Discovery and communication of important marketing findings: Evidence and proposals
AbstractMy review of empirical research on scientific publication led to the following conclusions. Three criteria are useful for identifying whether findings are important: replication, validity, and usefulness. A fourth criterion, surprise, applies in some situations. Based on these criteria, important findings resulting from academic research in marketing seem to be rare. To a large extent, this rarity is due to a reward system that is built around subjective peer review. Rather than using peer review as a secret screening process, using an open process likely will improve papers and inform readers. Researchers, journals, business schools, funding agencies, and professional organizations can all contribute to improving the process. For example, researchers should do directed research on papers that contribute to principles. Journals should invite papers that contribute to principles. Business school administrators should reward researchers who make important findings. Funding agencies should base decisions on researchers' prior success in making important findings, and professional organizations should maintain web sites that describe what is known about principles and what research is needed on principles.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Elsevier in its journal Journal of Business Research.
Volume (Year): 56 (2003)
Issue (Month): 1 (January)
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jbusres
Other versions of this item:
- JS Armstrong, 2004. "Discovery and Communication of Important Marketing Findings: Evidence and Proposals," General Economics and Teaching 0412011, EconWPA.
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Laband, David N & Piette, Michael J, 1994. "Favoritism versus Search for Good Papers: Empirical Evidence Regarding the Behavior of Journal Editors," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 102(1), pages 194-203, February.
- Stephen Dakin & JS Armstrong, 2004.
"Predicting job performance: A comparison of expert opinion and research findings,"
General Economics and Teaching
- Dakin, Stephen & Armstrong, J. Scott, 1989. "Predicting job performance: A comparison of expert opinion and research findings," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 5(2), pages 187-194.
- Fox, Kevin J & Milbourne, Ross, 1999. "What Determines Research Output of Academic Economists?," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 75(230), pages 256-67, September.
- Ian I. Mitroff, 1972. "The Myth of Objectivity OR Why Science Needs a New Psychology of Science," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(10), pages B613-B618, June.
- Hubbard, Raymond & Vetter, Daniel E., 1996. "An empirical comparison of published replication research in accounting, economics, finance, management, and marketing," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 153-164, February.
- Joshua S. Gans & George B. Shepherd, 1994. "How Are the Mighty Fallen: Rejected Classic Articles by Leading Economists," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(1), pages 165-179, Winter.
- Armstrong, J Scott, 1991. " Prediction of Consumer Behavior by Experts and Novices," Journal of Consumer Research, University of Chicago Press, vol. 18(2), pages 251-56, September.
- Wells, William D, 1993. " Discovery-Oriented Consumer Research," Journal of Consumer Research, University of Chicago Press, vol. 19(4), pages 489-504, March.
- Koehler, Jonathan J., 1993. "The Influence of Prior Beliefs on Scientific Judgments of Evidence Quality," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 56(1), pages 28-55, October.
- Deirdre N. McCloskey & Stephen T. Ziliak, 1996. "The Standard Error of Regressions," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 34(1), pages 97-114, March.
- Seidl, Christian & Schmidt, Ulrich & Grösche, Peter, 2005. "The Performance of Peer Review and a Beauty Contest of Referee Processes of Economics Journals/," Estudios de Economía Aplicada, Estudios de Economía Aplicada, vol. 23, pages 505-551, Diciembre.
- Siemens, Jennifer Christie & Burton, Scot & Jensen, Thomas & Mendoza, Norma A., 2005. "An examination of the relationship between research productivity in prestigious business journals and popular press business school rankings," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 58(4), pages 467-476, April.
- Lehmann, Donald R., 2003. "Finding important findings," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 56(1), pages 89-90, January.
- Prüfer, J. & Zetland, D., 2007.
"An Auction Market for Journal Articles,"
2007-027, Tilburg University, Tilburg Law and Economic Center.
- Khan, Jashim, 2011. "Validation in marketing experiments revisited," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 64(7), pages 687-692, July.
- Walter Wymer, 2013. "The Influence of Marketing Scholarship’s Legacy on Nonprofit Marketing," International Journal of Financial Studies, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 1(3), pages 102-118, September.
- Briggs, Elten & Jaramillo, Fernando & Weeks, William A., 2012. "Perceived barriers to career advancement and organizational commitment in sales," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 65(7), pages 937-943.
- JS Armstrong, 2004.
"The Value of Surprising Findings for Research on Marketing,"
General Economics and Teaching
- Armstrong, J. Scott, 2003. "The value of surprising findings for research on marketing," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 56(1), pages 91-92, January.
- Argouslidis, Paraskevas C., 2004. "An empirical investigation into the alternative strategies to implement the elimination of financial services," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 393-413, November.
- Rossiter, John R., 2003. "Qualifying the importance of findings," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 56(1), pages 85-88, January.
- Geuens, Maggie, 2011. "Where does business research go from here? Food-for-thought on academic papers in business research," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 64(10), pages 1104-1107, October.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.