IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v101y2014i1d10.1007_s11192-014-1329-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Visualizing the structure and bridges of the intellectual property management and strategy literature: a document co-citation analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Francesco Paolo Appio

    (Department of Energy Systems, Territory, and Construction Engineering (DESTEC), University of Pisa)

  • Fabrizio Cesaroni

    (University Carlos III de Madrid
    Istituto di Management)

  • Alberto Minin

    (Istituto di Management)

Abstract

This article uses document co-citation analysis to objectively explore the underlying structure of the intellectual property research domain, taken from a managerial and strategic standpoint. The goal of this study is identifying its main research areas, understanding its current state of development and suggesting potential future directions, by analyzing the co-citations from 181 papers published between 1992 and 2011 in the most influential academic journals. Five main clusters have been identified, mapped, and labeled as follows: Economics of patent system, technological and institutional capabilities, university patenting, intellectual property exploitation, and division of labor. Their most active areas on this topic, and the most influential and co-cited papers have been identified and described. Also, intra- and inter-cluster knowledge base diversity has been assessed by using indicators stemming from the domains of information theory and biology. A t test has been performed to assess the significance of the inter-cluster diversity. The knowledge bases of these five clusters are significantly diverse, this meaning that they are five co-existing paradigms.

Suggested Citation

  • Francesco Paolo Appio & Fabrizio Cesaroni & Alberto Minin, 2014. "Visualizing the structure and bridges of the intellectual property management and strategy literature: a document co-citation analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(1), pages 623-661, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:101:y:2014:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-014-1329-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-014-1329-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-014-1329-0
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-014-1329-0?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chaomei Chen & Timothy Cribbin & Robert Macredie & Sonali Morar, 2002. "Visualizing and tracking the growth of competing paradigms: Two case studies," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 53(8), pages 678-689.
    2. David J. TEECE, 2008. "Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: The Transfer And Licensing Of Know-How And Intellectual Property Understanding the Multinational Enterprise in the Modern World, chapter 5, pages 67-87, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    3. Mowery, David C. & Nelson, Richard R. & Sampat, Bhaven N. & Ziedonis, Arvids A., 2001. "The growth of patenting and licensing by U.S. universities: an assessment of the effects of the Bayh-Dole act of 1980," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 99-119, January.
    4. Locke, Joanne & Perera, Hector, 2001. "The intellectual structure of international accounting in the early 1990s," The International Journal of Accounting, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 223-249, May.
    5. repec:fth:harver:1473 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. John D Daniels, 1991. "Relevance in International Business Research: A Need for More Linkages," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 22(2), pages 177-186, June.
    7. Acedo, Francisco José & Casillas, José Carlos, 2005. "Current paradigms in the international management field: An author co-citation analysis," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 14(5), pages 619-639, October.
    8. Stephan, Paula E., 2010. "The Economics of Science," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 217-273, Elsevier.
    9. van Eck, N.J.P. & Waltman, L., 2009. "How to Normalize Co-Occurrence Data? An Analysis of Some Well-Known Similarity Measures," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2009-001-LIS, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    10. Bercovitz, Janet E.L. & Feldman, Maryann P., 2007. "Fishing upstream: Firm innovation strategy and university research alliances," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(7), pages 930-948, September.
    11. Henry Small, 2003. "Paradigms, citations, and maps of science: A personal history," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 54(5), pages 394-399, March.
    12. Anonymous, 2013. "Introduction to the Issue," Journal of Wine Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(3), pages 243-243, December.
    13. Howard D. White, 2003. "Pathfinder networks and author cocitation analysis: A remapping of paradigmatic information scientists," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 54(5), pages 423-434, March.
    14. Kenney, Martin & Patton, Donald, 2009. "Reconsidering the Bayh-Dole Act and the Current University Invention Ownership Model," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(9), pages 1407-1422, November.
    15. Joshua S. Gans & David H. Hsu & Scott Stern, 2008. "The Impact of Uncertain Intellectual Property Rights on the Market for Ideas: Evidence from Patent Grant Delays," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(5), pages 982-997, May.
    16. Chaomei Chen & Fidelia Ibekwe-SanJuan & Jianhua Hou, 2010. "The structure and dynamics of cocitation clusters: A multiple-perspective cocitation analysis," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 61(7), pages 1386-1409, July.
    17. Giada Di Stefano & Margaret Peteraf & Gianmario Verona, 2010. "Dynamic Capabilities Deconstructed. A bibliographic investigation into the origins, development, and future directions of the research domain," Post-Print hal-00668737, HAL.
    18. Nees Jan Eck & Ludo Waltman, 2010. "Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(2), pages 523-538, August.
    19. Katherine W. McCain, 1990. "Mapping authors in intellectual space: A technical overview," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 41(6), pages 433-443, September.
    20. Peter J. Lane & Michael Lubatkin, 1998. "Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning," Post-Print hal-02311860, HAL.
    21. Rebecca Henderson & Iain Cockburn, 1994. "Measuring Competence? Exploring Firm Effects in Pharmaceutical Research," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(S1), pages 63-84, December.
    22. Lu, Jane W., 2003. "The evolving contributions in international strategic management research," Journal of International Management, Elsevier, vol. 9(2), pages 193-213.
    23. Marie Thursby & Richard Jensen, 2001. "Proofs and Prototypes for Sale: The Licensing of University Inventions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(1), pages 240-259, March.
    24. Harabi, Najib, 1995. "Appropriability of technical innovations an empirical analysis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(6), pages 981-992, November.
    25. Richard C. Levin & Alvin K. Klevorick & Richard R. Nelson & Sidney G. Winter, 1987. "Appropriating the Returns from Industrial Research and Development," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 18(3, Specia), pages 783-832.
    26. Giada Di Stefano & Margaret Peteraf & Gianmario Verona, 2010. "Dynamic capabilities deconstructed -super-‡ : a bibliographic investigation into the origins, development, and future directions of the research domain," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 19(4), pages 1187-1204, August.
    27. James G. March, 1991. "Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 71-87, February.
    28. Gans, Joshua S. & Stern, Scott, 2003. "The product market and the market for "ideas": commercialization strategies for technology entrepreneurs," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 333-350, February.
    29. Kenneth Arrow, 1962. "Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention," NBER Chapters, in: The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, pages 609-626, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    30. Anonymous, 2013. "Introduction to the Issue," Journal of Wine Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(2), pages 129-130, November.
    31. Oxley, Joanne E., 1999. "Institutional environment and the mechanisms of governance: the impact of intellectual property protection on the structure of inter-firm alliances," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 283-309, March.
    32. Nees Jan van Eck & Ludo Waltman & Rommert Dekker & Jan van den Berg, 2010. "A comparison of two techniques for bibliometric mapping: Multidimensional scaling and VOS," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 61(12), pages 2405-2416, December.
    33. Zvi Griliches, 1998. "Patent Statistics as Economic Indicators: A Survey," NBER Chapters, in: R&D and Productivity: The Econometric Evidence, pages 287-343, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    34. Wesley M. Cohen & Richard R. Nelson & John P. Walsh, 2000. "Protecting Their Intellectual Assets: Appropriability Conditions and Why U.S. Manufacturing Firms Patent (or Not)," NBER Working Papers 7552, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    35. Edwin Mansfield, 1986. "Patents and Innovation: An Empirical Study," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(2), pages 173-181, February.
    36. Joshua S. Gans & David H. Hsu & Scott Stern, 2002. "When Does Start-Up Innovation Spur the Gale of Creative Destruction?," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 33(4), pages 571-586, Winter.
    37. Hall, Bronwyn H & Ziedonis, Rosemarie Ham, 2001. "The Patent Paradox Revisited: An Empirical Study of Patenting in the U.S. Semiconductor Industry, 1979-1995," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 32(1), pages 101-128, Spring.
    38. van Eck, N.J.P. & Waltman, L., 2007. "Bibliometric Mapping of the Computational Intelligence Field," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2007-027-LIS, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    39. Frank L DuBois & David Reeb, 2000. "Ranking the International Business Journals," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 31(4), pages 689-704, December.
    40. David J. Teece & Gary Pisano & Amy Shuen, 1997. "Dynamic capabilities and strategic management," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(7), pages 509-533, August.
    41. Aurora A. C. Teixeira & Luisa Mota, 2012. "A bibliometric portrait of the evolution, scientific roots and influence of the literature on university–industry links," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 93(3), pages 719-743, December.
    42. Nees Jan van Eck & Ludo Waltman, 2009. "How to normalize cooccurrence data? An analysis of some well‐known similarity measures," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 60(8), pages 1635-1651, August.
    43. Bozeman, Barry, 2000. "Technology transfer and public policy: a review of research and theory," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4-5), pages 627-655, April.
    44. Robert J. David & Shin‐Kap Han, 2004. "A systematic assessment of the empirical support for transaction cost economics," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(1), pages 39-58, January.
    45. Waltman, Ludo & van Eck, Nees Jan & Noyons, Ed C.M., 2010. "A unified approach to mapping and clustering of bibliometric networks," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 4(4), pages 629-635.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Biswas, Pritam & Sinha, Rabindra Kumar & Sen, Phalguni, 2023. "A review of state-of-the-art techniques for the determination of the optimum cut-off grade of a metalliferous deposit with a bibliometric mapping in a surface mine planning context," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    2. Laura Grassi & Davide Lanfranchi, 2022. "RegTech in public and private sectors: the nexus between data, technology and regulation," Economia e Politica Industriale: Journal of Industrial and Business Economics, Springer;Associazione Amici di Economia e Politica Industriale, vol. 49(3), pages 441-479, September.
    3. Saleh Md Arman & Tazin Ahmed, 2021. "A bibliometric analysis on dependency theory," Journal of Community Positive Practices, Catalactica NGO, issue 4, pages 98-115.
    4. Michael Calver & Kate Bryant & Grant Wardell-Johnson, 2018. "Quantifying the internationality and multidisciplinarity of authors and journals using ecological statistics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(2), pages 731-748, May.
    5. Appio, Francesco Paolo & Lima, Marcos & Paroutis, Sotirios, 2019. "Understanding Smart Cities: Innovation ecosystems, technological advancements, and societal challenges," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 1-14.
    6. Kent Baker, H. & Pandey, Nitesh & Kumar, Satish & Haldar, Arunima, 2020. "A bibliometric analysis of board diversity: Current status, development, and future research directions," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 232-246.
    7. Ya-Feng Zhang, 2022. "Cultural and Creative Industries and Copyright at the Regional Level: The Cases of Shenzhen and Hangzhou in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-17, April.
    8. Donthu, Naveen & Kumar, Satish & Mukherjee, Debmalya & Pandey, Nitesh & Lim, Weng Marc, 2021. "How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 285-296.
    9. Astrid Kainzbauer & Parisa Rungruang & Philip Hallinger, 2021. "How Does Research on Sustainable Human Resource Management Contribute to Corporate Sustainability: A Document Co-Citation Analysis, 1982–2021," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-21, October.
    10. Viviana D’Angelo & Valeria Belvedere, 2023. "Green Supply Chains and Digital Supply Chains: Identifying Overlapping Areas," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-18, June.
    11. Waqas Mehmood & Rasidah Mohd-Rashid & Yasir Abdullah & Ataul Karim Patwary & Attia Aman-Ullah, 2023. "Inclusive mapping of initial public offerings: a bibliometric and literature review study," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 57(1), pages 655-700, February.
    12. S. M. Shamsul Alam & Mohammad Abdul Matin Chowdhury & Dzuljastri Bin Abdul Razak, 2021. "Research evolution in banking performance: a bibliometric analysis," Future Business Journal, Springer, vol. 7(1), pages 1-19, December.
    13. Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, Pia & Yang, Jialei, 2022. "Distinguishing between appropriability and appropriation: A systematic review and a renewed conceptual framing," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(1).
    14. Saša Batistič & Robert Kaše, 2015. "The organizational socialization field fragmentation: a bibliometric review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 104(1), pages 121-146, July.
    15. Houssaine Mounaim & Aymane Sarmoh & Oumaima El Mazouni, 2022. "CSR and logistics: A bibliometric and systematic review of SCOPUS database from 1997 to 2021," Post-Print hal-03971930, HAL.
    16. Annosi, Maria Carmela & Ráez, Rosa María Oliva & Appio, Francesco Paolo & Del Giudice, Teresa, 2022. "An integrative review of innovations in the agricultural sector: The roles of agency, structure, and their dynamic interplay," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    17. Yaowu Sun & Yi Zhai, 2018. "Mapping the knowledge domain and the theme evolution of appropriability research between 1986 and 2016: a scientometric review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(1), pages 203-230, July.
    18. Belussi, Fiorenza & Orsi, Luigi & Savarese, Maria, 2019. "Mapping Business Model Research: A Document Bibliometric Analysis," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 35(3).
    19. Miriam Edith Pérez-Romero & José Álvarez-García & Martha Beatriz Flores-Romero & Donaji Jiménez-Islas, 2023. "UNESCO Global Geoparks 22 Years after Their Creation: Analysis of Scientific Production," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-18, March.
    20. Francesco Paolo Appio & Antonella Martini & Silvia Massa & Stefania Testa, 2016. "Unveiling the intellectual origins of Social Media-based innovation: insights from a bibliometric approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(1), pages 355-388, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Francesco Paolo Appio & Antonella Martini & Silvia Massa & Stefania Testa, 2016. "Unveiling the intellectual origins of Social Media-based innovation: insights from a bibliometric approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(1), pages 355-388, July.
    2. Raphaël Maucuer & Alexandre Renaud, 2019. "Business Model Research: A Bibliometric Analysis of Origins and Trends," Post-Print hal-01918188, HAL.
    3. Cohen, Wesley M., 2010. "Fifty Years of Empirical Studies of Innovative Activity and Performance," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 129-213, Elsevier.
    4. Barirani, Ahmad & Beaudry, Catherine & Agard, Bruno, 2017. "Can universities profit from general purpose inventions? The case of Canadian nanotechnology patents," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 271-283.
    5. Adrián Kovács & Bart Looy & Bruno Cassiman, 2015. "Exploring the scope of open innovation: a bibliometric review of a decade of research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 104(3), pages 951-983, September.
    6. Schwiebacher, Franz, 2013. "Does fragmented or heterogeneous IP ownership stifle investments in innovation?," ZEW Discussion Papers 13-096, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    7. de Rassenfosse, Gaétan & Palangkaraya, Alfons & Webster, Elizabeth, 2016. "Why do patents facilitate trade in technology? Testing the disclosure and appropriation effects," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(7), pages 1326-1336.
    8. Basu, Sandip & Phelps, Corey & Kotha, Suresh, 2011. "Towards understanding who makes corporate venture capital investments and why," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 153-171, March.
    9. Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, Pia & Yang, Jialei, 2022. "Distinguishing between appropriability and appropriation: A systematic review and a renewed conceptual framing," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(1).
    10. Emmanuel Dechenaux & Brent Goldfarb & Scott Shane & Marie Thursby, 2008. "Appropriability and Commercialization: Evidence from MIT Inventions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(5), pages 893-906, May.
    11. Singh, Shiwangi & Dhir, Sanjay & Das, V. Mukunda & Sharma, Anuj, 2020. "Bibliometric overview of the Technological Forecasting and Social Change journal: Analysis from 1970 to 2018," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    12. Belussi, Fiorenza & Orsi, Luigi & Savarese, Maria, 2019. "Mapping Business Model Research: A Document Bibliometric Analysis," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 35(3).
    13. Rodolfo Modrigais Strauss Nunes & Susana Carla Farias Pereira, 2022. "Intellectual structure and trends in the humanitarian operations field," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 319(1), pages 1099-1157, December.
    14. Maria Isabella Leone & Keld Laursen, 2011. "Patent Exploitation Strategies and Value Creation," Chapters, in: Federico Munari & Raffaele Oriani (ed.), The Economic Valuation of Patents, chapter 4, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    15. Iain M. Cockburn & Megan J. MacGarvie, 2011. "Entry and Patenting in the Software Industry," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(5), pages 915-933, May.
    16. Giovanni Dosi & Luigi Marengo & Corrado Pasquali, 2010. "How Much Should Society Fuel the Greed of Innovators? On the Relations between Appropriability, Opportunities and Rates of Innovation," Chapters, in: Riccardo Viale & Henry Etzkowitz (ed.), The Capitalization of Knowledge, chapter 4, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    17. Lichtenthaler, Ulrich, 2010. "Determinants of proactive and reactive technology licensing: A contingency perspective," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 55-66, February.
    18. Angelo Kenneth S. Romasanta & Peter Sijde & Jacqueline Muijlwijk-Koezen, 2020. "Innovation in pharmaceutical R&D: mapping the research landscape," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 1801-1832, December.
    19. Schwiebacher, Franz, 2012. "Complementary assets, patent thickets and hold-up threats: Do transaction costs undermine investments in innovation?," ZEW Discussion Papers 12-015, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    20. Guido Buenstorf & Matthias Geissler, 2013. "Not Invented Here: Technology Licensing, Knowledge Transfer and Innovation Based on Public Research," Economic Complexity and Evolution, in: Guido Buenstorf & Uwe Cantner & Horst Hanusch & Michael Hutter & Hans-Walter Lorenz & Fritz Rahmeyer (ed.), The Two Sides of Innovation, edition 127, pages 77-107, Springer.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Document co-citation analysis; DCA; Intellectual property; IP management; IP strategy; Cluster analysis; Diversity analysis;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • O34 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital
    • O32 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Management of Technological Innovation and R&D
    • M10 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Business Administration - - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:101:y:2014:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-014-1329-0. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.