Journal of Marketing Education : A Retrospective Overview Between 1979 and 2019

Publication Trend, Authorship Pattern, and Citation Structure in JMED

Table 1 reports the publication trend; the author and citation structure; and the influence, impact, activity, and productivity of JMED between 1979 and 2019. Figure 1 distributes JMED articles by the NCA and also indicates citations depicting the level of coauthorship and its academic influence over JMED. Precisely, 66.9% of JMED articles are by two or more authors which accounts for 74.8% of its citations.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

State of the Art of JMED.

Year	TP	NCA	GA	CI	SA	CA	PCP	TC	C/CP	C/CA	h	g	PAY
1979	20	28	26	0.40	13	7	0.85	68	4.00	2.43	5	7	20.00
1980	28	45	41	0.61	14	14	0.64	59	3.28	1.31	4	6	24.00
1981	24	35	33	0.46	15	9	0.88	160	7.62	4.57	7	11	24.00
1982	32	44	23	0.38	22	10	0.66	113	5.38	2.57	6	9	26.00
1983	28	41	35	0.46	16	12	0.68	125	6.58	3.05	6	10	26.40
1984	31	46	38	0.48	18	13	0.74	169	7.35	3.67	8	12	27.17
1985	32	53	46	0.66	16	16	0.69	239	10.86	4.51	7	15	27.86
1986	29	57	47	0.97	4	25	0.90	216	8.31	3.79	7	14	28.00
1987	18	33	23	0.83	7	11	0.89	112	7.00	3.39	6	9	26.89
1988	33	63	52	0.91	11	22	0.82	159	5.89	2.52	7	11	27.50
1989	37	62	44	0.68	20	17	0.92	276	8.12	4.45	10	14	28.36
1990	26	57	44	1.19	4	22	0.77	311	15.55	5.46	8	17	28.17
1991	28	60	50	1.14	4	24	0.89	297	11.88	4.95	9	16	28.15
1992	25	56	45	1.24	6	19	1.00	184	7.36	3.29	8	12	27.93
1993	17	35	24	1.06	6	11	0.94	162	10.13	4.63	8	12	27.20
1994	21	39	34	0.86	6	15	0.86	187	10.39	4.79	7	13	26.81
1995	20	42	29	1.10	5	15	0.85	197	11.59	4.69	8	13	26.41
1996	17	34	23	1.00	7	10	0.94	193	12.06	5.68	9	13	25.89
1997	16	29	23	0.81	7	9	1.00	423	26.44	14.59	10	16	25.37
1998	25	58	44	1.32	3	22	0.96	419	17.46	7.22	13	20	25.35
1999	22	52	36	1.36	4	18	1.00	608	27.64	11.69	14	22	25.19
2000	23	50	40	1.17	9	14	1.00	1,205	52.39	24.10	18	23	25.09
2001	24	51	38	1.13	8	16	1.00	797	33.21	15.63	17	24	25.04
2002	25	54	30	1.16	5	20	1.00	886	35.44	16.41	16	25	25.04
2003	24	58	33	1.42	6	18	1.00	784	32.67	13.52	15	24	25.00
2004	23	47	29	1.04	7	16	1.00	662	28.78	14.09	13	23	24.92
2005	21	35	20	0.67	9	12	1.00	780	37.14	22.29	14	21	24.78
2006	23	50	27	1.17	5	18	1.00	697	30.30	13.94	16	23	24.71
2007	25	49	23	0.96	11	14	1.00	495	19.80	10.10	13	21	24.72
2008	21	45	27	1.14	5	16	1.00	543	25.86	12.07	13	21	24.60
2009	24	70	50	1.92	2	22	1.00	550	22.92	7.86	12	23	24.58
2010	26	58	28	1.23	7	19	1.00	484	18.62	8.34	13	21	24.63
2011	26	66	50	1.54	3	23	1.00	698	26.85	10.58	15	26	24.67
2012	20	44	32	1.20	8	12	1.00	203	10.15	4.61	10	13	24.53
2013	21	54	41	1.57	5	16	1.00	273	13.00	5.06	9	16	24.43
2014	20	62	41	2.10	3	17	1.00	266	13.30	4.29	9	15	24.31
2015	16	39	24	1.44	3	13	0.94	217	14.47	5.56	10	14	24.08
2016	15	34	26	1.27	6	9	0.87	96	7.38	2.82	6	9	23.84
2017	12	34	28	1.83	1	11	1.00	94	7.83	2.76	6	9	23.54
2018	21	59	39	1.81	3	18	0.48	36	3.60	0.61	3	5	23.48
2019	31	75	62	1.42	7	24	0.52	27	1.69	0.36	3	3	23.66

Note. TP = total publications; NCA = number of contributing authors; GA = growth in authorship (i.e., new authors added in the respective year); CI = collaboration index; SA = sole-authored articles; CA = coauthored articles; PCP = proportion of cited publications; TC = total citations; C/CP = average citations per cited publication; C/CA = citations per contributing author; h = h-index; g = g-index; PAY = productivity per active year.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Author distribution of JMED articles.

Between 1979 and 2019, JMED published 970 articles contributed by 1,448 different authors. Among these 970 articles, 321 were sole-authored and 649 coauthored. Accounting for multiple submissions from those 1,448 authors, the total number of contributing unique authors is 2003. Approximately 88% of the cited JMED articles received 14,470 citations, and each cited article received an average of 16.92 citations.

As highlighted in the appendix, the h-index of JMED is ranked 35th among the top 50 international marketing journals ranked in Scimago. The influence of JMED extends to its 53 articles being cited at least 53 times (h: 53), while its impact extends to 74 articles receiving at least 518 citations (g: 74). Alternatively, simultaneously, in terms of its 2 years citations per document, it ranks 34th in the top 50. Such figures suggest the emergence and recognition of JMED as an important outlet in global marketing thought, let alone within the field of education.

As Table 1 shows, JMED published its highest number of articles in 1989 (TP: 37). On average, JMED added roughly 35 new authors every year. Its highest collaboration among authors occurred in 2014, with each lead contributor collaborating with 2.10 other scholars to contribute a JMED article (CI: 2.10). We observe a declining trend in SA articles offset by the rising number of coauthored works, a trend also common in most other academic sources (see Baker et al., 2020a, 2020b; Donthu, Kumar, & Pattnaik, 2020; Donthu, Kumar, Pattnaik, & Campagna, 2020). Figure 1 shows that the majority of JMED articles have more than one author.

The implications of this trend away from solo-authored pieces and more toward collaborative works are quite promising to current and prospective marketing educational researchers. The trend of coauthorship suggests that more academics overall have become participants in and contributors to pedagogical scholarship. This is supported my JMED’s ranking among noneducational marketing journals. Encouraging more marketing academics to turn their research skills to the science of their own tradecraft is of critical importance to the longevity and durability of the field of marketing education, particularly considering the expeditious pace of change in marketing. We may also infer that technology has enabled extremely efficient networking and communications, particularly across geographic boundaries. While this is certainly not a revolutionary insight on its own, what it highlights is the opportunity for multiregion research collaboration in the marketing education field, which is extremely limited at present.

In terms of citations, JMED articles published in 2000 received the maximum citations (TC: 1,205). In addition, its citations per publication (C/P: 52.39) replicate the citations per cited publication (C/CP: 52.39). On further exploration, we find that among the 23 articles published in 2000, 20 are cited between 1 and 99 times (CT1: 20) while the other three received more than 100 citations (CT2: 3) in Scopus. Thus, 2000 was the most influential year of the journal (h: 18) to date, while 2011 is noted as the year with the greatest impact (g: 26). However, in terms of productivity, 1989 was the most productive year for the journal, with the average number of publications reaching 28 (PAY: 28.36). Thus, in general, we observe an increasing trend in JMED publications, author collaborations, citations, and productivity, which collectively suggests a uniform progress of the journal between 1979 and 2019. Compounding this is the consideration that overall submissions to the journal have increased consistently year-on-year since inception. When considering the consistency of output, this leads us to conclude that the overall academic quality and scientific rigor of published articles have been increasing consistently as JMED matures.

Top JMED Articles Between 1979 and 2019

Table 2 lists the influential JMED articles cited at least 75 times, which is considered in bibliometric analysis to be a minimum threshold for the “influence” of a single article over a 40-year time horizon (Donthu, Kumar, & Pattnaik, 2020; Donthu, Kumar, Pattnaik, & Campagna, 2020). Gault et al.’s (2000) article, titled “Undergraduate business internships and career success: Are they related?” is the most cited article in JMED (TC: 184), followed by Hult et al.’s (1997) article, titled “Faculty perceptions of marketing journals,” cited 164 times. Gault et al. (2000) empirically confirmed that field internships of marketing students lead to their early career success, and Hult et al. (1997) suggest that qualitative appraisal of academic sources of marketing plays a pivotal role in recognition, academic discourse, and promotion. A close examination reveals that the influential themes of JMED include student learning (Clayson, 2009; Hamer, 2000; Lowe & Laffey, 2011), student evaluation (Clayson, 2009; Marks, 2000; Simpson & Siguaw, 2000), student satisfaction (Aggarwal & O’Brien, 2008; Appleton-Knapp & Krentler, 2006), group projects (Aggarwal & O’Brien, 2008; McCorkle et al., 1999; Strong & Anderson, 1990), teamwork (McCorkle et al., 1999; Pfaff & Huddleston, 2003), marketing education (Smart et al., 1999; Yoo & Donthu, 2002), business internships and career success (Gault et al., 2000), social media as a learning tool (Rinaldo et al., 2011), and classroom environment (Young, 2005).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Top Articles Published in JMED During 1979 and 2019.

TC	Title	Year	Authors	CPY
184	“Undergraduate business internships and career success: Are they related?”	2000	Gault, J., Redington, J., & Schlager, T.	9.68
164	“Faculty perceptions of marketing journals”	1997	Hult, G. T. M., Neese, W. T., & Bashaw, R. E.	7.45
146	“Student evaluations of teaching: Are they related to what students learn? A meta-analysis and review of the literature”	2009	Clayson, D. E.	14.60
136	“Does it matter if i hate teamwork? What impacts student attitudes toward teamwork”	2003	Pfaff, E., & Huddleston, P.	8.50
134	“The effects of marketing education and individual cultural values on marketing ethics of students”	2002	Yoo B., & Donthu, N.	7.88
127	“Learning by tweeting: Using Twitter as a pedagogical tool”	2011	Rinaldo, S. B., Tapp, S., & Laverie, D. A.	15.88
118	“The motivational effects of the classroom environment in facilitating self-regulated learning”	2005	Young, M. R.	8.43
107	“Student evaluations of teaching: An exploratory study of the faculty response”	2000	Simpson, P. M., & Siguaw, J. A.	5.63
107	“The additive effects of semistructured classroom activities on student learning: An application of classroom-based experiential learning techniques”	2000	Hamer, L. O.	5.63
105	“Measuring student expectations and their effects on satisfaction: The importance of managing student expectations”	2006	Appleton-Knapp, S. L., & Krentler, K. A.	8.08
105	“Undergraduate marketing students, group projects, and teamwork: The good, the bad, and the ugly?”	1999	McCorkle, D. E., Reardon J., Alexander, J. F., Kling, N. D., Harris, R. C., & Vishwanathan Iyer, R.	5.25
100	“An update of marketing student perceptions of learning activities: Structure, preferences, and effectiveness”	2005	Karns, G. L.	7.14
97	“Social loafing on group projects: Structural antecedents and effect on student satisfaction”	2008	Aggarwal, P., & O’Brien, C. L.	8.82
90	“Experiential learning exercises in services marketing courses”	2000	Gremler, D. D., Hoffman K. D., Keaveney, S. M., & Wright, L. K.	4.74
88	“Team learning in a marketing principles course: Cooperative structures that facilitate active learning and higher level thinking”	2002	Hernandez, S. A.	5.18
86	“Integrating marketing courses to enhance team-based experiential learning”	2000	Bobbitt, L. M., Inks, S. A., Kemp, K. J., & Mayo, D. T.	4.53
84	“Free-riding in group projects: Control mechanisms and preliminary data”	1990	Strong, J. T., & Anderson, R. E.	2.90
83	“Academic integrity in the business school environment: I’ll get by with a little help from my friends”	2004	Chapman, K. J., Davis, R., Toy, D., & Wright, L.	5.53
82	“Is Twitter for the birds? Using Twitter to enhance student learning in a marketing course”	2011	Lowe, B., & Laffey, D.	10.25
81	“Enhancing learning outcomes: The effects of instructional technology, learning styles, instructional methods, and student behavior”	2003	Young, M. R., Klemz, B. R., & Murphy, J. W.	5.06
81	“Going beyond green: The ‘why and how’ of integrating sustainability into the marketing curriculum”	2008	Bridges C.M., Wilhelm W.B.	7.36
80	“Marketing education in the year 2000: Changes observed and challenges anticipated”	1999	Smart, D. T., Kelley, C. A., & Conant, J. S.	4.00
79	“Assessing teamwork skills for assurance of learning using CATME team tools”	2014	Loughry, M. L., Ohland, M. W., & Woehr, D. J.	15.80
78	“The reflective learning continuum: Reflecting on reflection”	2005	Peltier, J. W., Hay, A., & Drago, W.	5.57
78	“The interdependence of the factors influencing the perceived quality of the online learning experience: A causal model”	2007	Peltier, J. W., Schibrowsky, J. A., & Drago, W.	6.50
77	“Team projects: Achieving their full potential”	1991	Williams, D. L., Beard, J. D., & Rymer, J.	2.75
76	“A theoretical and practical framework for service-learning in marketing: Kolb’s experiential learning cycle”	2000	Petkus, E., Jr.	4.00
75	“Determinants of student evaluations of global measures of instructor and course value”	2000	Marks, R. B.	3.95

Note. TC = total citations; CPY = average citations per year.

The implications of these findings are extremely provocative, looking forward. It makes intuitive sense that the majority of the top-rated JMED articles are student-focused in nature—learning outcomes, career placement, skills training, and so on—but on closer inspection, this is fairly limited with respect to the overall scope of possibility afforded by the Journal and is very heavily skewed to undergraduate education and career skills training in particular. Although two of the 10 most-cited papers over the last four decades deal with teaching evaluations, these are isolated papers rather than part of a topical trend. There are also no papers at all in the top-cited works addressing graduate-level education. What this suggests is that marketing education researchers have only deeply explored one of many rich avenues of scientific inquiry available in this space. Most notably, there is a perplexing dearth of research on teaching and educating as a skillset. Although the field to date has been appropriately preoccupied with student learning outcomes, there is much room to grow the scope of research and subsequent impact on the field in the study of teaching skills, techniques, approaches, styles, and methods. There is also what appears to be a wide and unexplored gulf of opportunity with respect to the study of graduate and doctoral-level education, both woefully underrepresented in the marketing education research to present.

Another observation in examining the most highly cited publications in JMED is that only three of the top 28 most-cited publications were written in the last decade and had double-digit citations per year. Interestingly, all three of these papers focus specifically on the use of web-based technologies in the classroom. Of course, research takes time to propagate. But in the field of marketing education, so specifically focused on functional-level educational techniques and student experiences, it is simultaneously perplexing and motivating that JMED papers seem to pick up steam rather slowly. This leads to the inference that research in the Journal has room to become more tangibly and immediately impactful to the practice of marketing education. The audience of JMED comprises marketing educators who read the publication improve the practice of educating their students. So it seems incumbent on submitting authors to ensure that their research has tangible application in the marketing classroom and has an immediately resonant meaning to readers.

Top JMED Authors Between 1979 and 2019

Table 3 lists the top authors who have contributed at least five articles to JMED until the end of 2019, and Figure 2 and Figure 3 depicts the temporal trend of the contributors. J. W. Peltier tops the list for contributing the highest number of articles (TP: 15), all of which are coauthored (CA: 15). On average, Peltier collaborates with 2.33 other scholars on JMED articles (CI: 2.33). However, J. Reardon, J. F. Alexander, and L. K. Wright are the most collaborative researchers in the journal (CI: 3.00), while C. R. Duke, M. R. Young, and S. P. Ramocki contribute the highest number of sole-authored publications (SA: 5).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 3.

Top Authors Contributing to JMED Between 1979 and 2019.

TP	Author	NCA	CI	SA	CA	PCP	TC	C/CP	C/CA	NAY	h	g	PAY
15	J. W. Peltier	50	2.33	—	15	1.00	464	30.93	9.28	14	10	15	1.07
11	C. A. Kelley	26	1.36	3	8	1.00	346	31.45	13.31	9	9	11	1.22
10	D. S. Ackerman	23	1.30	—	10	0.80	175	21.88	7.61	9	6	8	1.11
10	D. R. Bacon	21	1.10	4	6	0.90	306	34.00	14.57	9	8	9	1.11
10	J. A. Schibrowsky	26	1.60	1	9	1.00	288	28.80	11.08	8	7	10	1.25
8	J. S. Conant	22	1.75	—	8	1.00	200	25.00	9.09	8	6	8	1.00
8	B. L. Gross	19	1.38	—	8	0.88	160	22.86	8.42	8	5	7	1.00
7	D. E. Clayson	10	0.43	4	3	1.00	384	54.86	38.40	7	7	7	1.00
7	C. R. Duke	12	0.71	5	2	0.86	96	16.00	8.00	6	4	6	1.17
7	M. R. Young	10	0.43	5	2	1.00	261	37.29	26.10	6	5	7	1.17
6	G. L. Clark	10	0.67	3	3	1.00	99	16.50	9.90	5	5	6	1.20
6	I. Clarke	16	1.67	—	6	1.00	245	40.83	15.31	6	6	6	1.00
6	D. E. McCorkle	23	2.83	—	6	1.00	203	33.83	8.83	6	5	6	1.00
6	J. Reardon	24	3.00	—	6	1.00	207	34.50	8.63	6	6	6	1.00
5	J. F. Alexander	20	3.00	—	5	1.00	161	32.20	8.05	5	5	5	1.00
5	J. A. Bellizzi	12	1.40	—	5	1.00	47	9.40	3.92	4	2	5	1.25
5	S. B. Castleberry	6	0.20	4	1	1.00	41	8.20	6.83	5	5	5	1.00
5	R. Hite	12	1.40	—	5	1.00	83	16.60	6.92	4	3	5	1.25
5	P. Hugstad	9	0.80	2	3	0.60	64	21.33	7.11	4	3	3	1.25
5	S. K. Koernig	11	1.20	1	4	1.00	123	24.60	11.18	5	5	5	1.00
5	D. L. Kurtz	12	1.40	—	5	0.80	22	5.50	1.83	4	2	4	1.25
5	D. A. Laverie	11	1.20	1	4	0.80	163	40.75	14.82	5	4	4	1.00
5	L. E. Metcalf	11	1.20	1	4	1.00	68	13.60	6.18	4	5	5	1.25
5	S. P. Ramocki	5	—	5	—	0.80	60	15.00	12.00	4	3	4	1.25
5	D. T. Smart	14	1.80	—	5	1.00	173	34.60	12.36	5	4	5	1.00
5	P. A. Titus	9	0.80	2	3	1.00	106	21.20	11.78	5	5	5	1.00
5	J. H. Wilson	13	1.60	—	5	0.80	26	6.50	2.00	5	4	4	1.00
5	L. K. Wright	20	3.00	—	5	1.00	266	53.20	13.30	5	4	5	1.00

Note. NCA = number of contributing authors; CI = collaboration index; SA = sole-authored articles; CA = coauthored articles; PCP = proportion of cited publications; TC = total citations; C/CP = citations per cited publication; C/CA = citations per contributing author; NAY = number of active years; h = h-index; g = g-index; PAY = publications per active year.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

Temporal evolution of the top JMED authors.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 3.

Temporal evolution of the countries affiliated with JMED authors.

In terms of total citations, J. W. Peltier is the most popular JMED author (TC: 464). He is also the most active (NAY: 14) and influential (h: 10) JMED contributor and has the most impact (g: 15). However, in terms of average citations, L. K. Wright leads, with each article cited approximately 53 times (C/CP: 53.20). Similarly, we find that J. A. Schibrowsky, J. A. Bellizzi, R. Hite, P. Hugstad, D. L. Kurtz, L. E. Metcalf, and S. P. Ramocki are the most productive researchers, contributing more than one article in each of JMED’s 41 active years (PAY: 1.25 each).

In terms of the temporal trend depicted in Figure 2, along with J.W. Peltier, D.S. Ackerman has contributed the highest number of articles between 2010 and 2019. Of note, both authors have contributed six articles each to JMED. The premise that there is a very well-established core contingent of authors in the marketing education space is not unique to the discipline but is promising here as it is in parallel across disciplines. Further to the above point of increasing collaboration in pedagogical research, we might also take the liberty of inferring that there is an opportunity for scholarly mentorship in the area as well. There is also room for such established authors to assume advisory and editorial roles for the Journal to serve as arbiters of scholarly quality and academic standards as JMED moves forward.

Top Countries Affiliated With JMED Authors

Table 4 lists the countries frequently affiliated with JMED authors, and Figure 4 is a comparison between U.S.-affiliated authors and non-U.S. authors. Of note, authors from 38 countries have contributed at least one article to JMED between 1979 and 2019. However, as the table shows, the United States dominates in most of the parameters (TP: 823; NCA: 1.714; SA: 262; CA: 561; TC: 12,600; NAY: 41; h: 51; g: 73; PAY: 20.07). Indonesia is the most collaborative JMED author-affiliated country, with each of its authors collaborating with four other scholars to contribute a JMED article (CI: 4). Similarly, in terms of the average indicators of citations, authors affiliated with Norway have received the highest citations (C/CP: 28.00; C/AA: 28.00).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 4.

Top Countries Contributing to JMED.

TP	Country	NCA	NAA	CI	SA	CA	PCP	TC	C/CP	C/AA	NAY	h	g	PAY
823	The United States	1,714	1,148	1.08	262	561	0.88	12,600	17.40	10.98	41	51	73	20.07
42	Australia	102	74	1.43	8	34	0.95	759	18.98	10.26	20	18	26	2.10
39	Canada	84	59	1.15	11	28	0.82	553	17.28	9.37	21	11	23	1.86
35	The United Kingdom	89	55	1.54	8	27	1.00	720	20.57	13.09	17	16	26	2.06
7	New Zealand	23	11	2.29	1	6	0.71	112	22.40	10.18	7	4	5	1.00
5	France	22	5	3.40	—	5	0.80	42	10.50	8.40	5	3	4	1.00
4	South Korea	11	4	1.75	1	3	0.75	19	6.33	4.75	4	2	3	1.00
3	Austria	6	4	1.00	—	3	1.00	25	8.33	6.25	3	2	3	1.00
3	Sweden	10	8	2.33	—	3	0.67	19	9.50	2.38	3	1	2	1.00
2	Finland	5	5	1.50	1	1	1.00	3	1.50	0.60	2	1	1	1.00
2	Germany	8	2	3.00	—	2	1.00	44	22.00	22.00	2	2	2	1.00
2	India	3	2	0.50	1	1	1.00	7	3.50	3.50	2	1	2	1.00
2	Indonesia	10	2	4.00	—	2	0.50	7	7.00	3.50	2	1	1	1.00
2	Italy	5	5	1.50	1	1	1.00	18	9.00	3.60	2	2	2	1.00
2	Mexico	7	3	2.50	—	2	1.00	9	4.50	3.00	2	2	2	1.00
2	Netherlands	6	4	2.00	—	2	1.00	4	2.00	1.00	2	2	2	1.00
2	Norway	5	2	1.50	—	2	1.00	56	28.00	28.00	2	2	2	1.00
2	Spain	8	4	3.00	—	2	0.50	4	4.00	1.00	2	1	1	1.00
2	Switzerland	9	2	3.50	—	2	1.00	25	12.50	12.50	2	2	2	1.00
2	Thailand	6	2	2.00	—	2	1.00	11	5.50	5.50	2	2	2	1.00

Note. NCA = number of contributing authors; NAA = number of affiliated authors; CI = collaboration index; SA = sole-authored articles; CA = coauthored articles; PCP = proportion of cited publications; TC = total citations; C/CP = citations per cited publication; C/AA = citations per affiliated author; NAY = number of active years; h = h-index; g = g-index; PAY = publications per active year.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 4.

Temporal evolution of the JMED clusters.

As Figure 4 shows, in almost all periods, the United States dominates, making JMED a U.S.-centric publishing hub. However, progressive growth among other countries represented in the figure is a positive indication on the move of JMED toward globalization. Of particular note is that the top five submitting countries, comprising the overwhelming majority of submissions, are all primarily English-speaking countries in North America, the United Kingdom, and Oceania. Although JMED is published in English, as are the majority of marketing and education journals, there is an unquestionably rich world of educational practice and scholarship in Europe, Asia, India, and Africa that appear to be untapped in this outlet.

Top Sources and Countries Citing JMED

Table 5 lists the academic outlets and countries in which JMED publications are most frequently cited. Apart from JMED citing itself (TC: 648), Journal of Education for Business and Journal of Teaching in International Business often cite the articles published in JMED. Among the citing countries, the United States tops the list by a wide margin, followed by Australia, the United Kingdom, and Canada. Such indications imply that JMED is widely popular among the academic sources published in the United States and that its influence is also growing in other countries.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 5.

Top Citing Sources and Countries.

R	Source	TC	Country	TC
1	Journal of Marketing Education	648	The United States	3,534
2	Journal of Education for Business	214	Australia	668
3	Journal of Teaching in International Business	112	The United Kingdom	618
4	Journal of Business Ethics	96	Canada	305
5	Journal of Management Education	79	Spain	203
6	Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education	74	Germany	186
7	International Journal of Management Education	51	Malaysia	159
8	Journal of Marketing for Higher Education	48	China	151
9	Education + Training	46	Netherlands	129
10	Computers & Education	45	Taiwan	117
11	Marketing Education Review	45	India	116
12	Journal of Business Research	39	New Zealand	110
13	Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism	39	Hong Kong	109
14	Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education	38	Turkey	95
15	Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management	38	South Korea	91
16	International Journal of Educational Management	36	Finland	79
17	Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Education	36	South Africa	78
18	Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education	35	Sweden	64
19	Journal of Marketing Management	33	France	61
20	Academy of Management Learning & Education	31	Norway	61

Note. R = rank; TC = total citations.

Looking to the future, JMED would be unquestionably enriched by encouraging submissions from across the globe, where both local and global nuances in pedagogical theory and practice may be explored. When considering the ratio of submitting countries to citing countries, there appears to be a somewhat one-way flow of scholarship in areas like Scandinavia, Asia, and Europe. High citation counts, but low submission counts, lead to the broad inference that scholars in these regions look to JMED for theory and research but submit their own research elsewhere. With industry-wide trends toward collaborative authorship and global communications, there are rich opportunities for international partnerships in future works, particularly as online learning has rendered physical “place” less relevant than it once was, and undergraduate students increasingly participating in “study abroad” programs.

JMED articles are most often cited in journals affiliated with the United States (TC: 6,725), followed by the United Kingdom (TC: 2,947). As indicated, JMED articles are most often cited in JMED itself (TC: 864), followed by the Journal of Business Research (TC: 515). Approximately 37% of the top citations to JMED flow from journals that have a rating of 3, 4, and 4* in the Chartered Association of Business Schools Academic Journal Guide, 2018. Moreover, 91% of the top citations to JMED are from journals having a quality rank of A and A* in Australian Business Deans Council 2019 Journal Quality List. Such indicators confirm the qualitative inputs of JMED articles.

Although there is, as always, a proportion of self-citing from the journal, there is an interesting pattern in the data which suggest a declining trend ratio of self-citation to external citations. In concert with the increase in TC year-on-year, these patterns suggest that the journal is becoming less insular and more impactful over time. Based on the self-citation data available in Scimago (1999-2019), we find a 42.5% self-citation rate over the previous 20-year period overall, but with this rate dropping to 30% factoring only the previous 10 years, and further down to 24.1% factoring only the previous five years. A contrasting implication, however, and when also considering the notably low ratio of citations from Marketing Education Review and Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education, is that submitting authors should take care to stay abreast of current research in the field of marketing education. Although this seems fairly straightforward to the casual observer, what may be inferred from these citation patterns is that submitting authors are building theory from outside the discipline of marketing education, which is a constructive activity insofar as it does not create the potential to overlook the existing research conversations submitting authors seek to join.

Cluster 1: Team Environment

The first cluster, team environment, consists of 107 JMED articles contributed by 212 authors (TP: 107; NCA: 212). When we exclude repeating authors, 181 scholars contribute to this cluster (NAA: 181). On average, each of the lead authors collaborates with another scholar to contribute research to JMED (CI: 0.98). Approximately 35% of the articles are sole-authored (SA: 37; TP: 107), while the remaining 65% are coauthored (CA: 70; TP: 107).

The cluster is important to JMED in terms of citations (TC: 2,263; C/CP: 24.07; C/CA: 10.67). As indicated, the influence and impact of the cluster are quantified by 28 articles receiving at least 28 citations (h: 28) and 43 articles being cited at least 1,849 times (g: 43), showing this cluster’s high influence and impact. Furthermore, the cluster has been active in 38 of the 41 years of JMED, contributing at least 2.82 articles per active year (NAY: 38; PAY: 2.82).

This cluster’s top two articles are by Pfaff and Huddleston (2003) and McCorkle et al. (1999), and some of its influential themes include student attitudes, teamwork, and projects. Note that though this cluster is important to JMED in terms of articles and citations, Figure 4 depicts a steady declining trend since 1990. What this suggests is likely not that marketing educational research in the area of team dynamics is less important or resonant than it once was, but more plausibly that it has simply matured and reached a saturation point as an area of theoretical development.

Cluster 2: Innovative Teaching Techniques

The second cluster named as innovative teaching techniques, comprises 106 JMED articles contributed by 190 authors (TP: 106; NCA: 190). When we exclude author repetition, 174 unique authors have contributed articles (NAA: 174). The cluster contributes with the highest number of sole-authored works (SA: 41), with coauthored publications at 65 (CA: 65).

Unlike Cluster 1, Cluster 2 is not as popular in terms of citations (TC: 664; C/CP: 7.55; C/CA: 3.49). Consequently, its influence is limited to 14 articles cited at least 14 times, and its impact comes from 19 top-cited articles receiving 361 citations. Its activity and productivity indicators show that the cluster has been active in 20 of the 41 years of JMED, contributing at least 5.30 articles per active year.

De Los Santos and Jensen (1985) and Goretsky (1984) are the top-cited publications of the cluster. De Los Santos and Jensen (1985) elucidated on how client-sponsored projects enhance students’ learning appetites, and Goretsky (1984) deliberated on the significance of case-based study methods to marketing students. Some of the influential themes emerging from the cluster include forms of instruction, class projects, and sponsored projects.

As Figure 4 shows, the cluster experienced its highest growth of articles between 1979 and 1989 but has declined since 1990. This cluster is particularly noteworthy for submitting authors, looking forward, because the inference to be drawn here is not that innovations in teaching techniques are less popular but rather that the acceptance rate of such papers is decreasing. As JMED matured as a journal and saw submission numbers grow exponentially, its standards for theoretical rigor have risen in concert, and, thus, purely descriptive papers of what an marketing educator has done in the classroom are less and less appropriate. When considering the low self-citation rate of the journal, as noted above, we may further infer that these types of submissions might be less citable than more theory-driven contributions. Thus, aspiring contributors working in the area of innovative or renovative teaching methods may have a high chance of their work being accepted in the journal, as long as the focus of their work is theoretically grounded and their papers focus on prescription as much as description.

Cluster 3: Students’ Evaluation of Teaching

The third cluster, named students’ evaluation of teaching, consists of 74 articles contributed by 147 authors (TP: 74; NCA: 147), 36% of which are sole-authored (SA: 27; TP: 74) and 74% coauthored (CA: 47; TP: 74). When we exclude author repetition, approximately 130 unique authors contributed to this cluster (NAA: 130), with a collaboration index of 0.99 (CI: 0.99).

The cluster is important to JMED in terms of citations (TC: 1,429; C/CP: 21.33; C/CA: 9.72). Its influence and impact extend to 20 and 35, respectively (h: 20; g: 35). In addition, the cluster has been active in 28 of the 41 years of JMED, contributing at least 2.55 articles in each of its active years (NAY: 28; PAY: 2.55).

Clayson (2009) and Simpson and Siguaw (2000) are the top-two cited articles of the cluster. Clayson (2009) found a weak relationship between students’ learning and their evaluation of teaching, whereas Simpson and Siguaw argued on the positive influence of Twitter-based learning. This cluster’s most influential themes include student evaluations, student learning, and faculty response. However, as Figure 4 shows, the cluster had a declining trend between 2010 and 2019. This is a provocative area of opportunity for the journal, moving forward, at least within the arena of exploring the plethora of confounding influences on, and subsequent concerns with, student evaluations of teaching. As noted earlier, TP in JMED are overwhelmingly weighted to undergraduate students and teaching content rather than the marketing educators themselves and teaching style. There are wide open and unexplored pastures for research in the arenas of teaching skills, ability, technique and style, faculty training, course delivery methods, student–teacher interactions and dynamics, course design, and faculty evaluation, to name only a small handful of potential opportunities. In this unique circumstance, the marketing researchers themselves may become the researched.

Cluster 4: Qualitative Assessment of Marketing Outlets

The fourth cluster named as qualitative assessment of marketing outlets, consists of 44 articles contributed by 99 authors, though the number of unique authors contributing to the cluster is only 88 (TP: 44; NCA: 99; NAA: 88). The number of sole-authored and coauthored articles of the cluster are 10 and 34, respectively (SA: 10; CA: 34). The collaboration index of the cluster suggests that each of the lead authors collaborates with 1.25 other scholars to contribute an article to this cluster (CI: 1.25).

The TC accredited to the articles of this cluster are 766 (TC: 766), while each of its cited articles receives 18.24 citations on average (C/CP: 18.24), and the same per contributing author is 7.74 (C/CA: 7.74). Consequently, the influence of the cluster’s articles is quantified to 15 (h: 15), while its impact extends to 26 (g: 26). This cluster has been active in 26 of the 41 years of JMED, publishing at least 1.69 articles in each of its active years (NAY: 26; PAY: 1.69).

Hult et al. (1997) and Bakr et al. (2000) are the top-two cited articles representing the cluster. Whereas Hult et al. (1997) evaluated marketing outlets, Bakr et al. (2000) examined the scholarly productivity of marketing scholars. Some of this cluster’s influential themes include faculty perceptions, publications, and marketing journals. However, as Figure 4 shows, this cluster has declined since 1990, suggesting a lack of research attention to qualitative assessments in marketing education. Across academia, qualitative research has struggled to keep pace with quantitative work for a host of compounding reasons, and major marketing journals tend to publish primarily experimental research. This has an upstream effect of including less qualitative methods in doctoral programs and, subsequently, fewer qualitative methods in undergraduate research courses. In the field of marketing education, there are opportunities for JMED to give specific attention to qualitative inquiry in recruiting submissions, particularly given the impact of these types of papers on the citable output and impact of the journal.

Cluster 5: Technological Diffusion in Marketing Education

The fifth cluster named technological diffusion in marketing education consists of 60 articles contributed by 145 JMED authors (TP: 60; NCA: 145). Of note, 142 unique authors have contributed to the cluster (NAA: 142), while the majority of articles are coauthored, with a collaboration index of 1.42. This suggests that each of the lead contributors collaborates with 1.42 other scholars to contribute an article to the cluster (SA: 13; CA: 47; CI: 1.42).

The articles representing the cluster are cited 699 times (TC: 699), averaging 13.19 per cited publication (C/CP: 13.19) and 4.82 per contributing author (C/CA: 4.82). The influence of the articles is shown by 16 articles cited at least 16 times (h: 16), while 24 of its highly cited works demonstrate the impact of the cluster (g: 24). The cluster has been active for 23 years, contributing 2.61 articles per active year (NAY: 23; PAY: 2.61).

Figure 4 shows an evolving trend of the cluster between 2010 and 2019, which suggests that technological diffusion in marketing education is a robust avenue for future research. As Table 7 shows, this cluster’s top-cited articles are Lowe and Laffey (2011) and Wymbs (2011), and some of its influential themes include digital marketing and enhanced student learning. There are a few critical takeaways from this cluster. First, as related to the above discussion in the Bibliometric analysis section about the lack of immediately impactful research in the journal, there are abundant opportunities—now more than ever—to publish research on the cutting edge of technological diffusion in marketing education. Again, considering the implications from Cluster 2, what would seem critical here for long-term influence is a strong theoretical foundation for works of this nature. Research that is overly context-dependent (e.g., tied to a specific software or social media platform) is likely planned obsolescence and inherently limited in contribution.

Cluster 6: Experiential Learning

This sixth cluster, experiential learning, is an extension of the second cluster on innovative teaching techniques. However, the primary concern of this cluster is the delivery of experiential learning to marketing graduates to ensure success in their careers. The cluster comprises 124 articles contributed by 272 authors (TP: 124; NCA: 272). Approximately 239 unique authors have contributed 30 sole-authored and 94 coauthored articles (NAA: 239; SA: 30; CA: 94).

The articles in this cluster have attracted 2,357 citations (the second-highest figure among the 10 clusters), averaging 19.64 per cited publication and 8.63 per contributing author (TC: 2,357; C/CP: 19.64; C/CA: 8.63). Furthermore, the influence of the cluster is demonstrated by its 28 articles cited 28 times (h: 28), while its impact is shown by its 42 top-cited articles receiving at least 1,764 citations (g: 42). The cluster has been active in 30 of the 41 years of JMED, contributing 4.13 articles on average (NAY: 30; PAY: 4.13). The most cited works of the cluster are Gault et al. (2000) and Gremler et al. (2000).

However, as Figure 4 shows, the cluster has declined since 2000. While at first blush this may seem counterintuitive, this trend does seem to make sense when considering the theoretical rigor of the journal. Experiential learning theory is now three decades into its lifecycle (cf. Kolb, 1984) and, much like team dynamics in Cluster 1, it has likely simply reached maturity as a theory. So, while papers may speak to, invoke, and cite experiential learning theory, the focus of research itself is likely less and less on extending that theory itself. While this trend makes sense in parallel with the trend of declining descriptive teaching techniques above, what is thought-provoking is the diverting trajectories of experiential learning and technological diffusion in education. If the inference to be drawn here is that education researchers do not see technology as adding to the experience of education—that we have separated the how from the why—this is an extremely promising research gap and likely one of immediate need.

Cluster 7: Marketing Values and Ethics

The seventh cluster, named marketing values and ethics, consists of 78 articles contributed by 210 authors (TP: 28; NCA: 210). In addition, 184 unique authors (NAA: 184) have contributed 11 sole-authored and 67 coauthored articles (SA: 11; CA: 67). The cluster is highly collaborative, with each of its lead contributors teaming up with 1.69 other scholars to contribute an article (CI: 1.69).

TC to the cluster are 1,120, averaging 16.23 per cited article and 5.33 per contributing author (TC: 1,120; C/CP: 16.23; C/CA: 5.33). The influence of the cluster is shown by its 17 articles cited at least 17 times, while its impact extends to 29 highly cited articles receiving at least 841 citations (h: 17; g: 29). This cluster has been active for 29 of the 41 years of JMED, publishing at least 2.69 articles in each of its active years (NAY: 29; PAY: 2.69).

As Table 7 shows, Yoo and Donthu (2002) and Chapman et al. (2004) are the top-two cited articles. According to Figure 4, the cluster is an emerging and important avenue for future research. Marketing ethics is a subject area in education, and subsequently in education research, that is underdeveloped and inconsistent across academia (Paul, 2019). Although education scholars have been drawing attention to the pressing need for theoretical and practical development in the area of teaching ethics for more than two decades (see Shannon & Berl, 1997) these calls have gone, in large part, unanswered. Thus, there appears to remain a pressing need for research in this area.

Cluster 8: Self-Regulated Learning

The eighth cluster named self-regulated learning comprises 126 articles contributed by 274 authors (TP: 126; NCA: 274). When we exclude author repetition, the cluster encompasses the views of 223 unique authors contributing 39 sole-authored and 87 coauthored articles (NAA: 223; SA: 39; CA: 87). The collaboration index of the cluster suggests that each of its lead authors collaborates with 1.17 other scholars to contribute an article to this cluster (CI: 1.17).

Almost 100% of the articles are cited (PCP: 0.99). The TC of the cluster are the highest among all the other clusters (TC: 3,179), averaging 25.43 per cited article and 11.60 per contributing author (C/CP: 25.43; C/CA: 11.60). The cluster has high influence (h: 34) and impact (g: 45) and has been active for 29 of the 41 years of JMED, publishing approximately 4.34 articles per active year (NAY: 29; PAY: 4.34).

As Table 7 shows, Young (2005) and Karns (2005) are the most influential articles. The cluster’s influential themes include classroom environment, self-regulated learning, and student perceptions. According to Figure 4, the cluster rapidly evolved between 2000 and 2009 but declined between 2010 and 2019. Given this cluster’s importance to JMED, we propose that it should be revived. Perhaps a special issue would be a fruitful strategic move at this stage, particularly considering the increasingly relevant nature of self-regulated learning in online education and remote course delivery. In addition, aspiring contributors working in the area of self-regulated learning likely have a high chance of their work being accepted for publication in future issues of the journal.

Cluster 9: Objective Exams

The ninth cluster, objective exams, has only two articles contributed by four authors. One is a sole-authored article, and the other is contributed by three authors. The articles have received only six citations, while their influence, impact, and activity are quantified at 2 each. As Table 7 shows, both Chidomere (1989) and Pettit et al. (1986) discussed objective exams, with no reported works since these publications. What this suggests is, of course, not that objective examinations have disappeared from marketing education but rather simply that there is little theoretical exploration left, if at all, in this area for JMED.

Cluster 10: Multiple Experiential Techniques and Student Learning

The tenth cluster, named as multiple experiential techniques and student learning, consists of 78 articles contributed by 172 authors (TP: 78; NCA: 172). The number of unique authors is 160 (NAA: 160), contributing 24 sole-authored and 54 coauthored articles (SA: 24; CA: 54). The collaboration index of the cluster suggests that each of the lead contributors teams up with 1.21 other scholars to contribute an article. In terms of citations, the cluster received 1,342 citations, averaging 18.90 per cited publication and 7.80 per contributing author (TC: 1,342; C/CP: 18.90; C/CA: 7.80). The influence, impact, activity, and productivity of the cluster are 18, 33, 21, and 3.71, respectively.

As Table 7 shows, the top-two cited articles of the cluster are Rinaldo et al. (2011) and Hamer (2000). The cluster’s most influential themes include learning by tweeting, tweeter’s pedagogy, and experiential learning techniques. As encouragement to aspiring contributors, Figure 4 shows an increasing trend in this area of research in recent years of JMED. This cluster is effectively an extension of Clusters 5 and 6 above but with an additional layer of complexity. What this cluster suggests is that both the practice and recipients of marketing education are evolving to be more demanding and sophisticated as a field. This consideration forces marketing education scholars to focus less on discrete in-class activities (note the declining trends in Cluster 2) and more on the overall design of a marketing course as an integrated schematic of various learning tools, techniques and methodologies. Although research might suggest otherwise, the student journey in practice cannot be fragmented into discrete elements and may be considered much like an extended and immersive service encounter comprising a host of touchpoints, technologies, individual and team dynamics, intellectual ebbs and flows, highs and lows, and a nexus of student experiences. This is perhaps the most provocative consideration for JMED looking to the future, and one which the title of the journal itself foreshadows: the future of research in this field may well be less about educating and more about education.

In conclusion, except for Clusters 5, 7, and 10, all the other clusters are declining in popularity in JMED. Therefore, aspiring contributors working in the active areas of JMED have a high chance of having their work accepted, while those working in the declining areas might consider some innovative and updated research modalities to attain acceptance in JMED.