نویسنده و بهره وری موسسه در مدیریت بازاریابی صنعتی 1971-1998

This study examines the institutional as well as individual contributions to Industrial Marketing Management over its first 28 years of existence. IMM has been able to effectively bridge the gap between academia and industry and has served as the flagship publication for the field of industrial marketing, and the authors and institutions represented have made significant contributions to the field. The methodology applied follows that of Barry (Barry, Thomas E.: Publication Productivity in the Three Leading U.S. Advertising Journals: Inaugural Issues Through 1988. Journal of Advertising 19, 52–60 [1990]) and Henthorne, LaTour and Loraas (Henthorne, Tony L., LaTour, Michael S., and Loraas, Tina: Publication Productivity in the Three leading U.S. Advertising Journals: 1989 through 1996. Journal of Advertising XXVII, 53–63 (1998)] who adjusted the total number of appearances of authors to reflect their fractional contributions. There were a total of 620 articles that appeared during the period of study with 1,903 author appearances, producing an average of 3.069 authors per article. Whereas the majority of contributors were members of Marketing faculties (56%) and from U.S.-based universities (72%), it was important to note that 17% were nonacademics, and the British Isles represented 10.6% of the contributions. There were 139 authors who had published three or more articles, and when contributions were compared for 1971–1984 and 1985–1998, only one of the top contributors remained in both time periods. The top five institutional contributors represent a geographic mix with both American (three) and non-American (two) universities. With a primarily practitioner-based readership (90%), this ensures that the published studies get industry exposure, and this vital link to industry ensures the relevance of the articles published. This kind of study therefore is beneficial in evaluating the output of marketing faculty members as well as the institutions with which they are afiliated.

According to Henthorne, LaTour and Loraas' [1] recent review of advertising scholarship, “despite tumultuous changes within higher education in the last few years, the quantity and quality of research output are of vital importance to an academic career” (p. 53). Practitioner author contributions are also vital in providing “cross-fertilization” of ideas between academe and business. Following the theme of “scholarly applied research” [2], there is little doubt that Industrial Marketing Management, as the senior specialty journal in its field [3], has bridged the gap between academe and business, and in so doing has served as the primary reference for those advancing the application of theory in an industrial marketing context. Following the precedent of previous ranking studies 1 and 4, this study will provide concrete insight into which individuals as well as institutions have been heavy contributors to the field of industrial marketing.

This study provides a helpful benchmark for assessing the academic output of both individuals and institutions relative to the field of industrial marketing. The fact that Industrial Marketing Management has such a large proportion of practitioner readers (90%) ensures that the studies published will get important industry exposure, and the fact that the linkage to industry is so vital to the existence of the journal ensures the relevance of the articles published. As a result, this kind of benchmark does provide concrete evidence of scholarship that can be effectively used to evaluate the research output of marketing faculty members as well as the institutions with which they are affiliated. Certainly this information should be useful when institutions are justifying the value created from the funding received as well as making a case for future funding to ensure the continuance of these efforts. As Henthorne, LaTour, and Loraas [1] found in the advertising literature, there was a change in author contributions from earlier to later publications. This study found a different mix of authors publishing in 1971–1984 when compared with 1985–1998. This may reflect the “passing of the baton” from one generation of scholars to another. Whereas a significant number of publications can be attributed to a relatively small number of authors and institutions, the breadth of different contributors and institutions is encouraging in that it indicates a healthy discipline with a wide variety of perspectives. It is also healthy to note the evidence of authors from other fields and disciplines. We never have shied away from borrowing from other disciplines to advance marketing thinking, and it is evidence of the viability as well as dynamism of the discipline that it will value different perspectives, philosophies, tools, and techniques.