Abstract
The authors regret that a few notational typos in Tables 3, 4, and 8 were not identified and corrected in the proofs. Specifically: ▪ In Tables 3 and 8, the term “1-lag” should be removed from the label of the variable “Average Industry M&As” in the first column. As correctly stated in Section 3.2.3 on page 5, this variable is not lagged in these tables.▪ In Table 4, the term “1-lag” should be removed from the label of the variable “Average Industry Attracted Investment” in the first column and substituted with the term “2-lag”. As correctly stated in Section 3.2.3 on page 5, this variable takes a 2-year lag in this table.▪ In Tables 3 and 4, the term “ln” should be removed from the relevant variable labels in the first column: three occurrences in Table 3 and two occurrences in Table 4. The variables to which a logarithmic transformation was actually applied are correctly reported in footnotes 2 (on page 5) and 4 (on page 8).The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Article number | 105606 |
| Journal | Research Policy |
| DOIs |
|
| State | Accepted/In press - 2026 |
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Strategy and Management
- Management Science and Operations Research
- Management of Technology and Innovation
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Corrigendum to “How do within-industry CVC investments shape industry concentration?” [Res. Policy (2026) 105567] (Research Policy (2026) 55(8), (S0048733326001587), (10.1016/j.respol.2026.105567))'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver