Structural Holes and Good Ideas

• p. 51 References

  Pollock, Timothy G., Joseph F. Porac, James B. Wade. 2003.

• p. 12 top paragraph

  Pollock, Porac, and Wade [2003]

Only the authors can say what is right here.

Judge's note: Rests on outside knowledge: AMR volume 29 is the 2004 volume. The paper's own Nahapiet and Ghoshal entry (1998 = vol. 23) is consistent with that mapping. The crop of p. 51 also shows that 'and' is missing before 'James B. Wade', unlike the other multi-author entries. The paper may have been cited as 2003 while in press.

Second check: another model agreed

• p. 49 References

  Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A 36:1–37

• p. 51 References, Pollock

  Academy of Management Review 29:50–72

Only the authors can say what is right here.

Judge's note: Rests on outside knowledge: 'Inference from Complex Samples' (1974, vol. 36, pp. 1–37) appeared in JRSS Series B. The crop of p. 49 shows 'Series A'. The year and volume problems with Morrison and Milliken and with Pollock et al., also raised in this cluster, are handled under C028 and C029.

Second check: another model agreed

• p. 15 Footnote 7

  the −5.0 t-test reported in table 4 for association between

• p. 16 Footnote 7 (continued)

  the −5.0 t-test reported in table 4 for association between idea value and the log of network constraint is −4.1

• p. 34 Table 4, model 5, Network constraint

  −.694** (.144)

• p. 15 Footnote 7

  the 5.0 t-test

Only the authors can say what is right here.

Judge's note: I checked the p. 15–16 images: footnote 7 quotes −5.0 twice and attributes it to table 4. Table 4 (p. 34) prints no t-statistics. For model 5, network constraint, .694/.144 = 4.82. Even the most favourable rounding of the printed values (.6945/.1435 ≈ 4.84) does not reach 5.0. Footnote 13 gives 4.3 for the model with broker dummies, a different specification. The authors should say where the −5.0 comes from.

Second check: another model agreed

• p. 17 Figure 2 table, Mean (673) row

  Mean (673) 29% 5.0 60.5 2.9 81.0

Only the authors can say what is right here.

Judge's note: I read the rank values from the upright p. 17 image. Weighting the rank rows by N (25, 41, 121, 199, 287) reproduces 29% isolates and 2.9 citations, but gives mean size 4.80 and constraint 63.0. Weighting by non-isolates gives constraint about 60.4 but size about 5.2. No single basis reproduces both printed means, and the paper does not state what basis the mean row uses.

Second check: another model agreed

• p. 20 Footnote 9

  the 20-point difference between the baseline 48.7 level of constraint for five-contact networks vs. the mean 68.4 constraint

Only the authors can say what is right here.

Judge's note: I checked the p. 20 image. With N uncentred, C = a at N = 0, and at N = 5 the equation gives 48.7·e^(−.375) ≈ 33.5. The reading as a five-contact level holds only if N is centred at 5, which the definition does not say. A value of 48.7 at N = 0 would also be implausible for constraint, which supports centring. This is an unresolved ambiguity in the stated equation.

Second check: another model agreed

• p. 24 Table 1, model 3, Urban 2

  −.564 (.238)

• p. 27 Job Evaluations, model 3 discussion

  Performance evalu-ations did not vary systematically with any of the control variables except age

• p. 27 same paragraph

  age and network constraint are the only statistically significant predictors

Only the authors can say what is right here.

Judge's note: I checked the p. 24 table and the p. 27 text. In the ordinal logit, .564/.238 = 2.37 > 1.96, yet the cell has no star. The other stars in model 3 fit their ratios (age 6.5**, constraint 3.5**). The table note names no other test. Either a star is missing or the text claim needs qualifying.

Second check: another model agreed

• p. 24 Table 1, model 2, Urban 1

  3,947** (1,456)

• p. 24 Table 1, model 2, Urban 2

  5,585* (1,427)

Only the authors can say what is right here.

Judge's note: I checked the p. 24 image. Every other cell in models 1–2 fits its coefficient/SE ratio: Hightech 2.65*, Lowtech 2.78*, Mgr3×constraint 2.69*, SrMgr×constraint 2.57*, Executive×constraint 5.28**, and model 1 Urban 1 3.45**. Urban 1 at 2.71 does not reach P < .001, while Urban 2 at 3.91 does. The table note declares no other procedure.

Second check: another model agreed

• p. 3 para 2

  John Stuart Mills’s

• p. 50 References

  Mills, John Stuart. (1848) 1987. Principles of Political Economy.

• p. 9 Evidence Anecdotal and Aggregate

  the quotes from Mills and Fourtou

Only the authors can say what is right here.

Judge's note: Rests on outside knowledge: the author of Principles of Political Economy (1848) is John Stuart Mill. The page images show 'Mills' in the p. 3 text, in the p. 50 reference entry and on p. 9, so the spelling is the same throughout the paper.

Second check: none (judge only)

• p. 3 Footnote 2

  Giuffe (1999) on the greater attention

• p. 49 References

  Giuffe, Katherine A. 1999. “Sandpiles of Opportunity

• p. 49 References

  Giuffe, Katherine A. 1999.

• p. 51 References

  Sediatis, Judith. 1998.

Only the authors can say what is right here.

Judge's note: Rests on outside knowledge: the author of 'Sandpiles of Opportunity' (Social Forces 1999) is Katherine A. Giuffre. The images of footnote 2 (p. 3) and the p. 49 reference entry both show 'Giuffe'. One reviewer also raised the Sedaitis and Mill spellings; those are judged under C004 and C001.

Second check: none (judge only)

• p. 8

  I have two reasons: data and traction. It would be difficult

Judge's note: The footnote 3 image confirms the wording. The colon list does introduce both reasons, so this is only a small parallelism point in copyediting.

Second check: none (judge only)

• p. 9 Evidence Anecdotal and Aggregate

  cf. Sediatis [1998, esp. pp. 373–74]

• p. 51 References

  Sediatis, Judith. 1998.

Only the authors can say what is right here.

Judge's note: Rests on outside knowledge: the author of the 1998 Organization Science article on post-Soviet spin-offs is Judith Sedaitis. The p. 9 and p. 51 images both show 'Sediatis'.

Second check: none (judge only)

• p. 21 first paragraph

  Shorter paths to more senior people is to be expected

Judge's note: The p. 21 image confirms the wording. Notional agreement ('[that there are] shorter paths…') makes it defensible, so this is a cosmetic point only.

Second check: none (judge only)

• p. 28 Footnote 13

  the intuitive appealing distinction between local and enterprise brokers

• p. 28 footnote 13, last sentence

  the intuitive appealing distinction between local and

Judge's note: Checked on the crop of PDF p. 28. The page image shows "intuitive appealing". Adjective used where an adverb is needed.

Second check: none (judge only)

• p. 36 Footnote 16 (continued)

  then ratings should increases with job rank

Judge's note: Checked on the crop of PDF p. 36. The page image shows "should increases".

Second check: none (judge only)

• p. 39 Footnote 19 (continued)

  for tying to mobilize support for their idea

• p. 39 footnote 19

  for tying to mobilize support for their

Judge's note: The image of p. 39 shows "tying".

Second check: none (judge only)

• p. 39 Footnote 19 (continued)

  discussion with multiple colleague

Judge's note: The image of p. 39 shows the singular "colleague".

Second check: none (judge only)

• p. 47 Summary conclusion paragraph

  in the organization studies here

Judge's note: The crop of p. 47 shows "studies here".

Second check: none (judge only)

• p. 47 References, Birner 1999

  Northhampton, Mass.: Edward Elgar.

• p. 47 References, Birner

  Northhampton, Mass.

• p. 47

  Northhampton,

Only the authors can say what is right here.

Judge's note: Rests on outside knowledge: the town is spelled Northampton. The crop of p. 47 shows "Northhampton".

Second check: none (judge only)