Emerald | European Business Review

I have seen the future and it sucks: reactionary reflections on reading, writing and research

Stephen Brown — 2012-01-06 00:00:00.0

Abstract

Purpose – Reading and writing are crucial components of the research process and academic life as a whole. The purpose of this paper is to ask if conventional reading and writing practices are fit for marketing purpose. Design/methodology/approach – The paper consists of an extended autobiographical essay, which reflects on the relevance of academic research output. The concerns of marketing thought leaders are also incorporated as required. Findings – Academic articles are unreadable and unread. This is due to extant writing practices which result in characterless papers with little reader appeal. Research limitations/implications – The best way forward is to look back at the approaches that prevailed prior to marketing's mid-'60s “scientific revolution”. If adopted, they'll make learned research papers and monographs much more readable than they are at present. Practical implications – If marketing academics embrace this paper's recommendations, their writings are more likely to be read and acted upon by practitioners, policy makers and other important stakeholders. Originality/value – The style of the article is in keeping with the content. It demonstrates as well as describes.

Publishing in international journals: De-mystifying the process, reducing risk and improving success

Beverly A. Wagner — 2012-01-06 00:00:00.0

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to set out guidelines to de-mystify the publication process and increase opportunities for successful publication. Design/methodology/approach – An introspective method is employed based upon the author's experience as a reviewer and editor. Findings – Findings highlight some of the challenges facing researchers when writing research papers, pitfalls on the path to publication and possible remedial actions. Practical implications – Information gained may go some way to improve writing and increase the possibly of publication in international journals. Originality/value – This paper is based on personal experience. The more information available to researchers regarding requirements for successful publication as well as greater transparency of the review process will improve writing quality and ultimately progress debate within academic disciplines.

Challenges in collaborative writing: addressing authorship attribution

Ambika Zutshi, Gael McDonald, Linda Kalejs — 2012-01-06 00:00:00.0

Abstract

Purpose – Increasing pressure to enhance research coupled with a desire for a broadening of academic input, are prompting greater levels of collaboration. Research collaboration can generate notable benefits but can also pose a variety of challenges. The purpose of this paper is to explore the reasons, facilitators, benefits and challenges of academic collaboration. It also provides suggestions to manage identifiable risks and enhance team dynamics. Design/methodology/approach – This is a conceptual paper exploring prior literature in relation to the contentious points of research collaboration, particularly in regard to authorship attribution. Findings – The authors present two checklists that researchers can utilise to ensure the successful completion of collaborative projects. The checklists incorporate the main factors required for effective collaborative work and research, and form a foundation for discussion among team members. Originality/value – The paper draws upon experiences, observations, academic literature and protocols, and provides strategies and recommendations to enhance collaboration and authorship attribution. The two checklists presented in the paper are value-adding for team members.

Research process, report structure and journal outlets in scholarly studies: Parallel vs sequential and proactive vs reactive

Göran Svensson — 2012-01-06 00:00:00.0

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to describe the interconnection between the research process, the report structure and journal outlets in scholarly studies. Design/methodology/approach – Conceptual frameworks to link the research process with the report structure, and in turn with journal outlets, are presented. Findings – These indicate that the research process and the awareness of the components of the report structure as well as potential journal outlets may at an early stage uncover any pitfalls and flaws in one's scholarly studies in academia. Research limitations/implications – A transparent understanding and foresight of what is ahead in, and interconnected between, the elements of the research process, the components of the report structure and the potential journal outlets are crucial to enhance the ultimate scholarly performance. The discussion is in part limited to the commonly applied “deductive” research process in academia, though most parts also are applicable to the “inductive” research process. Practical implications – It is important that the elements of the scholarly research process and the components of the report structure are thoroughly thought out in detail before too much investment in time and resources, as well as intellectual effort, have been made in order to avoid frustration and discontent. In addition, the potential journal outlets also need to be considered at an early stage of research. Originality/value – Transparent understanding and foresight of research processes, report structures and journal outlets provide essential and valuable insights for scholars. The author has striven to show that realizing the link between the scholarly research process, the scholarly report structure and the potential journal outlets available will assist in efforts to perform and communicate the outcome of scholarly studies.

Assessing international journal impact: the case of marketing

Daniela Rosenstreich, Ben Wooliscroft — 2012-01-06 00:00:00.0

Abstract

Purpose – Potential ethnocentric biases in stated preference journal rankings are reviewed and revealed preference ranking methods are investigated. The aim of the paper is to identify an approach to ranking journals that minimises ethnocentric biases and better represents the international impact of research. Design/methodology/approach – Coverage of marketing journals in Ulrich's, EBSCO, SSCI, JCR, Scopus and Google Scholar is explored. Citing references to 20 articles are analysed to determine citation time lags and explore the content of SSCI, Scopus and Google Scholar. To further review the extent of citation coverage, h-index scores are generated for ten marketing journals using data from SSCI, Scopus and Google Scholar. In total, 36 marketing journals are ranked using the g-index and Google Scholar data and results are compared to ten published rankings. Findings – Stated preference ranking studies of marketing journals rely on US-based respondents. The coverage of EBSCO, SSCI, JCR and Scopus databases is not representative of marketing's literature as they have few international sources, and a disproportionate coverage of US-based journals. Google Scholar provides broader international coverage. The Impact Factor may be inappropriate for marketing journals as a large proportion of citations occur more than five years post-publication. Results indicate that the g-index is a superior approach to measuring the impact of marketing journals internationally. Practical implications – Exposure of the limitations in existing ranking methods should encourage improvements in the development and use of journal rankings. Originality/value – The investigations present original evidence to support long-term concerns about approaches to journal ranking and citation analysis.

Editorial

2012-01-06 00:00:00.0