Sophistication in research in marketing
Abstract
Over the years, the level of analytical rigor has risen in articles published in marketing academic journals. While, ceteris paribus, rigor is desirable, there is a growing sense that rigor has become a, if not the, goal for research in marketing. Consequently, other desirable characteristics, such as relevance, communicability, and simplicity, have been downplayed, to the detriment of the field of marketing. The authors explore this imbalance, setting forth the consequences of overemphasis on rigor for (1) the manuscript review process, (2) PhD programs, (3) hiring, and (4) the tenure and promotion review process. Two surveys of “successful” authors provide empirical support for the conjectures put forth. The authors then identify the causes for this trend and propose some directions to reestablish a better balance between rigor and relevance.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Citation counts are only one possible and imperfect measure of an article's impact.
“Citation counts are only one possible and imperfect measure of an article's impact (Lehmann et al., 2011).”
From Unraveling scientific impact: Citation types in marketing journals (2015) · cites this paper as Lehmann et al., 2011
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Unraveling scientific impact: Citation types in marketing journals
Stremersch, S., Camacho, N., Vanneste, S., & Verniers, I. (2015) · International Journal of Research in Marketing · doi:10.1016/j.ijresmar.2014.09.004 · Cited by 102 · see citing works
- Authors
- Lehmann, D. R., McAlister, L., & Staelin, R.
- Affiliations
- Columbia University (US)
- The University of Texas at Austin (US)
- Duke University (US)
- Venue
- Journal of Marketing
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2011-07
- Volume
- 75
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 155-165
- ISSN
- 0022-2429
- 1547-7185
- OpenAlex
- W2085183245
- Cited by
- 179
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 10
- FWCI
- 34.08
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Springer eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Journal of Marketing (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Business Strategies and Management Research
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Academic Writing and Publishing
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Publishing and Scholarly Communication
- Keywords
- research rigor, market analysis, research relevance, manuscript review, doctoral programs, faculty hiring, tenure and promotion, scholarly publishing
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review