The DOI matches its Crossref record; 75 of the 75 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Knowledge sharing and innovation: A systematic review
Open accessAbstract
The purpose of this article is to investigate the ways in which innovation and knowledge sharing have been studied together in the academic literature. The method employed in this study was a systematic review that covered publications on knowledge sharing and innovation from 1973, when the first article relating the two topics was published, to 2017. The survey was based on 7,991 articles from the Scopus and ISI Web of Science databases using VantagePoint 11.0 software. Four periods were identified in the relationship between innovation and knowledge sharing: embryonic, emergent, growth young, and growth highest. The relationship between knowledge sharing and innovation continues to grow based on the number of papers published on the topic by year. This is the first systematic review of the relationship between knowledge sharing and innovation.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Granovetter, M. S. (1973) · American Journal of Sociology · doi:10.1086/225469 · Cited by 40,491
Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation
Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393553 · Cited by 35,728
A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation
Nonaka, I. (1994) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.5.1.14 · Cited by 17,809
Building Theories from Case Study Research
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258557 · Cited by 17,455
Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm
Grant, R. M. (1996) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.4250171110 · Cited by 16,157
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003) · British Journal of Management · doi:10.1111/1467-8551.00375 · Cited by 15,386
Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology
Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.3.3.383 · Cited by 12,939
Interorganizational Collaboration and the Locus of Innovation: Networks of Learning in Biotechnology
Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W., & Smith-Doerr, L. (1996) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393988 · Cited by 8,499
Henderson, R. M., & Clark, K. B. (1990) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393549 · Cited by 8,357
Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm
Szulanski, G. (1996) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.4250171105 · Cited by 7,839
Metadata
- Authors
- Castaneda, D. I., & Cuellar, S.
- Venue
- Knowledge and Process Management
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2020-05-07
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 159-173
- ISSN
- 1092-4604 (ISSN-L)
- 1099-1441
- OpenAlex
- W3022867773
- Cited by
- 312
- References
- 75
- FWCI
- 12.61
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Knowledge sharing and innovation: A systematic review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/kpm.1637
- The paper
- Castaneda, D. I., & Cuellar, S. (2020). Knowledge sharing and innovation: A systematic review. Knowledge and Process Management. https://doi.org/10.1002/kpm.1637
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
