Heresies and sacred cows in scholarly marketing publications

Abstract Merriam-Webster defines heresies as “dissent or deviation from a dominant theory, opinion, or practice.” This Journal of Business Research special issue and the editorial examine heresies and sacred cows in marketing research. Seven papers investigate different aspects of typical academic business journal presentations. Each manuscript critically analyzes generally accepted practices for the pursuit of publication in academic journals and reveals ways these practices may do more harm than good, hindering the goal of presenting true growth of knowledge through publication. The editorial provides an integrative schema for the manuscripts in the special issue. Providing a series of broader topics to tie the papers together, this special issue illustrates how the findings of each study can help improve our pursuit of knowledge. In addition, the editorial discusses heresies and sacred cows not covered by manuscripts in the current issue. The editorial concludes with recommendations for both authors and reviewers that may enhance the approach to research, methodologies employed, and reporting of scholarly research.

[1]  J. Lynch.  The Role of External Validity in Theoretical Research , 1983 .

[2]  Christie M. Fuller,et al.  Common methods variance detection in business research , 2016 .

[3]  C. Lance,et al.  What Reviewers Should Expect from Authors Regarding Common Method Bias in Organizational Research , 2010 .

[4]  William O. Bearden,et al.  Disconfirmation processes and consumer evaluations in product usage , 1985 .

[5]  Lawrence A. Crosby,et al.  Effects of Relationship Marketing on Satisfaction, Retention, and Prices in the Life Insurance Industry , 1987 .

[6]  Raymond B. Cattell,et al.  The Meaning and Strategic Use of Factor Analysis , 1988 .

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

[8]  Joseph W. Alba,et al.  In Defense of Bumbling , 2012 .

[9]  Jerry C. Olson,et al.  Is Science Marketing? , 1983 .

[10]  Alice M. Tybout,et al.  Designing Research for Application , 1981 .

[11]  J. Wilcox,et al.  Questions about formative measurement , 2008 .

[12]  Jesse Chandler,et al.  Nonnaïveté among Amazon Mechanical Turk workers: Consequences and solutions for behavioral researchers , 2013, Behavior Research Methods.

[13]  Alice M. Tybout,et al.  Beyond External Validity , 1983 .

[14]  Michael C. Frank,et al.  Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science , 2015, Science.

[15]  Judy A. Siguaw,et al.  Formative versus Reflective Indicators in Organizational Measure Development: A Comparison and Empirical Illustration , 2006 .

[16]  J. A. Espinosa,et al.  Debunking legendary beliefs about student samples in marketing research , 2016 .

[17]  A. Casadevall,et al.  Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications , 2012, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[18]  Solmaz Filiz Karabag,et al.  Retraction, Dishonesty and Plagiarism: Analysis of a Crucial Issue for Academic Publishing, and the Inadequate Responses from Leading Journals in Economics and Management Disciplines , 2012 .

[19]  Woojung Chang,et al.  Comparing reflective and formative measures: New insights from relevant simulations , 2016 .

[20]  J. Payne,et al.  Let's be Honest about the Attraction Effect , 2014 .

[21]  J. Scott Armstrong,et al.  Are null results becoming an endangered species in marketing? , 1992 .

[22]  J. Scott Armstrong,et al.  Discovery and Communication of Important Marketing Findings: Evidence and Proposals , 2005 .

[23]  R. J. Johnston.  Possible Extensions to the Factorial Ecology Method: A Note , 1973 .

[24]  M. Lynn,et al.  More Evidence Challenging the Robustness and Usefulness of the Attraction Effect , 2014 .

[25]  H. Hotelling.  Analysis of a complex of statistical variables into principal components. , 1933 .

[26]  Shelby D. Hunt,et al.  Marketing Theory: Foundations, Controversy, Strategy, and Resource-advantage Theory : Foundations, Controversy, Strategy, and Resource-advantage Theory , 2014 .

[27]  Adamantios Diamantopoulos,et al.  Selecting single items to measure doubly concrete constructs: A cautionary tale , 2016 .

[28]  T. Daugherty,et al.  Research in reverse: Ad testing using an inductive consumer neuroscience approach , 2016 .

[29]  R. MacCallum,et al.  The use of causal indicators in covariance structure models: some practical issues. , 1993, Psychological bulletin.

[30]  A. Woodside.  Incompetency training: Theory, practice, and remedies , 2012 .