Academic publishing in marketing: best and worst practices

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to offer observations regarding best and weak practices with respect to academic publishing in marketing. Design/methodology/approach The approach takes the form of personal reflections based on the experience of the author as an editor of the Journal of Marketing and Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. Findings Interesting and novel work is most likely to be published in academic journals even when such work has methodological flaws. Research that is methodologically correct but of limited contribution is less likely to be published. Venue‐driven research, replications, most extensions of prior research and data fitting exercises are unlikely to be published in the “better” marketing journals. Practical implications The paper offers practical advice about how to publish in the better marketing journals and how an author should manage the publication process. Originality/value The paper offers observations regarding best and weak practices with respect to academic publishing in marketing. It is a practical guide to the academic publication process in marketing. It will be of use to any aspiring scholar in marketing.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 22 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.