Toward More Inclusive Networks and Initiatives in Innovation Ecosystems: Protocol for a Systematic Review

Background Expanding the cooperation and enlarging the participation of more diverse stakeholders within innovation ecosystems will increase their efficiency and capacity to contribute at local, regional, and national levels. Objective This paper presents the protocol for a systematic review that will identify “opening-up” strategies of innovation ecosystems for increasing the participation of more diverse innovation stakeholders, particularly from low-innovation countries, during the ecosystem formation period. Methods An algorithmic search in 4 databases (Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Social Science Research Network) will be applied based on the PerSPecTIF (perspective, setting, phenomenon of interest/problem, environment, optional comparison, time/timing, and findings) methodology, the Cochrane guidelines for qualitative evidence synthesis, and the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Selection criteria for eligibility include peer-reviewed articles published after December 31, 1999, and containing original data. No restrictions will be placed on the article language and study region, design, or methodology. Methodological strengths and limitations will be assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool. The thematic synthesis method will be adopted, and the GRADE-CERQual tool will be used to assess confidence. Results A preliminary search in Web of Science revealed 2758 records. This work is part of the ANGIE project, which was funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program (grant 952152) in January 2021. We anticipate that the results of this systematic review will be published in spring 2022. Conclusions We anticipate that the outcomes of this systematic review will outline the best practices used by initiatives and networks, as well as their impacts on creating larger and more inclusive ecosystems. Trial Registration OSF Registries osf.io/hc62k 10.17605/OSF.IO/HC62K International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) PRR1-10.2196/34071


Topic
No. Item Location where item is reported Data collection process 9 Specify the methods used to collect data from reports, including how many reviewers collected data from each report, whether they worked independently, any processes for obtaining or confirming data from study investigators, and if applicable, details of automation tools used in the process.
10 Data items 10a List and define all outcomes for which data were sought. Specify whether all results that were compatible with each outcome domain in each study were sought (e.g. for all measures, time points, analyses), and if not, the methods used to decide which results to collect.

10
10b List and define all other variables for which data were sought (e.g. participant and intervention characteristics, funding sources). Describe any assumptions made about any missing or unclear information. 10

Study risk of bias assessment
11 Specify the methods used to assess risk of bias in the included studies, including details of the tool(s) used, how many reviewers assessed each study and whether they worked independently, and if applicable, details of automation tools used in the process.

10-11
Effect measures 12 Specify for each outcome the effect measure(s) (e.g. risk ratio, mean difference) used in the synthesis or presentation of results.

Synthesis methods
13a Describe the processes used to decide which studies were eligible for each synthesis (e.g. tabulating the study intervention characteristics and comparing against the planned groups for each synthesis (item 5)).

11
13b Describe any methods required to prepare the data for presentation or synthesis, such as handling of missing summary statistics, or data conversions.

11
13c Describe any methods used to tabulate or visually display results of individual studies and syntheses.
Not applicable 13d Describe any methods used to synthesize results and provide a rationale for the choice(s). If meta-analysis was performed, describe the model(s), method(s) to identify the presence and extent of statistical heterogeneity, and software package(s) used.
Not applicable 13e Describe any methods used to explore possible causes of heterogeneity among study results (e.g. subgroup analysis, meta-regression).
Not applicable

Topic No. Item Location where item is reported
13f Describe any sensitivity analyses conducted to assess robustness of the synthesized results.

Reporting bias assessment
14 Describe any methods used to assess risk of bias due to missing results in a synthesis (arising from reporting biases).

11
Certainty assessment 15 Describe any methods used to assess certainty (or confidence) in the body of evidence for an outcome.

Study selection
16a Describe the results of the search and selection process, from the number of records identified in the search to the number of studies included in the review, ideally using a flow diagram.
Not applicable. This is a systematic review protocol.
16b Cite studies that might appear to meet the inclusion criteria, but which were excluded, and explain why they were excluded.
Not applicable. This is a systematic review protocol.

Study characteristics
17 Cite each included study and present its characteristics. Not applicable. This is a systematic review protocol.

Risk of bias in studies
18 Present assessments of risk of bias for each included study. Not applicable. This is a systematic review protocol.

Results of individual studies
19 For all outcomes, present, for each study: (a) summary statistics for each group (where appropriate) and (b) an effect estimate and its precision (e.g. confidence/credible interval), ideally using structured tables or plots.
Not applicable. This is a systematic review protocol.

Results of syntheses
20a For each synthesis, briefly summarise the characteristics and risk of bias among contributing studies.
Not applicable. This is a systematic review protocol.
20b Present results of all statistical syntheses conducted. If meta-analysis was done, present for each the summary estimate and its precision (e.g. confidence/credible interval) and measures of statistical heterogeneity. If comparing groups, describe the direction of the effect.
Not applicable. This is a systematic review protocol.

Topic No. Item Location where item is reported
20c Present results of all investigations of possible causes of heterogeneity among study results.
Not applicable. This is a systematic review protocol.
20d Present results of all sensitivity analyses conducted to assess the robustness of the synthesized results.
Not applicable. This is a systematic review protocol.

Reporting biases
21 Present assessments of risk of bias due to missing results (arising from reporting biases) for each synthesis assessed.
Not applicable. This is a systematic review protocol.

Certainty of evidence
22 Present assessments of certainty (or confidence) in the body of evidence for each outcome assessed.
Not applicable. This is a systematic review protocol.

Discussion
23a Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence. Not applicable. This is a systematic review protocol.
23b Discuss any limitations of the evidence included in the review. Not applicable. This is a systematic review protocol.
23c Discuss any limitations of the review processes used. Not applicable. This is a systematic review protocol.
23d Discuss implications of the results for practice, policy, and future research. 11-12

Registration and protocol
24a Provide registration information for the review, including register name and registration number, or state that the review was not registered.
5 24b Indicate where the review protocol can be accessed, or state that a protocol was not prepared.

No. Item Location where item is reported
24c Describe and explain any amendments to information provided at registration or in the protocol.
5 Support 25 Describe sources of financial or non-financial support for the review, and the role of the funders or sponsors in the review.

12
Competing interests 26 Declare any competing interests of review authors. 12

Availability of data, code and other materials
27 Report which of the following are publicly available and where they can be found: template data collection forms; data extracted from included studies; data used for all analyses; analytic code; any other materials used in the review.
Not applicable. This is a systematic review protocol.

Eligibility criteria
3 Specify the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the review. Yes

Information sources
4 Specify the information sources (e.g. databases, registers) used to identify studies and the date when each was last searched.

Yes
Risk of bias 5 Specify the methods used to assess risk of bias in the included studies. Yes

6
Specify the methods used to present and synthesize results. Yes

Included studies 7
Give the total number of included studies and participants and summarise relevant characteristics of studies.

8
Present results for main outcomes, preferably indicating the number of included studies and participants for each. If meta-analysis was done, report the summary estimate and confidence/credible interval. If comparing groups, indicate the direction of the effect (i.e. which group is favoured).

9
Provide a brief summary of the limitations of the evidence included in the review (e.g. study risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision).