital entrepreneurship ecosystems indicates enhanced innovation activities and firm performance during market entry stages (Audretsch et al., 2015). Furthermore, digital technologies integrated within entrepreneurial ecosystems play a crucial role in reshaping traditional value-creation models, fostering innovation, and enabling entrepreneurs to overcome resource constraints and access broader markets (Saeedikiya et al., 2025).

  • Smart cities: Defined as urban development models emphasizing the utilization of human, social, and technological capabilities to promote regional development (Angelidou, 2014). Research is increasingly integrating smart cities with sustainable development, exploring how new entrepreneurial models and methods in smart cities enhance capabilities, sustainability, and business development (Dana et al., 2022). It has also been argued that smart city construction offers a digital dividend for developing green innovation and creating an efficient, sustainable environment (Sun, 2024).

Analysis of interactions between different segments

We have analyzed the interactions among the three main segments: entrepreneurial structure, entrepreneurial technology, and entrepreneurial strategy.

Interaction between entrepreneurial structure and technology: The evolution of digital technologies has played a crucial role in driving changes in entrepreneurial structures. For instance, the widespread adoption of cloud computing, blockchain, and Internet of Things (IoT) technologies has not only significantly reduced the operating costs of startups but also redefined resource allocation methods and business models (Von Briel et al., 2018; Elia et al., 2020). These technologies empower entrepreneurial activities, fostering the emergence of numerous innovative and digital startups, thus injecting new vitality into traditional entrepreneurial models (Nambisan et al., 2019). For example, cloud platforms provide on-demand computing resources, enabling startups to launch complex technical projects with minimal initial investment. Similarly, the decentralized nature of blockchain technology offers startups greater transparency and security in their transactions (Karimi and Walter, 2021; Chalmers et al., 2020). At the same time, the reciprocal influence of entrepreneurial structures on the evolution of digital technologies should not be overlooked. Start-ups, with their flexibility and innovative capabilities, often serve as key drivers for optimizing digital technologies (Sambamurthy et al., 2003). In particular, new organizational models, such as virtual teams, platform-based enterprises, and the sharing economy, create specific entrepreneurial demands that directly accelerate the development and application of these technologies. For instance, the demand from remote collaborative teams for digital collaboration tools has expedited the development of such technologies (Gregori and Holzmann, 2020). While existing research largely focuses on the impact of technologies on entrepreneurial structures, the mechanisms through which entrepreneurial structures shape technological development remain underexplored (Fitzgerald et al., 2014).

Interaction between entrepreneurial structure and strategy: The interaction between entrepreneurial structure and strategy is a critical issue in digital entrepreneurship research. Studies have shown that entrepreneurial structures have a direct impact on the formulation of corporate strategies. For example, the hierarchical setup, cultural characteristics, and resource allocation of an organization significantly influence its strategic priorities. Entrepreneurial theory emphasizes that by effectively designing and adjusting entrepreneurial structures, companies can better address the challenges of digital transformation and enhance their competitive advantage (Verma et al., 2023). Additionally, distributed decision-making mechanisms, open innovation models, and team collaboration capabilities are increasingly playing vital roles in strategic design (Nambisan et al., 2019). Conversely, the development of corporate strategies can also drive changes in entrepreneurial structures. Digital transformation strategies not only improve operational efficiency through the integration of technologies but also reshape organizational processes to create new value-added models (Gregori and Holzmann, 2020; Karimi and Walter, 2021). For instance, data-driven digital business models have increasingly become essential pathways for companies pursuing sustainable development (Tohănean et al., 2020; Fitzgerald et al., 2014). Furthermore, dynamic strategic adjustments supported by real-time data analytics enable companies to adapt more flexibly to market changes while optimizing resource allocation and process management (Teece et al., 2016). Although existing research has explored the bidirectional relationship between entrepreneurial structures and strategies, the mechanisms through which strategies drive structural innovation remain underexamined. For example, how strategy-driven approaches expand organizational boundaries, effectively integrate innovative resources, and adapt structures within complex entrepreneurial ecosystems to better serve strategic objectives are questions that merit further investigation.

Mutual influences between entrepreneurial technology and strategy: The interaction between entrepreneurial technology and corporate strategy holds a significant position in digital entrepreneurship research. Studies have shown that digital technologies play a critical role in direct investment strategies for businesses. For instance, platforms integrating AI and blockchain not only help startups overcome early challenges such as financing, trust, and operations but also greatly enhance resource allocation efficiency (Chalmers et al., 2020). Moreover, information technology, as a vital tool for modern enterprises, is considered a key enabler for strategic decision-making. By generating diverse digital options, it provides businesses with greater flexibility in their strategic choices (Sambamurthy et al., 2003). Additionally, the application of cloud computing technology has further strengthened the dynamic adaptability of enterprises. For example, cloud-based resource allocation models enable businesses to rapidly adjust their operations to respond to changing market conditions (Fitzgerald et al., 2014). In contrast to the extensive research on the influence of technology on strategy, there is a lack of studies examining how entrepreneurial strategies shape the development of technology. Corporate strategies often dictate the direction of technological development. For example, to meet specific market demands or achieve commercial objectives, businesses frequently drive the development of customized technologies (Cheng et al., 2023). Furthermore, strategic adjustments have a profound impact on the construction of technological ecosystems. For instance, in platform strategies, businesses promote modular technology design and cross-industry applications, fostering technological collaboration and innovation. This strategy-led technological development path has been validated across multiple industries in practice (Teece et al., 2016). As digital technologies become increasingly integrated into business operations, exploring the mechanisms through which entrepreneurial strategies guide technological development is crucial.

These insights have been synthesized to construct a comprehensive digital entrepreneurship framework, illustrated in Fig. 18.

Fig. 18
figure 18

Fundamental framework of digital entrepreneurship.

Full size image

Discussion

Findings

Digital entrepreneurship represents a significant direction in research, impacting various fields through its interdisciplinary depth. For example, scholars have applied development models based on design science to enhance lean startup methodologies (Bosch et al., 2013), and others have developed ecosystem maturity models to assist cities in fostering vibrant entrepreneurial ecosystems (Cukier et al., 2015). From a disciplinary standpoint, digital entrepreneurship research incorporates theoretical insights from management and other social sciences, including media studies, psychology, sociology, and information systems (Zaheer et al., 2019). Therefore, conducting sustainable research on digital entrepreneurship is not only a societal necessity but also reflects a major trend in the evolution of our era.

In this context, this article employs CiteSpace bibliometric software to review 937 articles on digital entrepreneurship from WoS and 1153 from Scopus over the past 26 years. The study begins by charting the annual volume of publications and proceeds to analyze the distribution across countries, institutions, and scientific collaborations. It identifies three key terms through co-occurrence analysis: “entrepreneurship,” “technology,” and “strategy.” The developmental trajectory of digital entrepreneurship is segmented into three periods: an initial phase (1998–2017), an exploratory phase (2018–2020), and a rapid growth phase (post-2021). Additionally, integrating keyword analysis with seminal works, the study identifies five future research avenues: types and directions of digital entrepreneurship, digital ecosystems, digital transformation with sustainability, and applications of digital technology. Moreover, through the classification and content analysis of keywords, a comprehensive framework for digital entrepreneurship is built around three core pillars: structural, technical, and strategic components.

The contributions of this research are manifold:

Firstly, it addresses the previously noted lack of comprehensive and systematic exploration in digital entrepreneurship by mapping its evolution since 1998 into distinct phases using CiteSpace. This fills a notable gap in the literature and addresses previous shortcomings in temporal analysis.

Secondly, through keyword analytics, this research examines the status quo and developmental trajectories within digital entrepreneurship, delineating current research focal points and future directions, thereby guiding subsequent inquiries.

Thirdly, this research synthesizes foundational theories of digital entrepreneurship into a coherent framework from an extensive literature review, providing a robust theoretical base for ongoing studies and policy formulation.

Future directions

Firstly, given the diversity and interdisciplinary nature of digital entrepreneurship, future research should further explore its various forms, such as digital social entrepreneurship, women’s entrepreneurship, and rural entrepreneurship. These studies could investigate the driving factors, success elements, and societal impacts by analyzing case studies of successful digital enterprises, particularly focusing on value-creation processes and competitive advantages. Secondly, as digital entrepreneurship research is still at a nascent stage, there is a lack of comprehensive synthesis of its current themes. Existing studies often categorize the field into digital business models, entrepreneurial processes, platforms, ecosystems, and education. Future research should refine these categories while integrating emerging topics such as sustainability, inclusivity, and digital transformation to develop a more structured framework. Thirdly, the concept of digital entrepreneurship ecosystems remains underexplored in academic literature. Future efforts should aim to define these ecosystems, identify their essential components, and examine the dynamic interactions between various digital entities within them. Fourthly, in response to the continued advancement of digital technologies and the aftermath of COVID-19, traditional businesses are increasingly embracing digital transformation to sustain competitiveness. Future studies could focus on successful digital transformation strategies, resource allocation, and organizational innovation within digitally advanced firms, which could serve as practical references for traditional businesses. Additionally, examining how digital transformation aligns with sustainable development goals would provide deeper insights into the role of digital entrepreneurship in addressing economic and environmental challenges. Lastly, emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence, big data, and blockchain are reshaping entrepreneurial processes. Future research should examine their impact on decision-making, organizational structures, and the evolution of digital ecosystems, offering new insights into the future of digital entrepreneurship.

Limitations

Although we employed a relatively comprehensive bibliometric approach, comparing literature from the WoS and Scopus databases to reduce biases from using a single database, it should be emphasized that the conclusions drawn are specifically based on the WoS and Scopus databases, not including all databases within a limited timeframe. On the other hand, it may not be possible to cover all relevant publications on digital entrepreneurship comprehensively. Future research could consider using a broader range of databases to collect data for long-term comparison and systematic literature review analysis of this topic. Additionally, the methods used in this study are generic, presenting a broader panorama of the field rather than a deep analysis of digital entrepreneurship content. Moreover, the issue of duplicate articles in WoS and Scopus could also introduce certain biases to the results; due to methodological and temporal limitations, eliminating such duplications is challenging. Scholars are advised to find more suitable methods in future research to address this limitation and enhance the accuracy of bibliometric analyses. Despite these limitations, this study provides a multi-dimensional perspective, showcasing the evolutionary process of digital entrepreneurship research and offering important insights for relevant researchers, policymakers, and practitioners.

Conclusions

This study has leveraged scientific knowledge maps, bibliometric analysis, and content analysis, utilizing CiteSpace software with data from the WoS and Scopus databases to construct a series of scientific knowledge maps for digital entrepreneurship spanning from 1998 to January 14, 2024. These maps analyze the current state, hotspots, and evolutionary trends of digital entrepreneurship and aid in constructing a fundamental framework for this field.

Current state of digital entrepreneurship

Digital entrepreneurship has exhibited similar evolutionary processes in both WoS and Scopus databases. Initially, the number of published articles grew slowly until 2018. Subsequently, there was a rapid increase, and since 2021, the growth has been explosive, highlighting the field’s emerging significance as a research topic. China, the United States, and the United Kingdom have been pivotal in contributing to research in digital entrepreneurship, with China publishing the most articles. Additionally, research on digital entrepreneurship has been predominantly conducted in developed countries. Noteworthy institutions such as the University of Birmingham, Indian Institute of Management (IIM System), Jilin University, Tongji University, and University of Turin are among the top ten in terms of the number of published articles, significantly contributing to the field. The top ten disciplines—Business, Management, Economics, Environmental Science, and Computer Science—underscore the interdisciplinary nature of digital entrepreneurship.

The primary differences between the states of WoS and Scopus are notable: In terms of annual publication volume, WoS exhibited fewer publications from 2003 to 2017 with stable changes, while Scopus showed fewer from 1999 to 2015, with a modest increase from 2016 to 2018. In terms of unique country contributions, Russia is specific to WoS, and Indonesia is specific to Scopus. While both databases cover similar disciplines, WoS leans more towards green and sustainable sciences, urban planning, and information sciences. Conversely, Scopus tends more towards accounting, social sciences, econometrics and finance, decision sciences, energy, psychology, and arts and humanities.

Hotspots in digital entrepreneurship

In both the WoS and Scopus databases, many of the top 20 keywords overlap, with terms such as “digital entrepreneurship,” “innovation,” “technology,” “digital transformation,” “social media,” and “entrepreneurship” being common to both. The prominent keywords that define the field of digital entrepreneurship include “entrepreneurship,” “technology,” and “strategy.” The hotspots primarily focus on the digital entrepreneurship ecosystem, digital technology, entrepreneurs, and sustainable development.

Differences in hotspots between WoS and Scopus include a focus in WoS on aspects related to digital transformation, digital technology, and value creation. In contrast, Scopus places more emphasis on sustainable development, digital platforms, and SMEs (Small and Medium-sized Enterprises).

Evolutionary trends in digital entrepreneurship

Over the years, research on digital entrepreneurship has evolved significantly:

Initial Stage (1998–2017): Research initially focused on understanding the meaning, behavior, impact, and technology associated with digital entrepreneurship.

Middle Stage (2018–2020): There was a shift towards exploring business applications, sustainable development, and digital platforms, reflecting a move towards more multidisciplinary research.

Current Phase (Post-2021): Research has begun to incorporate social aspects and educational contexts and is increasingly intersecting with emerging fields such as ICT (Information and Communication Technology) and artificial intelligence. The field is progressing robustly and is expected to cover even broader areas and yield more significant results in the future.

The distinct research frontiers between WoS and Scopus are also notable:

WoS: Research frontiers primarily concentrate on models, information systems, and behavioral studies.

Scopus: There is an emphasis on integrating IoT (Internet of Things) in social entrepreneurship, further exploration of ICT applications, and attention to the role of education in digital entrepreneurship.

Research framework for digital entrepreneurship

Through detailed keyword content analysis of the literature, we have developed a robust fundamental framework for digital entrepreneurship. This framework is structured around three foundational cornerstones: entrepreneurial structure, technology, and strategy.

Entrepreneurial Structure: This element of the framework encompasses the types, directions, factors, and capabilities of digital entrepreneurship. It provides a systematic approach to understanding the various forms of entrepreneurship and their dynamics within the digital context.

Technology: This component includes both the means and attributes essential for digital entrepreneurship. The means cover information technology, digital platforms, digital infrastructure, and digital products, focusing on the tools and technologies that facilitate digital business operations. The attributes section delves into reprogrammability, recombinability, and generativity, discussing how these properties of digital technologies enable flexible, innovative, and expansive entrepreneurial activities.

Strategy: This pillar encompasses venture capital, sustainable development, digital transformation, digital options, value creation, and smart cities. Each area reflects a strategic aspect of digital entrepreneurship, from funding and growth to innovation and urban development.

Table 11 provides a comprehensive comparison of the analysis results for digital entrepreneurship between WoS and Scopus. This comparison offers a clearer view of the similarities and differences between the two databases, enhancing understanding of how digital entrepreneurship is represented and studied globally.

Table 11 Comprehensive comparison of digital entrepreneurship analysis results in WoS and Scopus.
Full size table