Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 466

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The scientific theory‐building process: a primer using the case of TQM

Handfield, Robert B, Melnyk, Steven A·1998·Journal of Operations Management
DOI 10.1016/s0272-6963(98)00017-5
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

As Operations Management (OM) researchers begin to undertake and publish more empirical research, there is a need to understand the nature of the scientific theory‐building process implicit in this activity. This tutorial presents a process map approach to this process. We begin by defining the nature of scientific knowledge, and proceed through the stages of the theory‐building process, using illustrations from OM research in Total Quality Management. The tutorial ends with a discussion of the criteria for OM journal reviewers to consider in evaluating theory‐driven empirical research, and suggests a number of OM topic areas that require greater theory development.

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0272-6963(98)00017-5

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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

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

Show all 4 references

Cited by

See all 466

Metadata

Authors
Handfield, R. B., & Melnyk, S. A.
Venue
Journal of Operations Management
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1998-07
Volume
16
Issue
4
Pages
321-339
ISSN
  • 0272-6963 (ISSN-L)
  • 1873-1317
DOI
10.1016/s0272-6963(98)00017-5
OpenAlex
W1974097914
Cited by
466
References
4
FWCI
3.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The scientific theory‐building process: a primer using the case of TQM. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0272-6963(98)00017-5
The paper
Handfield, R. B., & Melnyk, S. A. (1998). The scientific theory‐building process: a primer using the case of TQM. Journal of Operations Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0272-6963(98)00017-5

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.