The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Thinking inside the box? Intellectual structure of the knowledge base of innovation research (1988–2008)
Abstract
Innovation is becoming increasingly popular as a concept as well as a field of research. As a field, it has accumulated a significant amount of scientific knowledge. Based on bibliometric data from four major social science disciplines—economics, sociology, psychology, and management—this study presents a ‘global view’ of the field by combining longitudinal and structural perspectives. It identifies major research traditions in the field, determines the content and disciplinary composition of each tradition, and maps the changes in the intellectual structure of the field over time. The study suggests that innovation research is becoming increasingly compartmentalized between economics and management disciplines and each segment is becoming increasingly self‐contained. A strategy along with a framework is suggested for making research contribution to the field. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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
Fortunato, S. (2010) · Physics Reports · doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2009.11.002 · Cited by 11,293
The Matthew Effect in Science: The reward and communication systems of science are considered.
Merton, R. K. (1968) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.159.3810.56 · Cited by 6,720
Barabási, A.-L., & Bonabeau, E. (2003) · Scientific American · doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0503-60 · Cited by 2,494
Ramos‐Rodríguez, A., & Ruíz‐Navarro, J. (2004) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.397 · Cited by 1,626
Exploratory Social Network Analysis with Pajek
de Nooy, W., Mrvar, A., & Batagelj, V. (2005) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511806452 · Cited by 1,244
Pilkington, A., & Meredith, J. (2009) · Journal of Operations Management · doi:10.1016/j.jom.2008.08.001 · Cited by 537
Comments on “What theory is not”
DiMaggio, P. J. (1995) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393790 · Cited by 488 · cited 1×
“Unfortunately, these may also include ritualistic citations meant to create a façade of standing on the shoulders of giants and seeking legitimacy without a careful reading and deliberation on the cited publication (Latour, 1987; DiMaggio, 1995).”
Background
Cited by
Bibliometric Methods in Management and Organization
Zupic, I., & Čater, T. (2015) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/1094428114562629 · Cited by 7,495
What we talk about when we talk about stakeholders
Johnson-Cramer, M. E., Phillips, R. A., Fadlallah, H., Berman, S. L., & Elms, H. (2022) · Business & Society · doi:10.1177/00076503211053005 · Cited by 31
Metadata
- Authors
- Shafique, M.
- Venue
- Strategic Management Journal
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2012-07-03
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 62-93
- ISSN
- 0143-2095 (ISSN-L)
- 1097-0266
- OpenAlex
- W1910677699
- Cited by
- 307
- References
- 7
- FWCI
- 10.97
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Thinking inside the box? Intellectual structure of the knowledge base of innovation research (1988–2008). https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/smj.2002
- The paper
- Shafique, M. (2013). Thinking inside the box? Intellectual structure of the knowledge base of innovation research (1988–2008). Strategic Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2002
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.
