Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 2,180

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Corporate Governance: Decades of Dialogue and Data

Daily, Catherine M., Dalton, Dan R., Cannella, Albert A.·2003·The Academy of Management Review

Abstract

The field of corporate governance is at a crossroads. Our knowledge of what we know about the efficacy of corporate governance mechanisms is rivaled by what we do not know. This special topic forum is dedicated to continuing the rich tradition of research in this area, with the hope that the models and theories offered will propel corporate governance research to the next level, enhancing our understanding of those governance structures and mechanisms that best serve organizational functioning.

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 · 10.2307/30040727

Cites

1 of 1 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 2,180

Metadata

Authors
Daily, C. M., Dalton, D. R., & Cannella, A. A.
Venue
The Academy of Management Review
Published
2003-07-01
Volume
28
Issue
3
Pages
371
ISSN
0363-7425 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2135145155
Cited by
2,180
References
1
FWCI
157.90
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

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.