IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormksc/v22y2003i2p151-160.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Editorial: Compartmentalized Reviews and Other Initiatives: Should Marketing Scientists Review Manuscripts in Consumer Behavior?

Author

Listed:
  • Steven M. Shugan

    (Warrington College of Business Administration, University of Florida, 201 Bryan Hall, Campus Box 117155, Gainesville, Florida 32611)

Abstract

Effectively solving problems requires proper organization. Like other academic disciplines, our discipline must organize around our fundamental problems rather than around our procedures (i.e., tools, approaches, methods). Only that organization ensures healthy debate and constructive communication on relevant research questions. Three initiatives might help foster a transition from a procedure-based to a problem-based organization. One initiative is compartmentalized reviews. Rather than only assigning reviews based on the technical procedures used in a manuscript (e.g., experiments), we assign at least one reviewer, whose expertise is in the problem domain (e.g., advertising), to review only that part of the manuscript (e.g., relevancy to advertisers). Another initiative is to avoid dichotomous certification (i.e., correct or incorrect) for procedures. All procedures yield evidence that forms a multidimensional continuum from circumstantial to overwhelming. Sometimes, precision in stating the conclusion is more important than precision in the procedure. Finally, research streams on marketing questions are essential—no one article is definitive. To foster these streams,must encourage (to some degree) articles that expand on research previously published in. Whenpublishes an article, it has some obligation to give some priority to manuscripts that build on the same topic (i.e., not to label them as “incremental”).

Suggested Citation

  • Steven M. Shugan, 2003. "Editorial: Compartmentalized Reviews and Other Initiatives: Should Marketing Scientists Review Manuscripts in Consumer Behavior?," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(2), pages 151-160.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormksc:v:22:y:2003:i:2:p:151-160
    DOI: 10.1287/mksc.22.2.151.16038
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mksc.22.2.151.16038
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mksc.22.2.151.16038?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Peter J. Danaher, 2002. "Optimal Pricing of New Subscription Services: Analysis of a Market Experiment," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(2), pages 119-138, February.
    2. Griliches, Zvi, 1985. "Data and Econometricians-The Uneasy Alliance," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 75(2), pages 196-200, May.
    3. Abbie Griffin & John R. Hauser, 1993. "The Voice of the Customer," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(1), pages 1-27.
    4. Sha Yang & Gerg M. Allenby & Geraldine Fennel, 2002. "Modeling Variation in Brand Preference: The Roles of Objective Environment and Motivating Conditions," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(1), pages 14-31, May.
    5. Xavier Drèze & David R. Bell, 2003. "Creating Win–Win Trade Promotions: Theory and Empirical Analysis of Scan-Back Trade Deals," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(1), pages 16-39, November.
    6. Elie Ofek & V. Srinivasan, 2002. "How Much Does the Market Value an Improvement in a Product Attribute?," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(4), pages 398-411, June.
    7. Kamel Jedidi & Sharan Jagpal & Puneet Manchanda, 2003. "Measuring Heterogeneous Reservation Prices for Product Bundles," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(1), pages 107-130, July.
    8. Zsolt Sándor & Michel Wedel, 2002. "Profile Construction in Experimental Choice Designs for Mixed Logit Models," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(4), pages 455-475, February.
    9. Steven M. Shugan, 2002. "The Mission of Marketing Science," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(1), pages 1-13.
    10. David Godes, 2003. "In the Eye of the Beholder: An Analysis of the Relative Value of a Top Sales Rep Across Firms and Products," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(2), pages 161-187, May.
    11. Jinhong Xie & Steven M. Shugan, 2001. "Electronic Tickets, Smart Cards, and Online Prepayments: When and How to Advance Sell," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(3), pages 219-243, June.
    12. Lehmann, Donald R., 2003. "Finding important findings," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 56(1), pages 89-90, January.
    13. Alba, Joseph W & Hutchinson, J Wesley, 1987. "Dimensions of Consumer Expertise," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 13(4), pages 411-454, March.
    14. Thomas J. Steenburgh & Andrew Ainslie & Peder Hans Engebretson, 2003. "Massively Categorical Variables: Revealing the Information in Zip Codes," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(1), pages 40-57, August.
    15. Steven M. Shugan, 2003. "Editorial: Defining Interesting Research Problems," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(1), pages 1-15.
    16. Hunter, John E, 2001. "The Desperate Need for Replications," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 28(1), pages 149-158, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Do-Hyung Park, 2021. "Consumer Adoption of Consumer-Created vs. Expert-Created Information: Moderating Role of Prior Product Attitude," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-12, February.
    2. Steven M. Shugan, 2004. "Editorial: Consulting, Research, and Consulting Research," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(2), pages 173-179.
    3. Steven M. Shugan, 2007. "The Editor's Secrets," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(5), pages 589-595, 09-10.
    4. Steven M. Shugan, 2006. "Editorial: Fifty Years of," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(6), pages 551-555, 11-12.
    5. Donald R. Lehmann & Russell S. Winer, 2017. "The role and impact of reviewers on the marketing discipline," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 45(5), pages 587-592, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Olivier Toubia & Duncan I. Simester & John R. Hauser & Ely Dahan, 2003. "Fast Polyhedral Adaptive Conjoint Estimation," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(3), pages 273-303.
    2. James Agarwal & Wayne DeSarbo & Naresh K. Malhotra & Vithala Rao, 2015. "An Interdisciplinary Review of Research in Conjoint Analysis: Recent Developments and Directions for Future Research," Customer Needs and Solutions, Springer;Institute for Sustainable Innovation and Growth (iSIG), vol. 2(1), pages 19-40, March.
    3. Roland T. Rust & Tuck Siong Chung, 2006. "Marketing Models of Service and Relationships," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(6), pages 560-580, 11-12.
    4. Steven M. Shugan, 2004. "The Impact of Advancing Technology on Marketing and Academic Research," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(4), pages 469-475.
    5. Steven M. Shugan, 2003. "Editorial: Defining Interesting Research Problems," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(1), pages 1-15.
    6. Steven M. Shugan, 2002. "In Search of Data: An Editorial," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(4), pages 369-377.
    7. Hamilton, Rebecca W. & Puntoni, Stefano & Tavassoli, Nader T., 2010. "Categorization by groups and individuals," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 112(1), pages 70-81, May.
    8. Yubo Chen & Jinhong Xie, 2008. "Online Consumer Review: Word-of-Mouth as a New Element of Marketing Communication Mix," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(3), pages 477-491, March.
    9. Yacheng Sun & Shibo Li & Baohong Sun, 2015. "An Empirical Analysis of Consumer Purchase Decisions Under Bucket-Based Price Discrimination," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(5), pages 646-668, September.
    10. Steven M. Shugan, 2006. "Editorial: Fifty Years of," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(6), pages 551-555, 11-12.
    11. Baohong Sun, 2006. "—Technology Innovation and Implications for Customer Relationship Management," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(6), pages 594-597, 11-12.
    12. Jeffrey Meyer & Venkatesh Shankar & Leonard L. Berry, 2018. "Pricing hybrid bundles by understanding the drivers of willingness to pay," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 46(3), pages 497-515, May.
    13. John R. Hauser & Olivier Toubia, 2005. "The Impact of Utility Balance and Endogeneity in Conjoint Analysis," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(3), pages 498-507, August.
    14. Steven M. Shugan, 2002. "Editorial: Marketing Science, Models, Monopoly Models, and Why We Need Them," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(3), pages 223-228.
    15. Sonnier, Garrett P., 2014. "The market value for product attribute improvements under price personalization," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 168-177.
    16. Koukova, Nevena T. & Kannan, P.K. & Ratchford, Brian T., 2008. "Product form bundling: Implications for marketing digital products," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 84(2), pages 181-194.
    17. Steven M. Shugan, 2005. "Marketing and Designing Transaction Games," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(4), pages 525-530.
    18. Joonwook Park & Priyali Rajagopal & Wayne DeSarbo, 2012. "A New Heterogeneous Multidimensional Unfolding Procedure," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 77(2), pages 263-287, April.
    19. Xiaoqing Jing & Jinhong Xie, 2011. "Group Buying: A New Mechanism for Selling Through Social Interactions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(8), pages 1354-1372, August.
    20. Dellaert, Benedict G.C. & Arentze, Theo & Horeni, Oliver & Timmermans, Harry J.P., 2017. "Deriving attribute utilities from mental representations of complex decisions," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 22(C), pages 24-38.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ormksc:v:22:y:2003:i:2:p:151-160. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.