Academic production and technological emergence in finance: Bibliometric study on FinTechs

Caciatori Junior, Itamir; Cherobim, Ana Paula Mussi Szabo Article Academic production and technological emergence in finance: Bibliometric study on FinTechs Innovation & Management Review Provided in Cooperation with: University of São Paulo, School of Economics, Management, Accounting and Actuarial Sciences (FEA-USP) Suggested Citation: Caciatori Junior, Itamir; Cherobim, Ana Paula Mussi Szabo (2020) : Academic production and technological emergence in finance: Bibliometric study on FinTechs, Innovation & Management Review, ISSN 2515-8961, Emerald, Bingley, Vol. 17, Iss. 2, pp. 115-131, https://doi.org/10.1108/INMR-01-2019-0005 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/231626 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Academic production and technological emergence in finance Bibliometric study on FinTechs Itamir Caciatori Junior and Ana Paula Mussi Szabo Cherobim Programa de P os-Graduação em Administração, Universidade Federal do Paraná, Curitiba, Brazil Abstract Purpose –This paper aims to study the FinTech enterprises and the management theories related to this subject in a scientific way. Design/methodology/approach –This study is a bibliometric study on FinTech enterprises. Its origin is a survey of 1,749 papers in 6 traditional peer-reviewed academic databases (e.g. Science Direct and Scopus) and in the “gray”literature, published by other agents and not subject to double-blind peer review. In this analysis we use three approaches: academic paper or not; journal main interest, and main purpose of the paper. Findings –The first approach shows 45% of papers without blind review. The second approach shows no concentration on any journal. It represents no concentration on any kind of specific journal. And the third approach shows four kinds of contents in all researched papers: FinTech categorizations; FinTech related to theory of disruptive innovation; FinTech and theories of administration or economy; and finally, FinTech and regulatory and legislative aspects. Originality/value –The findings identified the emergence of new research strands, precedence of studies of “gray”literature to explain the phenomenon, distribution of studies in different fields of knowledge (e.g. information technology, business and law) and lack of consensus in theories to explain the matter. Keywords FinTechs, Financial technologies, Innovation, Bibliometry, Grey literature Paper type Literature review 1. Introduction FinTechs are an example of technological innovations competing with the traditional system of service provision, in this case, the provision of financial services. The different software and applications developed require study, not only for the use of new technologies to offer traditional services, but also for the competition and complementarity of these with the agents of the traditional financial system. © Itamir Caciatori Junior and Ana Paula Mussi Szabo Cherobim. Published in Innovation and Management Review. Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode Acknowledgement of funding: This study was financed in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - Brasil (CAPES) - Finance Code 001. Bibliometric study on FinTechs 115 Received 31 January 2019 Revised 15 July 2019 24 September 2019 Accepted 7 October 2019 Innovation & Management Review Vol. 17 No. 2, 2020 pp. 115-131 Emerald Publishing Limited 2515-8961 DOI 10.1108/INMR-01-2019-0005 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at: https://www.emerald.com/insight/2515-8961.htm Three factors contributed to the emergence and growth of FinTechs. The first was the emergence of new technologies such as big data, distributed ledger technology, cloud computing, artificial intelligence and machine learning (Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, 2018;Gomber, Koch, & Siering, 2017;International Monetary Fund, 2019; Jagtiani & John, 2018). These innovations have enabled the processing of higher volumes of information, increased storage capacity and automation of decisions in the financial sector (He et al., 2017), traditionally characterized as the vanguard in the application of “information technology”(IT) innovations (Arner, Barberis, & Buckley, 2015;Barras, 1990). This technological progress has generated changes in financial products, services, production processes and organizational structures (Frame, Wall, & White, 2018). The second factor was the decrease in consumer, business and government confidence in the large banking institutions after the 2008 financial crisis (Arner et al., 2015;Larsson, Teigland, Shahryar, Moreno, & Bogusz, 2018) and the need to reduce the concentration of transactions in large banks thereafter. The third factor is associated with the adoption of new technologies by consumers, especially the new generation of digital natives (Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, 2018). This article aims at scientifically studying the subject FinTech and the theories of administration currently associated with it from a broad bibliometric survey in academic databases. Thus, it is intended to contribute to filling a gap currently existing: the search and identification of theories of administration currently used to study this theme. Producing science requires a systematic and organized body of knowledge in some area of understanding using scientific methods (Bhattacherjee, 2012). Studies on current topics show additional difficulties to the researcher, as they involve new technologies, academic literature is still incipient, without wide dissemination in publications with the peer-review process, and competes with the non-academic literature, “grey.” FinTechs, financial technology companies, fall into this spectrum. According to the bibliometric work of Wu (2017), the development of works related to the theme began in 2014 and the academic research on this theme is in the exploratory stage. This article develops a bibliometric study on the subject FinTechs. The concept is emerging, therefore, not only traditional databases are researched, but also “grey”literature works. Examples of this are surveys of consultancies, publications of government agencies and works of dissemination from other agents, not subject to peer review, typical of academic publications. The justification for this article is the need to deepen the study of FinTechs, to identify how the theories of administration are currently trying to explain the FinTechs phenomenon. A total of 1,749 publications in 6 databases (Emerald, ProQuest, Science Direct, Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar) were identified. Two review studies on FinTechs (Cai, 2018;Martínez-Climent, Zorio-Grima, & Ribeiro-Soriano, 2018) and a bibliometric study (Wu, 2017) stand out, which did not show which theories of administration were used more to understand these types of enterprises. This gap allows considering the subject as lacking in surveys and understanding of the theories established. This article begins by presenting a literature review on innovation, the disruptive innovation theory and FinTechs. Next, the method and details of the steps used in the bibliometric research are described. In Section 4, the discussion is carried out and, finally, in Section 5, the final considerations and suggestions for future works are described. INMR 17,2 116 2. Literature review The FinTechs-related publications demand the conceptualization of innovation, disruptive innovation theory and FinTechs. These innovations can be characterized as incremental and/or disruptive innovation and the activities can be complementary to traditional financial agents or they can be characterized as threats to business. 2.1 Innovation As it is a broad field of research (Damanpour, 1991), innovation should be studied from different perspectives and in an interdisciplinary manner (Fagerberg et al., 2004). One of the most used propositions was defined by Schumpeter (1983), such as the introduction of new products, new production methods, opening of new markets, development of new sources of raw materials/inputs and the creation of new market structures in an industry. Technological innovation was defined by Dosi (1988) as the solution of problems with information taken from previous experiences and formal knowledge. The concept involves specific and non-coded training on the part of inventors, in addition to the tacit knowledge generated in innovative activities. A more uniform and institutional definition of innovation has been described by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2005): the implementation of a new or significantly improved product (good or service), or a process, or a new marketing method or a new organizational method in business practices, workplace organization or external relations. The literature differentiates innovations as radical, defined as unique and significant, or incremental, when they consist of a series of small changes that can constitute a significant change (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], 2005; Damanpour, 1996;Fagerberg et al., 2004; Rowley, Baregheh, & Sambrook, 2011). 2.2 Theory of disruptive innovations One of the main associations existing in the literature for the categorization of FinTechs’ innovative stage is disruptive innovations (Chiu, 2016;Gomber, Kauffman, Parker, & Weber, 2018;Larsson et al., 2018;Schuelke-Leech, 2018). In addition to the concepts and typologies of innovation exposed, disruptive technologies are studied in the field of innovation (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], 2005) and their initial ideas were launched by Christensen (2013). The author indicates that traditional technologies offer more than customers want. In addition, leading companies and more profitable customers in traditional markets ignore emerging or insignificant markets or do not want and cannot use these new technologies. Then, the disruptive technologies arise, that initially offer fewer products/services than customers actually want (or think they want). Other examples in the literature have applications in the fields of pharmaceutical products (Sabatier, Craig-Kennard, & Mangematin, 2012), telecommunications (Boccardi et al., 2014), education (Conole et al., 2008; Sharples, 2002) and photographic equipment (Lucas & Goh, 2009). Further improvements and discussions of the concept were developed by Adner (2002),Danneels (2004),Govindarajan and Kopalle (2006),Markides (2006),Paap and Katz (2004),Schmidt and Druehl (2008) and Yu and Hang (2010). 2.3 FinTechs FinTechs are derived from the term financial technologies and are used to describe the variety of innovative business models and emerging technologies with the potential to Bibliometric study on FinTechs 117 transform the financial services industry (International Organization of Securities Commissions [IOSCO], 2017). 2.3.1 FinTechs and financial innovation. The Financial Stability Board defines FinTechs as financial innovations derived from technology that can result in new business models, applications, processes or products, with material effects on financial markets and established institutions (Financial Stability Board [FSB], 2017). Puschmann (2017) defines it as an “umbrella”term, which encompasses innovative financial solutions made possible by IT. The concept also applies to startups that provide these solutions and also includes traditional financial service providers such as banks and insurance companies. The conceptualization of the term is also linked to the use of applied technology or as an aid to finance (Eickhoff, Muntermann, & Weinrich, 2018). Schueffel (2016) seeks a common understanding of the theme by researchers and users of the concept. After researching 203 articles (peer review), he identified the conceptualization in 13 of them and, using semantic analysis, defined FinTech as a new financial industry that applies technology to improve financial activities. The Central Bank of Brazil presents the concept as a correction of imbalances. For the institution, FinTech means identifying obsolescence and omissions in the financial market, and developing innovative solutions in response (offer) (Banco Central do Brasil [BACEN], 2018). As for the chronology of innovation events in the financial industry that contributed to the emergence and evolution of FinTechs, Arner et al. (2015) cite three main stages. The first (Fintech 1.0) occurred between 1866 and 1987, a period in which analog technologies were used and began with the installation of the first international transatlantic cable (1866). The second (1987 to 2008) is based on the financial connections among countries and their relations with technology, ending with the global financial crisis of 2008. The third and current stage in the evolution of FinTechs (Fintech 3.0) began in 2008 with the global financial crisis and it was motivated by the creation of FinTechs by professionals who lost their jobs in the financial area during the crisis. A comparison between FinTechs and traditional banks was prepared by Alt, Beck, and Smits (2018). Table I shows the three levels of transformation to demonstrate the main differences between these two categories of companies in terms of “external organization,” “organization of work networks”and “internal organization”. 2.3.2 Categorization of FinTechs. In addition to the need to conceptualize the theme, the categorization of the subject and its subdivision into different fields of research are described by different authors. This categorization is performed by types of services offered, types of innovation, target audience and specific taxonomies. To better represent the different dimensions of the FinTechs concept and demonstrate the diversity of services offered by these companies, Eickhoff et al. (2018) created a taxonomy for the division of business models based on six dimensions (dominant technology, value proposition, delivery channel, consumers, revenue flow and product/ service offering). Another taxonomy, proposed by Drasch et al. (2018), used 136 cases of cooperation between banks and FinTechs and interviews with 12 bank professionals to study FinTechs, regulators and consultants. The results were divided into six different dimensions: type of cooperation, type of innovation, innovation maturity, location of the value chain, business ecosystem and holder of innovation. Another taxonomy was developed by Gimpel, Rau, and Röglinger (2017), with 15 dimensions related to the perspectives of interactions, data and monetization, generated INMR 17,2 118 from the analysis of 227 FinTechs from different countries oriented to end consumers (business to consumer). 2.3.3 State-of-the-art of FinTechs research. Based on searches in the following databases, Emerald, ProQuest, Science Direct, Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar, two previous literature review articles (Cai, 2018;Kim et al., 2016) and a bibliometric survey (Wu, 2017) on the current state of research on the topic were identified. The bibliometric article by Wu (2017) conducted searches in the institute for scientific information - Web of Science database and identified 80 keywords used in publications on the concept. He mentions that the articles published with the term started in 2014 and the main areas covered were “payments”(25.65 per cent); “deposits and loans”(25.54 per cent); “insurance”(17.29 per cent); “capital increase”(14.35 per cent); and “investments”(13.67 per cent). The article by Cai (2018) contains a bibliographic review of the terms “crowdfunding” and “blockchain,”while that of Kim et al. (2016) conducted the application of topic modeling in the study of the theme. The latter has greater adherence to studies in the area of computer science. As it is a subject related to development, implementation and execution of information systems, part of the published literature has a closer relationship with the areas of IT and others related to it. An example of this are the articles by Eickhoff et al. (2018) and Gai, Qiu, and Sun (2018). Table I. Comparison of FinTechs in three levels of transformation Level of transformation IT-using banks (until around 2008) FinTech (after 2008) External organization Regulation Low need for equity capital and low supervision Stricter rules and less protection Business model innovation Business in offline agencies and services Online and mobile services Infrastructure governance Centralized institution as a focal firm Distribution of tasks Payment style Most customers use cash money Reduction of cash payments Organization of working networks Networking Small number of partner networks Many specialist partners Costs: margins and structure High margins in the core business Reduced margins and increased competitiveness Competitors Other traditional financial service providers Startups and side entrants Culture Hierarchical Cooperative and agile Customer retention High consumer loyalty Low switching costs Internal organization Business focus Process-oriented Centralized in the consumer Interaction with consumers Initially offline Initially online and multiple channels Key competences Distribution, products and transactions Online distribution and platforms Vertical integration High integration Low integration Service portfolio Banks as general service providers Small diversified suppliers Automation Processes require manual steps Fully automated processes IT architecture Monolithic systems and internal development Modular systems and application programming interface Source: Alt et al. (2018) Bibliometric study on FinTechs 119 3. Method This article follows an exploratory quali-quantitative approach because of the initial ignorance of the important variables to be examined (Creswell, 2010). This lack of knowledge does not derive from the reduced scope of research, but from the fact that it is a new theme, without association with established theories and still little explored by the academic literature. The bibliometric approach, is a science field that aims to group and interpretate of statistics related to books and publications (Pritchard, 1969). In the area of new technologies, this technique is not only used to quantify the academic production on specific topics, but can also be applied in the forecast of new technologies ( Morris, DeYong, Wu, Salman, & Yemenu, 2002;Li, Zhou, Xue, & Huang, 2015). The strictly quantitative treatment via bibliometric metrics and the exclusive use of peerreviewed articles could disregard recent and relevant articles in the area, a justification also used by Schueffel (2016). Thus, the selection did not consider only the evaluation (rating) of the analyzed publications, quantity of citations of the studies used as references or only articles approved by the peer-review system. To privilege the exploration of the theme and the ideas associated with the concept also through the insertion of articles from gray literature was sought. The gray literature is classified as those materials publicly disclosed and not subject to the traditional peer-review process, and it can be used as a way to expand the scope of searches, insert updated materials on the concept studied and enable new discussions on the research theme (Adams et al., 2017). This literature includes business reports, works for discussion, guides to procedures and business reports, and it is considered as a timely and comprehensive source of information (Lawrence et al., 2014). 3.1 Research steps The research steps began with the formulation of the research problem, followed by the construction of hypotheses about the problem found, as described by Creswell (2010). The issue of the article approaches how to research the FinTechs phenomenon in an administration academic way and what the main theoretical approaches are in the field of theories on administration that the published articles/books use to analyze the subject. The first approach is about the existence of an initial literature not strictly academic to disseminate and analyze the phenomenon. The second concerns the initial production of articles with preponderance in the IT area, because FinTechs show the technological base as one of its principles. The third and last approach contemplates the existence of initial exploratory and preliminary studies on these types of companies, such as theoretical articles and with FinTechs categorizations. Figure 1. Flowchart with the research steps INMR 17,2 120 The bibliographic survey was composed of four steps for the final selection of works, which resulted in the complete analysis of 43 articles/books. The treatment and analysis of references were performed in the software Publish or Perish version 6.35 and the steps are described in Figure 1. The first step consisted in the analysis and selection of the keywords to be used for the search, which resulted in the terms “FinTech,”“FinTechs”or “Fintec*.”The term “Financial Technologies”(or equivalent) was not adopted because of the scope of the concept, which does not necessarily cover only the articles associated with FinTechs. By using these keywords, surveys were conducted in the scientific publications databases, Emerald (122), ProQuest (137), Science Direct (64), Scopus (274), Web of Science (153) and Google Scholar (999 articles), which returned 1,749 results between 25/09/2018 and 23/10/2018. The choice of six different databases was made in an attempt to contemplate as many studies as possible (Harzing & Alakangas, 2016), despite the existence of an overlap between the sources (Vieira & Gomes, 2009). Google Scholar was used for its growing relevance in literature review articles, as highlighted by Haddaway et al. (2015). In the second step, treatment of the results, the reading of the title and keywords for framing according to the research theme was performed. To consolidate the database, duplication exclusions, articles in the fields of knowledge not included in the research (e.g. medicine, psychology and biology), inconsistent records (e.g. blank names) and those related to IT development tools were performed. This treatment resulted in a new file composed of 277 articles published between 2014 and 2018. In the third step, reading the abstracts, the 277 abstracts of the works obtained in the second step were read to select the articles best related to the topic of interest. This phase also considered (but was not restricted) the existence of the publication score in the Scientific Journal Ranking, number of citations in the databases of scientific publications used, the origin of the article (government institutions, central banks and international organizations) and adherence to the research theme. The database resulted in 43 articles. In the fourth step, the 43 articles located in the third step were read and analyzed. The results of this analysis were divided into three analysis approaches, detailed in Section 4 –Discussion. 4. Discussion This chapter shows three analysis approaches (divided into topics), resulting from the reading of the 43 articles originating from the final selection, performed from the bibliometric data located and identified in Figure 1. These approaches are related to the types of articles, concentration of articles and interest lines of publications and treatment of the subject by selected articles. The first approach consists of dividing the origin of articles into two categories, characterized by peer-reviewed scientific journal articles or by articles classified as gray literature. The second approach investigates the thematic division of publications and demonstrates the areas of interest of those that have the largest numbers of articles published and selected for composition. In the third approach, articles were identified and commented according to the focus and treatments given to FinTechs, such as categorization, theories used and regulation/ legislation. 4.1 Type of publications The analysis of references resulted in Table II, with the 20 most evidenced works among the 1,749 records resulting from the search for keywords. Bibliometric study on FinTechs 121 Authors Title Publisher Thematic orientation Type Number of citations DemiürguçKunt, A., Klapper, L., Singer, D., Ansar, S., Hess, J. (2018) The Global Findex Database 2017: Measuring Financial Inclusion and the FinTech Revolution World Bank Finance/ Banking Book 1167 Arner, D. W., Barberis, J. N., Buckley, R. P. (2015) The evolution of FinTech: A new postcrisis paradigm University of Hong Kong Faculty of Law Research Paper Management Article 148 Philippon, T. (2016) The fintech opportunity NBER Working Paper Series Finance/ Banking Working Paper 84 Buchak, G., Matvos, G., Puskorski, T., Seru, A. (2018) FinTech, regulatory arbitrage, and the rise of shadow banks Journal of Financial Economics Article 80 Dapp, T. (2014) FinTech–The digital (r) evolution in the financial sector Deutsche Bank Research Finance/ Banking Working Paper 58 Nienaber, R. (2016) The FinTech book: the financial technology handbook for investors, entrepreneurs and visionaries John Wiley & Sons Finance/ Banking Book 55 Shim, Y., Shin, D. (2016) Analyzing China’s fintech industry from the perspective of actor– network theory Telecommunications Policy Article 54 Gabor, D., Brooks, S. (2017) The digital revolution in financial inclusion: international development in the fintech era New Political Economy Article 54 Channon, D. F. (1977) British banking strategy and the international challenge Macmillan Finance/ Banking Book 51 Gai, K., Qiu, M., Sun, X. (2018) A survey on FinTech Journal of Network and Computer Applications Information Technology Article 50 Banque de France (2018) Financial stability review Banque de France Finance/ Banking Working Paper 48 Mackenzie, A. (2015) The fintech revolution London Business School Review Finance/ Banking Working Paper 48 Peters, G., Panayi, E., Chapelle, A. (2015) Trends in cryptocurrencies and blockchain technologies: a monetary theory and regulation perspective Journal of Financial Perspectives Finance/ Banking Book 48 Dapp, T., Slomka, L. (2015) FinTech reloaded– Traditional banks as digital ecosystems Deutsche Bank Research Finance/ Banking Working Paper 44 (continued) Table II. Twenty works most evident in the databases analyzed INMR 17,2 122 Drasch, B. J., Schweizer, A., & Urbach, N. (2018). Integrating the “troublemakers”: A taxonomy for cooperation between banks and fintechs. Journal of Economics and Business,100,26–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconbus.2018.04.002. Eickhoff, M., Muntermann, J., & Weinrich, T. (2018). What do FinTechs actually do? A taxonomy of FinTech business models.Thirty Eighth International Conference on Information Systems, South Korea 2017,1–19. Fagerberg, J., Mowery, D. C., & Nelson, R. R. (2004). The oxford handbook of innovation (1st ed.). Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. Financial Stability Board [FSB] (2017). Financial stability implications from FinTech: Supervisory and regulatory issues that merit authorities’attention, Basel, Brazil: FSB. Frame, W. S. Wall, L., & White, L. J. (2018). Technological change and financial innovation in banking: Some implications for fintech. In Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, Working Papers. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.29338/wp2018-11 Gai, K., Qiu, M., & Sun, X. (2018). A survey on FinTech. Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 103, 262–273. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnca.2017.10.011. Gimpel, H., Rau, D., & Röglinger, M. (2017). Understanding FinTech start-ups –a taxonomy of consumer-oriented service offerings. Electronic Markets,28,1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s12525-017-0275-0. Gomber, P., Koch, J. A., & Siering, M. (2017). Digital finance and FinTech: Current research and future research directions. Journal of Business Economics,87,537–580. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11573017-0852-x. Gomber, P., Kauffman, R. J., Parker, C., & Weber, B. W. (2018). On the fintech revolution: Interpreting the forces of innovation, disruption, and transformation in financial services. Journal of Management Information Systems,35, 220–265. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2018.1440766. Govindarajan, V., & Kopalle, P. K. (2006). Disruptiveness of innovations: Measurement and an assessment of reliability and validity. Strategic Management Journal,27, 189–199. https://doi. org/10.1002/smj.511. Haddaway, N. R., Collins, A. M., Coughlin, D., & Kirk, S. (2015). The role of Google Scholar in evidence reviews and its applicability to grey literature searching. PLoS One,10,1–17. https://doi.org/ 10.1371/journal.pone.0138237. Harzing, A. W., & Alakangas, S. (2016). Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: A longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison. Scientometrics,106, 787–804. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11192-015-1798-9. He, D. Leckow, R. Haksar, V. Mancini, T. Jenkinson, N. Kashima, M. ... Tourpe, H. (2017). Fintech and financial services: Initial considerations. In IMF Staff Discussion Note (No. SDN/17/05). Retrieved from https://www.imf.org//media/Files/Publications/SDN/2017/ sdn1705.ashx International Monetary Fund. (2019). Fintech: The experience so far. Retrieved from http://www.imf. org/external/pp/ppindex.aspx International Organization of Securities Commissions [IOSCO] (2017). IOSCO research report on financial technologies (fintech). Retrieved from https://www.iosco.org/library/pubdocs/pdf/ IOSCOPD554.pdf Jagtiani, J., & John, K. (2018). Fintech: The impact on consumers and regulatory responses. Journal of Economics and Business,100,1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconbus.2018.11.002. Jun, J., & Yeo, E. (2016). Entry of fintech firms and competition in the retail payments market. AsiaPacific Journal of Financial Studies,45, 159–184. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajfs.12126. Kim, T. K., Choi, H. R., & Lee, H. C. (2016). A study on the research trends in fintech using topic modeling. Journal of the Korea Academia-Industrial Cooperation Society,17, 670–681. doi: https://doi.org/10.5762/KAIS.2016.17.11.670. Bibliometric study on FinTechs 129 Lagarde, C. (2018). Central banking and fintech: A brave new world. Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization,12,4–8. Retrieved from https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/ 10.1162/inov_a_00262. Larsson, A., Teigland, R., Shahryar, S., Moreno, A. P., & Bogusz, C. I. (2018). Theriseand development of FinTech: Accounts of disruption from Sweden and Beyond,NewYork,NY: Routledge. Lawrence, A., Houghton, J., Thomas, J., & Weldon, P. (2014). Where is the evidence? Realising the value of grey literature for public policy & practice. Hawthorn, Australia: Swinburne Institute for Social Research. p. 28. Li, X., Zhou, Y., Xue, L., & Huang, L. (2015). Integrating bibliometrics and roadmapping methods: A case of dye-sensitized solar cell technology-based industry in China. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,97, 205–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2014.05.007. Lucas, H. C., Jr, & Goh, J. M. (2009). Disruptive technology: How Kodak missed the digital photography revolution. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems,18,46–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jsis.2009.01.002. Markides, C. (2006). Disruptive innovation: In need of better theory. Journal of Product Innovation Management,23,19–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2005.00177.x. Martínez-Climent, C., Zorio-Grima, A., & Ribeiro-Soriano, D. (2018). Financial return crowdfunding: Literature review and bibliometric analysis. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal,14, 527–553. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-018-0511-x. Mittal, S., & Lloyd, J. (2016). The rise of FinTech in China. Retrieved from https://www.ey.com/cn/en/ industries/financial-services/ey-the-rise-of-fintech-in-china Morris, S., DeYong, C., Wu, Z., Salman, S., & Yemenu, D. (2002). DIVA: A visualization system for exploring document databases for technology forecasting. Computers and Industrial Engineering,43, 841–862. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-8352(02)00143-2. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD] (2005). Manual de Oslo: diretrizes Para coleta e interpretação de dados sobre inovação (3rd ed., Vol. 1). Paris, France: OECD. https:// doi.org/10.1787/9789264065659-es Paap, J., & Katz, R. (2004). Anticipating disruptive innovation. Research-Technology Management,47, 13–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/08956308.2004.11671647. Pritchard, A. (1969). Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics. Journal of Documentation,25, 348–349. doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/eb026482. Puschmann, T. (2017). Fintech. Business and Information Systems Engineering,59,69–76. https://doi. org/10.1007/s12599-017-0464-6. Rowley, J., Baregheh, A., & Sambrook, S. (2011). Towards an innovation-type mapping tool. Management Decision,49,73–86. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251741111094446. Sabatier, V., Craig-Kennard, A., & Mangematin, V. (2012). When technological discontinuities and disruptive business models challenge dominant industry logics: Insights from the drugs industry. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,79, 949–962. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. techfore.2011.12.007. Schmidt, G. M., & Druehl, C. T. (2008). When is a disruptive innovation disruptive?. Journal of Product Innovation Management,25, 347–369. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2008.00306.x. Schueffel, P. (2016). Taming the beast: A scientificdefinition of fintech. Journal of Innovation Management,4,32–54. doi: https://doi.org/10.24840/2183-0606_004.004_0004. Schuelke-Leech, B.-A. (2018). A model for understanding the orders of magnitude of disruptive technologies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,129, 261–274. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.techfore.2017.09.033. Schumpeter, J. A. (1983). The theory of economic development: An inquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest, and the business cycle, Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers. INMR 17,2 130 Sharples, M. (2002). Disruptive devices: Mobile technology for conversational learning. International Journal of Continuing Engineering Education and Lifelong Learning,12, 504–520. Retrieved from https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-0036935723&partnerID=40&md5= d4ce2bcf6f51a910a1f12464b6f4cd47 doi: https://doi.org/10.1504/IJCEELL.2002.002148. Vieira, E. S., & Gomes, J. A. N. F. (2009). A comparison of Scopus and Web of Science for a typical university. Scientometrics,81, 587–600. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-2178-0. Wonglimpiyarat, J. (2017). FinTech banking industry: A systemic approach. foresight,19, 590–603. https://doi.org/10.1108/FS-07-2017-0026. Wu, P. (2017). Fintech trends relationships research: A bibliometric citation meta-analysis. Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Electronic Business, ICEB,Dubai, UAE,99–105. Yu, D., & Hang, C. C. (2010). A reflective review of disruptive innovation theory. International Journal of Management Reviews,12, 435–452. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00272.x. Zalan, T., & Toufaily, E. (2017). The promise of finch in emerging markets: Not as disruptive. Contemporary Economics,11, 415–430. https://doi.org/10.5709/ce.1897-9254.253. Zavolokina, L., Dolata, M., & Schwabe, G. (2016). The FinTech phenomenon: Antecedents of financial innovation perceived by the popular press. Financial Innovation,2,1–16. doi: https://doi.org/ 10.1186/s40854-016-0036-7. Corresponding author Itamir Caciatori Junior can be contacted at: [email protected] Associate editor: Felipe Mendes Borini For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website: www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm Or contact us for further details: [email protected] Bibliometric study on FinTechs 131