Key Actors in the Epistemic Community of the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology and Their Impact on Sustainable Development Goals

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Abstract

The Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) has become a central framework for analyzing technology adoption across diverse fields, yet little is known about the epistemic community of scholars who sustain and expand this model and how their contributions connect to sustainable development. This study addresses the question of who the key actors are within the UTAUT research community and to what extent their work aligns with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). A bibliometric analysis was conducted using Web of Science data from 2003 to 2025, applying Price’s, Lotka’s, Zipf’s, and Hirsch’s laws, together with co-authorship, cross-citation, and keyword co-occurrence network analyses, visualized through VOSviewer. The results reveal exponential growth in UTAUT-related publications, with 2,278 articles authored by 6,952 researchers, of whom only 31 can be considered central actors combining high productivity, impact, and thematic relevance. These authors are organized into distinct collaborative clusters, and their most influential works build directly upon Venkatesh et al.’s foundational contributions. Thematic evolution indicates a shift from general constructs of technology perception toward applications in mobile banking, education, and artificial intelligence. Overall, the findings confirm the vitality of UTAUT research and highlight its contributions to SDG 4 (quality education) and, to a lesser extent, SDG 11 (sustainable cities), SDG 3 (health), and others, underscoring the need to adapt adoption models to emerging sustainability challenges.

Article activity feed

  1. This Zenodo record is a permanently preserved version of a Structured PREreview. You can view the complete PREreview at https://prereview.org/reviews/17379729.

    Does the introduction explain the objective of the research presented in the preprint? Yes
    Are the methods well-suited for this research? Somewhat appropriate
    Are the conclusions supported by the data? Highly supported
    Are the data presentations, including visualizations, well-suited to represent the data? Highly appropriate and clear
    How clearly do the authors discuss, explain, and interpret their findings and potential next steps for the research? Somewhat clearly
    Is the preprint likely to advance academic knowledge? Highly likely
    Would it benefit from language editing? No
    Would you recommend this preprint to others? Yes, it's of high quality
    Is it ready for attention from an editor, publisher or broader audience? Yes, as it is

    Competing interests

    The author declares that they have no competing interests.

    Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

    The author declares that they did not use generative AI to come up with new ideas for their review.