Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

Discovery and Communication of Important Marketing Findings: Evidence and Proposals

Contents:

Author Info

  • JS Armstrong

    (The Wharton School - University of Pennsylvania)

Abstract

My 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 Info

If 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.
File URL: http://128.118.178.162/eps/get/papers/0412/0412011.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Paper provided by EconWPA in its series General Economics and Teaching with number 0412011.

as in new window
Length: 36 pages
Date of creation: 06 Dec 2004
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:wpa:wuwpgt:0412011

Note: Type of Document - pdf; pages: 36
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://128.118.178.162

Related research

Keywords: marketing; marketing findings;

Other versions of this item:

Find related papers by JEL classification:

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

References

References listed on IDEAS
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.:
as in new window
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. Wells, William D, 1993. " Discovery-Oriented Consumer Research," Journal of Consumer Research, University of Chicago Press, vol. 19(4), pages 489-504, March.
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 in new window

Cited by:
  1. 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.
  2. Jens Prüfer & David Zetland, 2010. "An auction market for journal articles," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 145(3), pages 379-403, December.
  3. JS Armstrong, 2004. "The Value of Surprising Findings for Research on Marketing," General Economics and Teaching 0412012, EconWPA.
  4. 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.
  5. Khan, Jashim, 2011. "Validation in marketing experiments revisited," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 64(7), pages 687-692, July.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. Lehmann, Donald R., 2003. "Finding important findings," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 56(1), pages 89-90, January.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. Rossiter, John R., 2003. "Qualifying the importance of findings," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 56(1), pages 85-88, January.

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wpa:wuwpgt:0412011. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (EconWPA).

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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