Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 813

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

Legitimate Distinctiveness and The Entrepreneurial Identity: Influence on Investor Judgments of New Venture Plausibility

Navis, Chad, Glynn, Mary Ann·2011·Academy of Management Review

Abstract

We theorize about how the entrepreneurial identity, which we define as the constellation of claims around the founder, new venture, and market opportunity as to “who we are” and “what we do,” serves as a touchstone for investor judgments about new venture plausibility. We propose that entrepreneurial identities are judged favorably when they are legitimately distinctive, and that such judgments are influenced by market context and are mediated by identity narratives that provide institutional primes and equivocal cues in investor sensemaking.

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.2008.0361

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

Metadata

Authors
Navis, C., & Glynn, M. A.
Venue
Academy of Management Review
Published
2011-07
Volume
36
Issue
3
Pages
479-499
ISSN
  • 0363-7425 (ISSN-L)
  • 1930-3807
OpenAlex
W2044671394
Cited by
813
References
7
FWCI
56.08
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.