Browse by title

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 24 items :

  • Business and Management x
  • Research Methods x
  • Business 2019 x
Clear All
This content is available to you

Edited by David W. Stewart and Daniel M. Ladik

This content is available to you

Daniel M. Ladik and David W. Stewart

The (most) common mistake is not to “tell a story,” but only assemble different related parts. “Telling a good story” means to critically analyze what has been done before and demonstrate convincingly why something is changing. A significant contribution to knowledge does not happen in isolation and needs to be contextualized to the current situation.

You do not have access to this content

John H. Roberts, Ujwal Kayande and Stefan Stremersch

We aim to investigate the impact of marketing science articles and tools on the practice of marketing. This impact may be direct (e.g., an academic article may be adapted to solve a practical problem) or indirect (e.g., its contents may be incorporated into practitioners' tools, which then influence marketing decision making). We use the term “marketing science value chain” to describe these diffusion steps, and survey marketing managers, marketing science intermediaries (practicing marketing analysts), and marketing academics to calibrate the value chain. In our sample, we find that (1) the impact of marketing science is perceived to be largest on decisions such as the management of brands, pricing, new products, product portfolios, and customer/market selection, and (2) tools such as segmentation, survey-based choice models, marketing mix models, and pre-test market models have the largest impact on marketing decisions. Exemplary papers from 1982 to 2003 that achieved dual - academic and practice - impact are Guadagni and Little (1983) and Green and Srinivasan (1990). Overall, our results are encouraging. First, we find that the impact of marketing science has been largest on marketing decision areas that are important to practice. Second, we find moderate alignment between academic impact and practice impact. Third, we identify antecedents of practice impact among dual impact marketing science papers. Fourth, we discover more recent trends and initiatives in the period 2004-2012, such as the increased importance of big data and the rise of digital and mobile communication, using the marketing science value chain as an organizing framework.

You do not have access to this content

John O. Summers

A primary mission of institutions of higher learning is the generation and dissemination of knowledge. The low acceptance rates at the leading research journals in marketing, typically in the single digits to low teens, suggests the need to increase the quality of the research manuscripts produced. This article presents a set of guidelines for researchers aspiring to do scholarly research in marketing. Discussed are issues such as developing the necessary research skills, conceptualizing the study, constructing the research design, writing the manuscript, and responding to reviewers. Also presented are the author’s personal observations concerning the current state of research in marketing.

You do not have access to this content

Ruth N. Bolton

I have been asked to contribute my recollections about the editorial review process for the article, “Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing” by Stephen L. (Steve) Vargo and Robert F. (Bob) Lusch, which was published in the Journal of Marketing (JM ) in 2004. This chapter offers my recollections - with the advantage of hindsight.

You do not have access to this content

Edited by David W. Stewart and Daniel M. Ladik

This essential guide, edited by experienced journal editors, is the definitive sourcebook for prospective authors who are seeking direction and advice about developing academic papers in marketing that will have a high probability of publication in the best journals in the discipline. It brings together a wealth of contributors, all of whom are experienced researchers and have been published in the leading marketing journals.
You do not have access to this content

Cornelia 'Connie' Pechmann

This chapter is intended to provide guidance to junior academics in marketing and other fields about how to publish consumer research based on experiments in the top marketing journals. By the top marketing journals, I mean Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Marketing Research, Journal of Marketing, Journal of Consumer Psychology and Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. All of these are on the Financial Times list of leading business journals. Some of the information in this chapter is also relevant to publishing experiment-based consumer research in other marketing journals like the Journal of Business Research, Journal of Retailing, Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Journal of Advertising, and Marketing Letters, because these journals are increasingly adopting the standards of the top journals. My goal is to provide guidance to consumer researchers who primarily use the experimental method. I will not be discussing research that adopts the CCT (consumer culture theory) paradigm or the modeling paradigm.

This content is available to you

Edited by David W. Stewart and Daniel M. Ladik

Publication of a paper in a journal is the culmination of a process. The publication process begins with an idea that is developed and refined until it lends itself to empirical research or conceptual elaboration. The idea must be place in the context of extant research and theory, and something ‘new’ must be identified. Idea development is followed by empirical research, conceptual elaboration, and/or theory development. The idea, its elaboration, and the results of any empirical research or theory development then need to be documented in a fashion that is accessible and meaningful to readers in some well-defined audience. That audience is the readership of the journal for which the paper is intended. Throughout the development process it is helpful to obtain feedback by having others read and comment on the evolving paper and by making formal and informal presentations where ideas can be discussed, sharpened and polished. At some place in the cycle, the feedback and refinement process reach the point of diminishing returns, which suggests it is time to submit the paper. Submission starts a process of review and revision, which results in publication or rejection by the target journal. Rejection may result in revision of the paper for another journal based on feedback, and the process begins again.

You do not have access to this content

Edited by David W. Stewart and Daniel M. Ladik

Marketing is a diverse discipline. Its journals differ on many factors: the focus of their content, the methods they prefer, the length of papers they publish, the balance between theoretical and empirical emphasis, the importance of pure knowledge versus application, and a host of other dimensions. Coursework in marketing doctoral programs generally focuses on theories and methods. Such courses usually assure that students are well-versed in relevant theoretical perspectives and understand the appropriate use of specific research methods. It is less common to find coursework or even books that address the norms for research and publication within the various sub-fields of marketing. Section II of this book provides insights into these normative differences.

You do not have access to this content

Edited by David W. Stewart and Daniel M. Ladik

A critical element in the publication process is the review procedure, in which individuals who have expertise in the subject matter addressed by a paper are asked to provide comments and suggestions for improvement. While some journals do ask reviewers for a recommendation about whether to publish, invite revision, or reject a paper, such a recommendation is not the primary task of the reviewer. Rather, the reviewer’s objective is to make the paper better by offering constructive comments about conceptual development, methodology, logic, conclusions, implications and exposition. Whether a paper is eventually published in a particular journal or not, the insights of reviewers are a powerful tool for improving papers. Even when a paper is rejected by one journal, reviews offer a means for improving the paper before submission to another journal. Authors of rejected papers would be well advised to make revisions in response to reviewers’ comments before sending a paper to another journal because there is a good chance at least one of the reviewers of the original submission will be selected by the new journal.