Abstract
Purpose
This study aims to examine marketing trends spanning a period of 26 years to scrutinize North American influence in marketing research, as well as enhance comprehension of interdisciplinary marketing knowledge and identify prominent scholars, universities, countries, and articles that warrant further scholarly exploration.
Design/methodology/approach
This paper uses bibliometric methods to analyze the publications of eight top-tier journals (Journal of Marketing, Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Marketing Research, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Marketing Science, Journal of Retailing, Journal of Consumer Psychology and International Journal of Research in Marketing) between 1996 and 2021, as found in the Scopus database.
Findings
The findings indicate that North American hegemony in the marketing discipline continues and that the impact of marketing on other disciplines remains controversial. Some universities have a deeply rooted tradition of marketing departments. Some articles from 26 years ago are still frequently cited.
Research limitations/implications
The study covers the period from 1996 to 2021. It includes only articles, uses a single database and is cross-sectional. Future research should explore longer time periods by using various databases for comprehensive analysis.
Originality/value
To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study constitutes one of the first attempts to understand the scholarly contributions of the marketing discipline by considering eight top-tier journals.
Objetivo
Esta investigación examina las tendencias de marketing durante un período de 26 años para analizar la influencia norteamericana en la investigación de marketing, así como para mejorar la comprensión del conocimiento interdisciplinario en marketing e identificar destacados académicos, universidades, países y artículos que merecen una mayor exploración académica.
Diseño/metodología/enfoque
Este documento emplea métodos bibliométricos para analizar las publicaciones de ocho revistas de primer nivel (Journal of Marketing, Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Marketing Research, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Marketing Science, Journal of Retailing, Journal of Consumer Psychology e International Journal of Research in Marketing) entre 1996 y 2021, según se encuentran en la base de datos de Scopus.
Resultados
Los resultados indican que la hegemonía norteamericana en la disciplina del marketing continúa y que el impacto del marketing en otras disciplinas sigue siendo controvertido. Algunas universidades tienen una tradición arraigada en los departamentos de marketing. Algunos artículos de hace 26 años todavía son citados con frecuencia.
Originalidad/valor
Este estudio constituye uno de los primeros intentos de comprender las contribuciones académicas de la disciplina del marketing considerando ocho revistas de primer nivel.
Limitaciones/implicaciones de la investigación
El estudio cubre el período de 1996 a 2021. Incluye solo artículos, utiliza una sola base de datos y es transversal. Futuras investigaciones deberían explorar períodos más largos de tiempo empleando diversas bases de datos para un análisis completo.
目的
本研究调查了跨越26年的市场营销趋势, 以探讨北美在市场营销研究中的影响, 并增进对跨学科市场营销知识的理解, 识别值得进一步探索的杰出学者、大学、国家和文章。
设计/方法/途径
本文采用文献计量学方法分析了1996年至2021年间八种顶级期刊 (Journal of Marketing、Journal of Consumer Research、Journal of Marketing Research、Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science、Marketing Science、Journal of Retailing、Journal of Consumer Psychology 和 International Journal of Research in Marketing）的出版物, 这些文章可在Scopus数据库中找到。
发现
研究结果表明, 北美在市场营销学科中的霸权地位仍然存在, 并且市场营销对其他学科的影响仍然存在争议。同时, 研究发现一些大学具有根深蒂固的市场营销系传统, 且一些26年前的文章仍然经常被引用。
原创性/价值
本研究首次尝试通过考虑八种顶级期刊来理解营销学科的学术贡献。
研究限制/启示
本研究涵盖了1996年至2021年的时间段。它仅包括文章, 使用了单一数据库, 并且是横断面研究。未来的研究应该通过使用各种数据库进行全面分析, 探索更长时间段。
Keywords
Citation
Akpınar, A. (2024), "Sketching a comprehensive picture of the marketing discipline: a bibliometric analysis covering eight top-tier journals", Spanish Journal of Marketing - ESIC, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/SJME-02-2022-0017
Publisher
:Emerald Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2024, Ayhan Akpınar.
License
Published in Spanish Journal of Marketing - ESIC. Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode
1. Introduction
Marketing has a long history; for example, even ancient Greek philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle discussed markets and traders (Jones and Shaw, 2002). However, it was not until the twentieth century that marketing became an established discipline (Bartels, 1951; Wilkie and Moore, 2003; Hunt, 2020). The University of Wisconsin and Harvard University began offering marketing courses in the early 1900s (Jones and Monieson, 1990). Other important milestones, such as the emergence of conferences, associations and journals dedicated to marketing, occurred in the mid-1930s (Witkowski, 2010). Today, marketing is recognized as a mature field (Keathley-Herring et al., 2016), with over 200 universities offering marketing doctoral programs (A.M.A., 2022) [1]. There are also numerous marketing-oriented journals in publication (S.J.R., 2021) [2], and scholars from around the globe participate in marketing research (Stremersch and Verhoef, 2005).
However, the extant literature has neglected to comprehensively consider the scholars, institutions and countries that have shaped the evolution of the marketing field. Therefore, this study addresses three key shortcomings. The first involves the debate regarding the identity crisis of the marketing discipline (El-Ansary et al., 2018) and its level of maturity. Despite the marketing field’s vibrant history, previous inquiries have offered limited longitudinal perspectives, resulting in insufficient comprehension of this discipline’s overall evolution. Second, previous bibliometric analyses conducted by marketing scholars reveal several shortcomings. Although there are bibliometric analyses related to marketing subfields, such as retail, no research has properly documented the transformative impact of the most influential research, academics and universities in the field of marketing. Third, prior bibliometric investigations have primarily focused on examining the historical development of individual journals. A broader bibliometric approach that examines top-tier journals could yield more generalizable findings, offering a more comprehensive understanding of the field.
Therefore, this study makes four contributions. First, this study offers a bibliometric analysis of the marketing field, explicating influential forces and emerging trends over a 26-year period. Second, the study reveals the dominance of North American gatekeepers and the scarcity of non-North American researchers. Third, it broadens scholarly understanding of the interdisciplinary reach and influence of marketing knowledge. Fourth, this study will provide a foundation that will enable researchers, students and practitioners to identify leading scholars, universities, countries and heavily cited articles for further exploration and collaboration.
For these purposes, this article presents a bibliometric analysis of the marketing field. Bibliometric analyses measure scientific development by quantitatively analyzing scholarly literature (Ruhanen et al., 2015). This study examines the marketing discipline through a bibliometric analysis of top-tier journals to provide valuable quantitative insights and informative data regarding the historical progression of the field, as well as its key contributors and primary research trajectories.
To the best of our knowledge, no bibliometric analyses of the impact of top-tier marketing journals on the marketing discipline have been conducted. Therefore, this study seeks to answer the following questions:
What have been the citation rates and impact factors of top-tier marketing journals over the years (between 1996 and 2021)?
Which authors, universities and countries are the most productive and influential in marketing research?
Which articles have had the greatest impact on marketing research, and which sources, authors and journals are cited most frequently in marketing research?
Which subject areas and journals cite marketing research?
The remainder of the paper can be summarized as follows. Section 2 presents a summary of existing reviews. Section 3 provides information about the methodology used in this paper. Section 4 analyzes and interprets the findings by comparing them with those of previous studies. Finally, Section 5 presents the conclusions, and Section 6 provides limitations and suggestions for future research.
2. Summary of previous reviews
Integrating the findings of existing studies is pivotal for advancing research (Zupic and Čater, 2015). The methodology of bibliometric analysis, a method useful for scrutinizing substantial scientific data sets (Donthu et al., 2021), has gained prevalence in the business domain due to the accessibility of databases, such as Scopus and Web of Science (WOS), as well as software, such as VOSviewer. Bibliometric analysis is used in a broad range of research areas, such as management (Podsakoff et al., 2008), entrepreneurship (Luor et al., 2014), accounting (Merigó and Yang, 2017a, 2017b) and tourism (Hall, 2011), as well as in specific subjects, such as industry 4.0 (Muhuri et al., 2019) and board diversity (Baker et al., 2020). In addition, the number of bibliometric analyses of journals has risen in recent years (Ali et al., 2019; Donthu et al., 2020, 2021).
An influential study by Cote et al. (1992) probed the contributions of marketing research to business and social sciences literature. Cheng et al. (2003) assessed the efficacy of universities and researchers in the Asia-Pacific region, while Stremersch and Verhoef (2005) explored the globalization of the marketing discipline, focusing on authorship characteristics. Bauerly and Johnson (2005) evaluated the quality of marketing journals based on the articles instructed in doctoral programs, and Svensson et al. (2008) examined the scientific identity of marketing by performing methodological approaches and the geographical affiliations of authors. In addition, many other studies have attempted to measure the impact of marketing research by focusing on individual journals; however, they have been limited in scope, sample size and time period (Huber et al., 2014; Marquardt and Murdock, 1983; Bakr et al., 2000; Sheoran et al., 2018; Niemi, 1988b). Although recent studies have provided valuable insights, they have limitations (Sheoran et al., 2018; Nicolas et al., 2020). In summary, although these efforts have contributed significantly to existing knowledge, they fail to provide a comprehensive overview of the marketing field. Further details regarding the limitations of existing research are outlined in Table 1 [3].
To produce a more comprehensive understanding of the marketing field, we focused on multiple agents (e.g. authors, universities and countries) and journals covering an extended timeframe and used modern bibliometric methods to achieve a comprehensive analysis of the entire marketing field holistically rather than a specific subfield. Finally, we also used multiple analysis techniques.
3. Methodology
Bibliometrics is a quantitative method that combines approaches from library and information sciences to analyze bibliographic material (Broadus, 1987). This method generates a meaningful summary of bibliometric material by classifying data by country, university, journal, author and keyword (Zupic and Čater, 2015). Bibliometric analysis is generally performed either via performance analysis or science mapping (Cobo et al., 2011; Donthu et al., 2021). In performance analysis, the objective is to evaluate the effect of a particular field on scientific inquiry using various indicators, and the agents can be defined as countries, universities, authors or journals. When applying the science mapping method, a graphic science map is created to visualize the structural and dynamic aspects of the research. It is essential to combine both approaches to ensure the reliability and robustness of results (Baier-Fuentes et al., 2019).
This study provides a bibliometric overview of eight top-tier marketing journals, as well as an analysis of publication and citation structure; influential authors, institutions and countries; most-cited articles; keywords; subject areas; and the journals that cite these eight top-tier journals. The performance analysis is based on publication, citation and h-index indicators and includes graphical mapping with VOSviewer.
3.1 Sampling
Journals are the primary repository of knowledge of an academic discipline, and premier journals apply rigorous scientific review processes to identify articles that make novel and substantial contributions to knowledge (Zinkhan and Leigh, 1999). Therefore, this study analyzes journals because they can reveal the overall picture of the marketing discipline. For this purpose, this study presents a bibliometric overview of eight of the most influential journals in marketing (Journal of Marketing, Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Marketing Research, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Marketing Science, Journal of Retailing, Journal of Consumer Psychology and International Journal of Research in Marketing; hereafter, JM, JCR, JMR, JAMS, MS, JR, JCP and IJRM, respectively). This study analyzes original research and review articles published in the selected journals between 1996 and 2021. Editorials, notes, conference proceedings and letters were considered beyond the scope of the study.
3.2 Database selection
This study classifies publications appearing in JM, JCR., JMR, JAMS, MS, JR, JCP and IJRM by analyzing the bibliographic records obtained from the Scopus database. Recently, Scopus has been recognized as an excellent alternative to WOS because Scopus performs the same tasks as WOS. In addition, previous studies have discussed some of the advantages of Scopus (Mongeon and Paul-Hus, 2016). According to Scopus data (www.elsevier.com/solutions/scopus/content), the database contains 21,500 scientific journals published by over 5,000 international publishers.
3.3 Procedures
This study covers articles published between 1996 and 2021. The primary constraint when determining this date range was that some journals do not provide pre-1996 publication details on the Scopus and WOS databases. After selecting the relevant journals, 11,553 articles were identified. We then filtered the results according to our chosen date range and removed editorials, notes and letters. Subsequently, the total number of valid articles was reduced to 9,483. After completing the search process (on May 11, 2022), we downloaded all data obtained from Scopus in CSV format and transferred it to Excel. Because it is not possible to download over 2,000 data sets from Scopus simultaneously, we downloaded the data for each journal separately and then combined them into a single file. The document included fundamental indicators such as article, author, journal, publication year, citation, keywords and reference information.
4. Results
The analysis was limited to articles published in the eight top-tier marketing journals, and therefore, marketing research publications from other sources were excluded. Between 1996 and 2021, 9,483 articles were published in the selected journals. As of May 2022, these 9,483 articles (8,947 original research articles and 537 reviews) were cited a total of 1,032,457 times. The average number of citations (total number of citations/total number of papers) per article was 122.4.
4.1 Publication and citation structure of the eight top-tier journals
These eight top-tier journals published an average of 364 articles annually over the last 26 years. The year with the most publications (541) was 2021, and the year with the least publications (228) was 2000. Additional details about annual publication volumes are presented in Tables 2 and 3.
From 1996 to 2011, the annual number of articles published increased by 57%. In particular, 2011 was an active year, with 476 articles being published and each journal averaging nearly 60 articles. After 2011, productivity gradually declined, except for 2021. An analysis of the initial years of the journals demonstrates that they published between 200 and 300 articles each year, except for 1999. Since 2004, however, this number has never fallen below 300; this is likely due to an increase in submissions. For example, as of 2008, JM and JCR grew from four issues per year to six. However, providing an exact explanation is difficult because the number of articles submitted to each of the eight journals and their corresponding acceptance rates are not public information. Nonetheless, certain editorials provide insights. Notably, Shugan (2006) revealed that MS received fewer than 40 manuscripts in 1982. By 2004, however, that number had surged to 223, with 43 submissions being successfully published.
Meanwhile, the number of researchers is increasing (Merigó et al., 2015), and advancements in computer technologies have made information more accessible (Valenzuela et al., 2017). Therefore, even with acceptance rates remaining constant, the increasing number of submissions has resulted in a higher number of published articles. Similar increases can be observed in the bibliometric analyses of other marketing journals (Martínez-López et al., 2018).
Table 3 shows that the total citations, h-index and TC/TP ratios for JM are slightly higher than those of the other seven journals. This finding is consistent with previous research (Bauerly and Johnson, 2005; Svensson et al., 2008). In general, JM has maintained its leading position with an h-index of 260. This score indicates that 260 studies published in JM received at least 260 citations. A detailed comparison is provided in Table 3. Although JCR, JMR and JAMS have similar scores (Table 3), the scores of JCP and IJRM are declining, perhaps due to their narrow focus. The publication policies of the journals also differ. For example, while JMR publishes an average of 61.7 articles per year, JR publishes an average of 31.6.
4.2 Most productive and influential authors, universities and countries
This section presents the most productive and influential authors, universities and countries in marketing over the last 26 years within the selected journals. Table 4 lists the 30 most prolific and influential authors. Each author’s information, affiliated university and country of residence are also presented. However, the affiliated institution of each author at the time of publication was used when calculating the citation numbers for universities and countries. Therefore, a researcher may have previously earned citation points for a specific university or country despite currently working at a different institution or in a different country.
The rankings are based on the number of articles. When the number of published articles was identical, the citation numbers of the authors were consulted. In addition, a comprehensive view was achieved by providing the h-indexes of the authors. The 30 most prolific and influential authors received a total of 175,247 citations, constituting approximately 17% of all citations. Moreover, each author published an average of 50 articles in the eight top-tier journals, and combined, these 30 authors accounted for approximately 15% of all publications (9,483). Moreover, 80% of the top 30 authors worked at universities in the USA. Indeed, many of these journals are published in the USA, and many of the most prolific and influential authors are also based there. Some universities, such as the University of Florida, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the University of Southern California, host multiple researchers. Even now, some authors rank very high in terms of productivity compared to the pre-1996 period (Bakr et al., 2000).
Grewal D. is the most prolific author among the published authors in the eight top-tier journals. He published 104 articles and received 16,160 citations. In addition, Table 4 shows that Kumar V., Homburg, C. and Steenkamp J. B. E. M. recorded some of the highest citation counts, with over 10,000 citations each. Steenkamp, J. B. E. M., Palmatier, R. W., Verhoef, P. C. and Tellis, G. J. significantly impacted the marketing discipline in terms of article/citation ratio.
Table 5 ranks the most productive and influential universities, and similar to the previous analysis, it displays the h-indexes of the institutions. In addition, the world university rankings published by Times Higher Education (THE) were added to the table (THE, 2022). In this way, Table 5 provides the overall rankings of the universities with the best marketing departments. The most productive and influential universities account for approximately 60% of all citations (1,032,457). They also comprise approximately 62% of the total number of publications. Moreover, 86% of the universities on the list are in the USA. These results clearly demonstrate that North American universities act as gatekeepers in the marketing field (Pan and Zhang, 2014). The remaining four universities are in the Netherlands, Canada and Hong Kong. Although they do not belong to the top tier, similar results were obtained by analyzing institutions and countries in mid-tier journals (Merigó et al., 2015; Valenzuela et al., 2017). Therefore, this dominance in the marketing discipline is not limited to top-tier journals. Additionally, 76% of universities in the list belong to the top 100 universities, as determined by the THE rankings (THE, 2022) [4]. The top 10 universities (according to the THE rankings), which include Harvard University, Stanford University and the University of California, Berkeley, are among the most productive and influential institutions in marketing (Table 5).
Compared with previous studies, the University of Pennsylvania, Northwestern University and Columbia University maintained their rankings (Ford et al., 2010; Niemi, 1988b). Many of the universities that have produced pioneering marketing research, such as the University of Wisconsin and Harvard University, have maintained their place in the top 100 for many years (Bartels, 1951). Although lagging in terms of productivity, the University of Wisconsin–Madison (171.0), the University of Texas at Austin (140.7) and the University of Maryland, College Park (154.8) display high article/citation rates.
In total, 57.5% of the reviewed articles were produced in the USA, making it the most productive and influential country. Moreover, 61.3% of citations were of articles by authors at US institutions, as shown in Table 6. There are several factors that explain North American dominance in the marketing field. For example, many top-tier journals are based in the USA, and the roots of the marketing discipline are also in the USA (Shaw and Tamilia, 2001). Finally, English proficiency also influences this outcome (Man et al., 2004). Moreover, the USA continues to be the most productive and influential country in marketing, business administration and other social science disciplines. For example, similar results were obtained in a study conducted in the field of management (Podsakoff et al., 2008). Although there is a productivity gap between the USA and other countries, only a few countries recorded relatively low article/citation rates. The list also highlights countries with low productivity yet high article/citation rates, including Australia, Denmark, Switzerland, Portugal, Finland and Sweden.
In accordance with Merton’s (1968) assertion that a scientific contribution’s visibility is heightened when presented by an esteemed scientist, our examination of the data on authors, universities and countries reveals that articles authored by academics with extensive publication histories, academics who serve on editorial boards of top-tier journals and academics affiliated with esteemed business schools attract more attention than those by academics of lower standing (Bergh et al., 2006; Stremersch et al., 2007).
4.3 Most-cited articles among the eight top-tier journals
Table 7 presents the distribution of the 30 most-cited articles in the selected journals. These 30 articles, which were published between 1996 and 2021, received over 1,800 citations. Among the eight journals, JM accounts for 40% of the 30 most-cited studies. Moreover, it is noteworthy that none of the 30 most-cited articles were published by JCP or IJRM. The journals JM, JMR and JAMS may have received more citations because they have broader scopes than JCP and IJRM. For example, the two studies published by JR are rather general. In this regard, the journals have slightly diverged from their original scope to publish more citable studies over the past few years (Stremersch et al., 2007).
The most-cited study (7,719 citations) among the eight journals was titled “Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing,” which created a new paradigm for discussion. In the study, the authors presented a marketing perspective on the exchange of services that was broader and more integrated than the dominant paradigms. The discussion they initiated on value creation continued to resonate in the ensuing years (e.g. Grönroos and Voima, 2013). The article receives an average of 428 citations per year. Its impact on the marketing discipline is so significant that the articles listed 8 and 28 also focus on this topic.
The second article is titled “A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling.” Although this article was published in 2015, it has been cited 7,339 times and receives an average of 1,048 citations annually. In this article, the researchers question the Fornell–Larcker criterion, which is the dominant approach to discriminant validity, offering a superior alternative approach.
The third article is “The behavioral consequences of service quality,” which discusses a controversial area of marketing theory. Although the article was published in 1996, it receives an average of 230 citations per year and exerts a significant influence on the field. Moreover, the inclusion of eight methodological research articles within the initial 30 publications underscores the significance of rigor within the marketing field (Reibstein et al., 2009).
Table 7 presents the most-cited articles. However, it is essential to examine which articles the 9,438 reviewed refer to the most. Unlike previous analyses, this section used VOSviewer (van Eck and Waltman, 2010). Articles cited at least 55 times are presented in Table 8 and are listed alphabetically according to author. Notably, several articles published in psychology and economics journals are heavily cited by articles in the eight top-tier journals. These results are not surprising, given the relationship between marketing and these two disciplines (Hunt et al., 2022). However, it should also be noted that approximately 60% of the 40 sources are from the top-eight journals themselves.
4.4 Most common keywords in the eight top-tier journals
Table 9 presents the 30 most-used keywords. Keywords are essential for determining which topics are frequently studied. Among the most used keywords are “pricing,” “advertising,” “retailing” and “customer satisfaction,” which are central topics in marketing. This may indicate that the eight top-tier journals publish management school-oriented articles. Keywords such as “consumer behavior” and “relationship marketing” displayed low productivity but performed above average in annual citations. The article/citation ratio achieved by word-of-mouth and market orientation contains several implications regarding the future of marketing.
4.5 Subject areas and journals citing the eight top-tier journals
As per Cote et al.’s (1992) assertion, the impact of marketing is most pronounced in business studies. During the first period (see Table 10), 41% of citations were from the fields of business, management and accounting; this figure slipped slightly to 39%, 37%, 37% and 39%, respectively. Moreover, the most influential areas are social sciences, economics and psychology. Some rare examples of nonmarketing journals among the most-cited journals include Sustainability Switzerland and Frontiers in Psychology.
4.6 Graphical analysis of the eight top-tier journals using VOSviewer
Finally, this study also visually mapped the bibliometric material using VOSviewer. VOSviewer builds maps that display coauthorship, co-occurrence, citation, bibliographic coupling and co-citation. To further the analyses of the previous six chapters, we performed graphical mapping to generate visualizations.
First, we examined the co-citation of the eight top-tier journals. This analysis allows for a more detailed visualization of the data. Co-citation was defined as the frequency with which two documents or journals are cited together (Small, 1973). Figure 1 represents the most-cited journals, and the connections show the journals that were cited together. Due to the large number of samples, the minimum number of citations of a source was determined to be 1,000. As a result, among the 62,827 sources, only 27 met the threshold, as shown in Figure 1. The results show that JM is clustered with management journals and other marketing journals, while JCR is clustered with psychology journals. Meanwhile, JMR is located between the two journals.
Next, the most-cited authors and connections are represented in Figure 2. Similarly, because of the large number of samples, the minimum number of citations for each author was set at 1,200. As a result, of the 142,611, 32 meet the threshold, as shown in Figure 2. It must be noted that different results were obtained from the periodic analysis (Table 8). In addition to the most prolific writers (e.g. Kumar, Steenkamp and Grewal), the most influential marketing scholars, including Bagozzi, Zeithaml, Parasuraman and Petty, are also shown on the map.
Third, the map of the most productive countries was examined using the bibliographic coupling method. Bibliographic coupling analysis assumes that scientific research creates bibliographic couples via the citation of similar sources (Kessler, 1963). As Figure 3 shows, 36 of the 274 countries meet the threshold. Note that the minimum number of documents for a country was set at ten. In addition, as highlighted earlier, the dominance of the USA is evident.
Finally, the leading keywords of the top eight were analyzed (Figure 4). The cooccurrence of author keywords was used to identify the most frequently used keywords and the documents in which they are most commonly used (Merigó et al., 2018). For the same reasons listed above, the minimum number of occurrences of a keyword was set at 50. As a result, 32 of the 13,987 keywords met the threshold. Similar to the keyword analysis results (Table 9), advertising, pricing, game theory, retailing and customer satisfaction were the most common.
5. Conclusions
In this study, the current state of the marketing discipline was determined by analyzing the content of eight top-tier marketing journals. Only original research and review articles published in journals between 1996 and 2021 were included in the study. The 9,483 identified articles were cited 1,032,457 times over a 26-year period. The annual average number of citations was 122.4.
From 1996 to 2011, the number of published articles steadily increased. This may be due to an increase in the number of researchers (Merigó et al., 2015) and the ease of accessing information enabled by advancements in computer technologies (Valenzuela et al., 2017). However, after 2011, productivity slowed again. It is unclear whether these journals changed their policies, as they do not disclose information about the number of submitted manuscripts and acceptance rates. An inevitable decrease in the number of citations began in 2011. The main reason for this was the short lifespans of articles (Wang, 2013). Conversely, the results were quite similar when annual citations were examined (see Table 2).
The journal JM maintained its top position in terms of citations, as reported in previous studies (Bauerly and Johnson, 2005; Svensson et al., 2008). Moreover, JM was followed by JCR and JAMS, which recorded TC/TP ratios over 100. However, JR, JMR, MS, JCP and IJRM lagged behind these three (Table 3).
The most productive and influential authors, universities and countries were also analyzed to grasp the general situation of the marketing discipline. Grewal, D. was found to be the most prolific writer. He has published 104 articles in eight journals. Meanwhile, Kumar, V., Homburg, C. and Steenkamp J. B. E. M. all recorded over 10,000 citations each, demonstrating the effectiveness of their scholarship. Moreover, authors such as Steenkamp J. B. E. M., Palmatier R. W., Verhoef, P. C. and Tellis, G. J. had high paper/citation ratios. It is notable that 80% of the authors worked in the USA.
Regarding universities, the University of Pennsylvania ranked first by a wide margin. Subsequent universities, such as Duke University, Columbia University, Northwestern University and the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, each had published nearly 300 articles in the selected journals. Many universities that were central to the development of the marketing discipline (Bartels, 1951) appeared on the list. In addition, this paper conveyed the world rankings of universities and highlighted their overall status.
As predicted from the results regarding authors and universities, the most active country was the USA, with 57.5% of the review articles and 61.3% of the citations being attributable to the USA. Except for IJMR and JCR, all five journals are based in the USA; this directly affected the study’s outcome. For example, even though the USA was the top contributor to the European Journal of Marketing (Martínez-López et al., 2018), no such dominance was created in terms of country-wide distribution. Thus, it appears that a relatively low proportion of authors, universities and countries have a strong influence on other researchers in the discipline.
The article with the most citations (7,719) among the eight top-tier journals was titled “Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing.” This article was published in 2004 and caused a paradigm shift. The second most-cited article (7,339), titled “A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling,” presented a superior methodology. The article with the third most citations (5,994), titled “The behavioral consequences of service quality,” discussed a highly controversial marketing issue. In addition, eight of the 30 most-cited articles focused on methodological issues, revealing the importance given to rigor in marketing (Reibstein et al., 2009). Moreover, this work also identified the most-cited sources. Five of the journals did not refer to sources other than their own regarding marketing. The fact that the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology and Econometrica appear on the list demonstrates the influence of psychology and the economy on marketing (Horsky and Sen, 1980).
The most commonly used keywords were analyzed. The main marketing topics, such as advertising, pricing, retailing and customer satisfaction, ranked in the top five on the table. Although the productivity of consumer behavior and relationship marketing was low, their effectiveness was above average. Moreover, the efficiency of word-of-mouth and internet marketing keywords was relatively high.
The impact of the marketing literature on other disciplines has long been debated (Simonson et al., 2001). Because marketing is a relatively new discipline, it has borrowed theories from other disciplines, such as sociology, psychology and economics, while contributing few theories of its own. However, this trend is expected to stabilize over time. Meanwhile, it is difficult to say whether significant progress has been made in the last 26 years. See Table 11.
This study provided a comprehensive view of the marketing discipline by evaluating eight top-tier journals. The differences among the journals in terms of authors, universities and countries were also identified. For example, JM and JAMS were found to be similar in terms of author distribution, whereas JCR showed clear differences from other journals. In the distribution of universities, some journals appeared largely egalitarian; however, some universities dominated overall publication statistics. The USA was the clear leader, followed by Germany, Canada, The Netherlands and Hong Kong. Finally, the reliability of the findings was ensured and further enriched through VOSviewer.
6. Limitations and future research direction
This study also contained several limitations, some of which offer opportunities for future research. First, our research was limited to the output of eight journals from 1996 to 2021. In addition, we excluded editorials, notes, conference proceedings and letters. However, we believe that this study constitutes the most comprehensive endeavor to determine journal, university and author influence in the field of marketing. Therefore, future research should examine aspects of our study in the context of mid-tier marketing journals. Second, the research used only the Scopus database because many bibliometric tools cannot be performed or combined when using two databases. Systematic literature reviews and bibliometric studies in the social sciences often rely on a single database to address the concerns related to data homogenization that arise when using multiple databases (Mariani et al., 2022). Therefore, future studies using the WOS database could provide an opportunity for an appropriate comparison. Third, our study relied on a cross-sectional research design, which implies that the results may fluctuate in the following years due to the dynamic nature of citations. Therefore, our study may need to be periodically updated. Finally, the present study was designed as a bibliometric analysis and did not actually present a fully systematic and integrative literature review that includes all of the relevant theoretical, methodologic and empirical contributions of eight journals to the field of marketing.
Figures
Summary of studies examining scholarly ınfluence in the field of marketing
| A | JC | UI | CI | JI | AI | IO | IA | MCS | KA | P |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Niemi (1988a) | JM, JMR, JR, JCR | + | − | − | − | − | − | − | − | 1975–1985 |
| Cote et al. (1992) | JM, JMR | − | − | − | − | + | + | − | − | 1965–1986 |
| Bakr et al. (2000) | JAMS, JCR, JM, JMR, JR, MS | + | − | − | + | − | − | − | − | 1991–1998 |
| Cheng et al. (2003) | 20 major marketing journals | + | − | − | + | − | − | − | − | 1991–2000 |
| Guidry et al. (2004) | JAMS, JCR, JM, JMR, JR, MS | − | − | + | − | − | − | + | − | 1997–2001 |
| Stremersch and Verhoef (2005) | JM, JMR, JCR, MS, IJRM | − | + | − | − | − | − | − | − | 1964–2002 |
| Svensson et al. (2008) | JCR, JM, JMR, JR, JAMS, MS | − | + | − | − | − | − | − | − | 2000–2006 |
| Ford et al. (2010) | JM, JMR, JCR, JAMS | + | − | − | + | − | − | − | − | 1977–2002 |
| Baumgartner (2010) | JCR, JM, JMR | − | − | + | + | − | − | − | − | 1936–2009 |
| Chan et al. (2012) | JAMS, JCR, JM, JMR, JR, MS, EJM, IJRM, JBR | + | − | − | + | − | + | + | − | 2000–2009 |
| Sheoran et al. (2018) | Scimago top 10 marketing journals | + | + | − | + | − | + | + | + | Different for each journal |
| Nicolas et al. (2020) | The most 30 influential journals | − | − | + | − | − | − | − | + | 1990–2017 |
Notes: A = article; JC = journals covered; UI = university influence; CI = country influence; JI = journal influence; AI = author influence; IOD = influence on other disciplines; IA = influential articles; MCS = most cited sources; KA = keyword analysis; P = period
Annual publication and citation structure of the eight top-tier journals
| Y | TP | TC | TC/Y | TC/TP |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1996 | 274 | 47,296 | 1,819.1 | 172.6 |
| 1997 | 271 | 51,282 | 2,051.3 | 189.2 |
| 1998 | 271 | 57,281 | 2,386.7 | 211.4 |
| 1999 | 317 | 55,961 | 2,433.1 | 176.5 |
| 2000 | 228 | 60,271 | 2,739.6 | 264.3 |
| 2001 | 236 | 56,678 | 2,699.0 | 240.2 |
| 2002 | 270 | 55,809 | 2,790.5 | 206.7 |
| 2003 | 238 | 50,779 | 2,672.6 | 213.4 |
| 2004 | 318 | 65,746 | 3,652.6 | 206.7 |
| 2005 | 347 | 55,037 | 3,237.5 | 158.6 |
| 2006 | 376 | 54,185 | 3,386.6 | 144.1 |
| 2007 | 373 | 45,783 | 3,052.2 | 122.7 |
| 2008 | 415 | 49,653 | 3,546.6 | 119.6 |
| 2009 | 473 | 47,507 | 3,654.4 | 100.4 |
| 2010 | 453 | 51,049 | 4,254.1 | 112.7 |
| 2011 | 476 | 41,797 | 3,799.7 | 87.8 |
| 2012 | 449 | 43,513 | 4,351.3 | 96.9 |
| 2013 | 402 | 26,960 | 2,995.6 | 67.1 |
| 2014 | 430 | 23,488 | 2,936.0 | 54.6 |
| 2015 | 356 | 27,006 | 3,858.0 | 75.9 |
| 2016 | 415 | 21,142 | 3,523.7 | 50.9 |
| 2017 | 416 | 18,839 | 3,767.8 | 45.3 |
| 2018 | 382 | 8,561 | 2,140.3 | 22.4 |
| 2019 | 389 | 8,822 | 2,940.7 | 22.7 |
| 2020 | 394 | 5,650 | 2,825.0 | 14.3 |
| 2021 | 514 | 2,362 | 2,362.0 | 4.6 |
| TY = 26 | TP = 9,483 | TC = 1,032,457 | M = 3,072.1 | M = 1,22.4 |
Notes: TP = total paper; TC = total citation; Y = year; M = mean
Comparison of the eight top-tier journals
| J | TP | TP/Y | h-index | <2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | TC | TC/TP |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| JM | 1,258 | 48.4 | 260 | 156,761 | 19,343 | 20,874 | 24,322 | 221.300 | 183.8 |
| JCR | 1,490 | 57.3 | 201 | 102,881 | 13,932 | 16,639 | 17,712 | 151.164 | 101.4 |
| JAMS | 1,029 | 39.6 | 190 | 77,057 | 11,718 | 13,168 | 16,559 | 118.502 | 115.1 |
| JMR | 1,604 | 61.7 | 187 | 88,972 | 11,591 | 12,755 | 14,107 | 127.425 | 79.4 |
| JR | 821 | 31.6 | 147 | 53,375 | 7,081 | 7,804 | 8,855 | 77.115 | 93.9 |
| MS | 1,252 | 48.2 | 142 | 50,230 | 6,259 | 6,723 | 7,396 | 70.608 | 56.3 |
| JCP | 1,108 | 42.6 | 125 | 32,038 | 5,504 | 6,403 | 7,500 | 51.445 | 46.4 |
| IJRM | 921 | 35.4 | 110 | 30,507 | 4,355 | 4,850 | 5,801 | 45.531 | 48.9 |
Notes: J = journal; TP = total paper; Y = year; TC = total citation
Most productive and ınfluential authors in the eight top-tier journals
| A | C | TP | h-index | TC | TC/TP | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Grewal, D. | USA | 104 | 53 | 16,160 | 155.4 |
| 2 | Kumar, V. | India | 93 | 50 | 10,753 | 115.6 |
| 3 | Homburg, C. | UK | 70 | 45 | 10,296 | 147.1 |
| 4 | Dahl, D.W. | Canada | 60 | 37 | 5,374 | 89.6 |
| 5 | Steenkamp, J.B.E.M. | USA | 59 | 46 | 15,801 | 267.8 |
| 6 | Krishna, A. | USA | 58 | 33 | 4,217 | 72.7 |
| 7 | Wedel, M. | USA | 56 | 36 | 5,906 | 105.5 |
| 8 | Chintagunta, P.K. | USA | 55 | 27 | 3,089 | 56.2 |
| 9 | Grewal, R. | USA | 50 | 29 | 4,640 | 92.8 |
| 10 | Lehmann, D.R. | USA | 50 | 31 | 6,425 | 128.5 |
| 11 | Dhar, R. | USA | 48 | 32 | 6,273 | 130.7 |
| 12 | Dekimpe, M.G. | Belgium | 47 | 30 | 3,941 | 83.9 |
| 13 | Janiszewski, C. | USA | 46 | 29 | 4,635 | 100.8 |
| 14 | Palmatier, R.W. | USA | 45 | 34 | 7,549 | 167.8 |
| 15 | Shugan, S.M. | USA | 45 | 19 | 1,981 | 44.0 |
| 16 | Simonson, I. | USA | 44 | 28 | 4,980 | 113.2 |
| 17 | Verhoef, P.C. | Netherlands | 44 | 34 | 9,406 | 213.8 |
| 18 | Wyer, R.S. | USA | 44 | 27 | 2,244 | 51.0 |
| 19 | Allenby, G.M. | USA | 42 | 21 | 2,508 | 59.7 |
| 20 | Tellis, G.J. | USA | 41 | 33 | 7,197 | 175.5 |
| 21 | Mittal, V. | USA | 40 | 24 | 4,965 | 124.1 |
| 22 | Stremersch, S. | Spain | 40 | 23 | 2,899 | 72.5 |
| 23 | Inman, J.J. | USA | 39 | 28 | 5,181 | 132.8 |
| 24 | Luo, X. | USA | 39 | 28 | 5,380 | 137.9 |
| 25 | Pieters, R. | Netherlands | 39 | 29 | 4,923 | 126.2 |
| 26 | Fitzsimons, G.J. | USA | 38 | 28 | 4,010 | 105.5 |
| 27 | Shankar, V. | USA | 38 | 26 | 5,393 | 141.9 |
| 28 | Srinivasan, K. | USA | 38 | 23 | 2,552 | 67.2 |
| 29 | Mela, C.F. | USA | 37 | 25 | 3,205 | 86.6 |
| 30 | Schwarz, N. | USA | 37 | 22 | 3,364 | 90.9 |
Notes: A = author; C = country; TP = total paper; TC = total citation
Most productive and ınfluential universities in the eight top-tier journals
| # | U | C | THE | TP | h-index | TC | TP/TC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | University of Pennsylvania | USA | 13 | 376 | 103 | 36,221 | 96.3 |
| 2 | Duke University | USA | 23 | 285 | 89 | 32,986 | 115.7 |
| 3 | Columbia University | USA | 11 | 284 | 83 | 26,807 | 94.4 |
| 4 | Northwestern University | USA | 24 | 277 | 90 | 28,501 | 102.9 |
| 5 | University of Michigan, Ann Arbor | USA | 24 | 272 | 85 | 29,553 | 108.7 |
| 6 | New York University | USA | 26 | 242 | 79 | 19,282 | 79.7 |
| 7 | The University of Texas at Austin | USA | 47 | 235 | 85 | 33,071 | 140.7 |
| 8 | University of Southern California | USA | 63 | 228 | 83 | 24,472 | 107.3 |
| 9 | Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam | Netherlands | 72 | 226 | 72 | 19,493 | 86.3 |
| 10 | The University of Chicago | USA | 10 | 225 | 65 | 16,195 | 72.0 |
| 11 | University of Florida | USA | 154 | 206 | 65 | 15,980 | 77.6 |
| 12 | University of Maryland, College Park | USA | 93 | 204 | 76 | 31,584 | 154.8 |
| 13 | Pennsylvania State University | USA | 119 | 202 | 69 | 21,261 | 105.3 |
| 14 | Tilburg University | Netherlands | 201–250 | 200 | 75 | 17,612 | 88.1 |
| 15 | University of Minnesota Twin Cities | USA | 86 | 194 | 68 | 16,639 | 85.8 |
| 16 | Stanford University | USA | 4 | 191 | 71 | 16,833 | 88.1 |
| 17 | Indiana University Bloomington | USA | 167 | 185 | 68 | 19,076 | 103.1 |
| 18 | University of California, Los Angeles | USA | 20 | 173 | 71 | 20,424 | 118.1 |
| 19 | University of Wisconsin-Madison | USA | 58 | 163 | 75 | 27,875 | 171.0 |
| 20 | University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign | USA | 48 | 160 | 65 | 20,789 | 129.9 |
Notes: U = university; C = country; THE = times higher education university ranking; TP = total paper; TC = total citation
Most productive and ınfluential countries in the eight top-tier journals
| # | C | TP | h-index | TC | TP/TC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | USA | 6,960 | 201 | 741,332 | 106.5 |
| 2 | Canada | 710 | 134 | 65,388 | 92.1 |
| 3 | Netherlands | 651 | 128 | 74,045 | 113.7 |
| 4 | Germany | 518 | 103 | 51,761 | 99.9 |
| 5 | United Kingdom | 442 | 99 | 36,750 | 83.1 |
| 7 | Australia | 351 | 89 | 44,510 | 126.8 |
| 6 | Hong Kong | 333 | 79 | 26,931 | 80.9 |
| 8 | China | 274 | 53 | 11,048 | 40.3 |
| 10 | France | 252 | 71 | 20,000 | 79.4 |
| 9 | Singapore | 229 | 66 | 14,706 | 64.2 |
| 13 | Belgium | 165 | 62 | 16,240 | 98.4 |
| 12 | Israel | 139 | 48 | 9,042 | 65.1 |
| 11 | South Korea | 133 | 48 | 11,988 | 90.1 |
| 15 | India | 101 | 36 | 6,495 | 64.3 |
| 18 | Spain | 100 | 36 | 4,601 | 46.0 |
| 16 | Switzerland | 96 | 45 | 11,316 | 117.9 |
| 14 | Turkey | 91 | 47 | 8,632 | 94.9 |
| 19 | Italy | 82 | 34 | 6,292 | 76.7 |
| 17 | New Zealand | 78 | 42 | 5,608 | 71.9 |
| 20 | Norway | 62 | 32 | 6,482 | 104.5 |
| 21 | Austria | 58 | 29 | 4,054 | 69.9 |
| 22 | Denmark | 45 | 30 | 4,778 | 106.2 |
| 25 | Taiwan | 39 | 23 | 2,636 | 67.6 |
| 23 | Portugal | 36 | 22 | 10,667 | 296.3 |
| 24 | Finland | 35 | 24 | 3,542 | 101.2 |
| 26 | Sweden | 33 | 23 | 4,528 | 137.2 |
| 27 | Japan | 28 | 11 | 1,355 | 48.4 |
| 29 | Brazil | 27 | 15 | 1,394 | 51.6 |
| 28 | Greece | 19 | 17 | 2,032 | 106.9 |
| 30 | Chile | 16 | 12 | 1,031 | 64.4 |
Notes: C = country; TP = total paper; TC = total citation
Most cited articles in the eight top-tier journals
| # | A | J | Y | TC | TC/PY |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Vargo and Lusch (2004) | JM | 2004 | 7,719 | 428.8 |
| 2 | Henseler et al. (2015) | JAMS | 2015 | 7,339 | 1,048.4 |
| 3 | Zeithaml et al. (1996) | JM | 1996 | 5,994 | 230.5 |
| 4 | Zhao et al. (2010) | JCR | 2010 | 5,388 | 449.0 |
| 5 | Oliver (1999) | JM | 1999 | 4,542 | 197.5 |
| 6 | Doney and Cannon (1997) | JM | 1997 | 3,960 | 158.4 |
| 7 | Fournier (1998) | JCR | 1998 | 3,882 | 161.8 |
| 8 | Vargo and Lusch (2008) | JAMS | 2008 | 3,844 | 274.6 |
| 9 | Cronin et al. (2000) | JR | 2000 | 3,591 | 163.2 |
| 10 | Hair et al. (2012) | JAMS | 2012 | 3,409 | 340.9 |
| 11 | Jarvis et al. (2003) | JCR | 2003 | 3,349 | 176.3 |
| 12 | Chevalier and Mayzlin (2006) | JMR | 2006 | 3,348 | 209.3 |
| 13 | Steenkamp and Baumgartner (1998) | JCR | 1998 | 3,208 | 133.7 |
| 14 | Aaker (1997) | JMR | 1997 | 3,195 | 127.8 |
| 15 | Hoffman and Novak (1996) | JM | 1996 | 3,045 | 117.1 |
| 16 | Muniz Jr. and O’Guinn (2001) | JCR | 2001 | 2,980 | 141.9 |
| 17 | Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001) | JM | 2001 | 2,910 | 138.6 |
| 18 | Diamantopoulos and Winklhofer (2001) | JMR | 2001 | 2,878 | 137.0 |
| 19 | Sweeney and Soutar (2001) | JR | 2001 | 2,868 | 136.6 |
| 20 | Garbarino and Johnson (1999) | JM | 1999 | 2,611 | 113.5 |
| 21 | Fornell et al. (1996) | JM | 1996 | 2,464 | 94.8 |
| 22 | Woodruff (1997) | JAMS | 1997 | 2,452 | 98.1 |
| 23 | Sen and Bhattacharya (2001) | JMR | 2001 | 2,407 | 114.6 |
| 24 | Hurley and Hult (1998) | JM | 1998 | 2,300 | 95.8 |
| 25 | Brown and Dacin (1997) | JM | 1997 | 2,189 | 87.6 |
| 26 | Sirdeshmukh et al. (2002) | JM | 2002 | 2,113 | 105.7 |
| 27 | Kozinets (2002) | JMR | 2002 | 1,974 | 98.7 |
| 28 | Payne et al. (2008) | JAMS | 2008 | 1,954 | 139.6 |
| 29 | Novak et al. (2000) | MS | 2000 | 1,815 | 82.5 |
| 30 | Brady and Cronin (2001) | JM | 2001 | 1,815 | 86.4 |
Notes: A = article; J = journal; Y = year; TC/PY = total citation per year
Most cited sources in the eight top-tier journals
| # | R | S |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Aiken and West (1991) | Newbury park, Ca: Sage (book) |
| 2 | Anderson and Gerbing (1988) | Psychological Bulletin |
| 3 | Bagozzi and Yi (1988) | JAMS |
| 4 | Barney (1991) | Journal of Management |
| 5 | Baron and Kenny (1986) | Journal of Personality and Social Psychology |
| 6 | Belk (1988) | JCR |
| 7 | Berry et al. (1995) | Econometrica |
| 8 | Bettman et al. (1998) | JCR |
| 9 | Bolton (1998) | MS |
| 10 | Chevalier and Mayzlin (2006) | JMR |
| 11 | Escalas and Bettman (2005) | JCR |
| 12 | Fornell and Larcker (1981) | JMR |
| 13 | Fournier (1998) | JCR |
| 14 | Friestad and Wright (1994) | JCR |
| 15 | Germann et al. (2015) | JM |
| 16 | Godes and Mayzlin (2004) | MS |
| 17 | Heckman (2013) | Econometrica |
| 18 | Jaworski and Kohli (1993) | JM |
| 19 | Kahneman and Tversky (1979) | Econometrica |
| 20 | Keller (1993) | JM |
| 21 | Lemon and Verhoef (2016) | JM |
| 22 | Lindell and Whitney (2001) | Journal of Applied Psychology |
| 23 | Morgan and Hunt (1994) | JM |
| 24 | Nunally (1978) | New York: Mcgraw-Hill (Book) |
| 25 | Podsakoff et al. (2003) | Journal of Applied Psychology |
| 26 | Preacher and Hayes (2008) | Behavior Research Methods |
| 27 | Preacher et al. (2007) | Multivariate Behavioral Research |
| 28 | Prelec and Loewenstein (1998) | MS |
| 29 | Schwarz (2004) | JCP |
| 30 | Spencer et al. (2005) | Journal of Personality and Social Psychology |
| 31 | Spiller et al. (2013) | JMR |
| 32 | Srivastava et al. (1998) | JM |
| 33 | Thaler (1985) | MS |
| 34 | Trope and Liberman (2010) | Psychological Review |
| 35 | Trope and Liberman (2003) | Psychological Review |
| 36 | Vargo and Lusch (2004) | JM |
| 37 | Watson et al. (1988) | Journal of Personality and Social Psychology |
| 38 | Wertenbroch (1998) | MS |
| 39 | Zeithaml et al. (1996) | JM |
| 40 | Zhao et al. (2010) | JCR |
Notes: R = reference; S = source
Most common keywords in the eight top-tier journals
| # | K | TP | h-index | TC | TC/TP |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Pricing | 238 | 57 | 11,244 | 47.2 |
| 2 | Advertising | 230 | 62 | 13,932 | 60.6 |
| 3 | Retailing | 172 | 58 | 13,243 | 77.0 |
| 4 | Game theory | 158 | 45 | 6,771 | 42.9 |
| 5 | Customer satisfaction | 132 | 62 | 13,433 | 101.8 |
| 6 | Word of mouth | 105 | 51 | 17,135 | 163.2 |
| 7 | Competition | 97 | 38 | 6,519 | 67.2 |
| 8 | Consumer behavior | 95 | 49 | 14,035 | 147.7 |
| 9 | Marketing strategy | 92 | 45 | 10,722 | 116.5 |
| 10 | Innovation | 87 | 44 | 7,987 | 91.8 |
| 11 | Meta-analysis | 83 | 51 | 10,565 | 127.3 |
| 12 | Social media | 79 | 41 | 7,189 | 91.0 |
| 13 | Customer relationship management | 78 | 43 | 7,358 | 94.3 |
| 14 | Branding | 76 | 40 | 6,956 | 91.5 |
| 15 | Decision-making | 68 | 31 | 5,289 | 77.8 |
| 16 | Brand equity | 63 | 39 | 6,523 | 103.5 |
| 17 | Field experiment | 63 | 29 | 2,850 | 45.2 |
| 18 | Choice models | 61 | 26 | 3,991 | 65.4 |
| 19 | Social influence | 60 | 27 | 4,388 | 73.1 |
| 20 | Relationship marketing | 58 | 43 | 7,419 | 127.9 |
| 21 | Field experiments | 56 | 23 | 1,986 | 35.5 |
| 22 | Motivation | 56 | 28 | 2,251 | 40.2 |
| 23 | E-commerce | 55 | 25 | 5,331 | 96.9 |
| 24 | Social networks | 55 | 37 | 6,279 | 114.2 |
| 25 | Persuasion | 54 | 24 | 2,263 | 41.9 |
| 26 | Satisfaction | 53 | 34 | 8,877 | 167.5 |
| 27 | Customer lifetime value | 52 | 32 | 4,059 | 78.1 |
| 28 | Sustainability | 52 | 32 | 6,282 | 120.8 |
| 29 | Choice | 51 | 23 | 1,718 | 33.7 |
| 30 | Market orientation | 51 | 40 | 7,444 | 146.0 |
Notes: K = keyword; TP = total paper; TC = total citation
Subject areas and journals citing the eight top-tier journals
| # | SA (1996–2000) | AN | J | AN |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Business, Management and Accounting | 89,475 | Journal of Business Research | 3,156 |
| 2 | Social sciences | 29,093 | Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services | 1,592 |
| 3 | Economics, econometrics and Finance | 25,223 | Industrial Marketing Management | 1,527 |
| 4 | Computer science | 19,893 | Sustainability Switzerland | 1,236 |
| 5 | Psychology | 12,973 | Journal of Marketing Research | 1,188 |
| SA (2001–2005) | ||||
| 1 | Business, Management and Accounting %64 | 87,387 | Journal of Business Research | 3,126 |
| 2 | Social sciences | 30,066 | Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services | 1,687 |
| 3 | Economics, econometrics and Finance | 25,521 | Industrial Marketing Management | 1,436 |
| 4 | Computer science | 22,580 | Sustainability Switzerland | 1,424 |
| 5 | Psychology | 14,368 | European journal of Marketing | 1,253 |
| SA (2006–2010) | ||||
| 1 | Business, Management and Accounting | 70,717 | Journal of Business Research | 2,893 |
| 2 | Social sciences | 25,675 | Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services | 1,500 |
| 3 | Economics, econometrics and Finance | 21,522 | Sustainability Switzerland | 1,496 |
| 4 | Computer science | 17,801 | Industrial Marketing Management | 1,200 |
| 5 | Psychology | 15,486 | European journal of Marketing | 1,006 |
| SA (2011–2015) | ||||
| 1 | Business, Management and Accounting | 47,676 | Journal of Business Research | 2,192 |
| 2 | Social sciences | 18,476 | Sustainability Switzerland | 1,558 |
| 3 | Economics, econometrics and Finance | 13,764 | Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services | 1,239 |
| 4 | Computer science | 12,442 | Industrial Marketing Management | 849 |
| 5 | Psychology | 10,332 | Frontiers in Psychology | 844 |
| SA (2016–2021) | ||||
| 1 | Business, Management and Accounting | 14,138 | Journal of Business Research | 954 |
| 2 | Social sciences | 4,775 | Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services | 590 |
| 3 | Computer science | 3,848 | Sustainability Switzerland | 565 |
| 4 | Economics, econometrics and Finance | 3,561 | Psychology and Marketing | 284 |
| 5 | Psychology | 2,730 | Frontiers in Psychology | 282 |
Notes: SA = subject area; AN = article number; J = journal
Main conclusions and ımplications
| Conclusions | Theoretical and managerial implications |
|---|---|
| This investigation afforded a thorough perspective on the marketing discipline through the assessment of eight top-tier journals. Noteworthy distinctions in terms of authors, affiliations and geographic origins among the journals were also discerned | Regarding journal editors, a primary consideration pertains to the awareness of potential domain-specific influences. We have identified specific subject areas characterized by a tendency for articles to garner citations exceeding the average Concerning faculty boards, the assessment of individual faculty members' accomplishments becomes significantly contingent upon the perceptions of academic journals. We conducted a performance benchmark analysis of eight top-tier journals spanning the preceding 26 years Ultimately, the findings of this study can serve as valuable insights for researchers in formulating a publication strategy aligned with their specific objectives. Through this study, scholars have the opportunity to formulate strategies centered on the themes under exploration. Furthermore, they can discern the most influential journals within the discipline and pinpoint their research nodes |
Notes
Due to space limitations of the journal, detailed versions of the tables can be accessed from this link. In addition, the references of the articles in the tables are available here: https://data.mendeley.com/datasets/rbhfmx8cyw/1
References
Ali, F., Park, E., Kwon, J. and Chae, B. (2019), “30 years of contemporary hospitality management: uncovering the bibliometrics and topical trends”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 31 No. 7, pp. 2641-2665.
Baier-Fuentes, H., Merigó, J.M., Amorós, J.E. and Gaviria-Marín, M. (2019), “International entrepreneurship: a bibliometric overview”, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 385-429.
Baker, H.K., Pandey, N., Kumar, S. and Haldar, A. (2020), “A bibliometric analysis of board diversity: current status, development, and future research directions”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 108, pp. 232-246.
Bakr, A., Vitell, S.J. and Rose, G.M. (2000), “Publications in major marketing journals: an analysis of scholars and marketing departments”, Journal of Marketing Education, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 99-107.
Bartels, R. (1951), “Influences on the development of marketing thought, 1900-1923”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 1-17.
Bauerly, R.J. and Johnson, D.T. (2005), “An evaluation of journals used in doctoral marketing programs”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 313-329.
Baumgartner, H. (2010), “Bibliometric reflections on the history of consumer research”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 233-238.
Bergh, D.D., Perry, J. and Hanke, R. (2006), “Some predictors of SJM article impact”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 81-100.
Broadus, R.N. (1987), “Toward a definition of ‘bibliometrics’”, Scientometrics, Vol. 12 Nos 5/6, pp. 373-379.
Chan, K.C., Lai, P. and Liano, K. (2012), “A threshold citation analysis in marketing research”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 46 Nos 1/2, pp. 134-156.
Cheng, L.T.W., Chan, K.C. and Chan, R.Y.K. (2003), “Publications in major marketing journals: an analysis of research productivity of Asia-pacific universities”, Journal of Marketing Education, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 163-176.
Chevalier, J.A. and Mayzlin, D. (2006), “The effect of word of mouth on sales: online book reviews”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 345-354.
Cobo, M.J., López-Herrera, A.G., Herrera-Viedma, E. and Herrera, F. (2011), “Science mapping software tools: review, analysis, and cooperative study among tools”, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 62 No. 7, pp. 1382-1402.
Cote, J.A., Leong, S.M. and Cote, J. (1992), “Assessing the influence of marketing research on the social science literature”, Marketing Letters, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 251-258.
Cronin, J.J., Jr, Brady, M.K. and Hult, G.T.M. (2000), “Assessing the effects of quality, value, and customer satisfaction on consumer behavioral intentions in service environments”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 76 No. 2, pp. 193-218.
Doney, P.M. and Cannon, J.P. (1997), “An examination of the nature of trust in buyer-seller relationships”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 61 No. 2, pp. 35-51.
Donthu, N., Kumar, S. and Pattnaik, D. (2020), “Forty-five years of Journal of Business Research: a bibliometric analysis”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 109, pp. 1-14.
Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N. and Lim, W.M. (2021), “How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: an overview and guidelines”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 133, pp. 285-296.
El-Ansary, A., Shaw, E.H. and Lazer, W. (2018), “Marketing’s identity crisis: insights from the history of marketing thought”, AMS Review, Vol. 8 Nos 1/2, pp. 5-17.
Ford, J.B., West, D., Magnini, V.P., LaTour, M.S. and Polonsky, M.J. (2010), “A backward glance of who and what marketing scholars have been researching, 1977–2002”, In Review of Marketing Research, Emerald Group Publishing, pp. 1-18.
Grönroos, C. and Voima, P. (2013), “Critical service logic: making sense of value creation and co-creation”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 133-150.
Guidry, J.A., Hollier, B.N.G., Johnson, L., Tanner, J. and Veltsos, C. (2004), “Surveying the cites: a ranking of marketing journals using citation analysis”, Marketing Education Review, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 45-59.
Hair, J.F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C.M. and Mena, J.A. (2012), “An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 40, pp. 414-433.
Hall, M.C. (2011), “Publish and perish? Bibliometric analysis, journal ranking and the assessment of research quality in tourism”, Tourism Management, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 16-27.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2015), “A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 43, pp. 115-135.
Horsky, D. and Sen, S.K. (1980), “Interfaces between marketing and economics: an overview”, The Journal of Business, Vol. 53 No. S3, pp. 5-12.
Huber, J., Kamakura, W. and Mela, C.F. (2014), “A topical history of J.M.R”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 51 No. 1, pp. 84-91.
Hunt, S.D. (2020), “For re-institutionalizing the marketing discipline in Era V”, AMS Review, Vol. 10 Nos 3/4, pp. 189-198.
Hunt, S.D., Madhavaram, S. and Hatfield, H.N. (2022), “The marketing discipline’s troubled trajectory: the manifesto conversation, candidates for central focus, and prognosis for renewal”, AMS Review, Vol. 12 Nos 3/4, pp. 139-156.
Jarvis, C.B., MacKenzie, S.B. and Podsakoff, P.M. (2003), “A critical review of construct indicators and measurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer research”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 199-218.
Jones, D.G.B. and Monieson, D.D. (1990), “Early development of the philosophy of marketing thought”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 102-113.
Jones, D.G.B. and Shaw, E.H. (2002), “A history of marketing thought”, in Weitz, B.A. and Wensley, R. (Eds), Handbook of Marketing, pp. 39-65.
Keathley-Herring, H., Van Aken, E., Gonzalez-Aleu, F., Deschamps, F., Letens, G. and Orlandini, P.C. (2016), “Assessing the maturity of a research area: bibliometric review and proposed framework”, Scientometrics, Vol. 109, pp. 927-951.
Kessler, M.M. (1963), “Bibliographic coupling between scientific papers”, American Documentation, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 10-25.
Luor, T., Lu, H.P., Yu, H. and Chang, K. (2014), “Trends in and contributions to entrepreneurship research: a broad review of literature from 1996 to June 2012”, Scientometrics, Vol. 99 No. 2, pp. 353-369.
Man, J.P., Weinkauf, J.G., Tsang, M. and Sin, D.D. (2004), “Why do some countries publish more than others? An international comparison of research funding, english proficiency and publication output in highly ranked general medical journals”, European Journal of Epidemiology, Vol. 19 No. 8, pp. 811-817.
Mariani, M.M., Perez‐Vega, R. and Wirtz, J. (2022), “AI in marketing, consumer research and psychology: a systematic literature review and research agenda”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 755-776.
Marquardt, R.A. and Murdock, G.W. (1983), “Analysis of authorship in the Journal of Marketing 1960–1981”, Journal of Marketing Education, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 53-57.
Martínez-López, F.J., Merigó, J.M., Valenzuela-Fernández, L. and Nicolás, C. (2018), “Fifty years of the European Journal of Marketing: a bibliometric analysis”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52 Nos 1/2, pp. 439-468.
Merigó, J.M. and Yang, J.B. (2017a), “A bibliometric analysis of operations research and management science”, Omega, Vol. 73, pp. 37-48.
Merigó, J.M. and Yang, J.B. (2017b), “Accounting research: a bibliometric analysis”, Australian Accounting Review, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 71-100.
Merigó, J.M., Gil-Lafuente, A.M. and Yager, R.R. (2015), “An overview of fuzzy research with bibliometric indicators”, Applied Soft Computing Journal, Vol. 27, pp. 420-433.
Merigó, J.M., Mas-Tur, A., Roig-Tierno, N. and Ribeiro-Soriano, D. (2015), “A bibliometric overview of the Journal of Business Research between 1973 and 2014”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 68 No. 12, pp. 2645-2653.
Merigó, J.M., Pedrycz, W., Weber, R. and de la Sotta, C. (2018), “Fifty years of ınformation sciences: a bibliometric overview”, Information Sciences, Vol. 432, pp. 245-268.
Merton, R.K. (1968), “The Matthew Effect in science”, Science, Vol. 159 No. 3810, pp. 56-63.
Mongeon, P. and Paul-Hus, A. (2016), “The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: a comparative analysis”, Scientometrics, Vol. 106 No. 1, pp. 213-228.
Muhuri, P.K., Shukla, A.K. and Abraham, A. (2019), “Industry 4.0: a bibliometric analysis and detailed overview”, Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 78, pp. 218-235.
Nicolas, C., Valenzuela-Fernández, L. and Merigó, J.M. (2020), “Research trends of marketing: a bibliometric study 1990–2017”, Journal of Promotion Management, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 674-703.
Niemi, A.W. (1988a), “Publication performance of marketing departments, 1975-1985”, Journal of Management Education, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 8-12.
Niemi, A.W. (1988b), “Research productivity of American business schools, 1975-1985”, Review of Financial Economics, Vol. 23 No. 2, p. 1.
Pan, Y. and Zhang, J.Q. (2014), “The composition of the editorial boards of general marketing journals”, Journal of Marketing Education, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 33-44.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Podsakoff, N.P. and Bachrach, D.G. (2008), “Scholarly influence in the field of management: a bibliometric analysis of the determinants of university and author impact in the management literature in the past quarter century”, Journal of Management, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 641-720.
Reibstein, D.J., Day, G. and Wind, J. (2009), “Guest editorial: is marketing academia losing its way?”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 73 No. 4, pp. 1-3.
Ruhanen, L., Weiler, B., Moyle, B.D. and McLennan, C.J. (2015), “Trends and patterns in sustainable tourism research: a 25-year bibliometric analysis”, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 517-535.
Shaw, E.H. and Tamilia, R.D. (2001), “Robert Bartels and the history of marketing thought”, Journal of Macromarketing, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 156-163.
Sheoran, M., Kumar, D., Kumar, V. and Verma, D. (2018), “Understanding the trends of marketing research and its future directions: a citation analysis”, Bottom Line, Vol. 31 Nos 3/4, pp. 191-207.
Shugan, S.M. (2006), “Editorial: fifty years of Marketing Science”, Marketing Science, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 551-555.
Simonson, I., Carmon, Z., Dhar, R., Drolet, A. and Nowlis, S.M. (2001), “Consumer research: ın search of identity”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 249-275.
Small, H. (1973), “Co‐citation in the scientific literature: a new measure of the relationship between two documents”, Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 265-269.
Steenkamp, J.B.E. and Baumgartner, H. (1998), “Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 78-90.
Stremersch, S. and Verhoef, P.C. (2005), “Globalization of authorship in the marketing discipline: does it help or hinder the field?”, Marketing Science, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 585-594.
Stremersch, S., Verniers, I. and Verhoef, P.C. (2007), “The quest for citations: drivers of article impact”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 71 No. 3, pp. 171-193.
Svensson, G., Helgesson, T., Sltten, T. and Tronvoll, B. (2008), “Scientific identity of ‘top’ research journals in the broader discipline of marketing: findings and queries”, European Business Review, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 384-400.
Valenzuela, L.M., Merigó, J.M., Johnston, W.J., Nicolas, C. and Jaramillo, J.F. (2017), “Thirty years of the Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing: a bibliometric analysis”, Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 1-17.
van Eck, N.J. and Waltman, L. (2010), “Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping”, Scientometrics, Vol. 84 No. 2, pp. 523-538.
Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2004), “Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 68 No. 1, pp. 1-17.
Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2008), “Service-dominant logic: continuing the evolution”, Journal of the Academy of marketing Science, Vol. 36, pp. 1-10.
Wang, J. (2013), “Citation time window choice for research impact evaluation”, Scientometrics, Vol. 94 No. 3, pp. 851-872.
Wilkie, W.L. and Moore, E.S. (2003), “Scholarly research in marketing: exploring the ‘4 eras’ of thought development”, Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 116-146.
Witkowski, T.H. (2010), “The marketing discipline comes of age, 1934-1936”, Journal of Historical Research in Marketing, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 370-396.
Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L. and Parasuraman, A. (1996), “The behavioral consequences of service quality”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60 No. 2, pp. 31-46.
Zhao, X., Lynch, J.G., Jr and Chen, Q. (2010), “Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: myths and truths about mediation analysis”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 197-206.
Zinkhan, G.M. and Leigh, T.W. (1999), “Assessing the quality ranking of the journal of advertising, 1986–1997”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 51-70.
Zupic, I. and Čater, T. (2015), “Bibliometric methods in management and organization”, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 429-472.
Further reading
Baumgartner, H. and Pieters, R. (2003), “The structural influence of marketing journals: a citation analysis of the discipline and its subareas over time”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 67 No. 2, pp. 123-139.
Benckendorff, P. and Zehrer, A. (2013), “A network analysis of tourism research”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 43, pp. 121-149.
Bonilla, C.A., Merigó, J.M. and Torres-Abad, C. (2015), “Economics in Latin America: a bibliometric analysis”, Scientometrics, Vol. 105 No. 2, pp. 1239-1252.
Bussière, D. (2000), “Evidence of a marketing periodic literature within the American Economic Association: 1895-1936”, Journal of Macromarketing, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 137-143.
Calma, A., Martí-Parreño, J. and Davies, M. (2019), “Journal of the academy of marketing science 1973–2018: an analytical retrospective”, Scientometrics, Vol. 119 No. 2, pp. 879-908.
Dunakhe, K. and Panse, C. (2021), “Impact of digital marketing – a bibliometric review”, International Journal of Innovation Science, Vol. 14 Nos 3/4, pp. 506-518.
Gaviria-Marin, M., Merigó, J.M. and Baier-Fuentes, H. (2019), “Knowledge management: a global examination based on bibliometric analysis”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 140, pp. 194-220.
Hirsch, J.E. (2005), “An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 102 No. 46, pp. 16569-16572.
Hollander, S.C. (1989), “Preface”, in Nevett, T., Whitney, K.R. and Hollander, S.C. (Eds), Marketing History: The Emerging Discipline, MI State University, East Lansing, MI.
Homburg, C. (2003), “Publishing processes in the academic marketing discipline in the United States: a German perspective”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 348-350.
Landström, H., Harirchi, G. and Åström, F. (2012), “Entrepreneurship: exploring the knowledge base”, Research Policy, Vol. 41 No. 7, pp. 1154-1181.
Martínez-López, F.J., Merigó, J.M., Gázquez-Abad, J.C. and Ruiz-Real, J.L. (2020), “Industrial marketing management: bibliometric overview since its foundation”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 84, pp. 19-38.
Runyan, R.C. (2008), “Defining a forum for retailing scholars: academics’ rankings of journals in the discipline”, International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 437-446.
Shoemaker, P.J., Tankard, J.W. and Lasorsa, D.L. (2003), How to Build Social Science Theories, Sage publications.
Taylor, Z.W. and Bicak, I. (2020), “Buying search, buying students: how elite U.S. institutions employ paid search to practice academic capitalism online”, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 271-296.
West, D., Ford, J.B., Magnini, V.P., LaTour, M.S. and Polonsky, M.J. (2015), “A backward glance of who and what marketing scholars have been researching, 1977–2002”, Developments in Marketing Science: Proceedings of the Academy of Marketing Science, pp. 334-338.
Zinkhan, G.M. and Hirschheim, R. (1992), “Truth in marketing theory and research: an alternative perspective”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56 No. 2, pp. 80-89.
Acknowledgements
The researchers express their appreciation to the editor of the Spanish Journal of Marketing – ESIC and the anonymous reviewers for their constructive feedback and valuable comments, which have contributed significantly to the successful publication of this paper.