Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,457

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Customization or Conformity? An Institutional and Network Perspective on the Content and Consequences of TQM Adoption

Open access
Westphal, James D., Gulati, Ranjay, Shortell, Stephen M.·1997·Administrative Science Quarterly
DOI 10.2307/2393924
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

James D. Westphal, Ranjay Gulati, Stephen M. Shortell, Customization or Conformity? An Institutional and Network Perspective on the Content and Consequences of TQM Adoption, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 42, No. 2 (Jun., 1997), pp. 366-394

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 · 10.2307/2393924

Cites

7 of 7 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

Cited by

See all 1,457

Metadata

Authors
Westphal, J. D., Gulati, R., & Shortell, S. M.
Venue
Administrative Science Quarterly
Publisher
JSTOR
Published
1997-06
Volume
42
Issue
2
Pages
366
ISSN
0001-8392 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.2307/2393924
OpenAlex
W2132031545
Cited by
1,457
References
7
FWCI
46.11
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

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.