Surveying the Cites: A Ranking of Marketing Journals Using Citation Analysis

Guidry, Julie Anna; Hollier, Brandi N. Guidry; Johnson, Laura; Tanner, John F.; Veltsos, Christiane

doi:10.1080/10528008.2004.11488853

Cited by 57 publications

(67 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…So wird davon ausgegangen, dass eine Publikation, die wiederholt von verschiedenen Autoren zitiert wird, einen zentralen Beitrag für die jeweilige Forschungsdisziplin leistet (Klingemann 1988;Yue und Wilson 2004). Die Zitationsanalyse wird daher als geeignete Methode angesehen, die Einflüsse abzubilden, welche eine Disziplin über einen bestimmten Zeitraum geprägt haben (Guidry et al 2004). In der Entrepreneurshipforschung wurde die Zitationsanalyse bislang für Autorennetzwerke (Grönroos 2006) (Miller 1983;Covin und Slevin 1991;Kirzner 1973;Schumpeter 1934;Drucker 1985), Marketingorientierung (Kohli und Jaworski 1990;Narver und Slater 1990;Zeithaml und Zeithaml 1984) und Arbeiten zu (Wettbewerbs-)Strategien (Porter 1980;Hamel und Prahalad 1994 (Carson 1985) in Zukunft besonderen Stellenwert beizumessen.…”

Section: Abb 1: Entwicklung Der Anzahl Der Em-publikationen In Akadeunclassified

Diskussionslinien der Entrepreneurial Marketing-Forschung: Ergebnisse einer Zitationsanalyse

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Zusammenfassung: Entrepreneurial Marketing (EM) ist ein dynamisch wachsendes Forschungsfeld, das zunächst als heterogen erscheint. Da eine solche Heterogenität die Orientierung innerhalb des Forschungsfeldes erschwert, hat sich dieser Beitrag zum Ziel gesetzt, die EM-Literatur zu inventarisieren und damit zentrale Diskussionslinien der EM-Forschung herauszuarbeiten.Auf Basis einer umfassenden Literaturanalyse wird zunächst die Entwicklungsgeschichte der EM-Forschung nachgezeichnet, und es werden Schlüsselautoren und Schlüsselzeitschriften identifiziert. Mittels einer Zitationsanalyse von 199 EM-Beiträgen mit insgesamt 6.195 Referenzen und einer anschließenden Expertenevaluation wurden vier Hauptdiskussionslinien der EM-Forschung identifiziert: 1) theoretische Grundlagen, 2) Entrepreneurship/Marketing-Schnittstelle, 3) Gründungs-und KMU-Marketing, und 4) EM im Sinne eines unternehmerischen Marketing. Diese vier Themenbereiche und die jeweilige Grundlagenliteratur bilden einen Rahmen für die Weiterentwicklung der EM-Forschung.

show abstract

Section: Abb 1: Entwicklung Der Anzahl Der Em-publikationen In Akadeunclassified

Diskussionslinien der Entrepreneurial Marketing-Forschung: Ergebnisse einer Zitationsanalyse

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Various journal rankings make judgment of journals' reputation and quality possible (e.g. Baumgartner and Pieters, 2003;Guidry et al, 2004;Koojaroenprasit et al, 1998;Polonsky and Whitelaw, 2006;Theoharakis and Hirst, 2002;Zinkhan and Leigh, 1999). Polonsky and Whitelaw (2006) compared the results of four journal rankings 5 but found no statistically significant difference.…”

Section: Outlets and Impactmentioning

confidence: 99%

Half a Century of Marketing Ethics: Shifting Perspectives and Emerging Trends

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Baumgartner and Pieters (2003) undertook one of the largest citation studies in marketing, spanning a period of 30 years and 49 journals. While that may have been the most comprehensive use of citation analysis in the marketing literature, many other authors have employed it including DuBois and Reeb (2000), Goldman (1979), Guidry et al (2004), Hamelman and Mazze (1973), Jobber and Simpson (1988), Pasadeos (1985) and Zinkhan and Leigh (1999).…”

Section: Citation Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…1. Two recent citation studies with large journal samples are Baumgartner and Pieters (2003) and Guidry et al (2004). Likewise, Theoharakis and Hirst (2002) and Hult et al (1997) included extensive journal lists in their studies.…”

Section: Serial Position Effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Revealed reader preference for marketing journals

Hofacker

Gleim

Lawson

2008

J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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 R 2 value of .95. We use this model to suggest ways that researchers might come to a richer understanding of the journal consumption process.Keywords Journal perceptions . Journal status . Utility model . Clicking behavior Determining the relative importance of the field's journals has been a persistent pursuit of marketing scholars in the past decades. In this paper we contribute to the quest to understand journal importance in marketing by developing a model for clicking behavior on journal tables of contents. The model is based on a version of random utility theory and includes a term for journal reading utility. We calibrate this utility using one year's click-through data from ELMAR tables of contents postings for 165 different journals, which are distributed to over 5,100 marketing academics on a weekly basis. Our use of table of contents reading choice behavior from thousands of marketing academics, rather than the claimed preference of small samples, makes ours a unique investigation into journal importance.We frame our choice model within a more general discussion of the journal consumption process. We identify three components to journal consumption. There is an attitudinal component and two behavioral components: reading behavior and citing behavior. Our study focuses on reading and captures data at the point in which the scholar is deciding what is worth reading.The overall sequence of this paper is as follows: First, we review the extensive literature on journal rankings, covering a variety of measurement approaches found in the literature. Since our Web-based choice approach is relatively new, we present a simple conceptual overview of the journal consumption process and how our and previous approaches fit into that process. We then present and estimate our model. One important output of the model is a set of interval-level table of contents ...

show abstract

Surveying the Cites: A Ranking of Marketing Journals Using Citation Analysis

Cited by 57 publications

References 32 publications

Diskussionslinien der Entrepreneurial Marketing-Forschung: Ergebnisse einer Zitationsanalyse

Diskussionslinien der Entrepreneurial Marketing-Forschung: Ergebnisse einer Zitationsanalyse

Half a Century of Marketing Ethics: Shifting Perspectives and Emerging Trends

Revealed reader preference for marketing journals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About