Marketing's “Oscars”: a citation analysis of award‐winning articles

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to see whether it is possible to reliably detect, prospectively, superior intellectual contributions to marketing's literature.Design/methodology/approach – Citation data accessed on the Institute of Scientific Information Web of Science were used to examine the impact of award‐winning marketing articles with those of lead articles and non‐lead articles in the same journal issues.Findings – Award‐winners gathered more citations than those for the two comparison groups. It is shown, however, that this finding should not be taken for granted. The peer review system frequently fails to identify high quality, innovative research.Research limitations/implications – The paper only considers US marketing journals.Originality/value – This is the only in‐depth study of the impact of award‐winning research in the marketing community.

[1]  Katherine N. Lemon,et al.  Return on Marketing: Using Customer Equity to Focus Marketing Strategy , 2004 .

[2]  F. Black,et al.  The Pricing of Options and Corporate Liabilities , 1973, Journal of Political Economy.

[3]  Karl Halvor Teigen.  One hundred years of laws in psychology. , 2002, The American journal of psychology.

[4]  Detmar W. Straub.  Editor's Comments: Why Do Top Journals Reject Good Papers , 2008 .

[5]  J. W. Hutchinson,et al.  Dimensions of Consumer Expertise , 1987 .

[6]  S. Baldi.  Normative versus social constructivist processes in the allocation of citations : A network-analytic model , 1998 .

[7]  George S. Day,et al.  Assessing Advantage: A Framework for Diagnosing Competitive Superiority , 1988 .

[8]  Miguel Campanario,et al.  Consolation for the Scientist: Sometimes it is Hard to Publish Papers that are Later Highly-Cited , 1993 .

[9]  Bernard J. Jaworski,et al.  Market orientation: The construct, research propositions, and managerial implications. , 1990 .

[10]  V. Zeithaml.  Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality, and Value: A Means-End Model and Synthesis of Evidence: , 1988 .

[11]  Mike Wright,et al.  *Reviewing Journal Rankings and Revisiting Peer Reviews: Editorial Perspectives , 2007 .

[12]  V. Zeithaml,et al.  A Dynamic Process Model of Service Quality: From Expectations to Behavioral Intentions , 1993 .

[13]  R. Lucas.  Expectations and the neutrality of money , 1972 .

[14]  Sara L. Rynes,et al.  “Getting on Board” with AMJ: Balancing Quality and Innovation in the Review Process , 2006 .

[15]  A. Parasuraman,et al.  A Conceptual Model of Service Quality and Its Implications for Future Research , 1985 .

[16]  Tasadduq A. Shervani,et al.  Market-Based Assets and Shareholder Value: A Framework for Analysis , 1998 .

[17]  G. Day.  The Capabilities of Market-Driven Organizations , 1994 .

[18]  Juan Miguel Campanario.  Have referees rejected some of the most-cited articles of all times? , 1996 .

[19]  Stephen L. Vargo,et al.  Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing , 2004 .

[20]  Steven E. Phelan,et al.  THE FIRST TWENTY YEARS OF THE STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT JOURNAL: 1980-1999 , 1999 .

[21]  M. Medoff.  Article placement and market signalling , 2003 .

[22]  Dennis E. Garrett,et al.  Marketing Theory: Classic and Contemporary Readings , 1987 .

[23]  Raymond Hubbard,et al.  How the Emphasis on ‘Original’ Empirical Marketing Research Impedes Knowledge Development , 2002 .

[24]  J. Gans,et al.  How Are the Mighty Fallen: Rejected Classic Articles by Leading Economists , 1994 .

[25]  Mark B. Houston,et al.  The Impact of Article Method Type and Subject Area on Article Citations and Reference Diversity in JM, JMR, and JCR , 2001 .

[26]  S. Hunt,et al.  The Commitment-Trust Theory of Relationship Marketing , 1994 .

[27]  Hendrik P. van Dalen,et al.  What makes a scientific article influential? The case of demographers , 2001, Scientometrics.

[28]  C. Fornell,et al.  Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. , 1981 .

[29]  Ephraim R. McLean,et al.  Information Systems Success: The Quest for the Dependent Variable , 1992, Inf. Syst. Res..

[30]  Donald D. Bergh,et al.  Some predictors of SMJ article impact , 2006 .

[31]  J. Scott Armstrong,et al.  Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. , 1977 .

[32]  R. Merton.  The Matthew Effect in Science , 1968, Science.

[33]  George A. Akerlof.  The Market for “Lemons”: Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism , 1970 .

[34]  Shelby D. Hunt,et al.  Truth in Marketing Theory and Research , 1990 .

[35]  Kim J. Vicente,et al.  Can scientific impact be judged prospectively? A bibliometric test of Simonton"s model of creative productivity , 2004, Scientometrics.

[36]  John G. Lynch,et al.  Interactive Home Shopping: Consumer, Retailer, and Manufacturer Incentives to Participate in Electronic Marketplaces , 1997 .

[37]  T. Judge,et al.  What Causes a Management Article to be Cited—Article, Author, or Journal? , 2007 .

[38]  Gilbert A. Churchill.  A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing Constructs , 1979 .

[39]  T. Clark,et al.  On the Review Process and Journal Development , 2006 .

[40]  G. Becker,et al.  A Theory of the Allocation of Time , 1965 .

[41]  W. Sharpe.  CAPITAL ASSET PRICES: A THEORY OF MARKET EQUILIBRIUM UNDER CONDITIONS OF RISK* , 1964 .

[42]  Juan Miguel Campanario,et al.  Commentary: On Influential Books and Journal Articles Initially Rejected Because of Negative Referees' Evaluations , 1995 .