IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wpa/wuwpgt/0412011.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Discovery and Communication of Important Marketing Findings: Evidence and Proposals

Author

Listed:
  • 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.

Suggested Citation

  • JS Armstrong, 2004. "Discovery and Communication of Important Marketing Findings: Evidence and Proposals," General Economics and Teaching 0412011, EconWPA.
  • Handle: RePEc:wpa:wuwpgt:0412011
    Note: Type of Document - pdf; pages: 36
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://econwpa.repec.org/eps/get/papers/0412/0412011.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    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. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Armstrong, J. Scott, 1991. "Prediction of Consumer Behavior by Experts and Novices," MPRA Paper 81687, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Wells, William D, 1993. " Discovery-Oriented Consumer Research," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 19(4), pages 489-504, March.
    10. repec:aph:ajpbhl:1987:77:8:1011-1012_6 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. 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. 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.
    4. Lehmann, Donald R., 2003. "Finding important findings," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 56(1), pages 89-90, January.
    5. 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.
    6. Min, Kyeong Sam, 2014. "Reviewers are not perfect but could they try harder?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(9), pages 1967-1970.
    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. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. repec:gam:jsusta:v:9:y:2017:i:7:p:1286-:d:105693 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. Rossiter, John R., 2003. "Qualifying the importance of findings," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 56(1), pages 85-88, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    marketing; marketing findings;

    JEL classification:

    • A - General Economics and Teaching

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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: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). General contact details of provider: http://econwpa.repec.org .

    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.