Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

Discovery and Communication of Important Marketing Findings: Evidence and Proposals

By J. Scott Armstrong

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

Topics: Behavioral Analysis
Publisher: Elsevier Science Inc.
Year: 2002
OAI identifier: oai:cogprints.org:5181
Download PDF:
Sorry, we are unable to provide the full text but you may find it at the following location(s):
  • http://cogprints.org/5181/1/Di... (external link)
  • http://cogprints.org/5181/ (external link)
  • Suggested articles

    Citations

    1. (1975). Publish or politic: Referee bias in manuscript review,"
    2. (1991). The predictive ability of peer review of grant proposals: The case of ecology and the U.
    3. (1988). Force on the Development of Marketing Thought
    4. (1986). Source of funding and outcome of clinical trials,”
    5. (1987). Do authors check their references? A survey of accuracy of references in three public health journals,”
    6. (2002). Are our referencing errors undermining our scholarship and credibility? The case of expatriate failure rates,”
    7. (1996). The relationship between research and teaching: A metaanalysis,"
    8. (1994). Advertising awards and advertising agency performance criteria,”
    9. (1990). The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation,"
    10. (1992). Are null results becoming an endangered species in marketing?”
    11. (1986). Marketing education and marketing success: Are they related?”
    12. (1989). What they do when they get your manuscript: A survey of Academy of Management reviewer practices,”
    13. (1975). Acceptance and rejection of manuscripts,"
    14. (1996). The Economic Laws of Scientific Research.
    15. (1977). Manuscript characteristics which influence acceptance for management and social science journals,”
    16. (1992). The development of measures of faculty scholarship,”
    17. (1993). The influence of prior beliefs on scientific judgments of evidence quality," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
    18. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
    19. (1994). Favoritism versus search for good papers: Empirical evidence regarding the behavior of journal editors,”
    20. (1949). The American Soldier - An expository review,"
    21. (1980). The Gold and the Garbage in Management Theories and Prescriptions.
    22. (1980). A study of marketing generalizations,”
    23. (1978). The Scientific Publication System in Social Science.
    24. (1975). Stimulating responses to mailed questionnaires:
    25. (1990). do peer reviewers do?"
    26. (2001). What is marketing knowledge,”
    27. (2000). Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience: Is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone?”
    28. (1981). Metacognition and the rules of delay,”
    29. (1972). The myth of objectivity or why science needs a new psychology of science,” doi
    30. (1988). Reviewer ratings and agreement on manuscripts reviewed for the doi
    31. (1988). The task of a statistical referee,” doi
    32. (1995). The Strategy and Tactics of Pricing. Upper Saddle River,
    33. (1990). Editorial bias against replication research,”
    34. (1986). Statistical Inference: A Commentary for the Social and Behavioral Sciences.
    35. (1982). Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again,” The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, doi
    36. (1982). How researchers respond to replication requests,” doi
    37. (1984). Essentials of Behavioral Research: Methods and Data Analysis.
    38. (1990). Editorial peer review in US medical journals,” doi
    39. (1993). Discovery-oriented consumer research,” doi
    40. (1994). Making better decisions: The challenge of marketing strategy techniques,” doi
    41. (1962). Responsibility for raw data,"
    42. (1977). Bibliometric and content analysis,” doi
    43. (1959). Publication decisions and their possible effects on inferences drawn from tests of significance – or vice versa,” doi
    44. (1995). Publication decisions revisited: The effect of the outcome of statistical tests on the decision to publish and vice versa,” doi
    45. (1987). The integrity of the scientific literature,” doi
    46. (1998). Author perceptions of positive and negative behaviors in the manuscript review process,"
    47. (1988). Untangling the relationship between displayed emotions and organizational sales: The case of convenience stores,” doi
    48. (1988). The price elasticity of selective demand: A meta-analysis of econometric models of sales," doi
    49. (2000). Serving multiple constituencies in business schools: M.B.A. program versus research performance,” doi
    50. (2000). A theoretical and empirical analysis of journal rankings: The case of formal lists,” doi

    To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.