Search results

Estimating the business potential for local food intermediary businesses, like wholesales and retailing, can be extremely difficult. The purpose of this paper is to present an approach at finding out the possibilities of estimating the business potential of a business idea in advance.

In the approach, a model is built based on two data sources. Statistical data on the food expenditure of households and average division of the revenues and margins of the local food supply chain are divided to production, intermediate level (wholesales/distribution) and retailing stages. To estimate the regional local food business potential as a whole, the market share estimations have been made by local food experts.

The approach was tested and utilized in evaluating the feasibility of a local food wholesale business in South-East Finland. It produced a credible overview of the business potential and pinpointed the challenges of the local food wholesales. The study indicated also that expressing the feasibility in terms of the required market share for employee count is an easy-to-understand way to depict the feasibility of a business.

The model gives indicative, industry average-based results: the results of the model should be refined with analyses on the particular business model, especially its cost efficiency and other competitive parameters compared to more traditional way of doing business.

The model helps local food entrepreneurs and firms as well as their financiers to get a realistic picture of the business potential and the economic feasibility of the targeted business.

The study introduces a novel approach combining quantitative data and expert evaluation for evaluating the market potential and economic prerequisites of a regional food supply chain operator.

The paper aims to help identify the best logistical practices and to implement them with minimal organizational resistance in an environment with relatively similar business units utilizing an internal benchmarking approach.

A stepwise benchmarking process, where the use of basic inventory control practices is complemented with benchmarking analysis among business units that are of the same kind, but not entirely similar. The viewpoint is that of a supply chain specialist, and the main objective of the paper is to present how the analysis should be carried out.

Four principles were found useful when carrying out the analysis for internal benchmarking: refining stepwise the precision of the analysis, accepting the practical limitations of the data, disaggregating the task to be benchmarked to manageable sub‐areas, and engaging the management and key implementers in the analysis work.

The approach is a complementary approach to the traditional inventory models, which often rely on more or less arbitrary parameter values. The analysis provides realistic, individual inventory objectives and gives suggestions for focused improvement actions.

To draw up a demographic profile of editors, editorial boards and contributors, in the specific case of one top‐ranked marketing journal, and to discuss the implications.

From a list of top‐ranked titles, compiled from various sources, one was chosen as a case study. Demographic data relating to contributors and editors were collected by inspection, for a five‐year period. The anonymity of the journal was preserved.

North American affiliations dominated among authors, editors and editorial boards. Successive editors have had an American affiliation for many years. This strongly skewed demographic profile raises a number of doubts and questions. The author suggests that one important effect is a kind of academic myopia, caused by demographic uniformity and paradigmatic inertia. He contends that this phenomenon threatens to weaken the scientific reputation of the marketing discipline and its research community.

The study is restricted to a single top‐ranked journal, which is anonymous because the aim is not to focus attention, negative or positive, on a single case, but rather to stimulate debate.

Tentative recommendations are offered to the publishers and editors of marketing journals for reduction of the specific and general damaging effects of demographically induced academic myopia.

This study sows the seed and provides the trigger for further research and discussion of a phenomenon with important practical implications for the academic marketing community.

The purpose of this paper is to describe the “scientific identity” of the “top” research journals in the broader discipline of marketing by examining the methodological approaches and the geographical affiliations of authors published in selected journals.

A sample of “top” research journals in marketing is selected on the basis of expert opinion and journal ranking lists. The selection includes the Journal of Consumer Research (JCR), Journal of Marketing (JM), Journal of Marketing Research (JMR), Journal of Retailing (JR), Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science (JAMS); and Marketing Science (MS).

The “scientific identities” of JCR, JM, JMR, JR, JAMS and MS are revealed as being built on quantitative research designs and the North American paradigm of research values. In fact, all journals are US‐based. None was found to be based on a mix of empirical research designs. The selected research journals were found to be narrowly focused, and the lack of variety of “scientific identities” among the journals studied here is discomfiting for the ongoing scientific knowledge building and theory generation in marketing.

Further studies of the “scientific identity” of individual research journals are desirable in other sub‐disciplines of marketing. A series of questions have been raised that the authors argue are worthy of further attention and debate in the world‐wide research community.

Researchers will benefit from insights into the “scientific identities” of the “top” research journals in the broader discipline of marketing. In particular, researchers can note the particular feature of dogmatic narrowness of research designs that are present in all of these journals.

The study delivers insights into the publishing requirements of “top” research journals in the broader discipline of marketing. It provides some challenging and discomfiting findings.

The aim is to describe the “empirical characteristics” of the “top” journals in mainstream marketing by assessing selected journals with respect to: the proportion of “empirical” versus “non‐empirical” contributions; the proportion of national versus international research data; the geographical origin of research data; and the geographical affiliations of the authors whose articles are published.

A sample of “top” scholarly journals in mainstream marketing is selected on the basis of expert opinion and journal ranking lists. The evaluation considers all available articles at the time of data collection (a total of 1,463) published in these journals over a seven‐year period from 2000 to 2006.

A large proportion of all contributions in the selected journals were “empirical” in nature. Although this finding is not unexpected in scholarly journals, it is apparent that the journals evaluated also provide opportunities for non‐empirical contributions. Other “empirical characteristics” were found to be skewed.

This evaluation is limited to the “empirical characteristics” of “top” journals in mainstream marketing.

The study provides valuable insights into the nature of academic publishing in the area of top journals of mainstream marketing.

Scholars will benefit from insights into the “empirical characteristics” of the “top” journals in mainstream marketing. In particular, scholars can note the particular features of individual journals. Further studies of the “empirical characteristics” of individual research journals are required in other sub‐disciplines of marketing.

The objective of this paper is to explore the dominating approaches that appear in top marketing journals.

This research is restricted to the exploration of one top journal in marketing. The journal title is kept anonymous as the topic goes beyond the targeted journal and aspires to be of interest to the marketing discipline and its research community. A triangular approach was used, which was divided into two parts.

Part one – the exploration of the editorial descriptions of selected top marketing journals shows that they tend to describe their published articles according to some key features. Part two – the content analysis of 151 articles generated an extremely skewed outcome. It appears to be almost a pre‐requisite to have applied quantitative approaches in order to make it successfully through the blind review process and get published in the targeted journal.

This research is limited to explore one of the top marketing journals. The journal is kept anonymous as the idea is not to question or hang out a specific journal, but rather to stimulate the debate of current approaches published in the top marketing journals.

The exploration of the top marketing journal shows a stereotype and myopic view of what is classified as “high quality” or “appropriate” research approaches. The editors and the editorial boards should let paradigmatic and dogmatic research myopia stand back in favour of broadminded and challenging research efforts. They should strive to avoid traditionalism and blinkers.

An increased trust and acceptability of other approaches than quantitative ones in top marketing journals would be desirable. A humble request would be to give other approaches a fair chance to get into the arena of top marketing journals. The paper contends that there may be a fatal “paradoxnoia” of top journal(s) in marketing – a “paradoxnoia” of approaches that may harm and undermine the respectability of the marketing discipline and its research community.

The objective of the paper is to describe the “scientific identity” of the “top” journals in services marketing by reviewing and evaluating the methodological approaches and the geographical affiliations of authors published in selected journals.

A sample of “top” journals in services marketing is selected on the basis of expert opinion. The selection includes the International Journal of Service Industry Management (IJSIM), the Journal of Services Marketing (JSM), the Journal of Service Research (JSR), Managing Service Quality (MSQ), and the Service Industries Journal (SIJ). The review and evaluation considers all papers (a total of 1,107) published in these journals over a six‐year period from 2000 to 2005. The papers are categorized and the geographical affiliations of the authors are noted. The compiled results are analyzed for patterns that reveal the “scientific identity” of each of the selected journals.

The “scientific identities” of JSM and JSR are revealed as being built upon quantitative research designs and the North American paradigm of research values. MSQ and SIJ are found to be largely based upon a mix of empirical research designs and the European paradigm of research values. IJSIM is found to be based on a mix of empirical research designs and a mix of European and North American research values. However, no journal is found to be narrowly focused, and the variety of “scientific identities” among the journals studied here bodes well for ongoing scientific enquiry in services marketing.

Further studies of the “scientific identity” of individual research journals are required in other sub‐disciplines of marketing.

Scholars will benefit from insights into the “scientific identities” of the “top” journals in services marketing. In particular, scholars can note the particular features of individual journals while acknowledging the paradigmatic flexibility and richness of research designs that are present in all of these journals.

This is the first review and evaluation of the “scientific identity” of “top” service‐marketing journals in terms of categories of papers published and geographical affiliation of published authors. The study provides valuable insights into the nature of academic publishing in the burgeoning area of services marketing.

The purpose of this paper is to describe the “empirical characteristics” of the “top” journals in services marketing by assessing selected journals with respect to: the proportion of “empirical” versus “non‐empirical” contributions; the proportion of national versus international research data; the geographical origin of research data; and the geographical affiliations of the authors whose articles are published.

A sample of “top” journals in services marketing is selected on the basis of expert opinion. The selection includes the International Journal of Service Industry Management (IJSIM), the Journal of Services Marketing (JSM), the Journal of Service Research (JSR), Managing Service Quality (MSQ), and the Service Industries Journal (SIJ). The study considers all contributions (a total of 1,189) published in these journals over a six‐year period from 2000 to 2005, with particular emphasis on the “empirical” studies (a subtotal of 870).

The authors contend that there is in part a troublesome and challenging “ethnocentricity” in some of the examined journals.

This is the first assessment of the “empirical characteristics” of “top” journals in services marketing.

The study provides valuable insights into the nature of academic publishing in the area of services marketing.

Scholars will benefit from insights into the “empirical characteristics” of the “top” journals in services marketing. In particular, scholars can note the particular features of individual journals. Further studies of the “empirical characteristics” of individual research journals are required in other sub‐disciplines of marketing.

This paper aims to describe and debate a series of concerns that may affect, influence or manipulate the “Social Science Citation Index” (SSCI) and its impact factors.

A conceptual discussion of the SSCI and its impact factors are provided.

A series of concerns and potential biases of the SSCI and its impact factors are identified. These question the reliability of the SSCI and impact factors for identifying as tools the “best” journals in the marketing field.

The SSCI and its impact factors may cause both “win‐win” and “win‐lose” situations in and between stakeholders of the scholarly communities of the marketing discipline worldwide. The question is raised whether there may be a situation of the “prisoner's dilemma”.

The SSCI and its impact factors are gaining terrain and acknowledgement in scholarly marketing communities worldwide. This raises the crucial question of whether or not the SSCI and its impact factors will benefit the scholarly communities of the marketing discipline worldwide in the long‐term perspective.

A principal argument brought up for further debate is how the increasing acknowledgement and applications of the SSCI and its impact factors may influence the marketing discipline and its scholarly communities worldwide as a whole. Another principal argument brought up for further debate is that the current algorithm that underpins the impact factors of the SSCI may be affected, influenced (and at worst manipulated) in the self‐interest of the journal publishers, the editors and the editorial boards. Authors may also feel the pressure to match perceived expectations and potential requirements in their own self‐interest.

The objective of this paper is to discuss some criteria in order to distinguish between top versus leading journals in marketing. The aim is to stimulate the debate of the adequacy of those issues that dominate in the top marketing journals.

The authors discuss three groups of criteria, namely journal, article, and research. Each is discussed based on a set of dimensions: journal criteria – the editor, the editorial board, the editorial objective and the author affiliations; article criteria – research implication, practice implication, readability and originality; and research criteria – process, paradigm, representation, readership and contribution.

While the top journals in marketing are named, the analysis is meant to be of a more general nature rather than to question or lambaste a specific journal.

There is an underlying quest for identifying and verifying the top academic journals in different research disciplines. As an extension to the discussion of top versus non‐top journals, the authors raise another crucial issue, namely criteria to differentiate between top and leading journals in marketing.

These criteria are based on the authors' examination of the editorial descriptions and overall contents of six top journals in marketing. The criteria are also derived from a review of the literature on academic journals and academic publishing.

The discussion may stimulate and widen debate with respect to what constitutes a leading academic journal in marketing. The suggested list of criteria should be seen as a trigger for further discussion. It does not aspire to be complete, but a complement to the ongoing discussion of academic journals and academic publishing in marketing.