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 4,401–4,500 of 6,332
All of the same breed? A networking perspective of private-collective innovation
Kuk, G., Schaarschmidt, M., & Homscheid, D. (2023) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.114406 · Cited by 2
Determinants of Industry and Region Based Open Innovation in Turkey
Seyfettinoğlu, Ü. K., Şebnem, A. R. I. K., & Çağatay, S. (2020) · Istanbul Business Research · doi:10.26650/ibr.2020.49.0029 · Cited by 2
“The concepts of ‘width’ (stakeholders collaborated for open innovation) and ‘depth’ (level of collaboration) have been developed to describe the level of openness of firms (Laursen and Salter, 2006, 131-136).”
BackgroundConditions Driving Eco-Innovation in a Catching-Up Country—ICT vs. Industry in Poland
Świadek, A., Gorączkowska, J., & Godzisz, K. (2022) · Energies · doi:10.3390/en15155318 · Cited by 2
“In fact, innovation is rarely the result of a single firm’s actions [58,59].”
BackgroundXing, Z., Wang, L., & Fang, D. (2023) · Humanities and Social Sciences Communications · doi:10.1057/s41599-023-02430-2 · Cited by 2
Woo, H., Lim, S. W., & Sohn, S. Y. (2021) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0256157 · Cited by 2
“According to the radical innovation theory, which emphasizes the scalability of knowledge including gaining a new technology as a result of R&D activities [11], prime contractors such as large companies are passive about the radical innovation because they tend to hedge risks due to their hierarchical organizational s…”
BackgroundAppropriability mechanisms of multinational firms — A cross country comparison
Faria, P., & Sofka, W. (2008) · 2008 IEEE International Engineering Management Conference · doi:10.1109/iemce.2008.4617978 · Cited by 3
The Power of Individual-Level Drivers of Inventive PerformancePreprint
Zwick, T., Frosch, K., Karin Hoisl, C., & Harhoff, D. (2015) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2710650 · Cited by 2
Çera, E., & Subashi, R. (2024) · Problems and Perspectives in Management · doi:10.21511/ppm.22(1).2024.20 · Cited by 2
Larkin, D. J., Jaspersen, L. J., & Pandža, K. (2025) · Organization Studies · doi:10.1177/01708406251336023 · Cited by 2
“Organizational capabilities such as open innovation (Laursen & Salter, 2006), human-centric design (Magistretti et al., 2021) and lean start-up experimentation (Leatherbee & Katila, 2020) aim to facilitate stakeholder engagement and multi-sectoral problem-solving (Fung, 2015).”
SEARCH STRATEGIES FOR ORIENTAL BEAUTY: THREE CASES OF LG HOUSEHOLD AND HEALTHCARE
Kim, J.-S. (2020) · International Journal of Innovation Management · doi:10.1142/s1363919621500249 · Cited by 2
Tornjanski, V., Petrović, D. Č., & Milanovic, M. (2016) · Bankarstvo · doi:10.5937/bankarstvo1601070t · Cited by 2
Intangibles From Intangible Capital Work: Their Valuation and Technological Change
Piekkola, H., Bloch, C. W., Rybalka, M., & Redek, T. (2025) · Review of Income and Wealth · doi:10.1111/roiw.70017 · Cited by 2
Openness, open innovation à laChesbrough and intellectual property rights
Carraz, R., Nakayama, I., & Harayama, Y. (2014) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9781107110960.009 · Cited by 2
What Firms Donnt Know Can Hurt Them: Overcoming a Lack of Information on TechnologyPreprint
García‐Quevedo, J., Mas-Verdd, F., & Pellegrino, G. (2017) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3091568 · Cited by 2
The Long Tail of Conflicts in Innovation Projects: Conflicts and Their Impact on Strategic Renewal
Cattaneo, G., Carugati, A., Frederiksen, L., et al. (2024) · Project Management Journal · doi:10.1177/87569728241285139 · Cited by 2
Open Innovation in the Automotive Industry : What can carmakers' annual reports tell us?
Ramírez-Portilla, A., Brown, T., & Cagno, E. (2014) · KTH Publication Database DiVA (KTH Royal Institute of Technology) · Cited by 2
Vega‐Jurado, J., Manjarrés-Henríquez, L., Gutiérrez‐Gracia, A., et al. (2010) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · Cited by 2
Hee-Yeon, L., & Lee, S.-W. (2012) · Journal of the Economic Geographical Society of Korea · doi:10.23841/egsk.2012.15.2.147 · Cited by 2
Инновации и их влияние на экономический рост
(2022) · Экономические науки · doi:10.14451/1.208.203 · Cited by 2
Open innovation in SMEs : a process model for successful implementation
Pellegrino, A. (2017) · Cited by 2
Openness and appropriability of young innovative firms: Evidence from a large-scale survey study
Elzoumor, H., Gifford, E., & Ljungberg, D. (2026) · Journal of Evolutionary Economics · doi:10.1007/s00191-025-00927-4 · Cited by 2
“…involved in the innovation process, has been studied extensively in the economics of innovation literature (Schumpeter 1950; Arrow 1962; Teece 1986), and this has bridged into other literatures such as strategic management (e.g. Chesbrough 2003a; Laursen and Salter 2006; Dahlander and Gann 2010).”
InfluentialInnovation summits: comparison and conceptualisation
Laursen, L. N., & Andersen, P. H. (2016) · European Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1108/ejm-08-2015-0607 · Cited by 2
WHAT MAKES SOME UNIVERSITY SPIN-OFF FIRMS MORE OPEN IN KNOWLEDGE COLLABORATION THAN OTHER ONES?
Ye, Q., Taheri, M., & van Geenhuizen (2012) · Research Repository (Delft University of Technology) · Cited by 2
Belderbos, R., Jacob, J., & Boris Lokshin, A. (2017) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3076883 · Cited by 2
Pi, S., Ma, X., & Wang, J. (2026) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2026.124667 · Cited by 2
Social Entrepreneurs and Lead Users: The Case of the Blue Lagoon, Iceland
Svansson, E. (2018) · Equidad y Desarrollo · doi:10.19052/ed.4446 · Cited by 2
Service oriented cross-industry innovation as one category of open innovation
Song, Y., & Shibata, T. (2014) · Cited by 2
Time is the enemy: The speed of proximity‐based knowledge diffusion
Perri, A., Rullani, F., Giuliani, E., Sabbadin, E., & Oriani, R. (2024) · Journal of Regional Science · doi:10.1111/jors.12740 · Cited by 2
Woy, P., Whalen, K. A., Renström, S., & Fallahi, S. (2025) · Journal of Innovation & Knowledge · doi:10.1016/j.jik.2025.100842 · Cited by 2
Agile management of innovation networks—A theoretical approach
Богданова, М., Парашкевова, Е., Smokova, M., et al. (2025) · Journal of Infrastructure Policy and Development · doi:10.24294/jipd10517 · Cited by 2
“The existing mechanism for open innovation (Laursen and Salter, 2006) based on the attraction of knowledge and resources, outsourcing of intellectual property, and introduction of new business models shows that interaction with external partners is key to successful absorption.”
Determinants of openness in innovation activities: Evidence from China
Xiong, H., Li, J., & Ling, X. (2011) · Cited by 2
Elmquist, M., & Segrestin, B. (2008) · Chalmers Research (Chalmers University of Technology) · Cited by 2
Tekic, A., & Willoughby, K. W. (2017) · Cited by 2
Soeprapto, E. F. (2022) · Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research/Advances in social science, education and humanities research · doi:10.2991/978-2-494069-83-1_125 · Cited by 2
Rojas-Cabezas, G., Víquez-Paniagua, A. G., Nunez, E., & Muñoz, V. (2026) · Management Research The Journal of the Iberoamerican Academy of Management · doi:10.1108/mrjiam-07-2025-1757 · Cited by 3
Analyzing technological innovation in low and medium-low tech peruvian manufacturing companies
Gallegos, J. F. D. C., & Miralles, F. (2018) · Contaduría y Administración · doi:10.22201/fca.24488410e.2018.1830 · Cited by 2
Big data for product innovation in manufacturing
Prester, J., & Jurić, M. (2019) · Tehnički glasnik · doi:10.31803/tg-20181011124610 · Cited by 2
Tilt Toward Exploration: How Does Firms' Innovation Openness Affect Exploratory Innovation Tendency?
Chen, G., Liang, T., & Chen, X. (2025) · Managerial and Decision Economics · doi:10.1002/mde.70013 · Cited by 2
Global networks of open innovation, national systems and public policies
Sachwald, F. (2009) · Cited by 2
Trade-offs between external knowledge sources for firm innovation in a developing country
Bello–Pintado, A., Bianchi, C., & Blanchard, P. (2022) · Industrial and Corporate Change · doi:10.1093/icc/dtac020 · Cited by 2
Localización en parques científico-tecnológicos, capacidades dinámicas e innovación empresarial
Claver‐Cortés, E., Marco‐Lajara, B., & Manresa‐Marhuenda, E. (2015) · LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) · Cited by 2
Balancing innovation value creation and appropriability in R&D alliances
Capaldo, A., & Petruzzelli, A. M. (2010) · Cited by 2
da Silveira, T. B. J., & Lemos, D. D. C. (2021) · Revista de Gestão e Projetos · doi:10.5585/gep.v12i1.18645 · Cited by 2
Zimmermann, J., Grimpe, C., & Sofka, W. (2009) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · Cited by 2
Liu, W., & Ke, W. (2025) · Journal of Strategy & Innovation · doi:10.1016/j.jsinno.2025.200536 · Cited by 2
Nguyen, B., Radnejad, A. B., Verbeke, A. C., & Zoirou, A. (2022) · Journal of Information Technology Case and Application Research · doi:10.1080/15228053.2022.2072162 · Cited by 2
The relationship between non-pecuniary outbound openness and profit in large firms
Wang, B., & Li, Z. (2021) · Technology Analysis and Strategic Management · doi:10.1080/09537325.2021.2011853 · Cited by 2
“In the academic fi eld, scholars have recently argued that the less focus on non-pecuniary outbound OI fails to realise that: (1) in fl ow of knowledge (inbound OI) is usually coupled with out fl ow of knowledge (outbound OI) (e.g. Greco 2018; Laursen and Salter 2006).”
BackgroundLinking Open Innovation and Firm Performance
Musiello-Neto, F. E., Rua, O. L., & Arias-Oliva, M. (2022) · Advances in finance, accounting, and economics book series · doi:10.4018/978-1-7998-8665-5.ch009 · Cited by 2
IWS in der Innovation: Open Innovation
Piller, F., Moeslein, K. M., Ihl, C., & Reichwald, R. (2017) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-658-17514-6_4
All for One and One for All: How Intrafirm Networks Affect the Speed of Knowledge Recombination
Moreira, S., & Markus, A. (2013) · Academy of Management Proceedings · doi:10.5465/ambpp.2013.11915abstract · Cited by 2
Patents and Open Innovation: Bad Fences Do Not Make Good Neighbors
Pénin, J., & Neicu, D. (2018) · Journal of Innovation Economics & Management · doi:10.3917/e.jie.025.0057 · Cited by 2
Jin, L., Geng, R., Tong, Y., et al. (2026) · International Journal of Educational Development · doi:10.1016/j.ijedudev.2026.103514 · Cited by 2
de Sousa, P. H. R., Reyes, E., & Lora, V. D. C. (2021) · Future Studies Research Journal Trends and Strategies · doi:10.24023/futurejournal/2175-5825/2021.v13i1.576 · Cited by 2
Gifford, E., Ljungberg, D., & McKelvey, T. (2015) · Chalmers Research (Chalmers University of Technology) · Cited by 2
Kumar, A., Varsha, P. S., Joshi, M., Samara, G., Narayanasamy, A., & Edacherian, S. (2026) · Journal of Open Innovation Technology Market and Complexity · doi:10.1016/j.joitmc.2026.100732 · Cited by 3
Cerchione, R. (2025) · R and D Management · doi:10.1111/radm.12778 · Cited by 3
“Thus, firms will need to elaborate strategies on how to cope with the IP rights as radical openness is adopted, yet still retain an ability to control their developments, and make certain that the company's strategic position is not undermined by excessive openness (Laursen and Salter 2014).”
Mobility of ideas for innovation: The role of inventor-specific knowledge flowsPreprint
Koski, H. A., & Pajarinen, M. (2015) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · Cited by 2
Ponte, D., Rossi, A., & Zamarian, M. (2008) · IFIP International Federation for Information Processing/IFIP · doi:10.1007/978-0-387-87503-3_17 · Cited by 2
Universities and public research institutes as collaboration partners for firms
Broström, A., & McKelvey, M. (2015) · Edward Elgar Publishing eBooks · doi:10.4337/9781783477326.00009 · Cited by 2
Examining the interaction between university knowledge and firms’ innovation objectives
Nishikawa, K., & Kanama, D. (2019) · Industry and Higher Education · doi:10.1177/0950422219842767 · Cited by 2
Martínez‐Noya, A., & Canal, E. G. (2025) · Technology Analysis and Strategic Management · doi:10.1080/09537325.2025.2582018 · Cited by 2
Bridging the gaps in industry evolution: Solar photovoltaic industry
Theyel, G., Taylor, G., & Heffernan, P. (2011) · IEEE International Technology Management Conference · doi:10.1109/itmc.2011.5996001 · Cited by 2
OPENING UP THE R&D PROCESS IS RISKY — HOW FAR DO YOU HAVE TO GO IN ORDER TO BEAT YOUR COMPETITORS?
Lang, A. S., Tesch, A.-T., & Lindemann, U. (2017) · International Journal of Innovation Management · doi:10.1142/s1363919617400011 · Cited by 2
How does a parent’s knowledge influence the knowledge bridging of joint ventures?
Lin, J., & Hsiao, Y. (2024) · Total Quality Management & Business Excellence · doi:10.1080/14783363.2024.2338109 · Cited by 2
“Previous studies have suggested that fi rms possessing diverse technology resources can expand their capabilities and enhance the probability of developing new products (Almeida & Phene, 2004; Faems et al., 2010; Laursen & Salter, 2006; Phene et al., 2006; Wu & Shanley, 2009).”
BackgroundHosni, M., Ouakil, H., & Lechheb, H. (2025) · Economics · doi:10.2478/eoik-2025-0064 · Cited by 2
Zhao, X., & Liang, L. (2011) · doi:10.1109/ieem.2011.6118081 · Cited by 2
Open Innovation Best Practices
Chesbrough, H. W. (2019) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198841906.003.0009 · Cited by 2
The dark shadow of corruption on new product development
Banerjee, S. (2021) · Benchmarking An International Journal · doi:10.1108/bij-04-2021-0234 · Cited by 2
Can Open Innovation practices leverage Industrial Energy Efficiency Performance
Ramírez-Portilla, A., Brown, T., Cagno, E., et al. (2013) · KTH Publication Database DiVA (KTH Royal Institute of Technology) · Cited by 2
Impacts of Openness on the Success of Information System Development Research Projects
McCarthy, S., O’Raghallaigh, P., Fitzgerald, C., et al. (2017) · doi:10.1145/3126673.3126675 · Cited by 2
Can Cooperation Stimulate Firms’ Eco-Innovation? Firm-level Evidence from ChinaPreprint
Zhang, S., Xu, X., Wang, F., et al. (2022) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1269079/v1 · Cited by 2
“…al.) and vertical collaboration with partners within the supply chain (including consumers and suppliers), and such collaborative activities for innovation has evolved as a new way that helps rms maintain their competitive advantage (Chesbrough 2003; Laursen and Salter 2006; Lichtenthaler 2011).”
BackgroundManaging Open Innovation in SMEs: The CAS Software AG Case StudyPreprint
Brunswicker, S., & Ehrenmann, F. (2012) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2151892 · Cited by 2
Collaboration in Innovation Systems: A Study in India
Pacheco, C., & D., B. P. G. (2023) · Triple Helix Journal · doi:10.1163/21971927-bja10039 · Cited by 2
Matching entrepreneurs with coaches to ignite entrepreneurial learning
Marvel, M. R., Webster, B. D., Kuratko, D. F., & Audretsch, D. B. (2025) · Small Business Economics · doi:10.1007/s11187-025-01000-x · Cited by 2
“…can reduce risk by working with early adopters to facilitate product development builds from Moore (1991) and von Hippel’s research (1978, 1986) as well as more recent innovation research on product-market fit (Joshi & Sharma, 2004; Laursen & Salter, 2006; Yli-Renko & Janakiraman, 2008).”
Brevetti universitari e trasferimento tecnologico: alcune considerazioni critiche
Baglieri, D. (2011) · Sinergie Italian Journal of Management · doi:10.7433/s75.2008.14 · Cited by 2
Evaluation of Sustainable Competitiveness through Innovation
Cavaco, N. M., & Machado, V. A. C. (2018) · International journal of systematic innovation · doi:10.6977/ijosi.201809_5(2).0002 · Cited by 2
How open are African inventors? Open green technologies and patenting activities in Africa
Sanni, M., & Kim, Y. (2023) · African Journal of Science Technology Innovation and Development · doi:10.1080/20421338.2023.2287001 · Cited by 2
“Such internal knowledge may come from co-workers, in-house training, supervisors, fl oor managers, subordinates, in-house documented knowledge, and employees ’ experience (Dost et al. 2020; Laursen and Salter 2006).”
Action-Oriented Framework for User-Driven Technology Innovation
Zaitsava, M. (2022) · Advances in logistics, operations, and management science book series · doi:10.4018/978-1-7998-9764-4.ch014 · Cited by 2
Michelino, F., Cammarano, A., Lamberti, E., et al. (2016) · Journal of Organizational Management Studies · doi:10.5171/2016.845315 · Cited by 2
Who is Generating New Innovations? : An Analysis of Blockchain Engineers
Fujiwara, A. (2020) · International Conference on Information Management · doi:10.1109/icim49319.2020.244713 · Cited by 2
“In other words, companies can create innovation by efficiently incorporating external knowledge [11] [12].”
BackgroundTung, F.-W. (2022) · The Design Journal · doi:10.1080/14606925.2022.2088092 · Cited by 2
Organizational Conditions as Catalysts for Successful People-Focused Knowledge Sharing Initiatives
Sáenz, J., & Aramburu, N. (2012) · Advances in business information systems and analytics book series · doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-1873-2.ch015 · Cited by 2
de Sousa, P. H. R., Reyes, E., Lora, V. D. C., & da Costa, C. C. B. (2021) · International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management · doi:10.1142/s0219877021500413 · Cited by 2
Innovation, Internationalization, and the Transnational Corporation
Ietto‐Gillies, G. (2015) · doi:10.1002/9781118739044.ch6 · Cited by 2
Suzić, N., Vrgović, P., Forza, C., & Chatzimichailidou, M. M. (2024) · Journal of Knowledge Management · doi:10.1108/jkm-08-2023-0712 · Cited by 3
A creative idea exploration model
Kao, S., Wu, C., & Syu, S.-W. (2018) · Multidisciplinary International Social Networks Conference (MISNC) · doi:10.1145/3227696.3227710 · Cited by 2
Imitate, or innovate and collaborate? On innovation strategy choices in the urban economyPreprint
Herstad, S. J., & Nordic, N. (2015) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · Cited by 2
Rammer, C. (2025) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-25143-6_14-1 · Cited by 2
Adıgüzel, Z., Çakır, F. S., & Karaaslan, N. (2026) · foresight · doi:10.1108/fs-01-2025-0002 · Cited by 2
One Foot in, One Foot Out: How Does Individualss External Search Breadth Affect Innovation Outcomes?Preprint
Dahlander, L., O'Mahony, S. C., & Gann, D. (2013) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2366794 · Cited by 2
Moos, B. (2013) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · Cited by 2
Krieger, B., Scrofani, S., & Strecke, L. (2025) · Socio-Economic Planning Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.seps.2025.102387 · Cited by 2
Moehrle, M. G., Schmitt, V. J., Kranzle, T., et al. (2025) · Creativity and Innovation Management · doi:10.1111/caim.70011 · Cited by 2
Lee, J. H., & Kim, B. (2016) · Journal of Korea Service Management Society · doi:10.15706/jksms.2016.17.3.013 · Cited by 2
Higher Education in Regional and City Development: Berlin, Germany 2010
OECD (2010) · Higher education in regional and city development · doi:10.1787/9789264089846-en · Cited by 2
How does the digital divide between enterprises and customers affect enterprise performance?
Meng, C., Yu, X., Luo, J., et al. (2025) · Journal of Innovation & Knowledge · doi:10.1016/j.jik.2025.100914 · Cited by 2
Herstad, S. J., & Ebersberger, B. (2013) · Regional Studies · doi:10.1080/00343404.2013.816413 · Cited by 2
Azeem, M. M., Fazal‐e‐Hasan, S. M., Gutiérrez, L., & Baker, D. (2022) · Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics · doi:10.1111/1467-8489.12482 · Cited by 2
Wang, X., & Zhang, Y. (2019) · Production Planning & Control · doi:10.1080/09537287.2018.1534290 · Cited by 2
Xu, L., Zhao, S., & Yin, X. (2025) · The Journal of Technology Transfer · doi:10.1007/s10961-025-10191-0 · Cited by 2
“Therefore, we hypothesize a positive rela - tionship between R&D collaboration and NPD. Collaborative R&D allows firms to access knowledge beyond their boundaries (Laursen & Salter, 2006).”
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
