Location of Repository

Quality Control Versus Innovation in Research on Marketing

By JS Armstrong

Abstract

Brownlie and Saren (this issue) claim that “few innovative papers appear in the top marketing journals.” They attribute this problem to incentive structures. They ask what steps might be taken by the various stakeholders to encourage the development and transmission of useful innovative ideas. Presumably, this means findings that might contribute to better practices in marketing management. I address the first two issues (the problem and why it occurs) by using empirical search by myself and others. 1 then speculate about the third issue-procedures for improving the publication prospects for useful innovations.quality control, innovation, research, marketing

OAI identifier:

Suggested articles

Preview

Citations

  1. (1980). A study of marketing generalizations,”
  2. (1994). An Author's Guide to Publishing Better Articles
  3. (1994). Business school prestige: Research versus teaching,”
  4. (1994). Disseminating scholarly output: The case for eliminating the exclusivity of journal submissions,”
  5. (1991). Does the need for agreement among reviewers inhibit the publication of controversial findings?”
  6. (1994). How are the mighty fallen: Rejected classic articles by. leading economists,”
  7. (1995). On the commodification of marketing knowledge:
  8. (1994). Peer review in cyberspace,”
  9. (1990). Peerless Science: Peer Review and U.S. Science Policy.
  10. (1991). Prediction of consumer behavior by experts and novices,”
  11. (1993). Principles involving marketing policies: An empirical assessment,”
  12. (1977). Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system,”
  13. (1994). Replications and extensions in marketing: Rarely published but quite contrary,”
  14. (1994). Simultaneous multiple journal submissions: The case against,”
  15. (1990). The development of strategic management:
  16. (1991). The iron law of important articles,”
  17. (1990). The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation,”

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