Summary
In summary, it is important, from time to time, to step back and consider the publication process, as it exists in marketing and as it operates forJAMS. As part of this consideration, the issue of journal quality is paramount.
As mentioned above, there are many ways to assess journal quality, and each method has its advantages and its limitations. In the field of marketing, we have a long history of relying on perceptual data, and this tradition is reflected in methods that rely on expert ratings and rankings of journals. In our field, we also have a history of trying to collect “objective” or quantitative data, and methods that rely on citation counts fit into this tradition. Here, using contrasting but related methods, we report encouraging evidence about the growing status and reputation ofJAMS as an influential publication outlet for marketing scholarship.
References
Bauerly, Ronald J. and Don T. Johnson. 2005. “An Evaluation of Journals Used in Doctoral Marketing Programs.”Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 33 (Summer): 313–329.
Hunt, Shelby D. 1992. “Marketing Is ...”Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 20 (Fall): 301–311.
Nord, Walter R. 1995. “Looking at Ourselves as We Look at Others: An Exploration of the Publication System for Organization Research.” InPublishing in the Organization Sciences. Eds. L. L. Cummings and P. J. Frost. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 64–78.
Varadarajan, P. Rajan. 2003. “Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 2000 to 2003.”Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 31 (Fall): 365–367.
Zinkhan, George M. 2003. “A Look to the Future ofJAMS: Three Years Out, Thirty Years Out ...”Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 31 (Summer): 225–299.
—. 2004. “Accessing Academic Research Through an E-Data Base: Issues of Journal Quality and Knowledge Use.”Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 32 (Fall): 369–370.
— and Thomas Leigh. 1999. “Assessing the Quality Ranking of theJournal of Advertising.”Journal of Advertising 28 (Summer): 51–70.
—, Martin Roth, and Mary Jane Saxton. 1992 “Knowledge Development and Scientific Status in Consumer Behavior Research: A Social Exchange Perspective.”Journal of Consumer Research 18 (September): 282–291.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Zinkhan, G.M. Scientific status and knowledge use: Two perspectives. JAMS 33, 251–253 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070305276939
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070305276939