Special Section of AMS Review
Advancing Conceptual, Theoretical Articles in Marketing:
Importance, Writing, and Reviewing
Deadline for submissions: October 1, 2019
There have been numerous calls for more conceptual, theoretical articles in marketing (Hulland 2019, MacInnis 2011, Yadav 2010). It has also been noted that conceptual articles are most cited and garner an exceptionally high proportion of the major awards (e.g., Maynard/Hunt Award, AMA/Sheth Foundation Award, etc.). More generally, it can be argued that, even in “empirical” articles, it is the conceptual, theoretical contribution that is the real impact and essentially what is always cited.
Yet, conceptual articles continue to constitute a relatively small percentage of articles in marketing related journals in general and, arguably, an even more miniscule proportion of articles in A-level and “elite” journals. In fact, the number of conceptual articles has been shown to be declining (Yadav 2010). Arguably, this dearth of conceptual, theoretical articles is leading to a situation that has pointed to marketing becoming characterized as a theory-importing discipline (Clark et al. 2014, Piercy 2002) that is becoming “marginalized” (Lehmann, McAlister, and Staelin 2011: see also Hunt 2018). A number of reasons have been suggested for this situation:
• The importance of theory is underemphasized in marketing doctoral education.
• Doctoral students are often not taught conceptual writing, except to the extent that it supports
data-driven findings.
• Conceptual articles do not have clear templates as do empirical articles and, therefore, are
perceived to be more difficult/riskier to write.
• Editors are often hesitant to publish conceptual articles, especially those that challenge
institutionalized thought, either for fear of jeopardizing their journal’s reputation, or lack of
comfort evaluating conceptual articles.
• Both editors and reviewers are often either less comfortable reviewing conceptual-only
manuscripts
• Various perspectives suggesting that all articles should be empirical or that theoretical articles are not adequately practical.
The purposes of this special issue are to advance theoretical development in marketing by emphasizing the role and importance of conceptual articles and exploring issues of problematizing, developing, writing and reviewing conceptual, theoretical manuscripts. Both conceptual manuscripts (including reviews), for peer review, and commentaries, for editorial review, will be considered. Appropriate topics include but are not limited to:
• The role and importance of conceptual theory development in marketing
• The issue of problematization for impact
• The art and craft of writing conceptual articles and developing compelling conceptual insights
• The history, current state, and future of conceptual work and theory development in marketing
• The structure and organization of conceptual articles
• The nature of the theorization process
• The ‘methodological’ considerations of conceptual articles
• Lessons to be learned from other disciplines about theory development in marketing
• Reviewing conceptual articles
Review Process and Timeline
Note: The special section has a relatively tight review and decision schedule following the first submission. It is anticipated that final decision (acceptance/conditional acceptance) for this special issue will be made after the first revision. Manuscripts that are deemed promising but still needing work will be considered for a later issue.
Submission of full manuscripts on AMSR’s
online submission system: https://www.editorialmanager.com/amsr/default.aspx
October 1, 2019 (papers will be processed as they are received)
First editorial decision and reviewer comments November 20, 2019
Revision due date January 31, 2020
Final editorial decision February 15, 2020
Final copy due March 15, 2020
Publication planned for June 2020
Additional Information
For additional questions regarding the special issue, please contact the editor, Stephen L. Vargo, at AMSRev@hawaii.edu
About AMS Review
For additional information about AMS Review, please see:
http://www.springer.com/business+%26+management/journal/13162
References
Clark, T, T. M. Key, M. Hodis, and D. Rajaratnam. 2014. “The Intellectual Ecology of Mainstream
Marketing Research: An Inquiry into the Place of Marketing in the Family of Business
Disciplines.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 42 (3):223-241.
Hulland, J. 2019. “In through the Door.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 47 (1):1-3.
Hunt, S. D. 2018. “Advancing marketing strategy in the marketing discipline and beyond: from promise,
to neglect, to prominence, to fragment (to promise?).” Journal of Marketing Management 34 (1-
2):16-51.
Lehmann, D. R., L. McAlister, and R. Staelin. 2011. “Sohistication in Research in Marketing.” Journal of
Marketing 75 (4):155-65.
MacInnis, Deborah J. 2011. “A Framework for Conceptual Contributions in Marketing.” Journal of
Marketing 75 (July):136–154.
Piercy, N. 2002. “Research in marketing: Teasing with trivia or risking relevance?” European Journal of
Marketing 36 (3):350-363.
Yadav, Manjit S. 2010. “The Decline of Conceptual Articles and Implications for Knowledge
Development.” Journal of Marketing 74 (1):1-19.
