Search results

Potential ethnocentric biases in stated preference journal rankings are reviewed and revealed preference ranking methods are investigated. The aim of the paper is to identify an approach to ranking journals that minimises ethnocentric biases and better represents the international impact of research.

Coverage of marketing journals in Ulrich's, EBSCO, SSCI, JCR, Scopus and Google Scholar is explored. Citing references to 20 articles are analysed to determine citation time lags and explore the content of SSCI, Scopus and Google Scholar. To further review the extent of citation coverage, h‐index scores are generated for ten marketing journals using data from SSCI, Scopus and Google Scholar. In total, 36 marketing journals are ranked using the g‐index and Google Scholar data and results are compared to ten published rankings.

Stated preference ranking studies of marketing journals rely on US‐based respondents. The coverage of EBSCO, SSCI, JCR and Scopus databases is not representative of marketing's literature as they have few international sources, and a disproportionate coverage of US‐based journals. Google Scholar provides broader international coverage. The Impact Factor may be inappropriate for marketing journals as a large proportion of citations occur more than five years post‐publication. Results indicate that the g‐index is a superior approach to measuring the impact of marketing journals internationally.

Exposure of the limitations in existing ranking methods should encourage improvements in the development and use of journal rankings.

The investigations present original evidence to support long‐term concerns about approaches to journal ranking and citation analysis.

The objective of this paper is to simultaneously identify influential articles, journals, institutions, and researchers in marketing research in recent years using a threshold citation analysis.

The threshold citation analysis counts the number of times a research work is cited by articles published in a set of elite marketing journals. In order to be included in the analysis, the research work must be cited 18 or more times. This threshold is used to measure influence and is unique in the ranking of marketing research. The threshold citation analysis incorporates the quality, the importance, and the influence of research works in the ranking criteria and is not limited to a set of journals nor confined by the year a research work is published.

The three frequently cited articles in marketing research are Fornell and Larcker, Baron and Kenny, and Anderson and Gerbing. Journal of Marketing, Journal of Marketing Research, and Journal of Consumer Research are the three marketing journals having the greatest influence in marketing research. As for the ranking of institutions, the three most influential institutions in marketing research are Northwestern University, the University of Pennsylvania, and the University of Michigan while the three frequently cited authors in marketing research are Richard Oliver, Valarie Zeithaml, and James Anderson.

First, this study identifies influential research works, journals, institutions, and researchers in marketing simultaneously and is in sharp contrast to the traditional approaches that identify influential research works, journals, institutions, and researchers separately. Second, this analysis mitigates the limitations that have plagued the quantity oriented publication‐based approach and the quality oriented citation‐based approach, making these findings more robust and inclusive. Finally, this paper identifies non‐marketing journals, non‐marketing articles, and scholarly books that have significant impact on contemporary marketing research. Consequently, this study offers new and comprehensive insights to the rankings research in marketing that were neglected by previous studies.

The topic of scholarly journals is important to the marketing discipline and the worldwide research communities, due to the way the journals are categorized and judged in available and compiled journal rankings. The purpose of this paper is to describe and discuss the underlying measures of journal rankings in scholarly journals in marketing.

It is limited to the scholarly journals and journal rankings of the marketing discipline.

Journal rankings of scholarly journals in marketing are mainly based upon single‐item measures based upon either citations or perceptions, without any estimates of validity, reliability or generality.

There is a need to move away from the predominantly “single‐item measure syndrome” that characterizes most of the available and compiled journal rankings in marketing.

Broader approaches should be implemented and applied in journal rankings based upon “multi‐item measures”.

Re‐assessment of the activity of ranking journals is long overdue if the ranking lists themselves do not consider a minimum of scientific rigor and soundness as required in other areas of scholarly endeavours. The marketing discipline may be at risk of entering a vicious and irreversible circle of decline and decomposition.

The purpose of this paper is to assess the viability of the scholarly search engine Microsoft Academic (MA) as a citation source for evaluating/ranking marketing journals.

This study performs a comparison between MA and Google Scholar (GS) in terms of journal coverage, h-index values and journal rankings.

Findings indicate that: MA (vs GS) covers 96.80 percent (vs 97.87 percent) of the assessed 94 marketing-focused journals; the MA-based h-index exhibits values that are 35.45 percent lower than the GS-based h-index; and that the MA-based ranking and the GS-based ranking are highly consistent. Based on these findings, MA seems to constitute a rather viable citation source for assessing a marketing journal’s impact.

This study focuses on one discipline, that is, marketing.

This study identifies some issues that would need to be fixed by the MA’s development team. It recommends some further enhancements with respect to journal title entry, publication year allocation and field classification. It also provides two up-to-date rankings for more than 90 marketing-focused journals based on actual cites (October 2018) of articles published between 2013 and 2017.

This paper aims to present a bibliometric overview of the leading trends of the journals in industrial marketing during for 25 years. Thus, the purpose is to carry out an analysis about contributions that industrial marketing or business to business (B2B) marketing discipline has done for scientific investigation, presenting a ranking of the 30 most influential journals and their global evolution by five-year periods from 1992 to 2016. Moreover, this study presents the amount of citations, who quotes who from the top 15 ranking and self-citations.

This study analyzes 3,587 documents classified as articles, letters, notes and reviews from Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science for the period 1992- 2016, by bibliometric indicators such as H-index, total citations (TC), total papers (TP), TC/TP. Furthermore, this paper develops a graphical visualization of the bibliographic material by using the visualization of similarities viewer software for constructing and visualizing bibliometric networks in leading journals, publications and keywords with bibliographic coupling and co-citation analysis.

Industrial Marketing Management is the leader of the ranking, representing 34 per cent of the total manuscripts considered in this study. The most influential journals were classified by periods of five years and the top five for the period 2012-2016 were in ascending order: Industrial Marketing Management, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing, Journal of Business Research and Journal of Marketing. Therefore, in this last period, the considered specialized journals of industrial marketing have increased the quantity (TP) and quality (better H-index) of marketing contributions. The main node on the keywords was of “business-to-business marketing.” The most frequent keywords were “industrial marketing,” “trust,” “business-to-business,” “B2B,” “relationship marketing” and finally “electronic commerce”.

The information presented in this paper is useful to academics, publishers, academic institutions and other interested groups in industrial marketing because it makes available a global and current picture of this discipline that could be used to make decisions about publishing strategies and journal position.

This study aims to analyze the progress of industrial marketing discipline, reviewing the contribution of several scientific journals for 25 years. In fact, to the authors’ knowledge, this is the first quantitative study focused on the only purpose of ranking the most influential journals and keywords analysis using bibliometric techniques and networks theories.

The purpose of this study is to examine the relevance and limitations of using a top journal approach as a proxy for an article's value or contribution.

The authors determined the citations for all articles published in 2001 and 2003 in 26 key marketing journals included in the Social Science Citation Index and 50 journals included in Google Scholar to rate the impact of a specific article. They also assessed these articles to examine the source of citations, as a way of measuring impact.

This study indicates that articles published in the journals most often considered the top three or four in marketing are cited by others significantly more often than the ones published in the other journals. However, the authors found substantial misclassification errors from using publications in these “top” journals to infer a top article status across three different criteria for defining a top article.

These findings strongly support the need to evaluate each article on its own merits, rather than abdicating this responsibility by using journal ranking as a proxy for an article's value or contribution.

The purpose of this paper is to present a general overview of the most influential countries according to their scientific contributions in marketing for the 1990–2014 period. In this bibliometric-based research, the authors generate a ranking of the 50 most influential nations according to the H-index and citations per paper, co-authorship, citation analysis and bibliographic coupling. The study provides a map that identifies the networks of researchers between countries.

The method used is bibliometric analysis. The relevant research in marketing was extracted from Web of Science Database Core Collection, during the 1990–2014 period; 29,947 published articles in 50 countries were obtained. The investigation used: H-index as the first criterion in creating the country ranking, number of articles (TP) as a proxy for the productivity of each country, the average citation per article (C/P) and the number of citations (TC) to express the influence of a country’s articles. In addition, the study adopts VOSviewer software to identify the collaboration networks of researchers between countries and the links between countries.

The results reveal a general level that 54 percent of countries have a category H-index greater than 20. In turn, the authors see a steady increase in the number of publications over the five-year periods. The first ten countries account for over 80 percent of all publications of the sample. The USA is presented here as the leader in all indicators and highlights the important role that China has been developing.

Several limitations of the study result from the use of the Web of Science database. For example, each journal, author, university and/or country involved in a specific paper is considered a single unit. Therefore, in research papers with more than one author or with authors from different universities and/or countries, only the lead author is considered in the analysis. In addition, the study does not include new trends in publications between 2014 and 2018. However, there are other databases that could have been used such as: Scopus, Google Scholar, among others.

The findings are relevant for students, academics, organizations and governments, which may use this information for decision making on future research, identifying countries concerning the area and their relationships.

This paper shows progress and contribution of the most influential countries according to their scientific contribution in marketing during the period 1990–2014. This research is relevant because until now there has been no study with the sole purpose of ranking countries according to their marketing publications. In this sense, the study is useful to academics, publishers, educational institutions or other interested in marketing. The study provides a knowledge domain map that identifies the collaboration networks of researchers between countries and the links between countries.

The purpose of this paper is to propose and examine streams in the literature related to academic publishing, with a focus on works in marketing. The content of the works within each theme are then explored to identify what issues have been examined and their implications.

The paper is a literature review, drawing on 30 years of research on academic publishing in marketing. The review is designed to cover the underlying issues examined, but is not designed to be comprehensive in terms of all the works exploring each stream of research.

There are five main streams in the literature focusing on: rankings; theory and knowledge development; how to publish;, criticisms of publishing; and other issues. Within each stream, a number of sub‐areas are explored. The works tend to be fragmented and there is generally limited in‐depth qualitative research within streams exploring the underlying assumptions on which publishing is based.

The focus of the research is on the streams of works, rather than the findings within each stream and future research could explore each of these streams and sub‐streams in more detail. Generally, the works appear to becoming increasingly sophisticated in terms of their analysis, which is only possible with the new technologies available. New metrics proposed in the literature that can be used to better understand publishing and additional qualitative research exploring some of the basic assumptions could also be explored.

The research suggests that some streams with regard to academic publishing may have reached saturation and future publishing in these areas will need to be innovative in its approach and analysis, if these works are to be published.

This paper is the first attempt to develop streams within the literature on academic publishing in marketing and thus draws together a diverse cross‐section of works. It provides suggestions for directions for future research in the various streams.

The objective of this paper is to explore the dominating approaches that appear in top marketing journals.

This research is restricted to the exploration of one top journal in marketing. The journal title is kept anonymous as the topic goes beyond the targeted journal and aspires to be of interest to the marketing discipline and its research community. A triangular approach was used, which was divided into two parts.

Part one – the exploration of the editorial descriptions of selected top marketing journals shows that they tend to describe their published articles according to some key features. Part two – the content analysis of 151 articles generated an extremely skewed outcome. It appears to be almost a pre‐requisite to have applied quantitative approaches in order to make it successfully through the blind review process and get published in the targeted journal.

This research is limited to explore one of the top marketing journals. The journal is kept anonymous as the idea is not to question or hang out a specific journal, but rather to stimulate the debate of current approaches published in the top marketing journals.

The exploration of the top marketing journal shows a stereotype and myopic view of what is classified as “high quality” or “appropriate” research approaches. The editors and the editorial boards should let paradigmatic and dogmatic research myopia stand back in favour of broadminded and challenging research efforts. They should strive to avoid traditionalism and blinkers.

An increased trust and acceptability of other approaches than quantitative ones in top marketing journals would be desirable. A humble request would be to give other approaches a fair chance to get into the arena of top marketing journals. The paper contends that there may be a fatal “paradoxnoia” of top journal(s) in marketing – a “paradoxnoia” of approaches that may harm and undermine the respectability of the marketing discipline and its research community.

To draw up a demographic profile of editors, editorial boards and contributors, in the specific case of one top‐ranked marketing journal, and to discuss the implications.

From a list of top‐ranked titles, compiled from various sources, one was chosen as a case study. Demographic data relating to contributors and editors were collected by inspection, for a five‐year period. The anonymity of the journal was preserved.

North American affiliations dominated among authors, editors and editorial boards. Successive editors have had an American affiliation for many years. This strongly skewed demographic profile raises a number of doubts and questions. The author suggests that one important effect is a kind of academic myopia, caused by demographic uniformity and paradigmatic inertia. He contends that this phenomenon threatens to weaken the scientific reputation of the marketing discipline and its research community.

The study is restricted to a single top‐ranked journal, which is anonymous because the aim is not to focus attention, negative or positive, on a single case, but rather to stimulate debate.

Tentative recommendations are offered to the publishers and editors of marketing journals for reduction of the specific and general damaging effects of demographically induced academic myopia.

This study sows the seed and provides the trigger for further research and discussion of a phenomenon with important practical implications for the academic marketing community.