Evidence for the network perspective on organizational learning

By Marko Pahor, Miha Škerlavaj, Vlado Dimovski. 2008

465 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Mathematical Physics, Statistical and Nonlinear Physics, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/7433a4575bbe441ea3a4cb4f97121db2645599ee

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Statistical and Nonlinear Physics

In Statistics and Probability

Citations in the corpus

Interdisciplinarity revisited: evidence for research impact and dynamism (2019, background): “Although higher citations do not necessarily represent the intrinsic value or quality of a paper, research impact is commonly operationalised as citation-based measure (e.g., Steele and Stier, 2000; Rinia et al., 2001, 2002; Adams et al., 2007; Levitt and Thelwall, 2008; Larivier̀e and Gingras, 2010”
Motivating Online Publication of Data (2009, background): “…of data publication Online data publication will boost scientists’ recognition, generate invitations to meetings, present consulting and collaboration opportunities, and increase citation rates because their productivity will be more visible (box 1; Froese et al. 2004, Eysenbach 2006, RIN 2008).”
Self-Selected or Mandated, Open Access Increases Citation Impact for Higher Quality Research (2010, background): “This “OA Impact Advantage” has been found in all fields analyzed so far -- physical, technological, biological and social sciences, and humanities (Lawrence 2001; Brody & Harnad 2004; Hajjem et al. 2005; Moed 2005b; Eysenbach 2006; Giles et al. 1998; Kurtz & Brody, 2006; Norris et al. 2008; Evans 20”
How journal rankings can suppress interdisciplinary research: A comparison between Innovation Studies and Business & Management (2012, background): “eceived by multidisciplinary journals8 is lower than in monoisciplinary ones (Levitt and Thelwall, 2008).”
Scopus as a curated, high-quality bibliometric data source for academic research in quantitative science studies (2020, methodology): “They have been used to evaluate the fate of rejected manuscripts (Bornmann et al., 2009), to investigate potential citation manipulation by reviewers (Baas & Fennell, 2019; Singh Chawla, 2019) and to study the development of multidisciplinarity (Levitt & Thelwall, 2008).”
The Number of Scholarly Documents on the Public Web (2014, result): “This percentage is close to the 86% reported by Norris, Oppenheim and Rowland [12] when they tested the coverage of Google and Google Scholar for finding Open Access documents.”