Manuscript Evaluation Criteria
Papers submitted to JR will be evaluated on its expected contribution to retailing and related topics as outlined in the JR Mission. We will attempt to balance our assessment of a manuscript's contribution versus its length when directing revisions. Submitting authors should carefully examine previous issues of JR for format and style. Relevant literature on the topic, particularly research previously published in JR, should be cited.
We would like to explicitly encourage manuscripts that integrate both multiple research topics and multiple methods. For example, a study may examine the role of inventory levels in a retail store and their effects on perceived stock-outs, customer satisfaction and store image (multiple research topics. This research may utilize an analytical model that is tested using survey and experimental data (multiple methods).
The literature on retailing-related topics is rich. Yet, there have been very few published replications and, as a result, even fewer meta-analyses. We encourage significant replications, and meta-analyses. There are two areas where a replication may be of interest to JR. The first is where a replication finds different results and can correct prior findings. The second is where the initial study has findings that are so counter to accepted theory that replications are needed in order to insure that the first findings were not due to error or random chance. A replication whose fundamental contribution is the use of a different sample is less likely to be viewed as a significant contribution.
By performing meta-analyses, authors should explicitly synthesize the findings of the new study with the original on both qualitative and quantitative issues. The quantitative synthesis should explicitly compare the effect size of the studies (cf. Fern and Monroe 1996 and Rosenthal and Rosnow 1984). By so doing, differences in findings could be attributed to variations in method, sample, substantive domain, etc. If such reporting becomes standard practice, it will enhance the ability to do meta-analyses. We believe that such studies could result in a synthesis of research streams and indicate crucial gaps requiring further exploration. Prospective authors are cautioned, however, that replications and meta-analyses must provide fresh knowledge. Unlike in Hollywood, remakes won't fly.
Research published in JR should clearly justify the relevance of the sample used vis a vis research objectives. There has been a rich debate on the issue of student versus non-student sample (see Calder and Tybout 1999; Calder et al. 1981, 1982, Lynch 1999, 1982). We believe that both sample types are appropriate under certain circumstances. For instance, student samples may be appropriate for theoretical research where the results can be generalized to a broader population. Students would not be appropriate when used for the convenience of the researchers. We expect to see and encourage the use of online samples drawn from appropriate frames. The technology is readily available. Respondents appear to be particularly receptive to this media. Finally, online samples are particularly appropriate for studying e-tailing issues.
Home
