Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,559

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

Competitor Analysis and Interfirm Rivalry: Toward a Theoretical Integration

Chen, Ming-Jer·1996·The Academy of Management Review

Abstract

This article bridges two important subjects in strategy: competitor analysis and interfirm rivalry. Through a refined conceptualization of competitor analysis, the article introduces two firm-specific, theory-based constructs: market commonality, developed from the literature on multiple-point competition, and resource similarity, derived from the resource-based theory of the firm. The joint consideration of these two constructs shows the complementarity of these two prominent but contrasting strategy theories. Each firm has a unique market profile and strategic resource endowment, and a pair-wise comparison with a given competitor along these two dimensions will help to illuminate the prebattle competitive tension between these two firms and to predict how a focal firm may interact with each of its competitors. The idea of competitive asymmetry is introduced, that is, the notion that a given pair of firms may not pose an equal degree of threat to each other. To illustrate competitor mapping, measures of ...

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 · 10.2307/258631

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

Show all 7 references

Cited by

See all 1,559

Metadata

Authors
Chen, M.-J.
Venue
The Academy of Management Review
Published
1996-01
Volume
21
Issue
1
Pages
100
ISSN
0363-7425 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2109061771
Cited by
1,559
References
7
FWCI
58.76
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: Competitor Analysis and Interfirm Rivalry: Toward a Theoretical Integration. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/258631
The paper
Chen, M.-J. (1996). Competitor Analysis and Interfirm Rivalry: Toward a Theoretical Integration. The Academy of Management Review. https://doi.org/10.2307/258631

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.