Guest Editorial from a Previous Editor-in-Chief: Twenty-Five Years of Electic Growth in Marketing Science

Abstract

The journal Marketing Science is now twenty-five years old and has accomplished much more than we had ever dreamed. I recall debates, often on bus rides at the early Marketing Science conferences, about the editorial structure. The AMA journals, the Journal of Marketing Research and the Journal of Marketing, were potential outlets for marketing science research, but these journals changed editors every three years. Each editor brought his or her perspectives—sometimes advocating marketing science and sometimes not. This system ensured diversity as each editor made his or her imprint on the journal, but many young researchers (yes, we were young once) faced three years in limbo. There are many advantages to the AMA system, but theMarketing Science founding committee sought a more stable editorial structure. We sought eclecticism in which there were many ways to succeed. One model was Management Science, which had nearly autonomous departmental editors—a system that made sense for a mature field. But marketing science was in a rapid growth stage. We needed a better hybrid that balanced the many viewpoints with an entrepreneurial editor. From these debates was born the area editor (AE) system. Each AE would work with the reviewers and report to the editor, who would make the final decision. The editor would maintain a field-wide perspective and encourage new directions. The goals was diverse perspectives with two sets of editorial evaluations. The number of AEs would grow as the journal attracted more papers and covered more subfields. We began with three; we now have over twenty (with a list of over thirty-five guest AEs). We hoped that the shared load would prevent the dreaded editorin-chief-burnout phenomenon, at least with the submission volumes we anticipated in the early 1980s. Following the ORSA/TIMMS (later INFORMS) system, editors were appointed for three years, but with the option of reappointment. This system has its flaws but, on the whole, it has served us well. We made the strategic decision to empower the editors and review team to judge a paper publishable (or not) without worrying about page constraints. Each year the INFORMS Society on Marketing Science (ISMS), or its predecessors, has supported additional pages as necessary and special issues when appropriate. A final strategic decision was to actively court an international perspective. The Marketing Science conference plans a rotation of one of every three years outside of North America. Marketing Science is now strongly international and has benefited from that diversity (Stremersch and Verhoef 2005). The last strategic decision was to grow the field in general, not just the journal per se. We all shared the goals that marketing science methods should evolve and that new ideas would come from the most unexpected places. We hoped that ISMS and its predecessors would view the AMA, the ACR, and now QME as synergistic to the growth of the marketing science field. Today marketing science papers often appear in other journals. Marketing Science authors cite and publish in AMA, ACR, and QME journals, join those societies, and serve on other editorial boards. In return, many new ideas have come to ISMS and Marketing Science. We also made tactical decisions. Marketing Science was one of the first journals to compete on turnaround time. While there is still variance, average turnaround time is now less than three months, with decisions made on most papers within the first two rounds of reviewing. More recently, we were the first journal to publish in color. Together, these strategies seem to be working. Papers are published today with methods, perspectives, and topics we never anticipated. Authors routinely analyze rich data such as scanner panels, use