Cited by 173Digital Innovation in IndustriesBig Data and Business IntelligenceDigital Marketing and Social Media

Innovation Analytics and Digital Innovation Experimentation: The Rise of Research-driven Online Review Platforms

Open access
Mariani, Marcello M., Nambisan, Satish·2021·Technological Forecasting and Social Change

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121009

Cites

84 of 84 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • AI has the potential to foster a digital innovation process by developing new and evidence-based approaches for data collection.

    “Also, AI has the potential to foster a digital innovation process by developing new and evidence-based approaches for data collection (Mariani & Nambisan, 2021).”

    From Toward AI Governance: Identifying Best Practices and Potential Barriers and Outcomes (2023) · cites this paper as Mariani & Nambisan, 2021

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 85 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Davenport, T. H., Barth, P., & Bean, R. (2012). How 'big data' is different. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 54 (1), 22-24.
  2. Evans, D. S., & Schmalensee, R. (2016). Matchmakers: The New Economics of Multisided Platforms. Harvard Business Review Press, Boston.
  3. King, N. (1998). Template analysis. In: Cassells, C., & Symon, G. (Eds.), Qualitative Methods and Analysis in Organisational Research: A Practical Guide. Sage, London.
  4. Rüßmann, M., Lorenz, M., Gerbert, P., Waldner, M., Justus, J., Engel, P., & Harnisch, M. (2015). Industry 4.0: the future of productivity and growth in manufacturing industries. Boston Consult. Group 9 (1), 54-89.
  5. Thomke, S. (2020). Building a culture of experimentation. Harv. Bus. Rev. 98 (2), 40-47.
  6. Morgan Kaufmann, Boston, pp. 27-50.
  7. Mark. Sci. Rev. 1 (1), 4-17.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mariani, M. M., & Nambisan, S.
Affiliations
  • University of Reading (GB)
  • Case Western Reserve University (US)
Corresponding author
Mariani, Marcello M.
Venue
Technological Forecasting and Social Change
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-11
Volume
172
Pages
121009
ISSN
0040-1625 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3179824743
Cited by
173
References
85
Citations by year
2026: 29 · 2025: 47 · 2024: 37 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 4
FWCI
20.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Technological Forecasting and Social Change (publishedVersion)
  • CentAUR (University of Reading) (submittedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • Archivio istituzionale della ricerca (Alma Mater Studiorum Università di Bologna) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management of Technology and Innovation › Digital Innovation in Industries
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Big Data and Business Intelligence
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Digital Marketing and Social Media
Keywords
online review platforms, big data analytics, AI-based analytics, platform typology, customer feedback, business model transformation, Industry 4.0, post-COVID-19

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