The DOI matches its Crossref record; 113 of the 113 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The paradox of openness: Appropriability, external search and collaboration
Open accessAbstract
To innovate, firms often need to draw from, and collaborate with, a large number of actors from outside their organization. At the same time, firms need also to be focused on capturing the returns from their innovative ideas. This gives rise to a paradox of openness—the creation of innovations often requires openness, but the commercialization of innovations requires protection. Based on econometric analysis of data from a UK innovation survey, we find a concave relationship between firms’ breadth of external search and formal collaboration for innovation, and the strength of the firms’ appropriability strategies. We show that this concave relationship is stronger for breadth of formal collaboration than for external search. There is also partial evidence suggesting that the relationship is less pronounced for both external search and formal collaboration if firms do not draw ideas from or collaborate with competitors. We explore the implications of these findings for the literature on open innovation and innovation strategy.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
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
(2001) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · Cited by 27,577
The Theory of Economic Development
Schumpeter, J., & Backhaus, U. (2006) · The European Heritage in Economics and the Social Sciences · doi:10.1007/0-306-48082-4_3 · Cited by 22,506
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 21,366
Self-Reports in Organizational Research: Problems and Prospects
Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/014920638601200408 · Cited by 17,102
Spence, M. (1973) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.2307/1882010 · Cited by 16,171
Estimating Nonresponse Bias in Mail Surveys
Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. S. (1977) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.2307/3150783 · Cited by 12,222
Absorptive Capacity: A Review, Reconceptualization, and Extension
Zahra, S. A., & George, G. (2002) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2002.6587995 · Cited by 10,758
Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys
Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. S. (1977) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1177/002224377701400320 · Cited by 10,390
The Relational View: Cooperative Strategy and Sources of Interorganizational Competitive Advantage
Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. (1998) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1998.1255632 · Cited by 9,943
Cited by
Platform Ecosystems: How Developers Invert the Firm1
Parker, G., Van Alstyne, M., & Jiang, X. (2017) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.25300/misq/2017/41.1.13 · Cited by 624
Lifshitz-Assaf, H. (2018) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.1177/0001839217747876 · Cited by 322
SMEs and open innovation: Challenges and costs of engagement
Costa, A., Crupi, A., De Marco, C. E., & Di Minin, A. (2023) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122731 · Cited by 104
How can Blockchain technology support patent management? A systematic literature review
Denter, N. M., Seeger, F., & Moehrle, M. G. (2023) · International Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2022.102506 · Cited by 64
Metadata
- Authors
- Laursen, K., & Salter, A. J.
- Venue
- Research Policy
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2014-06
- Volume
- 43
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 867-878
- ISSN
- 0048-7333 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1997726814
- Cited by
- 1,083
- References
- 113
- FWCI
- 106.45
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The paradox of openness: Appropriability, external search and collaboration. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.respol.2013.10.004
- The paper
- Laursen, K., & Salter, A. J. (2014). The paradox of openness: Appropriability, external search and collaboration. Research Policy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.10.004
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
