The DOI matches its Crossref record; 80 of the 82 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 1 of the 30 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Open for innovation: the role of openness in explaining innovation performance among U.K. manufacturing firms
Open accessAbstract
Abstract A central part of the innovation process concerns the way firms go about organizing search for new ideas that have commercial potential. New models of innovation have suggested that many innovative firms have changed the way they search for new ideas, adopting open search strategies that involve the use of a wide range of external actors and sources to help them achieve and sustain innovation. Using a large‐scale sample of industrial firms, this paper links search strategy to innovative performance, finding that searching widely and deeply is curvilinearly (taking an inverted U‐shape) related to performance. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
41 Own result · 15 Own method · 13 Sources not found · 13 Own interpretation · 4 No full text of the sources · 3 Not checked yet · 1 Partly supported · 1 No basis given · accuracy not yet measured
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We find that firms who have open search strategies-those who search widely and deeply-tend to be more innovative.”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > INTRODUCTION
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“finding that searching widely and deeply is curvilinearly (taking an inverted U-shape) related to performance.”
- Also stated in: § INTRODUCTION · hedged
“However, we find that the benefits to openness are subject to decreasing returns, indicating that there is a point where additional search becomes unproductive.”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § INTRODUCTION · hedged
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Of our control variables, the parameters for R&D intensity (RDINT), the scope of the market (GEOMARKET), and collaboration in innovative activities (COLLAB) are consistently positive and significant in explaining the proportion of sales due Strat.Mgmt.J., 27: 131-150 (2006) to novel products no matter the degree of novelty of the product.”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > Statistical method and results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The residuals of the Tobit model follow a lognormal distribution.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The latent variable of innovative performance of a firm is a function of a number of explicative variables.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Chemicals, electrical and machinery industries exhibit the highest level of external search breath, indicating that firms in industries with medium to high levels of scientific and technological activity search widely.”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > Descriptive results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Whether or not the firm is a start-up has no positive influence on innovative performance, no matter whether or not this is conditional on the R&D intensity of the firm.”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > Statistical method and results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The residuals of the Tobit model follow a lognormal distribution.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The latent variable of innovative performance of a firm is a function of a number of explicative variables.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The results show that in the case of INNWORLD (Model I) the parameter for DEPTH is significantly larger than for INNIMP (Model III) at the 5 percent level.”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > Statistical method and results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The residuals of the Tobit model follow a lognormal distribution.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The latent variable of innovative performance of a firm is a function of a number of explicative variables.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The finding is the same when INNFIRM and INNIMP are included as dependent variables (the results of these estimations are not displayed for reasons of space).”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > Statistical method and results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The residuals of the Tobit model follow a lognormal distribution.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The latent variable of innovative performance of a firm is a function of a number of explicative variables.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As in the case of the DEPTH variable, we detect a curvilinear relationship with INNWORLD, since the DEPTH COLLAB variable and the squared term are both significant and have the expected signs.”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > Statistical method and results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The residuals of the Tobit model follow a lognormal distribution.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The latent variable of innovative performance of a firm is a function of a number of explicative variables.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The outcome of this exercise shows that the size of the parameter in Model I (where the dependent variable is INNWORLD) for BREADTH is significantly smaller than the parameter in Model III (where the dependent variable is INNIMP) at the 1 percent level”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > Statistical method and results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The residuals of the Tobit model follow a lognormal distribution.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The latent variable of innovative performance of a firm is a function of a number of explicative variables.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“but the parameter in Model I is not significantly larger than the parameter in Model II.”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > Statistical method and results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The residuals of the Tobit model follow a lognormal distribution.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The latent variable of innovative performance of a firm is a function of a number of explicative variables.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 17
- Probably not a substantial claim. 34
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“These studies are largely based on analysis of patent citation data and patents have several serious shortcomings as indicators of innovation and innovative search.”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Teece, 1986 source
- Partly supportedcites Levin et al., 1987 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Abstract (page unavailable) says industries differ substantially in patents generated per dollar of R&D and discusses the need to improve research that uses patent counts to measure innovative activity. This supports a limitation of patents as indicators of innovation, but our copy does not establish the claimed shortcomings of patent citation data as indicators of innovative search. (LLM, conf=0.82)
- Not matchedcites Alcacer and Gittelman, 2004
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The results indicate that while there are decreasing returns in innovation for increased openness in terms of breadth, no negative returns are to be detected.”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > Statistical method and results
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The residuals of the Tobit model follow a lognormal distribution.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The latent variable of innovative performance of a firm is a function of a number of explicative variables.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The results show that the dummies below the benchmark all have a negative sign-as expected-but only the dummy for the value of 0 is significant.”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > Statistical method and results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The residuals of the Tobit model follow a lognormal distribution.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The latent variable of innovative performance of a firm is a function of a number of explicative variables.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Accordingly, the results indicate that while there are decreasing returns in innovation for increased openness in terms of external search depth, there are negative returns for 9-16 sources only.”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > Statistical method and results
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The residuals of the Tobit model follow a lognormal distribution.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The latent variable of innovative performance of a firm is a function of a number of explicative variables.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“while 4.94 percent of firms' turnover pertain to innovations new to the firm (INNFIRM)”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > Statistical method and results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Both the level of external search breadth and depth are highest in industries with high levels of R&D intensity and rates of innovation.”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > Descriptive results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, on average, firms use about seven sources of knowledge for their innovative activities”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > Statistical method and results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The parameters for lead users (USER) are significant for radical and well as for incremental innovation, but not for the intermediate category (INNFIRM).”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > Statistical method and results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The residuals of the Tobit model follow a lognormal distribution.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The latent variable of innovative performance of a firm is a function of a number of explicative variables.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The dummy above the benchmark is positive but insignificant.”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > Statistical method and results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The residuals of the Tobit model follow a lognormal distribution.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The latent variable of innovative performance of a firm is a function of a number of explicative variables.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“From the table it can be seen that on, average, 2.81 percent of firms' turnover can be attributed to products new to the world (INNWORLD)”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > Statistical method and results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In fact, from Model VII in Table 5, it can be seen that the interaction effects between R&D intensity and both BREADTH and DEPTH are significant at the 5 percent level, but they have negative signs, indicating a substitution effect between internal R&D and openness.”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > Statistical method and results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The residuals of the Tobit model follow a lognormal distribution.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The latent variable of innovative performance of a firm is a function of a number of explicative variables.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The parameter for DEPTH of openness is the highest in the case of INNWORLD, while INNFIRM is lower and the parameter for INNIMP is the smallest to the extent that it is insignificant.”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > Statistical method and results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The residuals of the Tobit model follow a lognormal distribution.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The latent variable of innovative performance of a firm is a function of a number of explicative variables.
In the paper
“This model suggests that the advantages that firms gain from internal R&D expenditure have declined.”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Chesbrough, 2003a
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
In the paper
“It received a response rate of 41.7 percent (Stockdale, 2002).”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > Sample
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Stockdale, 2002
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“In contrast, Cohen andLevinthal (1989, 1990) argue that R&D has two faces: not only does R&D generate genuinely new knowledge; it also enhances the firm's ability to assimilate and exploit existing knowledge from the”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > Openness and absorptive capacity
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, Chesbrough's work on the 'open innovation' model has not yet been empirically examined using a large-scale dataset and the previous literature on innovative search has not yet investigated the role of search among external actors and sources.”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > INTRODUCTION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“New models of innovation have suggested that many innovative firms have changed the way they search for new ideas, adopting open search strategies that involve the use of a wide range of external actors and sources to help them achieve and sustain innovation.”
- Also stated in: § INTRODUCTION · hedged
“Chesbrough (2003a) suggests that many innovative firms have shifted to an 'open innovation' model, using a wide range of external actors and sources to help them achieve and sustain innovation.”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Chesbrough, 2003a
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Also stated in: § INTRODUCTION · hedged
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The sample was stratified by 12 Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) classes and includes all main sectors of the U.K. economy, excluding public bodies, retail, and hotels and restaurants.”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > Sample
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The interpretability, reliability, and validity of the survey were established by extensive piloting and pre-testing before implementation within different European countries and across firms from a variety of industrial sectors, including services, construction and manufacturing.”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > Sample
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The response rates for different sectors, regions, and size are largely consistent with the overall response pattern (Stockdale, 2002).”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > Sample
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Stockdale, 2002
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our subsample of the survey includes 2707 manufacturing firms and draw from the entire U.K. manufacturing sector.”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > Sample
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“CIS data offer 'a direct measure of success in commercializing innovations for a broad range of industries . . .that more traditional measures may not capture' (Leiponen and Helfat, 2003).”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > Sample
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Leiponen and Helfat, 2003
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A further limitation of the present paper has to do with the fact that we have focused on the distinction between incremental and radical innovations only.”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > Limitations and future research
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although the list of sources on the questionnaire is not fully comprehensive, it is extensive and the items are not mutually exclusive.”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > Independent variables
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The variables reflecting the innovative performance of firms are highly skewed and, accordingly, the pattern observed in the empirical distribution is better represented by lognormal distributions.”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > Statistical method and results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While the present study examined different external search strategies for innovative ideas across different knowledge sources, it did not investigate the role of the type and nature of the technological trajectory that a firm may be exploring (as in the case of Katila and Ahuja) and how its approach to this trajectory may influence its innovative performance.”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > Limitations and future research
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As in the case of BREADTH and DEPTH, the eight dummies are subsequently added up so that each firm gets a score of 0 when no partners are used, while the firm gets a value of 8 when the firm is collaborating with all potential collaboration partners (Cronbach's alpha coefficient = 0.83).”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > Independent variables
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The lack of openness of firms to their external environment may reflect an organizational myopia, indicating that managers may overemphasize internal sources and under emphasize external sources.”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although our variable is a relatively simple construct, it has a high degree of internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha coefficient = 0.93).”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > Independent variables
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The sources listed in the survey overlap with the resources and institutions that are considered part of the national innovation system (Lundvall, 1992;Nelson, 1993;Spencer, 2001).”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > Independent variables
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“As Chesbrough suggests, firms that are too internally focused may miss opportunities, as many knowledge sources necessary to achieve innovation can only be found outside the firm.”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Chesbrough
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“This finding is consistent with the findings from previous studies (see Cohen, 1995;Laursen and Foss, 2003).”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > Statistical method and results
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Cohen, 1995
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Laursen and Foss, 2003
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As in the case of BREADTH, the 16 sources are subsequently added up so that each firm gets a score of 0 when no knowledge sources are used to a high degree, while the firm gets the value of 16 when all knowledge sources are used to a high degree (Cronbach's alpha coefficient = 0.76).”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > Independent variables
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Past research suggests that firms producing simple or discrete technologies that are artefactually simple, that is, they involve relatively few components and clear interfaces between modules, or that rely on a small number of knowledge bases, will tend to search more narrowly than firms involved in the design and development of complex technologies (Nelson and Winter, 1982).”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > Limitations and future research
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Nelson and Winter, 1982
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Openness to external sources allows firms to draw in ideas from outsiders to deepen the pool of technological opportunities available to them.”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“However, a very similar variable to that of the variable measuring search breadth has been used byLaursen and Salter (2003) as a predictor of the propensity of firms to use knowledge developed at universities.”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > Limitations and future research
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Laursen and Salter (2003)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our approach focuses on innovative search and performance in one period and this remains a severe limitation of the study.”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > Limitations and future research
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, it may also be the result of an additional attention allocation problem, since ideas are produced both internally and externally.”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > Statistical method and results
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Other studies, facing similar problems in terms of similar characteristics of skewness and departure from normality, have proposed a log-transformation of the Tobit model with a multiplicative exponential error term (Filippucci, Drudi, and Papalia, 1996;Papalia and Di Iorio, 2001).”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > Statistical method and results
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Filippucci, Drudi, and Papalia, 1996
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Papalia and Di Iorio, 2001 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One likely interpretation of this result is that it is the product of the NIH syndrome-that greater attention to openness for external sources confronts internal resistance from some of the company's technical staff.”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > Statistical method and results
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Complex technologies, such as aeroengines, often require firms to master a wide number of different knowledge bases and to understand the interfaces and integration of a range of different components (Brusoni, Prencipe, and Pavitt, 2001).”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > Limitations and future research
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Brusoni, Prencipe, and Pavitt, 2001 source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As pointed out earlier in this paper, a limitation of the framework proposed here is that it does not allow for the analysis of the importance of breadth and depth of external search to innovative performance within each individual knowledge channel.”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > Limitations and future research
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although the introduction of any variable into a well-established area of research is always contentious, the introduction of the two new variables to reflect the openness of innovative search does enable researchers to better explore the link between innovative search and innovative performance.”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > Independent variables
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“AlsoLeiponen and Helfat (2003) use a similar search breadth variable.”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > Limitations and future research
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Leiponen and Helfat (2003)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Given that many studies of innovation have found that a key source for innovations are lead users, we include a variable reflecting the use of lead users in innovation (Rothwell et al., 1974;Urban and von Hippel, 1988;von Hippel, 1988).”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > Control variables
What the sources say
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The authors state this as an assumption.
The residuals of the Tobit model follow a lognormal distribution.
“We apply this approach to the study of innovative performance and assume a lognormal distribution for the residuals of the Tobit model.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The latent variable of innovative performance of a firm is a function of a number of explicative variables.
“It is then assumed that the latent variable of innovative performance of a firm i is a function of a number of explicative variables.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Firms are increasingly drawing in knowledge from external sources in their innovative activities.
“Firms are increasingly drawing in knowledge from external sources in their innovative activities.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Modern innovation processes require firms to master highly specific knowledge about different users, technologies, and markets.
“Modern innovation processes require firms to master highly specific knowledge about different users, technologies, and markets.”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > Statistical method and results
“In a similar fashion, we create dummies for the ranges of 0 sources; 1-4 sources; 5-8 sources; and for 9-16 sources.”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > Limitations and future research
“| DUM BREADTH, 9-14 sources Benchmark | | | | | | | | | | | DUM BREADTH, 15-16 sources | 0.166 | 0.347 | | | | | | | |”
Citations
Cites
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
Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning
March, J. G. (1991) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2.1.71 · Cited by 21,942
An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change.
Loasby, B. J., Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1983) · The Economic Journal · doi:10.2307/2232409 · Cited by 21,426
Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy
Fukuyama, F., & Schumpeter, J. A. (1997) · Foreign Affairs · doi:10.2307/20048211 · Cited by 15,349
Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance
Porter, M. E. (1985) · Cited by 14,725
Henderson, R. M., & Clark, K. B. (1990) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393549 · Cited by 8,563
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
Teece, D. J. (1986) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/0048-7333(86)90027-2 · Cited by 7,842
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
Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. (1993) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.4250141009 · Cited by 7,646
Research works printed but not linked: 6
- Chesbrough H, 2003, Open Innovation
- Filippucci C, 1996, Testing the relevance of Tobin's approach for modelling consumption, Economic Notes, 25, 225
- Greene WH, 2000, Econometric Analysis
- LaursenK SalterAJ.2003.Searching low and high: why do firms cite universities as a source of innovation?Paper presented at the EMAEE 2003 Conference on the ‘Knowledge‐Based Economies: New Challenges in Methodology Theory and Policy’ Augsburg Germany.
- Pavitt KLR, 1989, Accumulation, diversification and organization of technological activities in U.K. companies, 1945–83, Management Science, 35, 81
- von Hippel E, 1988, The Sources of Innovation
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 2,901–3,000 of 6,332
Gnekpe, C., Cœurderoy, R., & Mulotte, L. (2022) · Industry and Innovation · doi:10.1080/13662716.2022.2130035 · Cited by 12
“Technological discontinuities are common in this industry, which increases the risk linked to an excessive reliance on in-house technology development; consequently, firms source technological knowledge outside their boundaries (Laursen and Salter 2006).”
Son, S. C., & Zo, H. (2021) · Technology Analysis and Strategic Management · doi:10.1080/09537325.2021.2007237 · Cited by 12
“Open R&D complements internal R&D in SMEs (Drechsler and Natter 2012) and contributes to overcoming insu ffi cient internal resources (Laursen and Salter 2006).”
BackgroundChen, W., Lee, Y. L., Yap, J. B. H., & Abdul‐Rahman, H. (2018) · Journal of Civil Engineering and Management · doi:10.3846/jcem.2018.1626 · Cited by 12
Open Innovation: A New Classification and Its Impact on Firm Performance in Innovative SMEsPreprint
Ahn, J. M., Minshall, T., & Mortara, L. (2014) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2431205 · Cited by 12
Learning to Manage Breadth: Experience as Repetition and Adaptation
Dutt, N., & Lawrence, M. L. (2021) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2021.1482 · Cited by 12
The pivotal role of students’ absorptive capacity in management learning
Fernández‐Mesa, A., Olmos‐Peñuela, J., García-Granero, A., et al. (2022) · The International Journal of Management Education · doi:10.1016/j.ijme.2022.100687 · Cited by 12
Sustainability of Cluster Organizations as Open Innovation Intermediaries
Lis, A. M., McPhillips, M., & Lis, A. (2020) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su122410520 · Cited by 14
Innovation in Germany - results of the German CIS 2006 to 2010
Aschhoff, B., Baier, E., Crass, D., et al. (2013) · MADOC (University of Mannheim) · Cited by 12
Maté‐Sánchez‐Val, M., & Martínez‐Victoria, M. (2024) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2024.115168 · Cited by 12
Hinkkanen, J. J. (2014) · LUTPub (LUT University) · Cited by 12
The Recent Growth Performance of US Firms in the Industrial Design Sector: An Exploratory Study
Vanchan, V., & Macpherson, A. D. (2008) · Industry and Innovation · doi:10.1080/13662710701524015 · Cited by 12
An Open Data Repository for Engineering Design: Using Text Mining with Open Government Data
Giordano, V., Coli, E., & Martini, A. (2022) · Computers in Industry · doi:10.1016/j.compind.2022.103738 · Cited by 14
Network Analysis of Open Innovation
(2016) · doi:10.20944/preprints201607.0088.v2 · Cited by 12
Developing capabilities in new ventures: a knowledge management approach
Bettiol, M., Marchi, V. D., & Maria, E. D. (2015) · Knowledge Management Research & Practice · doi:10.1057/kmrp.2015.16 · Cited by 12
Online Communities and Open Innovation
Francesconi, A., Bonazzi, R., & Dossena, C. (2013) · International Journal of E-Services and Mobile Applications · doi:10.4018/ijesma.2013100102 · Cited by 12
Potencjał relacyjny a innowacyjność przedsiębiorstwa - w kierunku open innovation
Zakrzewska-Bielawska, A. (2016) · Management Forum · doi:10.15611/mf.2016.1.01 · Cited by 12
THE DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION AND ITS IMPACT ON SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED ENTERPRISES
Kyurova, A. (2022) · Entrepreneurship · doi:10.37708/ep.swu.v10i1.1 · Cited by 12
Barron, A., & Pereda, A. (2019) · Long Range Planning · doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2019.101931 · Cited by 13
Musiello-Neto, F. E., Rua, O. L., Arias-Oliva, M., et al. (2022) · International Journal of Innovation · doi:10.5585/iji.v10i1.20703 · Cited by 12
“Thus, the open innovation process forces suppliers to be more creative and innovative because the knowledge providers induce strategic partners to develop high value-added products (Chesbrough & Crowther 2006; Laursen & Salter 2006).”
BackgroundAsymmetric information as a barrier to knowledge spillovers in expert markets
Feser, D., & Proeger, T. (2016) · International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal · doi:10.1007/s11365-016-0404-9 · Cited by 13
Moreira, S., Cabaleiro, G., & Reichstein, T. (2018) · Industrial and Corporate Change · doi:10.1093/icc/dty036 · Cited by 12
Motohashi, K., Ikeuchi, K., & Yamaguchi, A. (2024) · The Journal of Technology Transfer · doi:10.1007/s10961-024-10138-x · Cited by 12
“In addition, compared to R&D solely conducted by for-profit companies, projects utilizing industry-academia collaborations are more likely to target at novel innovations (Laursen and Salter, 2006).”
Leveraging supplier involvement for fueling manufacturers' firm creativity
Cheng, C. C. J., & Sheu, C. (2022) · Industrial Marketing Management · doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2022.10.014 · Cited by 14
Von Kundenorientierung zu Customer Co-Creation im Innovationsprozess
Ihl, C., & Piller, F. (2010) · Marketing Review St Gallen · doi:10.1007/s11621-010-0071-0 · Cited by 9
OPEN INNOVATION PRACTICE: EXPLORING OPPORTUNITIES AND POTENTIAL RISKS
Lazarenko, Y. (2019) · Baltic Journal of Economic Studies · doi:10.30525/2256-0742/2019-5-2-90-95 · Cited by 12
Fernández, P. M., & Seclen-Luna, J. P. (2023) · Journal of the Knowledge Economy · doi:10.1007/s13132-023-01305-w · Cited by 13
“One of the main advantages of external sources is that they can help generate positive innovation returns (Laursen & Salter, 2006).”
InfluentialSources of knowledge and innovation for sustainable development: A multifaceted perspective
Wu, A., & Zhai, X. (2023) · Sustainable Development · doi:10.1002/sd.2556 · Cited by 12
Lendowski, E., Oldeweme, A., & Schewe, G. (2022) · International Journal of Innovation Management · doi:10.1142/s1363919622500153 · Cited by 13
Cross-border mergers and acquisitions: Impact on marketing capability and firm performance
Rahman, M., Lambkin, M., & Shams, S. R. (2021) · Journal of General Management · doi:10.1177/0306307020934673 · Cited by 9
“We conducted a Tobit regression analysis (Laursen and Salter, 2006), as follows”
MethodInfluentialBeyond ‘related variety’: how inflows of skills shape innovativeness in different industries
Herstad, S. J. (2017) · European Planning Studies · doi:10.1080/09654313.2017.1392490 · Cited by 12
Trillo, F. H. (2017) · The International Trade Journal · doi:10.1080/08853908.2017.1387622 · Cited by 12
Knowledge sourcing strategy and radical innovative performance: A temporal approach
Ganotakis, P., Yeung, M., Angelidou, S., et al. (2024) · Industrial Marketing Management · doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2024.11.009 · Cited by 12
Digital anthropology as method for lead user identification from unstructured big data
Sánchez, V. V. S., Giacalone, D., & Goduscheit, R. C. (2017) · Creativity and Innovation Management · doi:10.1111/caim.12228 · Cited by 12
Charmjuree, T., Badir, Y. F., & Safdar, U. (2021) · European Journal of Innovation Management · doi:10.1108/ejim-07-2020-0263 · Cited by 12
On the Estimation of True State Dependence in the Persistence of Innovation*
Arroyabe, M. F., & Schumann, M. (2022) · Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics · doi:10.1111/obes.12482 · Cited by 12
Ex-ante evaluation of publicly funded R&D projects: Searching for exploration
Bulathsinhala, N. A. (2014) · Science and Public Policy · doi:10.1093/scipol/scu035 · Cited by 12
In Need of Creative Mobile Service Ideas? Forget Adults and Ask Young Children
Kuzmickaja, I., Wang, X., Graziotin, D., Dodero, G., & Abrahamsson, P. (2015) · SAGE Open · doi:10.1177/2158244015601719 · Cited by 17
Liedong, T. A., Peprah, A. A., & Eyong, J. E. (2020) · Strategic Change · doi:10.1002/jsc.2310 · Cited by 12
The role of knowledge sources of SMEs for innovation perception and regional innovation policy
van Hemert, P., Masurel, E., & Nijkamp, P. J. (2011) · Regional Science Policy & Practice · doi:10.1111/j.1757-7802.2011.01043.x · Cited by 12
Wang, T., Wang, J., Shi, J., et al. (2024) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2024.101613 · Cited by 12
Acevedo, J. P., & Díaz-Molina, I. (2019) · Journal of technology management & innovation · doi:10.4067/s0718-27242019000400006 · Cited by 12
Formal and Informal External Linkages and Firms’ Innovative Strategies: A Cross-Country Comparison
Freitas, I. M. B., Clausen, T. H., Fontana, R., et al. (2011) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-15886-5_6 · Cited by 12
Search Strategies in Innovation Networks: The Case of the Hungarian Food Industry
Tóth, J., & Rizzo, G. (2020) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su12051752 · Cited by 12
More is less: The dual role of government subsidy in firms’ new product development
Liu, Z., Zhou, J., Li, J., & Ma, X. (2024) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2024.114908 · Cited by 13
Open Innovation in Ecuadorian SMEs: The Importance of Strategy and the Moderating Effect of Control
Guijarro, A. M., & Torres, A. C. G. (2022) · Management and Organization Review · doi:10.1017/mor.2022.28 · Cited by 12
Herb, W., Lotze, M., Schultze, W., et al. (2024) · Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting · doi:10.1007/s11156-024-01310-3 · Cited by 12
Toward a Construct of Liability of OriginPreprint
Amankwah‐Amoah, J. (2016) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2800485 · Cited by 12
Generating innovation opportunities: how to explore and absorb customer knowledge
Kallio, A., & Bergenholtz, C. (2011) · International Journal of Technology Management · doi:10.1504/ijtm.2011.042981 · Cited by 12
Zhang, K., & Song, Y. (2022) · Information Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.ins.2022.08.035 · Cited by 12
A configurational approach to innovation performance: The role of creativity
Lora, V. D. C., Martínez-Fernández, T., Vallet‐Bellmunt, T., & Roig‐Tierno, N. (2023) · International Journal of Innovation Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijis.2023.03.001 · Cited by 13
Li, Y., Huang, Z., Dineen, B. R., Wang, M., & van Jaarsveld, D. D. (2024) · Personnel Psychology · doi:10.1111/peps.12661 · Cited by 13
Demir, F., & Lukeš, M. (2024) · R and D Management · doi:10.1111/radm.12697 · Cited by 13
Jang, S., Ko, H., Chung, Y., et al. (2021) · Technology Analysis and Strategic Management · doi:10.1080/09537325.2021.1964465 · Cited by 12
Identifying Participants' Roles in Open Government Platforms and Its Impact on Community Growth
Koch, G., Hutter, K., Decarli, P., Hilgers, D., & Füller, J. (2013) · Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) · doi:10.1109/hicss.2013.254 · Cited by 12
AN INDIVIDUAL PERSPECTIVE ON OPEN INNOVATION CAPABILITIES IN THE CONTEXT OF HAUTE CUISINE
Braun, A., & Bockelmann, L. (2016) · International Journal of Innovation Management · doi:10.1142/s136391961650002x · Cited by 10
Closed-open innovation strategy for autonomous vehicle development
Blankesteijn, M., Jong, F. D., & Bossink, B. A. G. (2019) · International Journal of Automotive Technology and Management · doi:10.1504/ijatm.2019.098507 · Cited by 12
Impact of cooperation flexibility on innovation flexibility in SMEs
Tomášková, E., & Kaňovská, L. (2022) · Equilibrium Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy · doi:10.24136/eq.2022.019 · Cited by 12
“The items used in the questionnaire were inspired by Tomášková (2005), Liao and Barnes (2015), Obeidat et al. (2016). The items relating to innovation performance were based on Liao and Barnes (2015) and Obeidat et al.”
MethodResultOpen Foresight: Exploiting Information from External SourcesPreprint
Ehls, D., Korreck, S., Jahn, R., Zeng, M. A., Heuschneider, S., Herstatt, C., Koller, H. U., & Spaeth, S. (2016) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2764208 · Cited by 12
Technology Vision: a scale development
Reid, S. E., & Roberts, D. L. (2011) · R and D Management · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9310.2011.00661.x · Cited by 12
Reflections on the 2022 AMR Decade Award: Crowdsourcing as a Solution to Distant Search
Afuah, A. N., & Tucci, C. L. (2023) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2023.0202 · Cited by 11
Strengthening competency linkage to innovation at Korean universities
Lee, Y.-G. (2011) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-011-0497-4 · Cited by 12
Nasirov, S., & Joshi, A. M. (2023) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/j.respol.2023.104870 · Cited by 14
Firm Openness and Managerial Innovation: Rebalancing Deliberate Actions and Institutional Pressures
Bocquet, R., & Dubouloz, S. (2020) · Journal of Innovation Economics & Management · doi:10.3917/jie.032.0043 · Cited by 14
Measurement of disruptive innovation and its validity based on improved disruption index
Zhang, Z., Zhang, J., & Wang, P. (2024) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-024-05134-9 · Cited by 16
Open innovation in the European space sector: Existing practices, constraints and opportunities
van Burg, E., Giannopapa, C. G., & Reymen, I. M. M. J. (2017) · Acta Astronautica · doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2017.09.019 · Cited by 12
The role of prior experience and goal orientation in individual absorptive capacity
Ojo, A. O., & Raman, M. (2016) · Industrial Management & Data Systems · doi:10.1108/imds-05-2015-0187 · Cited by 12
Wu, S., Ning, L., & Mu, S.-J. (2025) · Journal of business research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2025.115561 · Cited by 11
IT impact on open innovation performance: Insights from a large-scale empirical investigation
Castillo, A., Ruiz, L., Benitez, J., Schuberth, F., & Reina, R. (2023) · Decision Support Systems · doi:10.1016/j.dss.2023.114025 · Cited by 15
Guo, M., Yang, N., Wang, J., et al. (2023) · Journal of Knowledge Management · doi:10.1108/jkm-01-2023-0072 · Cited by 12
Mai, Y., Xiong, C., & He, X. (2015) · Chinese Management Studies · doi:10.1108/cms-05-2013-0078 · Cited by 12
User Innovation: Der Kunde als Initiator und Beteiligter im Innovationsprozess
Piller, F. T. (2006) · Cited by 11
Dotzel, K. R., & Faggian, A. (2019) · Growth and Change · doi:10.1111/grow.12289 · Cited by 10
The Effects of Digital Technology Strategy Configurations on New Venture Performance
Wang, H., & Wu, W. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management · doi:10.1109/tem.2024.3363625 · Cited by 12
Huang, C., & Hsueh, C. (2023) · Technology Analysis and Strategic Management · doi:10.1080/09537325.2023.2217458 · Cited by 11
“Firms in a structural hole positions control resource and knowledge fl ows (Burt 1992) which facilitates evaluating the value of internal knowledge to adjacent fi elds (Karamanos 2016) for (existing) product innovation (Laursen and Salter 2006).”
The legacy of public subsidies for innovation: input, output and behavioural additionality effects
Roper, S., & Hewitt‐Dundas, N. (2016) · Research Portal (Queen's University Belfast) · Cited by 11
Capelli, S., Falchi, A., Hussler, C., & Sabadie, W. (2017) · Gestion 2000 · doi:10.3917/g2000.333.0117 · Cited by 11
Tang, S., Liao, S., Wang, L., Chen, W., & Guo, Z. (2022) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.784738 · Cited by 11
“Knowledge base is usually considered as R&D intensity, i.e., the ratio of firms’ annual R&D expenditure to their sales (Cohen and Levinthal, 1989; Laursen and Salter, 2006).”
BackgroundInfluentialWhen reality diverges from expectations… Industry 4.0, FDI and post-transition economy
Götz, M. A., & Jankowska, B. (2022) · Technology in Society · doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.101936 · Cited by 11
Developing and Evaluating New ICT Innovation System: Case Study of Korea’s Smart Media Industry
Kim, E., Lee, D., Bae, K., et al. (2015) · ETRI Journal · doi:10.4218/etrij.15.0115.0059 · Cited by 11
Song, L., Fu, Y., Su, J., et al. (2021) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2021.3065360 · Cited by 11
Chen, X., Zhang, H., & Wang, B. (2022) · Technology Analysis and Strategic Management · doi:10.1080/09537325.2022.2153661 · Cited by 11
“For example, literature has divided OI into search breadth and depth according to the intensity of openness (Laursen and Salter 2006), inbound and outbound according to the direction of openness (Dahlander and Gann 2010), alliance and licensing according to organ-isational forms (Bianchi et al.…”
Cai, W., Gu, J., & Wu, J. (2023) · Management Decision · doi:10.1108/md-09-2022-1174 · Cited by 11
Koouba, K., M’henni, H., & Gabsi, F. B. (2010) · International Journal of Technological Learning Innovation and Development · doi:10.1504/ijtlid.2010.036491 · Cited by 11
Unveiling new opportunities: A mixed gamble approach to external search breadth within family firms
Martínez‐Alonso, R., Romero, M. J. M., & Ramírez, A. A. R. (2023) · Technovation · doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2023.102896 · Cited by 13
Zhou, Y. (., Xu, J. (., & Liu, Z. (2026) · Technovation · doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2026.103475 · Cited by 15
Determinants of Open Contest Participation in Online Labor MarketsPreprint
Chen, P.-Y., Pavlou, P. A., & Yang, Y. (2014) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2510114 · Cited by 11
Mix and match: what is the best R&D recipe for eco-innovation?
Ayoub, M., & Lhuillery, S. (2024) · Industry and Innovation · doi:10.1080/13662716.2024.2359380 · Cited by 10
“Consistent with the theory, it has been shown econometrically that both very small and very large knowledge breadth hamper innovation (e.g. Criscuolo et al. 2018; Dahlander, O’Mahony, and Gann 2016; Haus-Reve, Fitjar, and Rodríguez-Pose 2019; Katila and Ahuja 2002; Laursen and Salter 2006).”
Open collaboration between universities and enterprises: a case study on GitHub
Cheng, X., Zhang, Z., Yang, Y., & Yan, Z. (2020) · Internet Research · doi:10.1108/intr-01-2019-0013 · Cited by 11
How customer knowledge affects exploration: Generating, guiding, and gatekeeping
Sihvonen, A., Luoma, J. S., & Falk, T. (2021) · Industrial Marketing Management · doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2021.02.005 · Cited by 15
Shaping the firm’s external search strategy
García-Granero, A., Vega‐Jurado, J., & Alegre, J. (2014) · Innovation · doi:10.1080/14479338.2014.11081997 · Cited by 11
Cross-sectoral differences in the drivers of innovation
Doran, J., & Jordan, D. (2016) · Journal of Economic Studies · doi:10.1108/jes-10-2014-0171 · Cited by 11
Innovation Success of Non-R&D-Performers: Substituting Technology by Management in SMEsPreprint
Rammer, C., Czarnitzki, D., & Spielkamp, A. (2008) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.1314246 · Cited by 11
Miranda, J., Chavarría-Barrientos, D., Macías, M. E., et al. (2017) · International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation (ICE/ITMC) · doi:10.1109/ice.2017.8280021 · Cited by 11
Hartono, A., & Kusumawardhani, R. (2018) · Journal of Indonesian Economy and Business · doi:10.22146/jieb.29218 · Cited by 11
Nicholas, J., Ledwith, A., Aloini, D., Martini, A., & Nosella, A. (2015) · International Journal of Technology Management · doi:10.1504/ijtm.2015.068779 · Cited by 11
Analysis of open innovation communities from the perspective of Social Network Analysis
Torres, M. D. R. M. (2013) · Intangible Capital · doi:10.3926/ic.352 · Cited by 11
Song, Y., Zhang, K., Hong, X., et al. (2021) · Applied Soft Computing · doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2021.107530 · Cited by 11
Localized Knowledge Flows and Asymmetric Motivations in Open Innovation
West, J. (2020) · Journal of Innovation Economics & Management · doi:10.3917/jie.032.0181 · Cited by 12
de Macedo-Soares, T. D. L. V. A., Paula, F. D. O., & Mendonça, H. L. (2017) · Journal of technology management & innovation · doi:10.4067/s0718-27242017000400002 · Cited by 11
Howard, M. D., Lyles, M. A., & Yoon, H. (2023) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/01492063231194973 · Cited by 11
“Firms increasingly seek knowledge from outside sources to boost their innovative performance (Grigoriou & Rothaermel, 2017; Laursen & Salter, 2006; Love, Roper, & Vahter, 2014; Van de Vrande, 2013).”
Metadata
- Authors
- Laursen, K., & Salter, A.
- Affiliations
- Copenhagen Business School (DK)
- Imperial College London (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Salter, Ammon
- Venue
- Strategic Management Journal
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2005-11-21
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 131-150
- ISSN
- 0143-2095 (ISSN-L)
- 1097-0266
- OpenAlex
- W2087712586
- Cited by
- 6,324
- References
- 82
- Citations by year
- 2026: 336 · 2025: 337 · 2024: 357 · 2023: 381 · 2022: 423 · 2021: 406 · 2020: 430 · 2019: 424 · 2018: 444 · 2017: 438 · 2016: 366 · 2015: 373 · 2014: 383 · 2013: 313 · 2012: 276
- FWCI
- 178.53
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Strategic Management Journal (publishedVersion)
- CBS Research Portal (Copenhagen Business School) (publishedVersion)
- Warwick Research Archive Portal (University of Warwick) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Copenhagen Business School
- Imperial College London
- Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
- Economic and Social Research Council (RES-331-27-0005)
- Intelligent Manufacturing Research Center
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Innovation and Knowledge Management
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Firm Innovation and Growth
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Business Strategy and Innovation
- Keywords
- open innovation, innovation performance, external knowledge sources, search strategies, manufacturing companies, curvilinear relationship, inverted U-shaped relationship
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-09-28, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-09-28 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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
