Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 263

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 31 of the 31 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Squeezing Harder Doesn't Always Work: Continuing the Search for Consistency in Innovation Research

Fiol, C. Marlene·1996·Academy of Management Review
DOI 10.5465/amr.1996.15868543
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Organizations, like sponges, must have the capacity to absorb inputs in order to generate outputs. Researchers have developed theories of organizational absorptive capacity; researchers have also developed models of the effective generation of new products. The challenge lies in integrating the two research streams.

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 · 10.5465/amr.1996.15868543

Cites

31 of 31 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 31 references

Cited by

See all 263

Metadata

Authors
Fiol, C. M.
Venue
Academy of Management Review
Publisher
Academy of Management
Published
1996-10
Volume
21
Issue
4
Pages
1012-1021
ISSN
  • 0363-7425 (ISSN-L)
  • 1930-3807
DOI
10.5465/amr.1996.15868543
OpenAlex
W2078865762
Cited by
263
References
31
FWCI
18.36
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: Squeezing Harder Doesn't Always Work: Continuing the Search for Consistency in Innovation Research. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5465/amr.1996.15868543
The paper
Fiol, C. M. (1996). Squeezing Harder Doesn't Always Work: Continuing the Search for Consistency in Innovation Research. Academy of Management Review. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1996.15868543

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.