The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Conceptual Issues in the Study of Innovation
Open accessOverview
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
Cited by
Clarifying the Entrepreneurial Orientation Construct and Linking It to Performance
Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (1996) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1996.9602161568 · Cited by 10,159
Moore, G. C., & Benbasat, I. (1991) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.2.3.192 · Cited by 9,150
Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators
Damanpour, F. (1991) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/256406 · Cited by 6,542
Hurley, R. F., & Hult, G. T. M. (1998) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1177/002224299806200303 · Cited by 3,971
Innovation in conservative and entrepreneurial firms: Two models of strategic momentum
Miller, D., & Friesen, P. H. (1982) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.4250030102 · Cited by 2,758
Metadata
- Authors
- Downs, G. W., & Mohr, L. B.
- Venue
- Administrative Science Quarterly
- Publisher
- JSTOR
- Published
- 1976-12
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 700
- ISSN
- 0001-8392 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2088425688
- Cited by
- 935
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 93.94
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Conceptual Issues in the Study of Innovation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/2391725
- The paper
- Downs, G. W., & Mohr, L. B. (1976). Conceptual Issues in the Study of Innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.2307/2391725
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.
