CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 3scientometrics and bibliometrics researchPublishing and Scholarly CommunicationAcademic Writing and Publishing

Scientific Status and Knowledge Use: Two Perspectives

Zinkhan, G. M.·2005·Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science
DOI 10.1177/0092070305276939
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0092070305276939

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • The concept of relational benefits was introduced more than two decades ago, and many studies have investigated it since then.

    “Although the concept of relational benefits was introduced more than two decades ago, and many studies have investigated it since then (Hult and Ferrell 2012; Zinkhan 2005), several issues continue to limit our understanding of customer relational benefits.”

    From Understanding and managing customer relational benefits in services: a meta-analysis (2020) · cites this paper as Zinkhan 2005

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Zinkhan, G. M.
Affiliations
University of Georgia (US)
Corresponding author
Zinkhan, G. M.
Venue
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2005-07-01
Volume
33
Issue
3
Pages
251-253
ISSN
0092-0703 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1177/0092070305276939
OpenAlex
W2129753735
Cited by
3
References
7
Citations by year
2019: 1 · 2014: 1
FWCI
0.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Publishing and Scholarly Communication
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Academic Writing and Publishing
Keywords
journal quality, journal rankings, citation counts, expert ratings, knowledge application

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