Table 6 Longitudinal analysis of methods used (1973-2018)
Related Figures (18)
Table 1 Research Questions
Table 2 Most cited articles published in JAMS
Fig. 1 Authors and author keywords network—customer satisfaction subnetwork
Most popular author keywords 2003-2018 (top 1-5)
Most popular author keywords 2003-2018 (top 6-10)
the only years that these five appeared together the most were in 2009 (11) and again in
2017 (10).
Fig. 2 Most popular author keywords 2003-2018 (top 1-5)
Fig.4 Authors and country affiliations network
Authorship and collaborations RQ5 aims to answer What is the authorship profile
(average authors per article, multiple authorship, etc.) in JAMS? We found 3933 author:
contributing to the 1747 articles in JAMS, this equates to an average of 2.25 authors pet
article. Authorship ranges between 1 author and 10 authors for a single article. There
were 444 articles written by one author (comprising 25% of the total), 635 written by twe
authors (36%), 498 written by three authors (29%) and 170 written by four or more authors
(10%). Excluding 2018 (an incomplete year of data), Table 3 below shows that co-authored
articles (2 or more authors) have increased significantly recently. Corresponding with ¢
decline in solo authorship, the last 5 years has seen the greatest increase in multiple author-
ship where nine multi-authored articles have appeared in JAMS for every solo-authorec
article. The trend towards multiple authorship perhaps parallels the increasing interest in
Marketing Science as an academic profession, and the exigencies for academics in the field
to “publish or perish”.
Table 3 JAMS authorship
As expected, the US dominates as country of author affiliation, irrespective of the
position of the US scholar in a co-authored piece. In a solo article, or appearing as the
first author in a co-authored piece, the US appears 1366 times. By contrast, Canada and
Germany appear 62 times, the Netherlands appears only 29 times while the UK and
Australia both appear only 23 times. We can conclude that JAMS is undoubtedly a US-
centric journal in terms of author affiliation, and by association Marketing Science is a
US-centric profession.
Fig.5 Authors and affiliations—UK sub-network (indirect/2-degree focus)
Fig.6 Network community 1: firm capability, performance and value
Fig. 7 Network community 2: brand and value co-creation
is more connected to the concept of branding than other elements shown in Fig. 7.
Another example of an article strongly connected to this community is Yoo et al.’s
(2000) ‘An examination of selected marketing mix elements and brand equity’ (896 cita-
tions). This paper investigates the relationship between marketing mix and brand creation
(e.g. loyalty, quality, associations and awareness). In this paper the authors reported ele-
ments that promote either low or high brand equity. The positive perception of the schol-
arly community towards their study and its results must be significant, as shown by its
citation count. Of similar influence in the area of service marketing is Berry’s 2000 arti-
cle ‘Cultivating service brand equity’ (625 citations) which argues for the value of service
branding as a fundamental determinant in service marketing.
Fig.8 Network community 3: customer service
of emotions to customers’ volitions, goal-directed behavior and decisions.
The other related terms shown in the Fig. 8 community network is the interrelation-
ships that can be seen between terms such as customer and employee relations and cus-
tomer and firm value, and even CEO compensation. The article by Luo et al. (2012)
illustrates the interconnectedness of these marketing concepts. They report that cus-
tomer- and employee-firm relations can be used in leveraging executive incentive struc-
tures to create customer and firm value both directly and indirectly via the mediator of
customer satisfaction. They also report that increases in the proportion of CEOs’ long-
term equity-based compensation positively influence actions that build customer- and
employee-firm relations. The community diagram below confirms the connections made
among these key terms.
Table 4 Themes and areas of research
Fig.9 Evolution of the brands’ strategic value theme (1973-2018)
Fig. 10 Strength of associations among topics in the theme firms’ strategy and financial performance
Table 5 Top 20 identified marketing constructs
“Term frequency weighted by inverse document frequency
Fig. 11 Identified brand-related constructs
Finally, abstracts were content-analyzed to identify methodological approaches and data
analysis techniques (RQ1O) used in the papers. Of the sample, 1544 abstracts were able to
be coded using the following categorization schema: Literature review, Conceptual/Theo-
retical, Empirical (quantitative), Empirical (qualitative), and Empirical (Mixed-methods).
Following standard procedure in content analysis, an intercoder reliability analysis was
performed on 10% of the sample. The results of Cohen’s kappa (Cohen 1960) suggest a
substantial agreement (0.67) (Landis and Koch 1977). The results of the content analysis
show that the empirical quantitative approach is the most common research methodology
used in the journal, accounting for 74.35% of all analyzed abstracts. This is followed by
conceptual/theoretical papers (20.14%). Qualitative research methodology accounted for
2.33% of abstracts, literature review papers for 2.01%, and mixed-methods research for
Fig. 12 Distribution pattern of methods used (1973-2018)
