Search results

Mark S. Glynn is an Associate Professor of Marketing at the Business and Law Faculty, AUT University, Auckland, New Zealand. He obtained his PhD in marketing from the University of Auckland. In 2006, Mark won the Emerald/EFMD best thesis award for outstanding doctoral research in the category of marketing strategy. His research experience is in the areas of branding, relationship marketing, business-to-business marketing, and retail channels. Mark Glynn's business-to-business research appears in Industrial Marketing Management, the European Journal of Marketing, Journal of Business Research, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Advances in Business Marketing & Purchasing, Australian Marketing Journal, and Marketing Theory. He also serves on the editorial boards of Industrial Marketing Management and the Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing.

Global awareness and international information exchange have long been highlighted by academia as a principal component of continued business competitiveness. In order to examine the extent to which academics practise what they preach, key marketing journals in Europe, Japan and the USA were examined to determine the level of international authorship of their content. While the European Journal of Marketing and the Journal of International Marketing were found to have substantial international representation among their authors, most other marketing journals had only limited international input. Recommendations are made on how to increase the international cross‐fertilization of marketing knowledge.

With the publication of Volume 10 Number 4 1995, the Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing (JBIM) celebrated its tenth anniversary. Over the years, JBIM has emerged as a leading journal in the area of business‐to‐business marketing. To commemorate this achievement, examines the contributions of the Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing to the marketing field, in general, and to the more specific sub‐area of business‐to‐business marketing in particular. To accomplish this, reviews the origins of JBIM and provides an analysis of the nature of the articles published and contributors’ backgrounds. In addition, presents an overview of the journal’s history, contributions and content, along with some interesting summary statistics. Finally, discusses JBIM’s past and present objectives, as well as its current positioning, recent developments and future directions.

The purpose of this study is to present a systematic review of the online service failure (OSF) literature and conduct an exhaustive analysis of academic research on this emerging research area.

The current study has adopted a structured systematic literature review approach to synthesize and assess the OSF literature. Further, the study uses the Theory-Context-Characteristics-Methodology (TCCM) framework to propose future research directions in the OSF domain.

This systematic review shows that OSF research is still developing and remains mainly incoherent. Further, the study develops a conceptual framework integrating the frequently reported antecedents, mediators, moderator and consequences in the extant literature. This review also synthesizes the theoretical perspectives adopted for this domain.

The study followed specific inclusion and exclusion criteria to shortlist articles. Further, articles published only in the English language were considered. Hence, the findings of this review cannot be generalized to all OSF literature.

This systematic review has classified antecedents into customers' and service providers' roles which will enable online service providers to understand all sets of factors driving OSF. It also synthesizes and presents service recovery strategies and emphasizes the role of online customer support to fix OSF.

The OSF literature is still developing and remains highly incoherent, suggesting that a synthesized review is needed. This study has systematically reviewed and synthesized the OSF literature to study its development over time and proposes a framework which provides a comprehensive understanding of OSF.

First, this paper aims to uncover how much marketing research based on data gathered in Latin America has been published in high quality business and marketing academic journals over the past decade. Second, it seeks to present recommendations on best practice in conducting and publishing such research derived from a Delphi study of authors who succeeded in doing so.

The paper undertakes a systematic review of the literature to identify the relevant published papers coupled with a Delphi study of the authors of those papers.

Over the last decade only 22 papers were published in high quality journals in the marketing area based on data gathered in Latin America. The reasons for this scarcity explored in the Delphi study derive both from the way in which high quality journals operate as well as from how authors conducting research in that area of the world design their studies and subsequently present them in manuscripts submitted to journals. Key recommendations include: focusing on novelty rather than replications, ensuring that studies have implications beyond Latin America, and positioning the research appropriately.

The main implication is that research conducted in Latin America is publishable in high quality journals if approached in the appropriate manner.

This is, to the authors' knowledge, the first study to analyse the challenges involved in conducting and publishing marketing research based on data gathered in Latin America in high quality journals as well as the first to present solutions to those challenges.

Boxing Not so Clever In this first issue of what will be a regular review of the world's marketing literature, it is a challenge to an editor to extricate a theme from such an abundance of riches.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the global contribution of academics to marketing literature between 1999 and 2003, based on an examination of the location of academics institution of employment, as reported in published works. The data is used to evaluate the global dispersion of publishing.

The paper uses the method of content analysis where the authorship of all articles in 20 leading marketing journals between 1999 and 2003 is examined. An empirical examination of performance was undertaken across geographic regions. There was also an examination of whether the quality of journal affected regional performance.

The research found that there is a significant “bias” of authorship within the 20 journals examined, with the majority of works published by academics at institutions in North America. There is some variation in regional performance based on the type of journal examined.

There was no attempt to empirically examine why differences might exist. The study only focused on a sample of 20 English language journals over five years. These journals have been included in studies that list the leading marketing journal for US and European academics.

The research suggests that there may in fact be regional differences in publishing behaviour. It is unclear if these differences relate to variations in the “objectives” of institutions within each country or other factors, such as the North American publish‐or‐perish mentality. The research posits that a marketing knowledge may be unnecessarily restricted, if there is a bias against non‐North American perspectives.

While there have been other works examining research performance of institutions, there has been limited examination in marketing on the nation in which authors work and none have used a broad cross‐section of journals. This work takes a global “snapshot” of national research performance within marketing.

This special “Anbar Abstracts” issue of the European Journal of Marketing is split into seven sections covering abstracts under the following headings: Marketing, Europe and International Business; Marketing Strategy; Supply Chain Management; Product Management; Services Marketing; Marketing in the Public Sector; and Marketing & IT.