From Tool Fascination to Value Creation: Why the Future of AI Belongs to Implementers, Not Spectators

Subtitle: A flagship Di Tran University research paper on artificial intelligence, implementation, human judgment, and the creation of real institutional value.

Abstract

Public conversation about technology repeatedly makes the same mistake: it over-focuses on the tool and under-focuses on the disciplined human use of the tool. People discuss the car more than the destination, the software more than the workflow, and the artificial intelligence model more than the value created through its implementation. This paper argues that the decisive question in the age of AI is not merely What is the tool? but *What specific human, organizational, educational, civic, and economic value becomes possible when the tool is implemented well?* Drawing on research in implementation science, innovation diffusion, dynamic capabilities, sociotechnical systems, general-purpose technologies, technology acceptance, productivity, organizational behavior, educational technology, and AI governance, this paper advances a practical thesis: AI is best understood not as a replacement for human purpose, but as a multiplier of human intentionality when embedded into a clear workflow, governed by judgment, and aimed at real value creation.

The paper develops a framework for “implementation literacy” and argues that schools, universities, businesses, policymakers, and media institutions should shift their language from tool spectacle to outcome architecture. It proposes that the highest educational responsibility in the AI era is not simply teaching students what AI is, but teaching them how to use AI ethically, productively, transparently, and accountably to solve concrete human problems.

Executive Thesis

The most important divide in the AI era is no longer between those who have heard of AI and those who have not. It is between:

1. people who talk about the tool,

2. people who fear the tool,

3. people who market the tool,

4. and people who actually implement the tool to create measurable value.

That fourth category will shape the future.

The central argument of this paper is simple:

**Tools do not transform civilization by existing. They transform civilization when disciplined people implement them inside workflows that create value, solve problems, and elevate human capability.**

Executive Summary

This paper makes seven claims.

1. Tool-centered discourse is intellectually incomplete.

A public conversation that stops at “What is AI?” is not wrong, but it is insufficient. A society that learns the vocabulary of a tool without learning the practice of implementation produces spectatorship rather than capability.

2. Fear and hype are mirror-image failures.

One group fears the tool. Another worships the tool. Both groups often neglect the more serious question of workflow, governance, capability building, and human purpose.

3. Most value from major technologies comes from complements, not the tool alone.

Research on productivity, digital transformation, organizational change, and dynamic capabilities consistently shows that value emerges when technology is paired with redesign of process, management practice, skills, incentives, and data.

4. AI should be treated as a general-purpose enabling layer.

For most institutions, AI is not itself the final product. It is an enabling layer that can compress search, drafting, synthesis, coding, classification, translation, workflow design, student support, and decision support when combined with human oversight.

5. The educational mission must shift from tool exposure to implementation literacy.

Students should not merely be taught definitions of AI. They should be taught how to apply it to produce lawful, useful, documented, psychologically intelligent, and economically meaningful work.

6. Universities have a strategic opportunity to become implementation authorities.

The institution that teaches applied judgment, proof, workflow, and value creation will be more socially valuable than the institution that only teaches abstract fascination.

7. Human direction remains central.

AI is a tool. Human beings remain responsible for aim, truth, ethics, legal compliance, empathy, and consequences.

Introduction: The Wrong Conversation

Every major technology wave generates a familiar public cycle. First comes amazement. Then confusion. Then fear. Then branding. Then overstatement. Then moral panic. Then slowly—sometimes too slowly—comes productive integration.

In each cycle, the most common mistake is to confuse the existence of the tool with the achievement of value.

When the automobile emerged, the deeper social question was never merely the machine itself. The real question was mobility: where could people go, what economic patterns changed, what labor became possible, what distances collapsed, what communities changed, what industries formed, and what forms of freedom and danger emerged? When electrification spread, the breakthrough was not simply that electricity existed. The breakthrough was that factories, homes, cities, and organizational systems were redesigned around new capabilities. When personal computing, the internet, mobile phones, cloud platforms, and social media arrived, the same pattern repeated: those who fixated only on the artifact understood less than those who redesigned workflows around it.

The current AI wave is repeating this civilizational pattern at accelerated speed.

Public discourse remains crowded with questions such as: Which model is best? Which company is winning? Which prompt is viral? Which job will disappear? Which tool sounds most impressive? These questions are not trivial. Yet by themselves they remain shallow. They often fail to confront the strategic question that determines actual outcomes:

**How should a person, school, company, newsroom, clinic, government office, or university implement AI so that the technology creates specific, valuable, documented, ethical, and durable human benefit?**

That is the question this paper addresses.

I. The Tool Is Not the Transformation

A hammer is not a house.

A car is not a livelihood.

A textbook is not an education.

A model is not an outcome.

And AI is not value.

A tool matters because it enables a capability. A capability matters because it improves a process. A process matters because it changes an outcome. An outcome matters because it affects actual human life.

This four-step logic is frequently lost in technology discourse. Tool fascination short-circuits the chain. It creates the illusion of progress without the labor of integration.

Research on technology adoption and organizational performance has long shown that artifacts do not automatically produce advantage. Firms differ in performance not just because they possess technologies, but because they differ in management quality, complementary investments, worker skill, process alignment, data quality, and organizational learning. The same software deployed in two organizations can create radically different results because implementation quality is unequal.

This is why the public conversation about AI must mature. The meaningful question is not whether a large language model can write text, summarize documents, generate code, or analyze patterns. The meaningful question is whether a human being or institution can integrate those capabilities into a disciplined system that produces better teaching, faster research, clearer communication, stronger service, more accurate operations, greater affordability, or new forms of opportunity.

II. The Historical Pattern: New Technologies Are Feared Before They Are Normalized

Human societies repeatedly fear tools before they learn to operationalize them. This is not an anomaly; it is a pattern.

Printing disrupted authority.

Industrial machinery disrupted labor.

Telephones disrupted social distance.

Automobiles disrupted geography.

Computers disrupted clerical work.

The internet disrupted gatekeepers.

Smartphones disrupted attention.

AI is now disrupting authorship, search, classification, tutoring, coding, customer support, assessment, and knowledge work.

The recurring fear is understandable. New tools threaten routines, status orders, old expertise, and institutional comfort. But fear becomes socially costly when it blocks intelligent adaptation. The issue is not whether caution is justified. Caution is necessary. The issue is whether caution matures into governance and implementation, or freezes into passivity.

The most capable institutions in history have not survived by denying new tools. They have survived by absorbing them, governing them, and converting them into mission-aligned capacity.

III. Theoretical Foundations: Why Implementation Matters More Than Spectacle

A. General-purpose technologies and complements

Economic and organizational research suggests that broad technologies create large value only when paired with complementary changes. These changes may include worker retraining, process redesign, management innovation, workflow modularity, data governance, measurement systems, and new business models. In other words, the “tool” is often the smallest part of the actual transformation. The deeper change lies in the architecture around the tool.

This logic explains why many technological revolutions initially disappoint before later delivering large productivity gains. The lag often occurs because organizations need time to redesign themselves around the new capacity.

B. Dynamic capabilities

Dynamic capabilities research highlights the importance of sensing opportunities, seizing them, and reconfiguring organizational assets. AI implementation is not just a software decision; it is a capability decision. The institution that can repeatedly identify use cases, build workflows, train people, validate outputs, and update processes gains more than the institution that merely purchases access to a model.

C. Sociotechnical systems

Sociotechnical theory reminds us that technology never acts alone. Systems perform through the interaction of tools, roles, incentives, norms, interfaces, trust, power, data, and human behavior. If AI is inserted into a broken workflow, it often amplifies confusion. If AI is inserted into a disciplined workflow, it can amplify clarity and speed.

D. Implementation science

Implementation science provides a particularly useful vocabulary for the AI era. It distinguishes between efficacy and implementation, between adoption and sustainment, between innovation and fidelity, and between the existence of an intervention and its successful real-world use. This is powerful because many AI discussions confuse raw capability demonstrations with implemented reality. A model may perform impressively in a demonstration while failing in real institutional contexts due to poor data, weak incentives, lack of governance, unclear ownership, or human distrust.

E. Technology acceptance is necessary but not sufficient

Technology acceptance research helps explain why people adopt or resist tools. Perceived usefulness, ease of use, social influence, and facilitating conditions matter. But acceptance alone does not guarantee value. People may happily adopt a tool that does not improve outcomes. Therefore, implementation literacy must go beyond acceptance into workflow design, evidence, measurement, and impact.

IV. AI in Context: From Artifact to Workflow

AI should be understood as a layered capability, not a mystical actor.

At minimum, modern AI can assist with:

• search and retrieval,
• summarization,
• translation,
• drafting,
• editing,
• coding,
• classification,
• extraction,
• idea generation,
• simulation,
• tutoring,
• conversational support,
• and pattern recognition.

But none of these capabilities automatically create social value.

For value to emerge, institutions must answer operational questions such as:

• What exact problem is being solved?
• Who is the user?
• What is the workflow before AI?
• What is the workflow after AI?
• Where is human review mandatory?
• What counts as success?
• What harms must be prevented?
• How will outputs be verified?
• What evidence will show that the new process is actually better?

This is where many institutions fail. They adopt AI symbolically rather than architecturally. They perform innovation instead of implementing it.

V. The Difference Between Knowing About AI and Using AI Well

A person may know definitions, model names, and headlines while creating no value with AI. Another person may know far fewer technical details yet use AI every day to summarize evidence, design curricula, refine business communications, accelerate analysis, reduce administrative load, and improve service quality. In strategic terms, the second person is often more advanced.

This distinction matters for education.

A university should not confuse AI literacy with AI vocabulary. Real literacy includes:

• problem definition,
• prompt discipline,
• source validation,
• iterative refinement,
• human review,
• domain judgment,
• legal and ethical awareness,
• and the ability to convert raw output into trustworthy deliverables.

That is why implementation matters more than spectacle. Spectacle is easy. Value is disciplined.

VI. Fear, Hype, and the Psychology of Tool Misunderstanding

Public responses to AI often split into four psychological camps.

1. The alarmist camp

This group treats AI primarily as a threat. Their concerns about displacement, misinformation, cheating, surveillance, and dehumanization are serious and must not be mocked. But alarm becomes unproductive when it refuses to distinguish between irresponsible use and governed implementation.

2. The hype camp

This group treats AI as magic. They overstate capability, understate error, and often confuse fluency with reliability. They market the sensation of novelty more than the reality of institutional change.

3. The passive consumer camp

This group samples AI outputs but rarely reorganizes work around them. They remain fascinated but not transformed.

4. The implementation camp

This group tests use cases, redesigns workflows, documents outcomes, compares time saved, measures quality, and improves human performance.

The implementation camp is where real advantage accumulates.

VII. The Productivity Question: Why the Biggest Gains Come After Redesign

One of the most durable lessons of information technology research is that productivity gains are often delayed, uneven, and dependent on complementary investments. Organizations do not become better merely by purchasing access to digital tools. They become better when they align tools with processes, talent, incentives, and measurement.

The same principle applies to AI.

An institution that adds a chatbot but never redesigns intake, documentation, advising, retrieval, review, or feedback loops may gain little. Another institution may use the same underlying model to transform writing support, multilingual communication, compliance drafting, administrative triage, teaching materials, student counseling preparation, and executive reporting. The difference is not the existence of AI. The difference is implementation architecture.

This is why the future belongs to implementers.

VIII. A Value-Creation Framework for the AI Era

To move from fascination to implementation, this paper proposes an eight-part framework.

1. Start with the value, not the tool.

Define the outcome first. Is the goal faster turnaround, lower cost, better comprehension, stronger advising, cleaner documentation, greater student support, more accurate reporting, wider language access, or higher-quality public communication?

2. Name the workflow.

Document the existing process. Where does work begin? Where does it stall? What tasks are repetitive? What information is repeatedly searched? Where does quality decay? AI should be inserted into a named workflow, not a vague aspiration.

3. Identify the human judgment layer.

What decisions require expertise, empathy, legality, ethics, accountability, or contextual nuance? These are the points where AI must be supervised rather than blindly trusted.

4. Design the collaboration pattern.

Will the human brainstorm first and refine with AI? Will AI produce a draft that a human reviews? Will AI classify inputs before a professional decides? Will AI translate, summarize, or generate options? Human-AI collaboration patterns matter.

5. Define the evidence standard.

How will truth be checked? What sources are authoritative? What forms of citation are required? What constitutes an acceptable answer? What level of uncertainty should be visible?

6. Measure output and outcome.

Track time saved, quality improved, error reduced, comprehension increased, satisfaction improved, or revenue protected. If there is no measurement, there is often no implementation—only enthusiasm.

7. Build governance.

Set rules for privacy, bias, auditability, attribution, confidentiality, academic integrity, record retention, and escalation.

8. Sustain through training and iteration.

Implementation is not a one-time launch. It requires adaptation, user feedback, retraining, prompt libraries, workflow revision, and evolving norms.

IX. Why Universities Must Lead on Implementation Literacy

Universities occupy a decisive position in the AI era. They can either remain commentators on technology or become engines of implementation competence.

If universities focus only on fear, they abandon their civic role.

If universities focus only on novelty, they cheapen scholarship.

If universities focus only on policing, they miss the deeper educational opportunity.

The better path is to teach implementation literacy.

That means teaching students:

• how to ask better questions,
• how to decompose problems,
• how to compare sources,
• how to verify output,
• how to use AI without surrendering judgment,
• how to document collaboration,
• how to transform information into value,
• and how to remain ethically accountable in the process.

A university that teaches this well will produce graduates who are not merely “AI aware.” It will produce graduates who can build systems, solve problems, and generate measurable value in business, education, healthcare, government, media, law, and community life.

X. Di Tran University’s Strategic Position

Di Tran University has a distinctive opportunity in this landscape.

It does not need to imitate institutions that speak about technology in detached theoretical language while remaining operationally timid. It can position itself as an implementation university: a place where knowledge is not worshipped as abstraction, but translated into responsible action, useful systems, and human uplift.

The university can credibly advance several propositions:

1. AI is a tool, not a god.

2. Human judgment remains sovereign.

3. Education should produce implementation competence, not vocabulary alone.

4. Value creation is the true test of understanding.

5. Documentation, transparency, and application matter more than technological theater.

6. The future belongs to those who use tools to solve real problems ethically and clearly.

This approach would align with a broader institutional philosophy: knowledge must become service, capability, mobility, and impact.

XI. Proof by Practice: Human–AI Collaboration as Demonstrated Work

One of the most misunderstood facts about AI is that people often demand proof while ignoring live proof in front of them.

A properly governed human–AI workflow can already:

• research a question across multiple domains,
• synthesize literature,
• generate article structures,
• refine tone for public readability,
• produce executive summaries,
• generate images and infographics,
• prepare WordPress-ready content,
• and help a human publish knowledge at speed and quality that would have been far slower in prior eras.

That does not mean the machine should be treated as a source of unchallenged truth. It means the machine should be understood as an accelerator inside a supervised human process.

The publication package surrounding this paper is itself an example of the thesis: AI can assist in research, synthesis, drafting, structuring, visual generation, formatting, and publishing—but the human remains responsible for intention, framing, verification, editing, institutional meaning, and final accountability.

The point is not that AI wrote “for” the human. The point is that human-directed AI collaboration expanded the rate and scale at which knowledge could be turned into a public institutional asset.

XII. Implications for Business, Education, Media, and Public Life

A. Business

The firms that win will not be those that merely announce AI strategies. They will be those that redesign workflows, document gains, retrain people, and align management practices with new capabilities.

B. Education

The schools that matter will be those that teach students how to produce value with tools, not merely discuss them. Implementation literacy should become a core educational outcome.

C. Media

Journalism should move beyond novelty headlines toward applied interpretation. The public deserves analysis of what AI changes in actual workflows, not only fascination with the latest demo.

D. Policy

Policymakers should govern harms without freezing responsible use. Good regulation distinguishes reckless deployment from transparent, documented, accountable implementation.

E. Labor

Workers should be trained not merely to fear automation, but to understand augmentation, task redesign, judgment layers, and the creation of new tasks around AI-enabled systems.

XIII. The Moral Question

The AI era is not only a technical question. It is a moral question.

What will people do with these tools?

Will they use them to deceive, flood, cheapen, and manipulate?

Or will they use them to clarify, teach, elevate, reduce waste, expand access, and increase human capacity?

Technology does not answer that question. Human beings do.

Therefore, the educational mission in the AI era is not only to create capable users. It is to create responsible implementers.

A responsible implementer is someone who:

• understands the tool,
• understands the task,
• understands the human stakes,
• understands the evidentiary standard,
• understands the workflow,
• and understands that value without integrity is not genuine progress.

XIV. Conclusion: The Future Belongs to Those Who Build Value

Civilization does not advance because tools appear. It advances because people learn how to use tools wisely, productively, ethically, and courageously.

The next stage of the AI era will not belong primarily to commentators, marketers, or spectators. It will belong to implementers: people and institutions who convert tool capacity into educational depth, operational clarity, economic value, public trust, and human advancement.

That is the real frontier.

The enduring question is not whether AI exists.

The enduring question is what a person, a school, a business, a university, or a society does with it.

The right educational answer is therefore not technological worship and not technological panic.

It is disciplined implementation.

It is the movement from fascination to formation.

From capability to responsibility.

From tool to value.

From noise to useful work.

And in that movement lies the real promise of AI.

Practical Implementation Principles for Readers

Before using any new AI tool, ask:

1. What exact problem am I solving?

2. What value would success create?

3. What workflow is being improved?

4. Where must human judgment remain primary?

5. What evidence will verify the output?

6. What risks—legal, ethical, factual, psychological, financial—must be controlled?

7. How will I measure whether this is actually better than the old method?

8. If this works, how can I teach others to use it responsibly?

These are not secondary questions. They are the real questions.

Suggested Institutional Doctrine

AI should be treated as a tool of implementation, not a theater of fascination.

At Di Tran University, the proper question is not merely what AI is. The proper question is how AI can be used—under human direction and ethical governance—to create clearer thought, stronger education, more affordable operations, higher-quality communication, better student support, more trustworthy documentation, and real value for society.

—

Extended Reference Base

The following extended bibliography was assembled to support this paper’s cross-disciplinary thesis across implementation science, innovation diffusion, technology adoption, organizational design, productivity, artificial intelligence, higher education, labor, and public policy.

• Wayne Xin Zhao, Kun Zhou, Junyi Li, Tianyi Tang, Xiaolei Wang, Yupeng Hou, Yingqian Min, Beichen Zhang (2026). *A Survey of Large Language Models*. Frontiers of Computer Science. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11704-026-60308-3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11704-026-60308-3
• Michelle Vaccaro, Abdullah Almaatouq, Thomas W. Malone (2024). *When combinations of humans and AI are useful: A systematic review and meta-analysis*. Nature Human Behaviour. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-024-02024-1. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-024-02024-1
• Daron Acemoğlu (2024). *The simple macroeconomics of AI*. Economic Policy. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/epolic/eiae042. https://doi.org/10.1093/epolic/eiae042
• Michail N. Giannakos, Roger Azevedo, Peter Brusilovsky, Mutlu Cukurova, Yannis Dimitriadis, Davinia Hernández‐Leo, Sanna Järvelä, Manolis Mavrikis (2024). *The promise and challenges of generative AI in education*. Behaviour and Information Technology. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929x.2024.2394886. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929x.2024.2394886
• Gary S. Collins, Karel G.M. Moons, Paula Dhiman, Richard D Riley, Andrew L. Beam, Ben Van Calster, Marzyeh Ghassemi, Xiaoxuan Liu (2024). *TRIPOD+AI statement: updated guidance for reporting clinical prediction models that use regression or machine learning methods*. BMJ. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2023-078378. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2023-078378
• Marc Eulerich, Aida Sanatizadeh, Hamid Vakilzadeh, David A. Wood (2024). *Is it all hype? ChatGPT’s performance and disruptive potential in the accounting and auditing industries*. Review of Accounting Studies. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11142-024-09833-9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11142-024-09833-9
• Morteza Ghobakhloo, Masood Fathi, Mohammad Iranmanesh, Mantas Vilkas, Andrius Grybauskas, Azlan Amran (2024). *Generative artificial intelligence in manufacturing: opportunities for actualizing Industry 5.0 sustainability goals*. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/jmtm-12-2023-0530. https://doi.org/10.1108/jmtm-12-2023-0530
• Paola Cillo, Gaia Rubera (2024). *Generative AI in innovation and marketing processes: A roadmap of research opportunities*. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-024-01044-7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-024-01044-7
• Mauro Cazzaniga (2024). *Gen-AI*. IMF staff discussion note. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5089/9798400262548.006. https://doi.org/10.5089/9798400262548.006
• Morteza Ghobakhloo, Hannan Amoozad Mahdiraji, Mohammad Iranmanesh, Vahid Jafari‐Sadeghi (2024). *From Industry 4.0 Digital Manufacturing to Industry 5.0 Digital Society: a Roadmap Toward Human-Centric, Sustainable, and Resilient Production*. Information Systems Frontiers. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-024-10476-z. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-024-10476-z
• Xinyue Hao, Emrah Demir, Daniel Eyers (2024). *Exploring collaborative decision-making: A quasi-experimental study of human and Generative AI interaction*. Technology in Society. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2024.102662. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2024.102662
• Yoshija Walter (2024). *Embracing the future of Artificial Intelligence in the classroom: the relevance of AI literacy, prompt engineering, and critical thinking in modern education*. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-024-00448-3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-024-00448-3
• Faiz Faiz, Viet Le, Eryadi K. Masli (2024). *Determinants of digital technology adoption in innovative SMEs*. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2024.100610. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2024.100610
• Luca Grilli, Mattia Pedota (2024). *Creativity and artificial intelligence: A multilevel perspective*. Creativity and Innovation Management. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12580. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12580
• Giovanna Culot, Matteo Podrecca, Guido Nassimbeni (2024). *Artificial intelligence in supply chain management: A systematic literature review of empirical studies and research directions*. Computers in Industry. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2024.104132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2024.104132
• Wenwen Chen, Yangchongyi Men, Noelia Fuster, Celia Osorio, Ángel A. Juan (2024). *Artificial Intelligence in Logistics Optimization with Sustainable Criteria: A Review*. Sustainability. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su16219145. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16219145
• Chunling Chen, Ziyue Zheng, Tongyu Xu, Shuang Guo, Shuai Feng, Weixiang Yao, Yubin Lan (2023). *YOLO-Based UAV Technology: A Review of the Research and Its Applications*. Drones. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/drones7030190. https://doi.org/10.3390/drones7030190
• Ahmed Tlili, Boulus Shehata, Michael Agyemang Adarkwah, Aras Bozkurt, Daniel T. Hickey, Ronghuai Huang, Brighter Agyemang (2023). *What if the devil is my guardian angel: ChatGPT as a case study of using chatbots in education*. Smart Learning Environments. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-023-00237-x. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-023-00237-x
• Jan Clusmann, Fiona R. Kolbinger, Hannah Sophie Muti, Zunamys I. Carrero, Jan‐Niklas Eckardt, Narmin Ghaffari Laleh, Chiara Maria Lavinia Löffler, Sophie-Caroline Schwarzkopf (2023). *The future landscape of large language models in medicine*. Communications Medicine. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43856-023-00370-1. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43856-023-00370-1
• Günther Eysenbach (2023). *The Role of ChatGPT, Generative Language Models, and Artificial Intelligence in Medical Education: A Conversation With ChatGPT and a Call for Papers*. JMIR Medical Education. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/46885. https://doi.org/10.2196/46885
• Zhiheng Xi, Wen-Xiang Chen, Xin Guo, Wei He, Yiwen Ding, Boyang Hong, Ming Zhang, Junzhe Wang (2023). *The Rise and Potential of Large Language Model Based Agents: A Survey*. arXiv (Cornell University). DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2309.07864. http://arxiv.org/abs/2309.07864
• Cecilia Ka Yuk Chan, Wenjie Hu (2023). *Students’ voices on generative AI: perceptions, benefits, and challenges in higher education*. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00411-8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00411-8
• Özlem Özmen Garibay, Brent Winslow, Salvatore Andolina, Margherita Antona, Anja Bodenschatz, Constantinos K. Coursaris, Gregory Falco, Stephen M. Fiore (2023). *Six Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence Grand Challenges*. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2022.2153320. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2022.2153320
• Simone Grassini (2023). *Shaping the Future of Education: Exploring the Potential and Consequences of AI and ChatGPT in Educational Settings*. Education Sciences. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13070692. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13070692
• Tufan Adıgüzel, Mehmet Haldun Kaya, Fatih Kürşat Cansu (2023). *Revolutionizing education with AI: Exploring the transformative potential of ChatGPT*. Contemporary Educational Technology. DOI: https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/13152. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/13152
• Alejandro Déniz-García, Himar Fabelo, Antonio J. Rodríguez-Almeida, Garlene Zamora-Zamorano, María Castro-Fernández, María del Pino Alberiche-Ruano, Terje Solvoll, Conceição Granja (2023). *Quality, Usability, and Effectiveness of mHealth Apps and the Role of Artificial Intelligence: Current Scenario and Challenges*. Journal of Medical Internet Research. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/44030. https://doi.org/10.2196/44030
• Yogesh K. Dwivedi, Nir Kshetri, Laurie Hughes, Emma Slade, Anand Jeyaraj, Arpan Kumar Kar, Abdullah M. Baabdullah, Alex Koohang (2023). *Opinion Paper: “So what if ChatGPT wrote it?” Multidisciplinary perspectives on opportunities, challenges and implications of generative conversational AI for research, practice and policy*. International Journal of Information Management. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102642
• Firuz Kamalov, David Santandreu Calonge, Ikhlaas Gurrib (2023). *New Era of Artificial Intelligence in Education: Towards a Sustainable Multifaceted Revolution*. Sustainability. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su151612451. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151612451
• Haroon Sheikh, J.E.J. Prins, Erik Schrijvers (2023). *Mission AI*. Research for policy. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-21448-6. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-21448-6
• Vikas Hassija, Vinay Chamola, Atmesh Mahapatra, Abhinandan Singal, Divyansh Goel, Kaizhu Huang, Simone Scardapane, Indro Spinelli (2023). *Interpreting Black-Box Models: A Review on Explainable Artificial Intelligence*. Cognitive Computation. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12559-023-10179-8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12559-023-10179-8
• Morteza Ghobakhloo, Mohammad Iranmanesh, Behzad Foroughi, Erfan Babaee Tırkolaee, Shahla Asadi, Azlan Amran (2023). *Industry 5.0 implications for inclusive sustainable manufacturing: An evidence-knowledge-based strategic roadmap*. Journal of Cleaner Production. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.138023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.138023
• Naomi Haefner, Vinit Parida, Oliver Gassmann, Joakim Wincent (2023). *Implementing and scaling artificial intelligence: A review, framework, and research agenda*. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122878. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122878
• Pawan Budhwar, Soumyadeb Chowdhury, Geoffrey Wood, Herman Aguinis, Greg J. Bamber, Jose R. Beltran, Paul Boselie, Fang Lee Cooke (2023). *Human resource management in the age of generative artificial intelligence: Perspectives and research directions on ChatGPT*. Human Resource Management Journal. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12524. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12524
• Erik Brynjolfsson, Danielle Li, Lindsey Raymond (2023). *Generative AI at Work*. National Bureau of Economic Research. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3386/w31161. https://doi.org/10.3386/w31161
• Andrea L. Eisfeldt, Gregor Schubert, Miao Ben Zhang (2023). *Generative AI and Firm Values*. National Bureau of Economic Research. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3386/w31222. https://doi.org/10.3386/w31222
• Stefan Feuerriegel, Jochen Hartmann, Christian Janiesch, Patrick Zschech (2023). *Generative AI*. Business & Information Systems Engineering. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-023-00834-7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-023-00834-7
• Sajid Ali, Tamer Abuhmed, Shaker El–Sappagh, Khan Muhammad, José M. Alonso, Roberto Confalonieri, Riccardo Guidotti, Javier Del Ser (2023). *Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): What we know and what is left to attain Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence*. Information Fusion. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2023.101805. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2023.101805
• Grant Cooper (2023). *Examining Science Education in ChatGPT: An Exploratory Study of Generative Artificial Intelligence*. Journal of Science Education and Technology. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-023-10039-y. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-023-10039-y
• Johannes Dahlke, Mathias Beck, Jan Kinne, David Lenz, Robert Dehghan, Martin Wörter, Bernd Ebersberger (2023). *Epidemic effects in the diffusion of emerging digital technologies: evidence from artificial intelligence adoption*. Research Policy. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2023.104917. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2023.104917
• Angelos I. Stoumpos, Fotis Kitsios, Μichael A. Talias (2023). *Digital Transformation in Healthcare: Technology Acceptance and Its Applications*. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20043407. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20043407
• Jürgen Rudolph, Samson Tan, Shannon Tan (2023). *ChatGPT: Bullshit spewer or the end of traditional assessments in higher education?*. Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching. DOI: https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.9. https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.9
• Enkelejda Kasneci, Kathrin Seßler, Stefan Küchemann, Maria Bannert, Daryna Dementieva, Frank Fischer, Urs Gasser, Georg Groh (2023). *ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education*. Learning and Individual Differences. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274
• Malik Sallam (2023). *ChatGPT Utility in Healthcare Education, Research, and Practice: Systematic Review on the Promising Perspectives and Valid Concerns*. Healthcare. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11060887. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11060887
• Fábio Gama, Stefano Magistretti (2023). *Artificial intelligence in innovation management: A review of innovation capabilities and a taxonomy of AI applications*. Journal of Product Innovation Management. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12698. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12698
• Tiago Jacob Fernandes França, Henrique São Mamede, João Barroso, Vítor Santos (2023). *Artificial intelligence applied to potential assessment and talent identification in an organisational context*. Heliyon. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e14694. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e14694
• Ilie Gligorea, Marius Cioca, Romana Oancea, Andra-Teodora Gorski, Hortensia Gorski, Paul Tudorache (2023). *Adaptive Learning Using Artificial Intelligence in e-Learning: A Literature Review*. Education Sciences. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13121216. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13121216
• Jakob Gawlikowski, Cedrique Rovile Njieutcheu Tassi, Mohsin Ali, Jong‐Seok Lee, Matthias Humt, Jianxiang Feng, Anna Kruspe, Rudolph Triebel (2023). *A survey of uncertainty in deep neural networks*. Artificial Intelligence Review. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-023-10562-9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-023-10562-9
• Sarah Bankins, Anna Carmella Ocampo, Mauricio Marrone, Simon Lloyd D. Restubog, Sang Eun Woo (2023). *A multilevel review of artificial intelligence in organizations: Implications for organizational behavior research and practice*. Journal of Organizational Behavior. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2735. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2735
• Cecilia Ka Yuk Chan (2023). *A comprehensive AI policy education framework for university teaching and learning*. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00408-3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00408-3
• Brady Lund, Ting Wang, Nishith Reddy Mannuru, Bing Nie, Somipam R. Shimray, Ziang Wang (2023). *ChatGPT and a new academic reality: Artificial Intelligence‐written research papers and the ethics of the large language models in scholarly publishing*. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24750. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24750
• Soumyadeb Chowdhury, Prasanta Kumar Dey, Sian Joel-Edgar, Sudeshna Bhattacharya, Oscar Rodríguez-Espíndola, Amélie Abadie, Linh Truong (2022). *Unlocking the value of artificial intelligence in human resource management through AI capability framework*. Human Resource Management Review. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2022.100899. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2022.100899
• Inge Molenaar (2022). *Towards hybrid human‐AI learning technologies*. European Journal of Education. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12527. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12527
• Laura J. Damschroder, Caitlin M. Reardon, Marilla A. Opra Widerquist, Julie C. Lowery (2022). *The updated Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research based on user feedback*. Implementation Science. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-022-01245-0. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-022-01245-0
• İsmail Çelik, Muhterem Dindar, Hanni Muukkonen, Sanna Järvelä (2022). *The Promises and Challenges of Artificial Intelligence for Teachers: a Systematic Review of Research*. TechTrends. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-022-00715-y. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-022-00715-y
• Adrian M. Price-Whelan, LIM, Pey Lian, A. Zonca, STARKMAN, Nathaniel, BRADLEY, Larry, SHUPE, David L., Aarya A. Patil, Lía Corrales (2022). *The Astropy Project: Sustaining and Growing a Community-oriented Open-source Project and the Latest Major Release (v5.0) of the Core Package*. Research Portal (Queen’s University Belfast). DOI: https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74. https://pure.qub.ac.uk/en/publications/fd0be0d9-bac4-4be0-a926-db4b8f6143e4
• Hyung Won Chung, Le Hou, Shayne Longpre, Barret Zoph, Yi Tay, William Fedus, Eric Li, Xuezhi Wang (2022). *Scaling Instruction-Finetuned Language Models*. arXiv (Cornell University). DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2210.11416. http://arxiv.org/abs/2210.11416
• Eduardo Mosqueira-Rey, Elena Hernández-Pereira, David Alonso-Ríos, José Bobes-Bascarán, Ángel Fernández-Leal (2022). *Human-in-the-loop machine learning: a state of the art*. Artificial Intelligence Review. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-022-10246-w. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-022-10246-w
• Jean-Baptiste Alayrac, Jeff Donahue, Pauline Luc, Antoine Miech, Iain Barr, Yana Hasson, Karel Lenc, Arthur Mensch (2022). *Flamingo: a Visual Language Model for Few-Shot Learning*. arXiv (Cornell University). DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2204.14198. http://arxiv.org/abs/2204.14198
• Marcello M. Mariani, Isa Machado, Vittoria Magrelli, Yogesh K. Dwivedi (2022). *Artificial intelligence in innovation research: A systematic review, conceptual framework, and future research directions*. Technovation. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2022.102623. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2022.102623
• Sebastian Krakowski, Johannes Luger, Sebastian Raisch (2022). *Artificial intelligence and the changing sources of competitive advantage*. Strategic Management Journal. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3387. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3387
• Femi Olan, Emmanuel Ogiemwonyi Arakpogun, Jana Suklan, Franklin Nakpodia, Nadja Damij, Uchitha Jayawickrama (2022). *Artificial intelligence and knowledge sharing: Contributing factors to organizational performance*. Journal of Business Research. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.03.008. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.03.008
• Salman Bahoo, Marco Cucculelli, Dawood Qamar (2022). *Artificial intelligence and corporate innovation: A review and research agenda*. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.122264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.122264
• Iqbal H. Sarker (2022). *AI-Based Modeling: Techniques, Applications and Research Issues Towards Automation, Intelligent and Smart Systems*. SN Computer Science. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42979-022-01043-x. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42979-022-01043-x
• Thanveer Shaik, Xiaohui Tao, Yan Li, Christopher Dann, Jacquie McDonald, Petrea Redmond, Linda Galligan (2022). *A Review of the Trends and Challenges in Adopting Natural Language Processing Methods for Education Feedback Analysis*. IEEE Access. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2022.3177752. https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2022.3177752
• Sangmin Park, Young‐Gab Kim (2022). *A Metaverse: Taxonomy, Components, Applications, and Open Challenges*. IEEE Access. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2021.3140175. https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2021.3140175
• Silvana Secinaro, Davide Calandra, Aurelio Secinaro, Vivek Muthurangu, Paolo Biancone (2021). *The role of artificial intelligence in healthcare: a structured literature review*. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-021-01488-9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-021-01488-9
• Abbas Atefi, Yufeng Ge, Santosh Pitla, James C. Schnable (2021). *Robotic Technologies for High-Throughput Plant Phenotyping: Contemporary Reviews and Future Perspectives*. Frontiers in Plant Science. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2021.611940. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2021.611940
• Farheen Naz, Anil Kumar, Abhijit Majumdar, Rohit Agrawal (2021). *Is artificial intelligence an enabler of supply chain resiliency post COVID-19? An exploratory state-of-the-art review for future research*. Operations Management Research. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12063-021-00208-w. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12063-021-00208-w
• Mark Chen, Jerry Tworek, Heewoo Jun, Qiming Yuan, Henrique Pondé de Oliveira Pinto, Jared Kaplan, Harrison Edwards, Yuri Burda (2021). *Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Code*. arXiv (Cornell University). DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2107.03374. http://arxiv.org/abs/2107.03374
• Maryam Ouhami, Adel Hafiane, Youssef Es-Saady, Mohamed El Hajji, Raphaël Canals (2021). *Computer Vision, IoT and Data Fusion for Crop Disease Detection Using Machine Learning: A Survey and Ongoing Research*. Remote Sensing. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13132486. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13132486
• Sebastian Raisch, Sebastian Krakowski (2021). *Artificial Intelligence and Management: The Automation–Augmentation Paradox*. Academy of Management Review. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2018.0072. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2018.0072
• Xavier Parent‐Rocheleau, Sharon K. Parker (2021). *Algorithms as work designers: How algorithmic management influences the design of jobs*. Human Resource Management Review. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2021.100838. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2021.100838
• Eyke Hüllermeier, Willem Waegeman (2021). *Aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty in machine learning: an introduction to concepts and methods*. Machine Learning. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10994-021-05946-3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10994-021-05946-3
• Thilo Hagendorff (2020). *The Ethics of AI Ethics: An Evaluation of Guidelines*. Minds and Machines. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-020-09517-8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-020-09517-8
• Yogesh K. Dwivedi, Elvira Ismagilova, David L. Hughes, Jamie Carlson, Raffaele Filieri, Jenna Jacobson, Varsha Jain, Heikki Karjaluoto (2020). *Setting the future of digital and social media marketing research: Perspectives and research propositions*. International Journal of Information Management. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102168
• Daniel Ehls, Sara Polier, Cornelius Herstatt (2020). *Reviewing the Field of External Knowledge Search for Innovation: Theoretical Underpinnings and Future (Re‐)search Directions*. Journal of Product Innovation Management. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12549. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12549
• David Autor, David Dorn, Gordon Hanson, Kaveh Majlesi (2020). *Importing Political Polarization? The Electoral Consequences of Rising Trade Exposure*. American Economic Review. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20170011. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20170011
• Aidan Fuller, Zhong Fan, Charles Day, Chris Barlow (2020). *Digital Twin: Enabling Technologies, Challenges and Open Research*. IEEE Access. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2020.2998358. https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2020.2998358
• Stefano Puntoni, Rebecca Walker Reczek, Markus Giesler, Simona Botti (2020). *Consumers and Artificial Intelligence: An Experiential Perspective*. Journal of Marketing. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0022242920953847. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022242920953847
• Jorge Peña Queralta, Jussi Taipalmaa, Bilge Can Pullinen, Victor Kathan Sarker, Tuan Nguyen Gia, Hannu Tenhunen, Moncef Gabbouj, Jenni Raitoharju (2020). *Collaborative Multi-Robot Search and Rescue: Planning, Coordination, Perception, and Active Vision*. IEEE Access. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2020.3030190. https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2020.3030190
• Kevin M. Kniffin, Jayanth Narayanan, Frederik Anseel, John Antonakis, Susan J. Ashford, Arnold B. Bakker, Peter Bamberger, Hari Bapuji (2020). *COVID-19 and the workplace: Implications, issues, and insights for future research and action.*. American Psychologist. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000716. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000716
• Dominic Chalmers, Niall MacKenzie, Sara Carter (2020). *Artificial Intelligence and Entrepreneurship: Implications for Venture Creation in the Fourth Industrial Revolution*. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1042258720934581. https://doi.org/10.1177/1042258720934581
• Elli J. Theobald, Mariah J. Hill, Elisa Tran, Sweta Agrawal, E. Nicole Arroyo, Shawn Behling, Nyasha Chambwe, Dianne Laboy Cintrón (2020). *Active learning narrows achievement gaps for underrepresented students in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and math*. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1916903117. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1916903117
• Morgan R. Frank, David Autor, James Bessen, Erik Brynjolfsson, Manuel Cebrián, David Deming, Maryann P. Feldman, Matthew Groh (2019). *Toward understanding the impact of artificial intelligence on labor*. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1900949116. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1900949116
• Shannon Wiltsey Stirman, Ana A. Baumann, Christopher J. Miller (2019). *The FRAME: an expanded framework for reporting adaptations and modifications to evidence-based interventions*. Implementation Science. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-019-0898-y. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-019-0898-y
• Joanna C. Moullin, Kelsey S. Dickson, Nicole A. Stadnick, Borsika A. Rabin, Gregory A. Aarons (2019). *Systematic review of the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework*. Implementation Science. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-018-0842-6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-018-0842-6
• Russell E. Glasgow, Samantha M. Harden, Bridget Gaglio, Borsika A. Rabin, Matthew Lee Smith, Gwenndolyn C. Porter, Marcia G. Ory, Paul A. Estabrooks (2019). *RE-AIM Planning and Evaluation Framework: Adapting to New Science and Practice With a 20-Year Review*. Frontiers in Public Health. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2019.00064. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2019.00064
• Giang Nguyen, Štefan Dlugolinský, Martin Bobák, Viet Tran, Álvaro López García, Ignacio Heredia, Peter Malík, Ladislav Hluchý (2019). *Machine Learning and Deep Learning frameworks and libraries for large-scale data mining: a survey*. Artificial Intelligence Review. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-018-09679-z. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-018-09679-z
• Andrew D. Selbst, danah boyd, Sorelle A. Friedler, Suresh Venkatasubramanian, Janet Vertesi (2019). *Fairness and Abstraction in Sociotechnical Systems*. Unknown source. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3287560.3287598. https://doi.org/10.1145/3287560.3287598
• Alejandro Barredo Arrieta, Natalia Díaz-Rodríguez, Javier Del Ser, Adrien Bennetot, Siham Tabik, Alberto Barbado, Salvador García, Sergio Gil-López (2019). *Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Concepts, taxonomies, opportunities and challenges toward responsible AI*. Information Fusion. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2019.12.012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2019.12.012
• Peter C. Verhoef, Thijs Broekhuizen, Yakov Bart, Abhi Bhattacharya, John Qi Dong, Nicolai Etienne Fabian, Michael Haenlein (2019). *Digital transformation: A multidisciplinary reflection and research agenda*. Journal of Business Research. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.09.022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.09.022
• Avi Goldfarb, Catherine E. Tucker (2019). *Digital Economics*. Journal of Economic Literature. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.20171452. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.20171452
• Christina Harrington, Sheena Erete, Anne Marie Piper (2019). *Deconstructing Community-Based Collaborative Design*. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3359318. https://doi.org/10.1145/3359318
• Andreas Holzinger, Georg Langs, Helmut Denk, Kurt Zatloukal, Heimo Müller (2019). *Causability and explainability of artificial intelligence in medicine*. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/widm.1312. https://doi.org/10.1002/widm.1312
• Khaled Salah, Muhammad Habib ur Rehman, Nishara Nizamuddin, Ala Al‐Fuqaha (2019). *Blockchain for AI: Review and Open Research Challenges*. IEEE Access. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2018.2890507. https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2018.2890507
• Daron Acemoğlu, Pascual Restrepo (2019). *Automation and New Tasks: How Technology Displaces and Reinstates Labor*. The Journal of Economic Perspectives. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.33.2.3. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.33.2.3
• Yogesh K. Dwivedi, Laurie Hughes, Elvira Ismagilova, Gert Aarts, Crispin Coombs, Tom Crick, Yanqing Duan, Rohita Dwivedi (2019). *Artificial Intelligence (AI): Multidisciplinary perspectives on emerging challenges, opportunities, and agenda for research, practice and policy*. International Journal of Information Management. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.08.002. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.08.002
• Jonathan Köhler, Frank W. Geels, Florian Kern, Jochen Markard, Elsie Onsongo, A. Wieczorek, Floortje Alkemade, Flor Avelino (2019). *An agenda for sustainability transitions research: State of the art and future directions*. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2019.01.004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2019.01.004
• Barbara Rita Barricelli, Elena Casiraghi, Daniela Fogli (2019). *A Survey on Digital Twin: Definitions, Characteristics, Applications, and Design Implications*. IEEE Access. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2019.2953499. https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2019.2953499
• Robert Chesney, Danielle Keats Citron (2018). *Deep Fakes: A Looming Challenge for Privacy, Democracy, and National Security*. SSRN Electronic Journal. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3213954. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3213954
• Liliana Laranjo, Adam G. Dunn, Huong Ly Tong, A. Baki Kocaballı, Jessica Chen, Rabia Bashir, Didi Surian, Blanca Gallego (2018). *Conversational agents in healthcare: a systematic review*. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocy072. https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocy072
• Karl Warner, Maximilian Wäger (2018). *Building dynamic capabilities for digital transformation: An ongoing process of strategic renewal*. Long Range Planning. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2018.12.001. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2018.12.001
• Jochen Wirtz, Paul G. Patterson, Werner H. Kunz, Thorsten Gruber, Vinh Nhat Lu, Stefanie Paluch, Antje Martins (2018). *Brave new world: service robots in the frontline*. Journal of service management. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/josm-04-2018-0119. https://doi.org/10.1108/josm-04-2018-0119
• Jana Wäldchen, Michael Rzanny, Marco Seeland, Patrick Mäder (2018). *Automated plant species identification—Trends and future directions*. PLoS Computational Biology. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005993. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005993
• David Deming (2017). *The Growing Importance of Social Skills in the Labor Market**. The Quarterly Journal of Economics. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjx022. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjx022
• Mark de Reuver, Carsten Sørensen, Rahul C. Basole (2017). *The Digital Platform: A Research Agenda*. Journal of Information Technology. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41265-016-0033-3. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41265-016-0033-3
• Hilary Pinnock, Melanie Barwick, Christopher R. Carpenter, Sandra Eldridge, Gonzalo Grandes, Chris Griffiths, Jo Rycroft‐Malone, Paul Meißner (2017). *Standards for Reporting Implementation Studies (StaRI) Statement*. BMJ. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i6795. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i6795
• Yogesh K. Dwivedi, Nripendra P. Rana, Anand Jeyaraj, Marc Clement, Michael D. Williams (2017). *Re-examining the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT): Towards a Revised Theoretical Model*. Information Systems Frontiers. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-017-9774-y. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-017-9774-y
• Bryan J. Weiner, Cara C. Lewis, Cameo Stanick, Byron J. Powell, Caitlin N. Dorsey, Alecia Clary, Marcella H. Boynton, Heather Halko (2017). *Psychometric assessment of three newly developed implementation outcome measures*. Implementation Science. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017-0635-3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017-0635-3
• Nicholas T. Van Dam, Marieke K. van Vugt, David R. Vago, Laura Schmalzl, Clifford D. Saron, Andrew Olendzki, Ted Meissner, Sara W. Lazar (2017). *Mind the Hype: A Critical Evaluation and Prescriptive Agenda for Research on Mindfulness and Meditation*. Perspectives on Psychological Science. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617709589. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617709589
• Theo Vos, Amanuel Alemu Abajobir, Kalkidan Hassen Abate, Cristiana Abbafati, Kaja Abbas, Foad Abd-Allah, Rizwan Suliankatchi Abdulkader, Abdishakur Abdulle (2017). *Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 328 diseases and injuries for 195 countries, 1990–2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016*. The Lancet. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(17)32154-2. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(17)32154-2
• Satish Nambisan, Kalle Lyytinen, Ann Majchrzak, Michael Song (2017). *Digital Innovation Management: Reinventing Innovation Management Research in a Digital World*. MIS Quarterly. DOI: https://doi.org/10.25300/misq/2017/41:1.03. https://doi.org/10.25300/misq/2017/41:1.03
• Trisha Greenhalgh, Joseph Wherton, Chrysanthi Papoutsi, Jennifer Lynch, Gemma Hughes, Christine A’Court, Susan Hinder, Nick Fahy (2017). *Beyond Adoption: A New Framework for Theorizing and Evaluating Nonadoption, Abandonment, and Challenges to the Scale-Up, Spread, and Sustainability of Health and Care Technologies*. Journal of Medical Internet Research. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.8775. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.8775
• Corinne Cath, Sandra Wachter, Brent Mittelstadt, Mariarosaria Taddeo, Luciano Floridi (2017). *Artificial Intelligence and the ‘Good Society’: the US, EU, and UK approach*. Science and Engineering Ethics. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9901-7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9901-7
• Marcus R. Munafò, Brian A. Nosek, Dorothy Bishop, Katherine S. Button, Chris Chambers, Nathalie Percie du Sert, Uri Simonsohn, Eric‐Jan Wagenmakers (2017). *A manifesto for reproducible science*. Nature Human Behaviour. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-016-0021. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-016-0021
• Marco Valgimigli, Héctor Bueno, Robert A. Byrne, Jean‐Philippe Collet, Francesco Costa, Anders Jeppsson, Peter Jüni, Adnan Kastrati (2017). *2017 ESC focused update on dual antiplatelet therapy in coronary artery disease developed in collaboration with EACTS*. European Heart Journal. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehx419. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehx419
• Mark D. Wilkinson, Michel Dumontier, IJsbrand Jan Aalbersberg, Gabrielle Appleton, Myles Axton, Arie Baak, Niklas Blomberg, Jan‐Willem Boiten (2016). *The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship*. Scientific Data. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18. https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18
• Jean‐Christophe Plantin, Carl Lagoze, Paul N Edwards, Christian Sandvig (2016). *Infrastructure studies meet platform studies in the age of Google and Facebook*. New Media & Society. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816661553. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816661553
• Haidong Wang, Mohsen Naghavi, Christine A. Allen, Ryan M Barber, Zulfiqar A Bhutta, Austin Carter, Daniel Casey, Fiona Charlson (2016). *Global, regional, and national life expectancy, all-cause mortality, and cause-specific mortality for 249 causes of death, 1980–2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015*. The Lancet. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(16)31012-1. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(16)31012-1
• Alan Murray, Keith R. Skene, Kathryn Haynes (2015). *The Circular Economy: An Interdisciplinary Exploration of the Concept and Application in a Global Context*. Journal of Business Ethics. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2693-2. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2693-2
• Larissa Shamseer, David Moher, Mike Clarke, Davina Ghersi, A. Liberati, Mark Petticrew, Paul Shekelle, Lesley Stewart (2015). *Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation*. BMJ. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g7647. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g7647
• Sebastiaan Theodorus Michaël Peek, Katrien Luijkx, M. D. Rijnaard, Marianne Nieboer, C. S. van der Voort, Sil Aarts, Joost van Hoof, Hubertus JM Vrijhoef (2015). *Older Adults’ Reasons for Using Technology while Aging in Place*. Gerontology. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000430949. https://doi.org/10.1159/000430949
• Per Nilsén (2015). *Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks*. Implementation Science. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0242-0. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0242-0
• Paula Kivimaa, Florian Kern (2015). *Creative destruction or mere niche support? Innovation policy mixes for sustainability transitions*. Research Policy. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2015.09.008. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2015.09.008
• Mark S. Bauer, Laura J. Damschroder, Hildi Hagedorn, Jeffrey L. Smith, Amy M. Kilbourne (2015). *An introduction to implementation science for the non-specialist*. BMC Psychology. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-015-0089-9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-015-0089-9
• Vernon Ruttan, Colin Thirtle (2014). *The Role of Demand and Supply in the Generation and Diffusion of Technical Change*. Unknown source. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315014715. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315014715
• Tobias Hahn, Jonatan Pinkse, Lutz Preuss, Frank Figge (2014). *Tensions in Corporate Sustainability: Towards an Integrative Framework*. Journal of Business Ethics. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2047-5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2047-5
• Frank W. Geels (2014). *Regime Resistance against Low-Carbon Transitions: Introducing Politics and Power into the Multi-Level Perspective*. Theory Culture & Society. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276414531627. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276414531627
• Andréa Zanella, Nicola Bui, Angelo Castellani, Lorenzo Vangelista, Michele Zorzi (2014). *Internet of Things for Smart Cities*. IEEE Internet of Things Journal. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/jiot.2014.2306328. https://doi.org/10.1109/jiot.2014.2306328
• Neil Anderson, Kristina Potočnik, Jing Zhou (2014). *Innovation and Creativity in Organizations*. Journal of Management. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314527128. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314527128
• William Voorberg, Victor Bekkers, Lars Tummers (2014). *A Systematic Review of Co-Creation and Co-Production: Embarking on the social innovation journey*. Public Management Review. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2014.930505. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2014.930505
• Keld Laursen, Ammon Salter (2013). *The paradox of openness: Appropriability, external search and collaboration*. Research Policy. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.10.004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.10.004
• David Chambers, Russell E. Glasgow, Kurt C. Stange (2013). *The dynamic sustainability framework: addressing the paradox of sustainment amid ongoing change*. Implementation Science. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-8-117. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-8-117
• Enola K. Proctor, Byron J. Powell, J. Curtis McMillen (2013). *Implementation strategies: recommendations for specifying and reporting*. Implementation Science. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-8-139. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-8-139
• Anandhi Bharadwaj, Omar A. El Sawy, Paul A. Pavlou, N. Venkatraman (2013). *Digital Business Strategy: Toward a Next Generation of Insights*. MIS Quarterly. DOI: https://doi.org/10.25300/misq/2013/37:2.3. https://doi.org/10.25300/misq/2013/37:2.3
• Jack Stilgoe, Richard Owen, Phil Macnaghten (2013). *Developing a framework for responsible innovation*. Research Policy. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.05.008. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.05.008
• Markus Hrachowitz, H. H. G. Savenije, Günter Blöschl, Jeffrey J. McDonnell, Murugesu Sivapalan, John W. Pomeroy, Berit Arheimer, Theresa Blume (2013). *A decade of Predictions in Ungauged Basins (PUB)—a review*. Hydrological Sciences Journal. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2013.803183. https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2013.803183
• Shannon Wiltsey Stirman, John R. Kimberly, Natasha Cook, Amber Calloway, Frank Castro, Martin P. Charns (2012). *The sustainability of new programs and innovations: a review of the empirical literature and recommendations for future research*. Implementation Science. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-7-17. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-7-17
• Daniele Miorandi, Sabrina Sicari, Francesco De Pellegrini, Imrich Chlamtac (2012). *Internet of things: Vision, applications and research challenges*. Ad Hoc Networks. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adhoc.2012.02.016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adhoc.2012.02.016
• Markus Kitzmueller, Jay P. Shimshack (2012). *Economic Perspectives on Corporate Social Responsibility*. Journal of Economic Literature. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.50.1.51. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.50.1.51
• Eve Tuck, K. Wayne Yang (2012). *Decolonization is not a metaphor*. TSpace. http://hdl.handle.net/1807/138516
• Frank W. Geels (2012). *A socio-technical analysis of low-carbon transitions: introducing the multi-level perspective into transport studies*. Journal of Transport Geography. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2012.01.021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2012.01.021
• Andriy Fedorov, Reinhard Beichel, Jayashree Kalpathy–Cramer, Julien Finet, Jean‐Christophe Fillion‐Robin, Sonia Pujol, Christian Bauer, Dominique Jennings (2012). *3D Slicer as an image computing platform for the Quantitative Imaging Network*. Magnetic Resonance Imaging. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mri.2012.05.001. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mri.2012.05.001
• Frank W. Geels (2011). *The multi-level perspective on sustainability transitions: Responses to seven criticisms*. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2011.02.002. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2011.02.002
• Thomas H. Davenport, James E. Short (2011). *The New Industrial Engineering: Information Technology and Business Process Redesign*. DSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology). http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/48613
• Ashly Black, Josip Car, Claudia Pagliari, Chantelle Anandan, Kathrin Cresswell, Tomislav Bokun, Brian McKinstry, Rob Procter (2011). *The Impact of eHealth on the Quality and Safety of Health Care: A Systematic Overview*. PLoS Medicine. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000387. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000387
• Jairnilson Silva Paim, Cláudia Travassos, C.M.V.B. Almeida, Lígia Bahia, James Macinko (2011). *The Brazilian health system: history, advances, and challenges*. The Lancet. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(11)60054-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(11)60054-8
• Julia E.W.C. van Gemert‐Pijnen, Nicol Nijland, Maarten van Limburg, Hans C. Ossebaard, Saskia M. Kelders, Günther Eysenbach, E.R. Seydel (2011). *A Holistic Framework to Improve the Uptake and Impact of eHealth Technologies*. Journal of Medical Internet Research. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.1672. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.1672
• Nicholas Bloom, John Van Reenen (2010). *Why Do Management Practices Differ across Firms and Countries?*. The Journal of Economic Perspectives. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.24.1.203. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.24.1.203
• Andreas Georg Scherer, Guido Palazzo (2010). *The New Political Role of Business in a Globalized World: A Review of a New Perspective on CSR and its Implications for the Firm, Governance, and Democracy*. Journal of Management Studies. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00950.x. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00950.x
• Daron Acemoğlu, David Autor (2010). *Skills, Tasks and Technologies: Implications for Employment and Earnings*. National Bureau of Economic Research. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3386/w16082. https://doi.org/10.3386/w16082
• Enola K. Proctor, Hiie Silmere, Ramesh Raghavan, Peter S. Hovmand, Greg Aarons, Alicia C. Bunger, Richard T. Griffey, Melissa A. Hensley (2010). *Outcomes for Implementation Research: Conceptual Distinctions, Measurement Challenges, and Research Agenda*. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-010-0319-7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-010-0319-7
• Frank W. Geels (2010). *Ontologies, socio-technical transitions (to sustainability), and the multi-level perspective*. Research Policy. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.022
• Rodrigo N. Calheiros, Rajiv Ranjan, Anton Beloglazov, César A. F. De Rose, Rajkumar Buyya (2010). *CloudSim: a toolkit for modeling and simulation of cloud computing environments and evaluation of resource provisioning algorithms*. Software Practice and Experience. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/spe.995. https://doi.org/10.1002/spe.995
• Qi Zhang, Cheng Lü, Raouf Boutaba (2010). *Cloud computing: state-of-the-art and research challenges*. Journal of Internet Services and Applications. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13174-010-0007-6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13174-010-0007-6
• Nicholas Evans, Stephen C. Levinson (2009). *The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science*. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x0999094x. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x0999094x
• Laura J. Damschroder, David C. Aron, Rosalind E. Keith, Susan Kirsh, J Alexander, Julie C. Lowery (2009). *Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science*. Implementation Science. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-4-50. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-4-50
• Philip McMichael (2009). *A food regime genealogy*. The Journal of Peasant Studies. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150902820354. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150902820354
• Viswanath Venkatesh, Hillol Bala (2008). *Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions*. Decision Sciences. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2008.00192.x. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2008.00192.x
• Johan Schot, Frank W. Geels (2008). *Strategic niche management and sustainable innovation journeys: theory, findings, research agenda, and policy*. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09537320802292651. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537320802292651
• Dimitrios Buhalis, Rob Law (2008). *Progress in information technology and tourism management: 20 years on and 10 years after the Internet—The state of eTourism research*. Tourism Management. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2008.01.005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2008.01.005
• Frank W. Geels, Johan Schot (2007). *Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways*. Research Policy. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.01.003. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.01.003
• Mike P. Papazoglou, Willem‐Jan van den Heuvel (2007). *Service oriented architectures: approaches, technologies and research issues*. The VLDB Journal. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00778-007-0044-3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00778-007-0044-3
• Yolande E. Chan, Blaize Horner Reich (2007). *IT Alignment: What Have We Learned?*. Journal of Information Technology. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jit.2000109. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jit.2000109
• Jeffrey L. Anderson, Cynthia D. Adams, Elliott M. Antman, Charles R. Bridges, Robert M. Califf, Donald E. Casey, William E. Chavey, Francis M. Fesmire (2007). *ACC/AHA 2007 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Unstable Angina/Non–ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction*. Circulation. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1161/circulationaha.107.181940. https://doi.org/10.1161/circulationaha.107.181940
• Christopher Carroll, Malcolm Patterson, Stephen Wood, Andrew Booth, Jo Rick, Shashi Balain (2007). *A conceptual framework for implementation fidelity*. Implementation Science. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-2-40. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-2-40
• Benkler, Yochai (2006). *The wealth of networks: how social production transforms markets and freedom*. Choice Reviews Online. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.44-0999. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.44-0999
• Mamun Bin Ibne Reaz, Muddassar Hussain, Faisal Mohd-Yasin (2006). *Techniques of EMG signal analysis: detection, processing, classification and applications*. Biological Procedures Online. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1251/bpo115. https://doi.org/10.1251/bpo115
• Nick Bloom, John Van Reenen (2006). *Measuring and Explaining Management Practices Across Firms and Countries*. National Bureau of Economic Research. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3386/w12216. https://doi.org/10.3386/w12216
• Marko P. Hekkert, Roald A.A. Suurs, Simona O. Negro, Stefan Kuhlmann, R.E.H.M. Smits (2006). *Functions of innovation systems: A new approach for analysing technological change*. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2006.03.002. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2006.03.002
• Paul C. Tang, Joan S. Ash, David W. Bates, J. Marc Overhage, Daniel Z. Sands (2005). *Personal Health Records: Definitions, Benefits, and Strategies for Overcoming Barriers to Adoption*. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1197/jamia.m2025. https://doi.org/10.1197/jamia.m2025
• Keld Laursen, Ammon Salter (2005). *Open for innovation: the role of openness in explaining innovation performance among U.K. manufacturing firms*. Strategic Management Journal. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.507. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.507
• Raghuram G. Rajan (2005). *Has Financial Development Made the World Riskier?*. National Bureau of Economic Research. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3386/w11728. https://doi.org/10.3386/w11728
• Bárbara Starfield, Leiyu Shi, James Macinko (2005). *Contribution of Primary Care to Health Systems and Health*. Milbank Quarterly. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0009.2005.00409.x. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0009.2005.00409.x
• Dani Rodrik (2004). *Industrial Policy for the Twenty-First Century*. SSRN Electronic Journal. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.617544. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.617544
• Frank W. Geels (2004). *From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems*. Research Policy. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2004.01.015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2004.01.015
• Harald Bathelt, Anders Malmberg, Peter Maskell (2004). *Clusters and knowledge: local buzz, global pipelines and the process of knowledge creation*. Progress in Human Geography. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1191/0309132504ph469oa. https://doi.org/10.1191/0309132504ph469oa
• Robert Gentleman, Vincent J. Carey, Douglas M. Bates, Ben Bolstad, Marcel Dettling, Sandrine Dudoit, Byron Ellis, Laurent Gautier (2004). *Bioconductor: open software development for computational biology and bioinformatics*. Genome biology. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/gb-2004-5-10-r80. https://doi.org/10.1186/gb-2004-5-10-r80
• A. Avižienis, J.-C. Laprie, Brian Randell, Carl E. Landwehr (2004). *Basic concepts and taxonomy of dependable and secure computing*. IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/tdsc.2004.2. https://doi.org/10.1109/tdsc.2004.2
• Myong‐Hun Chang, Joseph E. Harrington (2004). *AGENT-BASED MODELS OF ORGANIZATIONS **. Econstor (Econstor). http://hdl.handle.net/10419/71984
• Sidney G. Winter (2003). *Understanding dynamic capabilities*. Strategic Management Journal. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.318. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.318
• Younghwa Lee, Kenneth A. Kozar, Kai R. Larsen (2003). *The Technology Acceptance Model: Past, Present, and Future*. Communications of the Association for Information Systems. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17705/1cais.01250. https://doi.org/10.17705/1cais.01250
• Paul Legris, John Ingham, Pierre Collerette (2002). *Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model*. Information & Management. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-7206(01)00143-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-7206(01)00143-4
• Nick C. Ellis (2002). *FREQUENCY EFFECTS IN LANGUAGE PROCESSING*. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263102002024. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263102002024
• T. D. Stanley (2001). *Wheat From Chaff: Meta-Analysis As Quantitative Literature Review*. The Journal of Economic Perspectives. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.15.3.131. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.15.3.131
• James H. Stock, Mark W. Watson (2001). *Vector Autoregressions*. The Journal of Economic Perspectives. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.15.4.101. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.15.4.101
• David Autor, Frank Levy, Richard J. Murnane (2001). *The Skill Content of Recent Technological Change: An Empirical Exploration*. National Bureau of Economic Research. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3386/w8337. https://doi.org/10.3386/w8337
• David Gefen, Detmar W. Straub (2000). *The Relative Importance of Perceived Ease of Use in IS Adoption: A Study of E-Commerce Adoption*. Journal of the Association for Information Systems. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00008. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00008
• Michael Woolcock, Deepa Narayan (2000). *Social Capital: Implications for Development Theory, Research, and Policy*. The World Bank Research Observer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/wbro/15.2.225. https://doi.org/10.1093/wbro/15.2.225
• Kathleen M. Eisenhardt, Jeffrey A. Martin (2000). *Dynamic capabilities: what are they?*. Strategic Management Journal. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0266(200010/11)21:10/11<1105::aid-smj133>3.0.co;2-e. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0266(200010/11)21:10/11<1105::aid-smj133>3.0.co;2-e
• Erik Brynjolfsson, Lorin M. Hitt (2000). *Beyond Computation: Information Technology, Organizational Transformation and Business Performance*. The Journal of Economic Perspectives. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.14.4.23. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.14.4.23
• Paul Jen‐Hwa Hu, Patrick Y.K. Chau, Olivia R. Liu Sheng, Kar Yan Tam (1999). *Examining the Technology Acceptance Model Using Physician Acceptance of Telemedicine Technology*. Journal of Management Information Systems. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.1999.11518247. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.1999.11518247
• Russell E. Glasgow, Thomas Vogt, Shawn M. Boles (1999). *Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework.*. American Journal of Public Health. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.89.9.1322. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.89.9.1322
• Brian Aitken, Ann Harrison (1999). *Do Domestic Firms Benefit from Direct Foreign Investment? Evidence from Venezuela*. American Economic Review. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.89.3.605. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.89.3.605
• Bengt Holmström, John Roberts (1998). *The Boundaries of the Firm Revisited*. The Journal of Economic Perspectives. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.12.4.73. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.12.4.73
• Marshall Van Alstyne (1997). *The State of Network Organization: A Survey in Three Frameworks*. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10919392.1997.9681069. https://doi.org/10.1080/10919392.1997.9681069
• Yingyi Qian, Barry R. Weingast (1997). *Federalism as a Commitment to Preserving Market Incentives*. The Journal of Economic Perspectives. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.11.4.83. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.11.4.83
• Jeffrey D. Sachs, Andrew M. Warner, Anders Åslund, Stanley Fischer (1995). *Economic Reform and the Process of Global Integration*. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2534573. https://doi.org/10.2307/2534573
• Joseph T. Mahoney, J. Rajendran Pandian (1992). *The resource‐based view within the conversation of strategic management*. Strategic Management Journal. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250130505. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250130505
• Sanjeev Agarwal, Sridhar N. Ramaswami (1992). *Choice of Foreign Market Entry Mode: Impact of Ownership, Location and Internalization Factors*. Journal of International Business Studies. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490257. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490257
• Michael E. Porter (1991). *Towards a dynamic theory of strategy*. Strategic Management Journal. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250121008. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250121008
• Robert C. Merton (1987). *A Simple Model of Capital Market Equilibrium with Incomplete Information*. The Journal of Finance. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1987.tb04565.x. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1987.tb04565.x
• Alice N. Benston, Fredric Jameson (1983). *The Political Unconscious: Narrative as a Socially Symbolic Act*. SubStance. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3684627. https://doi.org/10.2307/3684627
• M. Lynne Markus (1983). *Power, politics, and MIS implementation*. Communications of the ACM. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/358141.358148. https://doi.org/10.1145/358141.358148
• C. S. Holling (1980). *Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management*. Forest Science. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/forestscience/26.3.435. https://doi.org/10.1093/forestscience/26.3.435
• David A. Dickey, Wayne A. Fuller (1979). *Distribution of the Estimators for Autoregressive Time Series with a Unit Root*. Journal of the American Statistical Association. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1979.10482531. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1979.10482531