Discovery and communication of important marketing findings evidence and proposals

Journal of Business Research

Volumn 56, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 69-84

  Armstrong, J Scott ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Competing hypotheses; Peer review; Principles; Replication; Surprising finding; Validity

Indexed keywords

EID: 0037222295     PISSN: 01482963     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0148-2963(02)00386-7     Document Type: Article

References (130)

1. Abrami PC, Leventhal L, Perry RP. Educational seduction. Rev Educ Res 1982;52:446-64.
2. Abramowitz SI, Gomes B, Abramowitz CV. Publish or politic: referee bias in manuscript review. J Appl Soc Psychol 1975;5(3):187-200.
3. Abrams PA. The predictive ability of peer review of grant proposals: the case of ecology and the U.S. National Science Foundation. Soc Stud Sci 1991;21:111-32.
4. AMA Task Force on the Development of Marketing Thought. Developing, disseminating, utilizing marketing knowledge. J Mark 1988;52:1-25.
5. Anderson LM. Marketing science: where's the beef? Bus Horiz. 1994;8-16 (Jan-Feb).
6. Armstrong JS. Unintelligible management research and academic prestige. Interfaces 1980a;10:80-6 (April) [available in full text at jscottarmstrong.com].
7. Armstrong JS. Advocacy as a scientific strategy: the Mitroff myth. Acad Manage Rev 1980b;5:509-11 [available in full text at jscottarmstrong.com].
8. Armstrong JS. Barriers to scientific contributions: the author's formula. Behav Brain Sci 1982;5:197-9 (June) [available in full text at jscottarmstrong.com].
9. Armstrong JS. Prediction of consumer behavior by experts and novices. J Consum Res 1991;18:251-6 ([available in full text at jscottarmstrong.com]).
10. Armstrong JS. The devil's advocate responds to an MBA student's claim that research harms learning. J Mark 1995;59:101-6 ([available in full text at jscottarmstrong.com]).
11. Armstrong JS. Management folklore and management science: on portfolio planning, escalation bias, and such. Interfaces 1996;26 (July-August): 25-55 (includes commentary). [available in full text at jscottarmstrong.com.]
12. Armstrong JS. Peer review for journals: evidence on quality control, fairness, and innovation. Sci Eng Ethics 1997;3:63-84 ([available in full text at jscottarmstrong.com]).
13. Armstrong JS, Brodie R. Effects of portfolio planning methods on decision making: experimental results. Int J Res Mark 1994;11:73-84 ([available in full text at jscottarmstrong.com]).
14. Armstrong JS, Brodie R, Parsons AG. Hypotheses in marketing science: literature review and publication audit. Mark Lett 2001;12:171-87 [available in full text at jscottarmstrong.com].
15. Armstrong JS, Collopy F. Competitor orientation: effects of objectives and information on managerial decisions and profitability. J Mark Res 1996;33:188-99 ([available in full text at jscottarmstrong.com]).
16. Armstrong JS, Hubbard R. Does the need for agreement among reviewers inhibit the publication of controversial findings? Behav Brain Sci 1991;14:136-7 ([available in full text atjscottarmstrong.com]).
17. Armstrong JS, Schultz R. Principles involving marketing policies: an empirical assessment. Mark Lett 1993;4:253-65 ([available in full text at jscottarmstrong.com]).
18. Armstrong JS, Sperry T. Business school prestige: research versus teaching. Interfaces 1994;24:13-22 (March-April [available in full text at jscottarmstrong.com]).
19. Atkinson DR, Furlong MJ, Wampold BE. Statistical significance, reviewer evaluations, and the scientific process: is there a (statistically) significant relationship? J Couns Psychol 1982;29:189-94.
20. Bakanic V, McPhail C, Simon RJ. If at first you don't succeed: reviewer procedures for revised and resubmitted manuscripts. Am Socio 1990;21:373-91.
21. Barber B. Resistance by scientists to scientific discovery. Science 1961; 134:596-602.
22. Begg CB, Berlin JA. Publication bias: a problem in interpreting medical data. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society A 1988;151:419-463.
23. Beyer JM. Editorial policies and practices among leading journals in four scientific fields. Sociol Q 1978;19:68-88.
24. Bloom PN. Knowledge development in marketing. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1987.
25. Boland RJ, Singh J, Salipante P, Aram JD, Fay SY, Kanawattanachai P. Knowledge representations and knowledge transfer. Acad Manage J 2001;44:393-417.
26. Borokowski SC, Welsh MJ. Ethical practice in the accounting publishing process: contrasting opinions of authors and editors. J Bus Ethics 2000;25:15-31.
27. Bradley JV. Pernicious publication practices. Bull Psychon Soc 1981; 18:31-4.
28. Campanario JM. The competition for journal space among referees, editors, and journals' other authors and its influence on journal impact factors. J Am Soc Inf Sci 1996;47:184-92.
29. Campanario JM. Peer review for journals as it stands today - Part 1. Sci Commun 1998a;19:181-211.
30. Campanario JM. Peer review for journals as it stands today - Part 2. Sci Commun 1998b;19:277-306.
31. Chamberlin TC. The method of multiple working hypotheses. Science 1890;148(1965):754-9 (reprinted).
32. Cho MK, Bero LA. The quality of drug studies published in symposium proceedings. Ann Intern Med 1996;124:485-9.
33. Chubin LD, Hackett EJ. Peerless Science: Peer Review and U.S. Science Policy. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1990.
34. Cicchetti DV. The reliability of peer review for manuscript and grant submissions: a cross-disciplinary investigation. Behav Brain Sci 1991;14:119-35 (March).
35. Cicchetti DV. Referees, editors, and publication practices: improving the reliability and usefulness of the peer review system. Sci Eng Ethics 1997;3:51-62.
36. Cierpicki S, Wright M, Sharp B. Managers' knowledge of marketing principles: the case of new product development. J Empir Generalizations Mark Sci 2000;5:771-90 (In full text at http://www.empgens.com/Pubs/jems/JEMS5_3.pdf)
37. Cohen J. The earth is round (p < .05). Am Psychol 1994;49:997-1003.
38. Cole JR, Cole S. The Ortega hypothesis. Science 1972;178:368-745 (27 October).
39. Dakin S, Armstrong J. Predicting job performance: a comparison of expert opinion and research findings. Int J Forecast 1989;5:187-94.
40. Davidson RA. Source of funding and outcome of clinical trials. J Gen Intern Med 1986;1(3):155-8.
41. Eichorn P, Yankauer A. Do authors check their references? A survey of accuracy of references in three public health journals. Am J Public Health 1987;77:1011-2.
42. Epstein WM. Confirmational response bias among social work journals. Sci Technol Human Values 1990;15:9-38.
43. Evans JT, Nadjari HI, Burchell SA. Quotational and reference accuracy in surgical journals: a continuing peer review problem. J Am Med Assoc 1990;263(10):1353-4.
44. Faunce GJ, Job RFS. The accuracy of reference lists in five experimental psychology journals. Am Psychol 2001;56:829-30.
45. Feldman KA. Research productivity and scholarly accomplishment of college teachers as related to their instructional effectiveness. Res Higher Educ 1987;26:227-98.
46. Fletcher RH, Fletcher SW. Evidence for the effectiveness of peer review. Sci Eng Ethics 1997;3:35-50.
47. Fox KJ, Milbourne R. What determines research output of academic economists? Econ Rec 1999;75:257-67.
48. Franke RH, Edlund TW, Oster F. The development of strategic management: journal quality and article impact. Strategic Manage J 1990;11:243-53.
49. Friedman PJ. Correcting the literature following fraudulent publication. J Am Med Assoc 1990;263(10):1416-9.
50. Friedman M. Correspondence. J Econ Perspect 1992;4(8):199-200.
51. Fuess SM. On replication in business and economics research: the QJBE case. Q J Bus Econ 1996;35(2):3-13.
52. Gage NL. The obviousness of social and educational research results. Educ Res 1991;20:10-6 (January).
53. Gans JS, Shepard GB. How are the mighty fallen: rejected classic articles by leading economists. J Econ Perspect 1994;8:165-79.
54. Goodstein LD, Brazis KL. Credibility of psychologists: an empirical study. Psychol Rep 1970;27:835-8.
55. Gordon G, Marquis S. Freedom, visibility of consequences, and scientific innovation. Am J Sociol 1966;72:195-202.
56. Gordon ME, Kleiman LS, Hanie CA. Industrial-organizational psychology: open thy ears o house of Israel. Am Psychol 1978;33:893-905.
57. Gottfredson SD. Evaluating psychological research reports: dimensions, reliability, correlates of quality judgments. Am Psychol 1978;33:920-34.
58. Greenwald AG. Consequences of prejudice against the null hypothesis. Psychol Bull 1975;82:1-20.
59. Hancock T, Lane J, Ray R, Glennon D. Factors influencing academic research productivity: a survey of management scientists (with commentary) Interfaces 1992;22:26-38 (September).
60. Harzing A. Are our referencing errors undermining our scholarship and credibility? The case of expatriate failure rates. J Organ Behav 2002; 23:127-48.
61. Hattie J, Marsh HW. The relationship between research and teaching: a meta-analysis. Rev Educ Res 1996;66:507-42.
62. Helgesen T. Advertising awards and advertising agency performance criteria. J Advert Res 1994;34:43-53 (July-August).
63. Horrobin DF. The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation. J Am Med Assoc 1990;263:1438-41.
64. Hubbard R, Armstrong JS. Are null results becoming an endangered species in marketing? Mark Lett 1992;3:127-36 ([available in full text at jscottarmstrong.com]).
65. Hubbard R, Armstrong JS. Replications and extensions in marketing: rarely published but quite contrary. Int J Res Mark 1994;11:233-48 ([available in full text at jscottarmstrong.com]).
66. Hubbard R, Vetter DE. An empirical comparison of published replication research in accounting, economics, finance, management, and marketing. J Bus Res 1996;35:153-64.
67. Hunt SD, Chonko LB, Wood VR. Marketing education and marketing success: are they related? J Mark Educ 1986;6:2-13 (Summer).
68. Jauch LR, Wall JL. What they do when they get your manuscript: a survey of Academy of Management reviewer practices. Acad Manage J 1989;32:157-73.
69. Juhasz S, Calvert E, Jackson T, Kronick DA, Shipman J. Acceptance and rejection of manuscripts. IEEE Trans Prof Commun, PC 1975; 18(3):177-85.
70. Kealey T. The economic laws of scientific research. London: Macmillan, 1996.
71. Kerr S, Tolliver J, Petree D. Manuscript characteristics which influence acceptance for management and social science journals. Acad Manage J 1977;20:132-41.
72. King DW, McDonald DD, Roderer NK. Scientific journals in the United States: their production, use, and economics. Stroudsburg, PA: Hutchison Ross, 1981.
73. Kirkpatrick SA, Locke EA. The development of measures of faculty scholarship. Group Organ Manage 1992;17(1):5-23 (March).
74. Koehler JJ. The influence of prior beliefs on scientific judgments of evidence quality. Organ Behav Hum Decis Processes 1993;56:28-55.
75. Kuhn TS. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962.
76. Laband DN, Piette MJ. Favoritism versus search for good papers: empirical evidence regarding the behavior of journal editors. J Polit Econ 1994; 102:194-203.
77. Lazarsfeld PF. The American soldier - an expository review. Public Opin Q 1949;13:377-404.
78. Lee JA. The gold and the garbage in management theories and prescriptions. Athens, OH: Ohio Univ. Press, 1980.
79. Leone RP, Schultz RL. A study of marketing generalizations. J Mark 1980;44:10-8 (Winter).
80. Lindsey D. The scientific publication system in social science. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1978.
81. Linsky AS. Stimulating responses to mailed questionnaires: a review. Public Opin Q 1975;39:82-101.
82. Lock S, Smith J. What do peer reviewers do? J Am Med Assoc 1990;263:1341-3.
83. Luthans F, Hodgetts RM, Rosenkrantz SA. Real managers. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing, 1988.
84. Lynn M. Scarcity effects on value: a quantitative review of the commodity theory literature. Psychol Mark 1991;8:43-57.
85. MacNealy MS, Speck BW, Clements N. Publishing in technical communication journals from the successful author's point of view. Tech Commun 1994;41(2):240-59.
86. Madden CS, Franz LS, Mittlestaedt RA. The replicability of research in marketing: reported content and author cooperation. In: Ferrell OC, Brown SW, Lamb CW, editors. Conceptual and theoretical developments in marketing. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 1979. p. 77-87.
87. Mahoney MJ. Publication prejudices: an experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system. Cogn Ther Res 1977;1:161-75.
88. Marsh HW, Ball S. The peer review process used to evaluate manuscripts submitted to academic journals: interjudgmental reliability. J Exp Educ 1989;57(2):151-69.
89. Martinko MJ, Campbell CR, Douglas SC. Bias in the social science publication process: are there exceptions? J Soc Behav Pers 2000;15(1):1-18.
90. McClaskey DN, Ziliak T. The standard error of regressions. J Econ Lit 1996;34:97-114.
91. Metoyer-Duran C. The readability of published, accepted, and rejected papers appearing in College Research Libraries. Coll Res Libr. 1993;517-26 (November).
92. Miner JB. The validity and usefulness of theories in an emerging organizational science. Acad Manage Rev 1984;9:296-306.
93. Mischel W. Metacognition and the rules of delay. In: Flavell JH, Ross L, editors. Social cognition development. Cambridge, England: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1981.
94. Mitroff I. The myth of objectivity or why science needs a new psychology of science. Manage Sci 1972;18:B613-8.
95. Munley PH, Sharkin B, Gelso CJ. Reviewer ratings and agreement on manuscripts reviewed for the Journal of Counseling Psychology. J Couns Psychol 1988;35:198-202.
96. Murray GD. The task of a statistical referee. Br J Surg 1988;75:664-7.
97. Nagle TT, Holden RK. The strategy and tactics of pricing. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2002.
98. Neuliep JW, Crandall R. Editorial bias against replication research. J Soc Behav Pers 1990;5(4):85-90.
99. Oakes M. Statistical inference: a commentary for the social and behavioral sciences. New York: Wiley, 1986.
100. Peters DP, Ceci SJ. Peer-review practices of psychology journals: the fate of published articles, submitted again. Behav Brain Sci 1982;5:187-95.
101. Reid LN, Rotfeld HJ, Wimmer RD. How researchers respond to replication requests. J Consum Res 1982;9:216-8.
102. Rodman H, Mancini JA. Errors, manuscripts, and equal treatment. Res Higher Educ 1977;7:369-74.
103. Rosenthal R, Rosnow RL. Essentials of behavioral research: methods and data analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1984.
104. Rossiter JR. What is marketing knowledge. Mark Theory 2001;1:9-26.
105. Rossiter JR, Percy L. Advertising communications & promotion management. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1997.
106. Rothwell PM, Martyn CN. Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience: is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone? Brain 2000;123:1964-9.
107. Rowney JA, Zenisek TJ. Manuscript characteristics influencing reviewers' decisions. Can Psychol 1980;21:17-21.
108. Salsburg DS. The religion of statistics as practiced in medical journals. Am Stat 1985;39:220-3.
109. Scandura TA, Williams EA. Research methodology in management: current practices, trends, and implications for future research. Acad Manage J 2000;43:1248-64.
110. Sherrell DL, Hair JF, Griffin M. Marketing academicians' perceptions of ethical research and publishing behavior. J Acad Mark Sci 1989;17:315-24.
111. Sherwin CW, Isenson RS. Project hindsights. Sci 1967;156:1571-7.
112. Simon R, Bakanic V, McPhail C. Who complains to the editors and what happens? Sociol Inq 1986;56:259-71.
113. Singh SN, Bush RF. Research burnout in tenured marketing professors: an empirical investigation. J Mark Educ 1998;20(1):4-15.
114. Slovic P, Fischhoff B. On the psychology of experimental surprises. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 1977;3:544-51.
115. Smart RG. The importance of negative results in psychological research. Can Psychol 1964;5:225-32.
116. Smith K, Laband DN. The role of editor's professional connections in determining which papers get published: evidence from accounting research journals. Account Perspect 1995;1:21-30.
117. Spiegel-Rosing I. Bibliometric and content analysis. Soc Stud Sci 1977;7:97-113.
118. Sterling TD. Publication decisions and their possible effects on inferences drawn from tests of significance - or vice versa. J Am Stat Assoc 1959;54:30-4.
119. Sterling TD, Rosenbaum WL, Weinkam JJ. Publication decisions revisited: the effect of the outcome of statistical tests on the decision to publish and vice versa. Am Stat 1995;49:108-12.
120. Stewart WW, Feder N. The integrity of the scientific literature. Nature 1987;325:207-14.
121. Street MD, Bozeman DP, Whitfield JM. Author perceptions of positive and negative behaviors in the manuscript review process. J Soc Behav Pers 1998;13(1):1-22.
122. Sutton RI, Rafaeli A. Untangling the relationship between displayed emotions and organizational sales: the case of convenience stores. Acad Manage J 1988;31:461-87.
123. Tellis GJ. The price elasticity of selective demand: a meta-analysis of econometric models of sales. J Mark Res 1988;25:331-41.
124. Trieschmann JS, Dennis AR, Northcraft GB, Niemi AW. Serving multiple constituencies in business schools: MBA program versus research performance. Acad Manage J 2000;43:1130-41.
125. Van Fleet DD, McWilliams A, Siegel DS. A theoretical and empirical analysis of journal rankings: the case of formal lists. J Manage 2000;26: 839-61.
126. Weller A. Editorial peer review in US medical journals. J Am Med Assoc 1990;263:1344-7.
127. Wells WD. Discovery-oriented consumer research. J Consum Res 1993;19:498-504.
128. Wensley R. Making better decisions: the challenge of marketing strategy techniques. Int J Res Mark 1994;11:85-90.
129. Wolin L. Responsibility for raw data. Am Psychol 1962;17:657-8.
130. Yankauer A. Who are the peer reviewers and how much do they review? J Am Med Assoc 1990;263:1338-40.