IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Where do we go from here? Food for thought on academic papers in business research




  • -


In this paper I comment on some of the adverse practices in business research publications. First, we seem to have lost touch with business practice and have narrowed our target group to fellow academics only, reducing the production of useful knowledge. Second, the objectives of our publications are narrowed to impact and citations. This leads to a strict focus on pathbreaking theories and a denigration of replication and qualitative studies. Third, an obsession with the .05 significance level and corroborating findings have left researchers with full file drawers of unpublished papers and could leave journals with a high rate of type I error papers.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 our research and a variety of style guidelines make us less productive than we could be. Finally, a blind reliance on ISI’s impact and citations scores may not do justice to a researcher’s real contribution

Suggested Citation

  • M. Geuens & -, 2010. "Where do we go from here? Food for thought on academic papers in business research," Working Papers of Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Belgium 10/650, Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration.
  • Handle: RePEc:rug:rugwps:10/650

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no


    Blog mentions

    As found by, the blog aggregator for Economics research:
    1. Business research is as out of focus as Economics
      by Economic Logician in Economic Logic on 2010-08-03 19:26:00

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:


    This item is featured on the following reading lists or Wikipedia pages:
    1. Economic Logic blog


    Access and download statistics


    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:rug:rugwps:10/650. 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: (Nathalie Verhaeghe). General contact details of provider: .

    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.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.