Perceptual Differences of Marketing Journals: A Worldwide Perspective

By V. Theoharakis, A. Hirst. 2002

183 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Mixed methods designs in marketing research (2011, background): “…en t or em b ed d ed N o te : a A d d ed cl as si fi ca ti on S o u rc e : A d ap te d fr om B ry m an (2 00 6) Table I. Rationale for mixed methods research and design types QMRIJ 14,1 10 JAMS, IJMR and EJM also listed as top-level journals according to some surveys (Theoharakis and Hirst, 2002).”
Global ranking of knowledge management and intellectual capital academic journals (2009, background): “Currently, all recognized academic disciplines may boast their own journal rankings developed through two methods: citation analyses or expert surveys (Franke et al., 1990; Vokurka, 1996; Walstrom and Hardgrave, 2001; Theoharakis and Hirst, 2002; Manning and Barrette, 2005; Oltheten et al., 2005).”
An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research (2011, result): “This ranking is similar to those by Baumgartner and Pieters (2003), Hult et al. (1997), and Theoharakis and Hirst (2002) .”
Toward an integrated framework for online consumer behavior and decision making process: A review (2010, background): “1002/mar 98 Table 1 shows the final list of 25 journals, 17 of which had previously been part of the 55 marketing journals tracked by Theoharakis and Hirst (2002) in their worldwide ranking.”