Efectos de la transferencia de conocimiento en el desempeño organizativo: Estudio empírico en empresas del sector hotelero de España

El objetivo de la presente investigación es analizar el efecto de la transferencia de conocimiento en la mejora del desempeño organizativo. Para ello, a partir de la revisión de las diferentes perspectivas y enfoques en organización de empresas, se adopta como posicionamiento teórico el Enfoque Basado en Competencias. El Enfoque Basado en Competencias centra su atención en el desarrollo de competencias como fuente de la ventaja competitiva sostenible. Las competencias distintivas juegan un rol fundamental para este propósito, la base del desarrollo de este tipo de competencias son los activos estratégicos y en especial el conocimiento. Las ventajas competitivas derivadas del conocimiento, dependen por una parte de la naturaleza misma de este recurso que lo hace estratégico y por otra parte de su adecuada gestión,: sin embargo la posesión de conocimiento no asegura la sostenibilidad de las ventajas competitivas, es necesaria la transferencia de conocimiento. Con estas consideraciones se construyó el modelo teórico explicativo de la relación existente entre los factores antecedentes con la transferencia de conocimiento y su efecto en el desempeño organizativo. El modelo fue aplicado a empresas del sector hotelero español, cuyos resultados comprueban que existe un efecto positivo y significativo entre los factores antecedentes (visión holística de la organización, gestión por competencias, aprendizaje continuo e infraestructura técnica de las tecnologías de información) con la transferencia de conocimiento. Por otra parte se comprueba que la transferencia de conocimiento tiene un efecto positivo en el desempeño organizativo, estableciéndose que el efecto es directo. Palabras claves: transferencia de conocimiento, visión holística, gestión por competencias, aprendizaje continuo, infraestructura técnica de las TI, ventaja competitiva, activos estratégicos.Zegarra Saldaña, PE. (2013). Efectos de la transferencia de conocimiento en el desempeño organizativo: Estudio empírico en empresas del sector hotelero de España [Tesis doctoral no publicada]. Universitat Politècnica de València. https://doi.org/10.4995/Thesis/10251/27121Palanci

Exploring the challenges of remote work on Twitter users’ sentiments: From digital technology development to a post-pandemic era

The boost in the use and development of technology, spurred by COVID-19 pandemic and its consequences, has sped up the adoption of new technologies and digital platforms in companies. Specifically, companies have been forced to change their organizational and work structures. In this context, the present study aims to identify the main opportunities and challenges for remote work through the use of digital technologies and platforms based on the analysis of user-generated content (UGC) in Twitter. Using computer-aided text analysis (CATA) and natural language processing (NLP), in this study, we conduct a sentiment analysis developed with Textblob, which works with machine learning. We then apply a mathematical algorithm for topic modeling known as Latent Dirichlet allocation (LDA) model. Based on the results obtained from these data-mining techniques, we identify 11 topics, of which 3 are negative (Virtual Health, Privacy Concerns and Stress), 4 positive (Work-life balance, Less stress, Future and Engagement), and 3 neutral (New Technologies, Sustainability, and Technology Issues). In addition, we also identify and discussed 6 opportunities and 5 challenges in relation to the use and adoption of digital technologies and platforms for teleworking. Finally, theoretical and practical implications of the study are presented for companies that develop strategies based on teleworking and the adoption of new technologies in which stress management is configured as one of the most relevant indicators for further research on remote work. From the applied perspective, executives and policymakers can use the results of the present study to re-evaluate the benefits of remote work for employees

Ambidexterity in entrepreneurial universities and performance measurement systems. A literature review

[EN] The main purpose of this research is to analyze the exploration and exploitation of knowledge in universities that support innovation and entrepreneurship in their environment. For this, the Performance Measurement Systems (PMS) of the universities management are analyzed as a proxy for the implementation of the strategic vision of the universities. This study is based on a systematic literature review on the subject, supported by the technical possibilities offered by the MAXQDA (The Art of Data Analysis) program. The databases used were the following: Elsevier (Science Direct), Springer, Wiley and Taylor & Francis. The main findings suggest that organizational ambidexterity, in general, develops unevenly and from different approaches, among which innovation, learning and strategy stand out. However, organizational ambidexterity hardly develops in a university context, where most of the university activities require some knowledge of the technological frontier. Therefore, it is necessary to analyze and understand these two dimensions (exploration and exploitation) and their positive influence on entrepreneurship. In a context where the development of technology and science happens at an ever-increasing speed, a balance between exploration and exploitation is necessary, which should be reflected in the different control mechanisms in academic environments, such as the Performance Measurement Systems (PMS). The analysis of these systems will allow to know the position of the universities in the face of ambidexterity.Open Access funding provided thanks to the CRUE-CSIC agreement with Springer Nature.García-Hurtado, D.; Devece Carañana, CA.; Zegarra-Saldaña, PE.; Crisanto-Pantoja, M. (2022). Ambidexterity in entrepreneurial universities and performance measurement systems. A literature review. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal. 20:1-22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-022-00795-513452236620Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C., & Di Costa, F. (2011). University-industry research collaboration: A model to assess university capability. Higher Education, 62(2), 163–181.Adiloglu, L.-Y., & Besler, S. (2021). Journal of Air Transport Management Institutional factors influencing business models : The case of Turkish Airlines. Journal of Air Transport Management, 91, 101–989.Agostino, D., & Arnaboldi, M. (2012). Design issues in Balanced Scorecards : The “ what ” and “ how ” of control. European Management Journal, 30, 327–339.Al-Hosaini, F., & Sofian, S. (2015). A Review of Balanced Scorecard Framework in Higher Education Institution (HEIs). International Review of Management and Marketing, 5(1), 26–35.Almeida, V., Ferreira, J., & Ferreira, F. (2019). Developing a multi-criteria decision support system for evaluating knowledge transfer by higher education institutions. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 17(4), 358–372.Amador, S. R., Pérez, M. D., López-Huertas, M. J., & Rodríguez- Font, R. J. (2018). Indicator system for managing science, tecnology and innovation in universities. Scientometrics, 115, 1575–1587.Apa, R., De Marchi, V., Grandinetti, R., & Sedita, S. R. (2021). University -SME collaboration and innovation performance the role of informal relationships and absorptive capacity. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 46, 961–988.Asif, M., & De Vries, H. J. (2014). Creating ambidexterity through quality management. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 26(11–12), 1226–1241.Barra, C., & Zotti, R. (2018). The contribution of university, private and public sector resources to Italian regional innovation system (in)efficiency. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 43(2), 432–457.Bausch, M., Barmeyer, C., & Mayrhofer, U. (in press). Facilitating factors in the cross-cultural transfer of management practices : The case of a German multinational in Brazil. International Business Review, (September 2021).Bedford, D. S. (2015). Management control systems across different modes of innovation : Implications for firm performance. Management Accounting Research, 28, 12–30.Benitez, J., Castillo, A., Llorens, J., & Braojos, J. (2017). IT-enabled knowledge ambidexterity and innovation performance in small U.S. firms: The moderator role of social media capability. Information & Management, 55(1), 131–143.Benner, M., & Tushman, M. L. (2003). Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review, 28(2), 238–256.Birkel, H., & Müller, J. M. (2021). Potentials of industry 4. 0 for supply chain management within the triple bottom line of sustainability - A systematic literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 289, 125–612.Birkinshaw, J., & Gupta, K. (2013). Clarifying the distinctive contribution of ambidexterity to the field of organization studies. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 287–298.Bisbe, J., & Otley, D. (2004). The effects of the interactive use of management control systems on product innovation. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 29, 709–737.Blankesteijn, M., Bossink, B., & van der Sijde, P. (2021). Science-based entrepreneurship education as a means for university-industry technology transfer. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 17(2), 779–808.Blass, E., & Hayward, P. (2014). Innovation in higher education; will there be a role for “ the academe / university ” in 2025 ? The European Journal of Futures Research, 2(41), 1–9.Bocquet, R., & Mothe, C. (2015). Can a governance structure foster cluster ambidexterity through knowledge management ? An empirical study of two French SME clusters. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 13, 329–343.Burgess, N., Strauss, K., Currie, G., & Wood, G. (2015). Organizational ambidexterity and the Hybrid Middle Manager: The case of patient safety in UK Hospitals. Human Resource Managemen, 54, 87–109.Bustinza, O. F., Vendrell-Herrero, F., & Gomes, E. (2020). Unpacking the effect of strategic ambidexterity on performance. A crosscountry comparison of MMNEs developing product-service innovation. International Business Review, 26(6), 101569.Cabeza-Pulles, D., Fernandez-Perez, V., & Roldan-Bravo, M. I. (2020). Internal networking and innovation ambidexterity : The mediating role of knowledge management processes in university research. European Management Journal, 38(3), 450–461.Centobelli, P., Cerchione, R., & Esposito, E. (2019). Exploration and exploitation in the development of more entrepreneurial universities : A twisting learning path model of ambidexterity. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 141, 172–194.Chang, K. H., & Gotcher, D. F. (2020). How and when does co-production facilitate eco-innovation in international buyer-supplier relationships ? The role of environmental innovation ambidexterity and institutional pressures. International Business Review, 29(5), 101731.Chang, Y- C., Yang, P. Y, Martin, B. R., Chi, H- R., & Tsai-lin, T- F. (2016). Entrepreneurial universities and research ambidexterity : A multilevel analysis. Technovation, 54, 7–21.Chen, M., Yang, Z., Dou, W., & Wang, F. (2018). Flying or dying ? Organizational change, customer participation, and innovation ambidexterity in emerging economies. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 35(1), 97–119.Cho, M., Bonn, M. A., & Han, S. J. (2020). Innovation ambidexterity : Balancing exploitation and exploration for startup and established restaurants and impacts upon performance. Industry and Innovation, 27(4), 340–362.Da Silva, E., & Segatto, A. P. (2017). Innovation In Universities: Brazilian Academic Research in The Period of 2001–2010. International Journal of Innovation, 5(3), 289–310.Damanpour, F. (2017). Organizacional Innovation. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Business and Management, 1–47.Donada, C., Mothe, C., & Alegre, J. (2021). Managing skunkworks to achieve ambidexterity : The Robinson Crusoe effect. European Management Journal, 39(2), 214–225.Donate, M. J., & Guadamillas, F. (2015). An empirical study on the relationships between knowledge management, knowledge-oriented human resource practices and innovation. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 13(2), 134–148.Duc, L. A., Tho, N. D., Nakandala, D., & Lan, Y. (2020). Team innovation in retail services: The role of ambidextrous leadership and team learning. Service Business, 14(1), 167–186.Duncan, R. B. (1976). The ambidextrous organization: Designing dual structures for innovation. The Management of Organization, 1, 167–188.Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (1995). The Triple Helix – University-Industry-Government Relations: A Laboratory for Knowledge Based Economic Development. EASST Review, 14(1), 14–19.Ferreira, A., & Otley, D. (2009). The design and use of performance management systems: An extended framework for analysis. Management Accounting Research, 20(4), 263–282.Ferreira, J., & Carayannis, E. G. (2019). University-industry knowledge transfer - unpacking the “ black box ”: An introduction. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 17(4), 353–357.Foss, N. J., & Kirkegaard, M. F. (2020). Blended ambidexterity : The copresence of modes of ambidexterity in William Demant Holding. Long Range Planning, 53(6), 102049.Franceschini, F., Galetto, M., & Maisano, D. (2019). Theory and Practice of Key Performance Indicators. In Designing Performance Measurement Systems.Franco-Santos, M., & Otley, D. (2018). Reviewing and Theorizing the Unintended Consequences of Performance Management Systems. International Journal of Management Review, 20(3), 696–730.Fudickar, R., & Hottenrott, H. (2018). Public research and the innovation performance of new technology based firms. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 44(2), 326–358.Fundin, & A., Backström, T., Johansson, P. E. (2021). Exploring the emergent quality management paradigm. Total Quality Management, 32(5–6), 476–488.Giménez-Toledo, E., & Tejeda-Artigas, C. M. (2015). Process of publication, quality and prestige of scientific education publishers. Educación XX1, 18(1), 17–44.Giones, F. (2019). University - industry collaborations : An industry perspective. Management Decision, 57(12), 3258–3278.Harmancioglu, N., Sääksjärvi, M., & Jan, E. (2020). Cannibalize and combine ? The impact of ambidextrous innovation on organizational outcomes under market competition. Industrial Marketing Management, 85, 44–57.Hiebl, M. R. W. (2015). Family involvement and organizational ambidexterity in later-generation family businesses A framework for further investigation. Management Decision, 53(5), 1061–1082.Hsiang-Lin, C., & Huang, M.-C. (2021). Does dual Embeddedness matter ? Mechanisms and patterns of subsidiary ambidexterity that links a Subsidiary ’ s dual Embeddedness with its learning strategy. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 38(4), 1431–1465.Hsu, B., & Chen, Y.-M. (2020). Why university matters : The impact of university resources on foreign workers ’ human and social capital accumulation. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 17(1), 45–61.Hu, B., & Chen, W. (2016). Business model ambidexterity and technological innovation performance : Evidence from China. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 28(5), 583–600.Jackson, N. C. (2019). ScienceDirect Managing for competency with innovation change in higher education : Examining the pitfalls and pivots of digital transformation. Business Horizons, 62(6), 761–772.Jakhar, S. K., Bhattacharya, A., Rathore, H., & Mangla, S. K. (2020). Stakeholder pressure for sustainability : Can “ innovative capabilities ” explain the idiosyncratic response in the manufacturing firms ? Business Strategy and the Enviroment, 29(6), 2635–2653.Junni, P., Chang, Y. Y., & Sarala, R. (2019). Ambidextrous Orientation and Performance in Corporate Venture Units: A Multilevel Analysis of CV Units in Emerging Market Multinationals. Long Range Planning, 53(6), 101930.Kassotaki, O. (2019). Explaining ambidextrous leadership in the aerospace and defense organizations. European Management Journal, 37(5), 552–563.Khadhraoui, M., Plaisent, M., Lakhal, L., & Prosper, B. (2016). Factors Inhibiting University-Industry technology transfer. Journal of Information Technology & Economic Devolopment, 7(2), 1–11.Khalid, S., Knouzi, N., Tanane, O., & Talbi, M. (2014). Balanced scoreboard, the performance tool in higher education: Establishment of performance indicators. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 4552–4558.Khan, S. J., & Mir, A. A. (2019). Ambidextrous culture, contextual ambidexterity and new product innovations : The role of organizational slack and environmental factors. Business Strategy and the Enviroment, 28(4), 652–663.Khan, Z., Amankwah-Amoah, J., Kyu, Y., Puthusserry, P., & Czinkota, M. (2020). Strategic ambidexterity and its performance implications for emerging economies multinationals. International Business Review, 101762.Kivleniece, I., & Quelin, B. V. (2012). Creating and capturing value in public-private ties: A private actor’s perspective. Academy of Management Review, 37(2), 272–299.Kuckartz, U., & Rädiker, S. (2019). Analyzing qualitative data with MAXQDA. Text, audio, and video. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.Kuo, T., Lim, S. S., & Sonko, L. K. (2018). Catch-up strategy of latecomer firms in Asia : A case study of innovation ambidexterity in PC industry. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 30(12), 1483–1497.Kwak, C., Lee, J., & Lee, H. (2019). Do teams need both hands ? An analysis of team process ambidexterity and the enabling role of information technology. International Journal of Information Management, 51(11), 102038.Lascaux, A. (2019). Absorptive Capacity , Research Output Sharing , and Research Output Capture in University-Industry Partnerships . Scandinavian Journal of Management, 35(3), 101045.Lee, Y., & Lee, J. (2016). Knowledge workers ’ ambidexterity : Conceptual separation of competencies and behavioural dispositions. Asian Journal of Technology Innovation, 24(1), 22–40.Li, C., Liu, Y., Lin, C., & Ma, H. (2016). Top management team diversity, ambidextrous innovation and the mediating effect of top team decision-making processes. Industry and Innovation, 23(3), 260–275.Li, R., Fu, L., & Liu, Z. (2020a). Does openness to innovation matter ? The moderating role of open innovation between organizational ambidexterity and innovation performance. Asian Journal of Technology Innovation, 28(2), 251–271.Li, S., Ruiqian, J., Seufert, J. H., Wang, X., & Luo, J. (2020b). Ambidextrous leadership and radical innovative capability : The moderating role of leader support. Creativity and Innovation Management, 29(4), 621–633.Li, X. (2018). Is B Yin-Yang balancing superior to ambidexterity as an approach to paradox management ? Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 36(1), 17–32.Lin, C., & Chang, C. (2015). A patent-based study of the relationships among technological portfolio, ambidextrous innovation, and firm performance. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 27(10), 1193–1211.Liu, Y., Li, W., & Li, Y. (2019). Ambidexterity between low cost strategy and CSR strategy : Contingencies of competition and regulation. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 37(12), 633–660.March, J. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–89.Mundy, J. (2010). Creating dynamic tensions through a balanced use of management control systems. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 35(5), 499–523.Nguyen, B., Yu, X., Melewar, T. C., & Hemsley-brown, J. (2016). Brand ambidexterity and commitment in higher education : An exploratory study. Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 3105–3112.Nicholls-Nixon, C. L., Valliere, D., Gedeon, S. A., & Wise, S. (2020). Entrepreneurial ecosystems and the lifecycle of university business incubators : An integrative case study. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 17, 809–837.Nickerson, J. A., & Zenger, T. R. (2002). Being efficiently fickle: A dynamic theory of organizational choice. Organization Science, 13, 547–566.Nisio, A., De Carolis, R., & Losurdo, S. (2018). Introducing performance management in universities : The case of a university in Southern Italy. International Journal of Management in Education, 12(2), 132–153.Nowacki, C., & Monk, A. H. B (2020). Ambidexterity in government The influence of different types of legitimacy. Research Policy, 49 (1), 103840.Pangarso, A., Siti, E., Raharjo, K., & Afrianty, T. W. (2020). Data in brief Data of innovation ambidexterity as a mediator in the absorptive capacity effect on sustainable competitive advantage. Data in Brief, 29, 105200.Parmentola, A., Ferretti, M., & Panetti, E. (2020). Exploring the university-industry cooperation in a low innovative region. What differences between low tech and high tech industries ? International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 17, 1469–1496.Peris-Ortiz, M., García-Hurtado, D., & Devece, C. (2019). Influence of the balanced scorecard on the science and innovation performance of Latin American universities. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 4(17), 373–383.Pietrzak, M., Paliszkiewicz, J., & Klepacki, B. (2015). The application of the balanced scorecard ( BSC ) in the higher education setting of a Polish university. Online Journal of Applied Knowledge Management, 3(1), 151–164.Pilonato, S., & Monfardini, P. (2020). Performance measurement systems in higher education: how levers of control reveal the ambiguities of reforms. The British Accounting Review, 52(3), 100908.Posch, A., & Garaus, C. (2019). Boon or curse ? A contingent view on the relationship between strategic planning and organizational ambidexterity. Long Range Planning, 53(6), 101878.Purchase, S., Kum, C., & Olaru, D. (2016). Industrial Marketing Management Paths, events and resource use : New developments in understanding innovation processes. Industrial Marketing Management, 58, 123–136.Rafailidis, A., Trivellas, P., & Polychroniou, P. (2017). Total Quality Management & Business Excellence The mediating role of quality on the relationship between cultural ambidexterity and innovation performance. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 28(9–10), 1134–1148.Revilla, E., & Rodríguez-Prado, B. (2018). Bulding ambidexterity through creativity mechanisms : Contextual drivers of innovation success. Research Policy, 47(9), 1611–1625.Rhee, M., & Kim, T. (2019). Exploiting old lessons and exploring new ideas : A Confucian approach to exploitation and exploration. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 36, 773–795.Ridley, D. (2012). The literature review: A step-by-step guide for students. Sage Publications Ltd.Robertson, J., McCarthy, I., & Pitt, L. (2019). Leveraging social capital in university-industry knowledge transfer strategies: A comparative positioning framework. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 1(12), 461–472.Sengupta, A., & Ray, A. S. (2017). University research and knowledge transfer : A dynamic view of ambidexterity in british universities. Research Policy, 46(5), 881–897.Shane, S. (2004). Academic Entrepreneurship. Cheltenham, U.K.,: Edward Elgar.Siggelkow, N., & Levinthal, D. A. (2003). Temporarily divide to conquer: Centralized, decentralized, and reintegrated organizational approaches to exploration and adaptation. Organization Science, 14, 650–669.Simons, R. (1991). Strategic orientation and top management attention to control systems. Strategic Management Journal, 12(1), 49–62.Simons, R. (1995). Levers of control: How managers use innovative control systems to drive strategic renew. Harvard Business School Press.Song, S. H., Kim, M. J., & Kang, J. (2016). The effects of ambidextrous alliances on product innovation. Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Science, 26(1), 14–18.Strese, S., Meuer, M. W., Flatten, T. C., & Brettel, M. (2016). Examining cross-functional coopetition as a driver of organizational ambidexterity. Industrial Marketing Management, 57, 40–52.Suzuki, O. (2018). Uncovering moderators of organisational ambidexterity : Evidence from the pharmaceutical industry. Industry and Innovation, 26(4), 391–418.Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a Methodology for Developing Evidence-Informed Management Knowledge by Means of Systematic Review. British Journal of Managemen, 14, 207–222.Tsen, F. C., Huang, M., & Chen, D. Z. (2020). Factors of university–industry collaboration afecting university innovation performance. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 45(2), 560–577.Valero, A., & Van Reenen, J. (2019). The Economic Impact of Universities : Evidence from Across the Globe. Economic of Education Rewiew, 68, 53–67.Wu, J., Wood, G., Chen, X., Meyer, M., & Liu, Z. (2020). Strategic ambidexterity and innovation in Chinese multinational vs . indigenous firms : The role of managerial capability. International Business Review, 29(6), 101652.Xie, X., & Gao, Y. (2017). Strategic networks and new product performance : The mediating role of ambidextrous innovation. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 30(7), 811–824.Xie, X., Gao, Y., Zang, Z., & Meng, X. (2020). Collaborative ties and ambidextrous innovation : Insights from internal and external knowledge acquisition. Industry and Innovation, 27(3), 285–310.Xie, X., & Zhu, Q. (2020). Exploring an innovative pivot : How green training can spur corporate sustainability performance. Business Strategy and the Enviroment, 29(6), 2432–2449

APLICACIÓN DEL SISTEMA INTEGRAL DE GESTIÓN Y ADMINISTRACIÓN (BMS) AL SECTOR SALUD

El presente artículo presenta el Sistema Integral de Gestión y Administración (BMS) aplicado al sector salud, el cuál podría proporcionar a los directivos o gerentes de instituciones de salud una visión más clara sobre la labor gerencial que les toca desempeñar. En la primera parte se realiza una breve descripción de la situación y condiciones del sistema de salud boliviano y se mencionan las complejidades que deben ser consideradas por los directivos o gerentes de las instituciones de salud. El sistema integral de gestión y administración (BMS) fue desarrollado inicialmente para empresas manufactureras. Sin embargo, por su estructura lógica, en el presente trabajo se adecua también a los servicios de salud. La utilidad de la aplicación del BMS al sector salud está dada por la claridad con la que se define el QUÉ debería realizar el director o gerente de un establecimiento de salud

Crowdfunding: a bibliometric analysis

[EN] This paper presents a quantitative vision of the study of crowdfunding, through a bibliometric analysis of the most relevant publications. The main goal is to deter¿ mine whether crowdfunding is really a subject of increasing interest, and to identify the most productive and infuential sources of its scientifc research. Data were col¿ lected from the general Web of Science, one of the most complete and prestigious databases. We found that the USA is where crowdfunding is most studied. The two most active authors (Brooks AC and Andreoni J) are also in the USA. Regarding the temporal evolution of publications and citations, exponential growth was observed from 2010, which together with the low numbers of citations and publications, high¿ light the youth of crowdfunding as a subject of study, and the high potential it has for future research. Finally, a compilation of the most relevant articles was made in terms of the number of citations. This is the basis for starting new studies that delve deeper into the theme. With the results obtained, any researcher interested in the subject can easily analyze the most relevant articles, and fnd the studies of the authors, entities, and countries with the greatest infuence on the subject.Gil Gómez, H.; Oltra Badenes, RF.; Guerola-Navarro, V.; Zegarra Saldaña, P. (2023). Crowdfunding: a bibliometric analysis. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal. 19:27-45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-021-00784-027451

Global economic burden of unmet surgical need for appendicitis

Background There is a substantial gap in provision of adequate surgical care in many low- and middle-income countries. This study aimed to identify the economic burden of unmet surgical need for the common condition of appendicitis. Methods Data on the incidence of appendicitis from 170 countries and two different approaches were used to estimate numbers of patients who do not receive surgery: as a fixed proportion of the total unmet surgical need per country (approach 1); and based on country income status (approach 2). Indirect costs with current levels of access and local quality, and those if quality were at the standards of high-income countries, were estimated. A human capital approach was applied, focusing on the economic burden resulting from premature death and absenteeism. Results Excess mortality was 4185 per 100 000 cases of appendicitis using approach 1 and 3448 per 100 000 using approach 2. The economic burden of continuing current levels of access and local quality was US $92 492 million using approach 1 and$73 141 million using approach 2. The economic burden of not providing surgical care to the standards of high-income countries was $95 004 million using approach 1 and$75 666 million using approach 2. The largest share of these costs resulted from premature death (97.7 per cent) and lack of access (97.0 per cent) in contrast to lack of quality. Conclusion For a comparatively non-complex emergency condition such as appendicitis, increasing access to care should be prioritized. Although improving quality of care should not be neglected, increasing provision of care at current standards could reduce societal costs substantially