IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jbrese/v56y2003i1p69-84.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Discovery and communication of important marketing findings: Evidence and proposals

Author

Listed:
  • Armstrong, J. Scott

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.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:jbrese:v:56:y:2003:i:1:p:69-84
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0148-2963(02)00386-7
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Armstrong, J. Scott & Brodie, Roderick J., 1994. "Effects of portfolio planning methods on decision making: experimental results," MPRA Paper 81684, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Armstrong, J Scott, 1991. "Prediction of Consumer Behavior by Experts and Novices," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 18(2), pages 251-256, September.
    5. 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.
    6. Wells, William D, 1993. "Discovery-Oriented Consumer Research," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 19(4), pages 489-504, March.
    7. Eichorn, P. & Yankauer, A., 1987. "Do authors check their references? A survey of accuracy of references in three public health journals," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 77(8), pages 1011-1012.
    8. Armstrong, J. Scott & Collopy, Fred, 1996. "Competitor Orientation: Effects of Objectives and Information on Managerial Decisions and Profitability," MPRA Paper 81676, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    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 256-267, September.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. Ian I. Mitroff, 1972. "The Myth of Objectivity OR Why Science Needs a New Psychology of Science," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(10), pages 613-618, 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. Ravenswood, Katherine, 2011. "Eisenhardt's impact on theory in case study research," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 64(7), pages 680-686, July.
    2. Khan, Jashim, 2011. "Validation in marketing experiments revisited," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 64(7), pages 687-692, July.
    3. Lehmann, Donald R., 2003. "Finding important findings," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 56(1), pages 89-90, January.
    4. Min, Kyeong Sam, 2014. "Reviewers are not perfect but could they try harder?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(9), pages 1967-1970.
    5. Emile, Renu, 2011. "Retrospection on the impact of Wallendorf and Brucks' "Introspection in consumer research: Implementation and implications"," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 194-198, February.
    6. Ulla A. Saari & Rupert J. Baumgartner & Saku J. Mäkinen, 2017. "Eco-Friendly Brands to Drive Sustainable Development: Replication and Extension of the Brand Experience Scale in a Cross-National Context," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 9(7), pages 1-26, July.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Rossiter, John R., 2003. "Qualifying the importance of findings," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 56(1), pages 85-88, January.
    10. 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 1-17, September.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. Chong, Josephine L.L, 2010. "Evaluating the impact of Arnould and Wallendorf's (1994) market-oriented ethnography," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 63(12), pages 1295-1300, December.
    14. Seidl, Christian & Schmidt, Ulrich & Grösche, Peter, 2005. "The Performance of Peer Review and a Beauty Contest of Referee Processes of Economics Journals/," Estudios de Economia Aplicada, Estudios de Economia Aplicada, vol. 23, pages 505-551, Diciembre.
    15. J. Scott Armstrong & Ruth Pagell, 2003. "The Ombudsman: Reaping Benefits from Management Research: Lessons from the Forecasting Principles Project," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 33(6), pages 91-111, December.
    16. Ortinau, David J., 2011. "Writing and publishing important scientific articles: A reviewer's perspective," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 150-156, February.
    17. 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.
    18. Thompson, Ann-Marie K., 2010. "Golder's historical method in research in marketing," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 63(12), pages 1269-1272, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:eee:jbrese:v:56:y:2003:i:1:p:69-84. 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: (Haili He). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jbusres .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.