Where does business research go from here? Food-for-thought on academic papers in business research
AbstractThis essay focuses on some of the adverse practices in business research publications. First, business researchers seem to have lost touch with business practice and to narrow the target group to fellow academics only, reducing the production of useful knowledge. Second, the objectives of business research publications narrow to impact and citations. This view leads to a strict focus on path-breaking theories and a denigration of replication and qualitative studies. Third, an obsession with the .05 significance level and corroborating findings leaves researchers with full file drawers of unpublished papers and could leave journals with a high rate of type I error papers. Fourth, complex, lengthy articles, the importance of carefully crafting a story around the research and a variety of style guidelines make business researchers less productive than they could be. Finally, a blind reliance on ISI's impact and citation scores may not do justice to a researcher's real contribution.
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): 64 (2011)
Issue (Month): 10 (October)
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jbusres
Impact factor Citations Replication studies Significance levels Business research;
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.:
- Evanschitzky, Heiner & Baumgarth, Carsten & Hubbard, Raymond & Armstrong, J. Scott, 2007. "Replication research's disturbing trend," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 60(4), pages 411-415, April.
- 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.
- JS Armstrong, 2004.
"Discovery and Communication of Important Marketing Findings: Evidence and Proposals,"
General Economics and Teaching
- Armstrong, J. Scott, 2003. "Discovery and communication of important marketing findings: Evidence and proposals," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 56(1), pages 69-84, January.
- Woodside, Arch G., 2009. "Journal and author impact metrics: An editorial," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 1-4, January.
- Ellson, Tony, 2009. "Assessing contribution of research in business to practice," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 62(11), pages 1160-1164, November.
- Anonymous, 2007. "Editorial Board," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 36(1), April.
- Daniel Sutter & Rex Pjesky, 2007. "Where Would Adam Smith Publish Today? The Near Absence of Math-free Research in Top Journals," Econ Journal Watch, Econ Journal Watch, vol. 4(2), pages 230-240, May.
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.