The system for the design, production, and dissemination of marketing scholarship aimed at contributing to marketing practice is under increasing strain due to pressures exerted by globalization, digitization, and environmentalism. Scholarly research in marketing adheres largely to a twentieth-century manufacturing model. Change is needed now. Marketing scholarship can benefit from embracing a twenty-first-century, collaborative approach to the conception, design, and dissemination of research. “Crowdsourcing” is becoming a frequently employed strategy in industry. Marketing academe should adopt some of the same techniques and technologies to make stronger research contributions that will benefit marketing practice. In particular, more collaboration is needed, both among academic researchers and between academe and industry, to be sure important problems are being investigated using sound theories and methods. An open, collaborative model will allow the field to evolve from Marketing Scholarship 1.0 to Marketing Scholarship 2.0.
AMA Task Force on the Development of Marketing Thought (1988), “Developing, Disseminating, and Utilizing Marketing Knowledge,”Journal of Marketing, 52(October), 1–25.
2.
ArmstrongJ. Scott (2003), “Discovery and Communication of Important Marketing Findings: Evidence and Proposals,”Journal of Business Research, 56(1), 69–97.
3.
BaldwinChristine, and PullingerDavid (2009), “What Readers Value in Academic Journals,”Learned Publishing, 13(October), 229–39.
4.
BelkRussell (2010), “Sharing,”Journal of Consumer Research, 36(February), 715–34.
5.
BjorkBo-Christer, and HedlundTurid (2009), “Two Scenarios for How Scholarly Publishers Could Change Their Business Model to Open Access,”Journal of Electronic Publishing, 12(February), (accessed May 16, 2011), [available at http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0012.102].
GaborAndrea (2009), “The Promise (and Perils) of Open Collaboration,”Strategy & Business, 56(Autumn), 24–30.
9.
GrayBrendan J., OttesonGeir Grundvag, and MatearSheelagh (2005), “Disseminating Academic Research Information to Marketing Practitioners,”Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 23(2), 124–35.
10.
HarnadStevan (1996), “Implementing Peer Review on the Net: Scientific Quality Control in Scholarly Electronic Journals,” in Scholarly Publication: The Electronic Frontier, PeekR., and NewbyG., eds. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 103–108.
HarnadStevan, BrodyTim, VallieresFrancois, CarrLes, HitchcockSteve, GingrasYves (2008), “The Access/Impact Problem and the Green and Gold Roads to Open Access: An Update,”Serial Review, 34(1), 36–40.
13.
HoweJeff (2008), Crowdsourcing: Why the Power of the Crowd Is Driving the Future of Business.New York: Random House.
14.
JohnsonEric J. (2001), “Digitizing Consumer Research,”Journal of Consumer Research, 28(September), 331–36.
15.
LawrenceSteve (2001), “Online or Invisible?”Nature, 411(6837), 521.
LynchJohn G.Jr. (1998), “Reviewing,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 25, AlbaJ.W., and HutchinsonJ.W., eds. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 1–6.
18.
MarketingPower.com (2010a), “Journal of Marketing Most-Cited Articles 2000–2009,” (accessed May 16, 2011), [available at http://www.marketingpower.com/JM].
19.
MarketingPower.com (2010b), “Journal of Marketing Research Most-Cited Articles 2000–2009,” (accessed May 16, 2011), [available at http://www.marketingpower.com/JMR].
20.
MaronNancy L., and Kirby SmithK. (2009), “Current Models of Digital Scholarly Communication: Results of an Investigation Conducted by Ithaka Strategic Services for the Association of Research Libraries,”Journal of Electronic Publishing, 12(1), (accessed May 16, 2011), [available at http://dx.org/10.3998/3336451.0012.1057].
21.
McFaddenGrant (2009), “Open Access: Is It the Future for All Scientific Publication?” paper presented at the University of Florida, Open Access Week, Gainesville, FL (October 19).
22.
McKayPeter (2009), personal communication, Gainesville, FL (September).
23.
MontgomeryCarol Hansen, and KingDonald W. (2002), “Comparing Library and User Related Costs of Print and Electronic Journal Collections,”D-Lib Magazine, 8(October), (accessed May 16, 2011), [available at http://www.dlib.org/dlib/october02/montgomery/10montgomery.html].
SuberPeter (2009), “Open Access in 2008,”Journal of Electronic Publishing, 12(February), (accessed May 16, 2011), [available at http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0012.1047].
WeinerGaby (2001), “The Academic Journal: Has It a Future?”Education Policy Analysis Archives, 9(March), (accessed May 16, 2011), [available at http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v9n9.html].
30.
WellerAnn C. (2000), “Editorial Peer Review for Electronic Journals: Current Issues and Emerging Models,”Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51(14), 1328–33.
