Revealed reader preference for marketing journals
Tóm tắt
In this paper we assess the reading preference for marketing journals by deriving a journal utility scale based on click responses to table of contents postings to the ELMAR virtual community. Use of ELMAR data provides a unique window into journal importance, allowing us to look at table of contents reading behavior rather than citing behavior or attitudinal constructs as has been the case in previous studies. At the time of the study, there were more than 5,100 ELMAR subscribers, easily making this the largest journal ranking study ever undertaken. The external validity of our sample is high since ELMAR subscribers include a high percentage of the population of those interested in scholarly research in marketing. Our results are based on actual choice behavior of subscribers as they simply decide what tables of contents to read. The list of journals included in the study contains 165 different titles posted during the study period, which spanned a year. During that period there were multiple issues posted of these 165 journals, resulting in a replicated field study with high reliability. In fact, our journal reading utility measurement yielded a model with an R2 value of .95. We use this model to suggest ways that researchers might come to a richer understanding of the journal consumption process.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Aaker, D. A., Kumar, V., & George, S. D. (2001). Marketing research, seventh edition. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Bauerly, R. J., & Johnson, D. T. (2005). An evaluation of journals used in doctoral marketing programs. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 33(3), 313–329. doi:10.1177/0092070304272052.
Baumgartner, H., & Pieters, R. (2003). The structural influence of marketing journals: a citation analysis of the discipline and its subareas over time. Journal of Marketing, 67(2), 123–139. doi:10.1509/jmkg.67.2.123.18610.
Ben-Akiva, M., Bradley, M., Morikawa, T., Benjamin, J., Novak, T. P., Oppewal, H., et al. (1994). Combining revealed and stated preference data. Marketing Letters, 5(4), 335–350. doi:10.1007/BF00999209.
Browne, W. G., & Becker, B. W. (1979). Perceived quality of marketing journals. Journal of Marketing Education, 1(November), 6–15.
Coe, R. K., & Weinstock, I. (1983). Evaluating journal publications of marketing professors: a second look. Journal of Marketing Education, 5, 37–42 (Spring). doi:10.1177/027347538300500107.
Corstjens, M. A., & Gautsch, D. A. (1983). Formal choice models in marketing. Marketing Science, 2(1), 19–56.
DuBois, F. L., & Reeb, D. (2000). Ranking the international business journals. Journal of International Business Studies, 31(4), 689–704. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490929.
Fitzsimmons, G. J., & Morwitz, V. G. (1996). The effect of measuring intent on brand-level purchase behavior. The Journal of Consumer Research, 23, 1–11. doi:10.1086/209462.
Fry, E. H., Walters, C. G., & Scheuermann, L. E. (1985). Perceived quality of fifty selected journals: academicians and practitioners. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 13, 352–361 (Spring). doi:10.1007/BF02729725.
Goldman, A. (1979). Publishing activity in marketing as an indicator of its structure and disciplinary boundaries. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(4), 485–494. doi:10.2307/3150809.
Guadagni, P. M., & Little, J. D. C. (1983). A logit model of brand choice calibrated on scanner data. Marketing Science, 12(3), 203–238.
Guidry, J. A., Brandi, N., Guidry, H., Linda, J., John, R. T., & Christiane, V. (2004). Surveying the cites: a ranking of marketing journals using citation analysis. Marketing Education Review, 14(1), 45–59.
Hamelman, P. W., & Mazze, E. M. (1973). Cross-referencing between AMA journals and other publications. Journal of Marketing Research, 10, 215–218 (May). doi:10.2307/3149833.
Hult, G., Tomas, M., William, T. N., & Bashaw, R. E. (1997). Faculty perceptions of marketing journals. Journal of Marketing Education, 19(1), 37–52. doi:10.1177/027347539701900105.
Jobber, D., & Simpson, P. (1988). A citation analysis of selected marketing journals. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 5(2), 137–142. doi:10.1016/0167-8116(88)90065-1.
Kenny, D. A. (1979). Correlation and causality. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.
Kurtz, D. L., Velliquette, A. M., Garretson, J. A., Dhodapkar, S., & Olson, J. (1997). An evaluation of the marketing theory seminar in Ph.D. programs: teaching alternatives and future directions. Marketing Education Review, 7(2), 1–15.
Lam, S. Y., Chau, A. W.-L., & Wong, T. J. (2007). Thumbnails as online product displays: how consumers process them. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 21(1), 36–59. doi:10.1002/dir.20073.
Luke, R. H., & Reed, D. E. (1987). Marketing journal hierarchies and faculty perceptions, 1986-1987. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 15(1), 74–78. doi:10.1007/BF02721957.
Murphy, J., Hofacker, C. F., & Mizerski, R. M. (2006). Primacy and recency effects on clicking behavior. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(2). doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00025.x.
Nowlis, S. M., & Simonson, I. (1997). Attribute-task compatibility as a determinant of consumer preference reversals. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(2), 205–218. doi:10.2307/3151859.
Parasuraman, A. (2000). Technology Readiness Index (TRI): A multiple-item scale to measure readiness to embrace new technologies. Journal of Service Research, 2(4), 307–320. doi:0.1177/109467050024001.
Pasadeos, Y. (1985). A bibliometric study of advertising citations. Journal of Advertising Research, 14(4), 52–59.
Polonsky, M. J., & Whitelaw, P. (2005). What are we measuring when we evaluate journals? Journal of Marketing Education, 27(2), 189–201. doi:10.1177/0273475305276842.
Stewart, D. W. (2007). New and improved! a look at the future. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35(1), 1–4. doi:10.1007/s11747-007-0023-7.
Tellis, G. J., Chandy, R. K., & Ackerman, D. S. (1999). In search of diversity: the record of major marketing journals. Journal of Marketing Research, 36, 120–131 (February). doi:10.2307/3151920.
Theoharakis, V., & Hirst, A. (2002). Perceptual differences of marketing journals: a worldwide perspective. Marketing Letters, 13(4), 389–402. doi:10.1023/A:1020378718456.
Tversky, A., Sattath, S., & Slovic, P. (1988). Contingent weighting in judgment and choice. Psychological Review, 95(3), 371–384. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.95.3.371.
Urbanic, F. R., & Sailors, J. F. (1996). Marketing journals: a study of university library holdings. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 2(2), 17–33. doi:10.1300/J109v02n02_03.
Zinkhan, G. M. (2004). Accessing academic research through an e-database: issues of journal quality and knowledge use. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32(4), 369–370. doi:10.1177/0092070304267963.
Zinkhan, G. M., & Leigh, T. W. (1999). Assessing the quality ranking of the Journal of Advertising, 1986-1997. Journal of Advertising, 28(2), 51–70.