![]() To provide a sufficient contribution, a review paper needs to achieve three key standards. Not every review paper can offer all of these benefits, but this list represents their key contributions. ![]() Identify inconsistencies in prior results and potential explanations (e.g., moderators, mediators, measures, approaches).Įvaluate existing methodological approaches and unique insights.ĭevelop conceptual frameworks to reconcile and extend past research.ĭescribe research insights, existing gaps, and future research directions. Provide an integrated, synthesized overview of the current state of knowledge. Resolve definitional ambiguities and outline the scope of the topic. The purpose of and contributions associated with review papers can vary depending on their specific type and research question, but in general, they aim to Many of these benefits are highlighted in Hanssens’ ( 2018) paper titled “The Value of Empirical Generalizations in Marketing,” published in this same issue of JAMS. They carefully identify and synthesize relevant literature to evaluate a specific research question, substantive domain, theoretical approach, or methodology and thereby provide readers with a state-of-the-art understanding of the research topic. In their most general form, review papers “are critical evaluations of material that has already been published,” some that include quantitative effects estimation (i.e., meta-analyses) and some that do not (i.e., systematic reviews) (Bem 1995, p. Yet, once published, such papers tend to be widely cited, suggesting that members of the field find them useful (see Bettencourt and Houston 2001). In many cases, an editor must provide strong support to help such review papers navigate the review process. Many premier marketing journals publish meta-analytic review papers too, though authors often must overcome reviewers’ concerns that their contributions are limited due to the absence of “new data.” Furthermore, relatively few non-meta-analysis review papers appear in marketing journals, probably due to researchers’ perceptions that such papers have limited publication opportunities or their beliefs that the field lacks a research tradition or “respect” for such papers. Review papers tend to include both quantitative (i.e., meta-analytic, systematic reviews) and narrative or more qualitative components together, they provide platforms for new conceptual frameworks, reveal inconsistencies in the extant body of research, synthesize diverse results, and generally give other scholars a “state-of-the-art” snapshot of a domain, often written by topic experts (Bem 1995). The rationale for such outlets is the premise that research integration and synthesis provides an important, and possibly even a required, step in the scientific process. ![]() Many research disciplines feature high-impact journals that are dedicated outlets for review papers (or review–conceptual combinations) (e.g., Academy of Management Review, Psychology Bulletin, Medicinal Research Reviews).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |