Building on and galvanizing AMS Review’s progress

BackgroundAntimicrobial stewardship (AMS) in elective surgical settings remains an underexplored domain, particularly in orthopaedics, a specialty with consistently high antimicrobial usage due to the nature of infections. In contrast to acute or high-risk environments, AMS opportunities in elective orthopaedic hospitals are often overlooked due to perceived low complexity and the existence of protocol-driven prophylaxis. However, despite this it still experiences the stewardship challenges of a secondary care facility. This project aimed to address this gap by introducing structured, multidisciplinary AMS ward rounds at a tertiary elective orthopaedic centre to evaluate current antimicrobial use, identify improvement opportunities and assess feasibility for sustainable integration.ObjectivesTo map existing antimicrobial prescribing practices in an elective orthopaedic inpatient setting; to categorize prescribing patterns and identify targets for intervention; to assess the feasibility, scope and clinical value of weekly structured AMS ward rounds; and to promote multidisciplinary collaboration and guideline adherence.MethodsOver a 6 month period (March–August 2025), weekly AMS rounds were conducted across five level-one wards and one high-dependency unit. Patients receiving antimicrobials were prospectively screened using the hospital's electronic prescribing system (PICS) and categorized into four predefined groups: Bone Infection Service—under existing specialist MDT care; excluded from AMS review; AMS—cases with nosocomial/community infections or off-guideline prescribing; Prophylaxis—perioperative antimicrobial use per established protocols; and Other—long-term antimicrobial prophylaxis (e.g. post-splenectomy). Cases in the AMS group were further triaged by the screening pharmacist, with appropriate interventions made or escalated to the AMS round. The AMS team comprised an Infectious Diseases Consultant, Antimicrobial Pharmacist and a Bone Infection Service nurse.ResultsAcross 14 AMS rounds, out of the 955 inpatients, 40% (n=382) were receiving antimicrobials at time of screening. Of these: 30% (n=114) were under Bone Infection Service care and excluded from intervention analysis; 38% (n=144) were receiving surgical prophylaxis, largely guideline compliant; and 22% (n=84) met criteria for AMS review due to complex, non-prophylactic antimicrobial use. Within the AMS cohort, 53 patients were discussed during rounds, resulting in 43 interventions, including de-escalation, initiation of appropriate therapy, or referral to MDT. Key themes included inconsistent documentation (e.g. vague postoperative antibiotic plans), off-guideline prescribing and treatment of clinically insignificant microbiology findings.ConclusionsThis scoping initiative demonstrates that structured AMS rounds are both feasible and impactful in an elective orthopaedic setting. Despite being a low-acuity environment, 40% of inpatients were on antimicrobials, with 13% of patients on antimicrobials warranting targeted stewardship interventions. Pharmacist-led screening, coupled with multidisciplinary review, enabled efficient use of time and resources while fostering improved prescribing culture. The model identified practice variation, gaps in guideline coverage and areas for systemic improvement, laying the foundation for broader AMS integration. Future work will include outcome tracking, expansion of prophylaxis guidance and development of targeted education and guideline refinement strategies. A future focus on the Watch and Reserve categories, unravelling prophylaxis regimes, creating tailored education and training packages such as prescribing for sepsis will be aimed to be rolled out amongst staff.

Abstract Sustainability demands system-level transformation, yet marketing theory remains largely grounded in firm-centric, transactional, and equilibrium-based assumptions that are ill-suited to address planetary-scale challenges. This article responds to the need for more conceptually ambitious marketing scholarship capable of grappling with sustainability as a dynamic, contested, and future-oriented phenomenon. We identify key conceptual and methodological barriers that have constrained sustainability theorizing in marketing and examine how foundational perspectives within the discipline can be re-imagined and extended to meet these demands. Through a review of conceptual contributions in AMS Review, we trace how sustainability-related thinking has evolved within the field and assess the potential of three marketing-indigenous theories—Service-Dominant Logic, Resource-Advantage Theory, and Market Shaping—to inform the development of sustainability theory. Building on this foundation, we propose a future research agenda structured around four interlinked themes: (1) advancing system-level theorizing, (2) reimagining stakeholder responsibility to include nature and future generations, (3) conceptualizing sustainability as a dynamic resource domain, and (4) enabling prospective theorizing to support the shaping of more sustainable market futures.

Welcome to the AMS Review’s Theories of Sustainability special issue

The relationship between time and voice about unethical behaviour has been highlighted as a key area for exploration within the voice and silence field (Morrison Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior 10:79–107, 2023). Previous studies have made only modest progress in this area, so we present a temporal lens which can act as a guide for others wishing to better understand the role of time and voice. Applying the concept of theory adaptation (Jaakkola AMS Review 10:18–26, 2020), a method which attempts to build on a given field through the application of a new theoretical lens, we begin by reviewing what is known in relation to voice about unethical behaviour specifically. Then we introduce two temporal frameworks, one suggested by Ancona, Okhuysen, and Perlow (Ancona et al. The Academy of Management Review 26:645–663, 2001a; Ancona et al. The Academy of Management Review 26:512–529, 2001b) as a useful way of analysing time in organisations, and a second one by Bansal, Anna, and Wood, (Bansal et al. Academy of Management Review 43:217–241, 2018) focusing on the way organisations include voice into their temporal rhythm. We then draw conclusions about the role of time in relation to voice about unethical behaviour and identify three insights; a) it takes time for voices to generate evidence for unethical behaviour, b) perceptions of unethical behaviour change over time, and c) it is most difficult to voice about unethical behaviour at the time it is most needed. Our recommendations for future avenues of research based on these insights recommend new research designs better suited to explore the relationship between voice and time and a focus on how the formality of voice mechanisms shapes the timing of voice.

We capture the theoretical and practical essence of the thoughts by Key, Clark, Ferrell, Stewart, and Pitt (AMS Review, 2020) on marketing’s value propositions by creating an integrative satisfaction-focused exit-voice-loyalty theory. The potpourri of thoughts by Key et al. (2020) in this issue of AMS Review–centered mainly on marketing’s value propositions within the broader business academy (and practice)–lend themselves to a focus on the value propositions, dynamics, and relationships between customers and firms. With the customer-firm exchange as the lens, marketing’s value propositions are effectively brought out via the development of the satisfaction-focused exit-voice-loyalty theory (SEVL theory).

'First things first': The AMS Review – Sheth Foundation 2020 annual doctoral competition for conceptual articles

Peer reviewed academic journals, like AMS Review, live and die by their ability to obtain high quality reviews of submitted manuscripts. However, academics are increasingly pressed for time, needing to publish their research, teach their classes, and provide service to their Department, Faculty/College and University to support their careers in terms of retention, tenure, and promotion. Amidst these responsibilities, as a service to the Academy, academics also are expected to provide reviews of manuscripts in order to move the intellectual trajectory of the domain forward. High quality reviewing, though, takes cognitive energy and is time consuming, which then interferes with other academic responsibilities. For these reasons, editors of peer-reviewed academic journals are finding it more and more difficult to obtain a sufficient number of high-quality reviews to make good decisions about submissions in a timely manner. The purpose of this article is to help all reviewers, but especially those reviewing conceptual articles, provide a high-quality review. Specifically, this article first defines what constitutes a “high quality review,” and suggests how reviewing can aid an academic’s own research, writing and career. It then defines the behaviors needed for effective reviewing for all manuscripts, termed the 5 R’s: roles, responsibilities, responses, reactions, and respect. It then provides a reviewing template for conceptual articles, given the special difficulties of peer reviewing such articles, and closes with a few additional pieces of advice to help with being efficient in reviewing, while being effective.

The number of people with chronic or long-term physical and mental illnesses has increased and will continue to do so. Many must learn to live with one or more diseases throughout their lives. Healthcare service must therefore support, to a greater extent, individuals living with illness. An important part of this transition is to improve the use of patients’ knowledge and resources to organize treatment in accordance with their own needs and values. Patient-centered healthcare can provide better patient experiences, better professional quality, and the possibility of slowing down resource consumption. Therefore, patient-centered initiatives have taken center stage in discussions on how to improve quality in healthcare service as discussed by Berry (2019) in this issue of the AMS Review. A cornerstone of patient-centered care is shared decision making, where healthcare professionals and patients work together to reach a shared healthcare choice.

AMS Review: Progress toward a world-class journal dedicated to theory development

Berry AMS Review, 9(1–2), (2019) highlights the urgent need for innovation in healthcare as cost pressure is intense and service quality, both in terms of objective care and treatment quality, is critical for the wellbeing of our societies. Yet, administrative and operational waste is prevalent and service quality leaves much to be desired in many healthcare institutions. This commentary draws on the article by Wirtz and Zeithaml Journal of Service Management, 29(5), 907–931, (2018) and discusses how three strategic pathways towards cost-effective service excellence (CESE) can be applied to healthcare. CESE is defined as achieving low unit costs (i.e., high productivity) while at the same time delivering service quality (i.e., service excellence) at an industry-leading level. The three pathways are the dual culture strategy, the operations management approach, and the focused service factory strategy. Implications for innovation in healthcare are discussed.

The marketing discipline, which emerged in the early 1900s, spent its first 70 years focused on describing and evaluating how for-profit organizations conduct their commercial operations with products and services. Starting in the 1970s, marketing scholars – Philip Kotler, Sidney Levy, Gerald Zaltman, and Richard Bagozzi – wrote a series of articles showing that marketing activities go on in the non-profit sector as well. They proposed that the marketing discipline would be enriched by working with the “marketing” problems of non-profit and public organizations--not just the marketing problems of commercial organizations. This subsequently came to be known as the “broadening of marketing.” A few years later, some marketers challenged the broadening idea as not belonging in the discipline of marketing. The broadening scholars suggested carrying out a referendum with marketing professors. The subsequent vote proved to be overwhelmingly in favor of the broadening movement. More recently, Adel El-Ansary and co-authors (El-Ansary et al. AMS Review, 2018) raised the question of whether the broadening work is part of a larger paradigm that might lead to a general theory of marketing.

The new marketing systems paradigm proposed by El-Ansary, Shaw, and Lazer in their thoughtful AMS Review Article is taken to heart herein by reframing disparate pieces of scholarship and emerging research in the field through a systems lens. Three systems are proposed to undergird marketing theories, thought, and behavior: (1) a purposive-driven, goal-directed behavior systems point of view that the actors contemplating, entering, engaging, and resolving marketing exchanges undergo, (2) biological systems (neuroscience, endocrinological, and genetic) grounding marketing exchanges, and (3) cooperative and competitive systems in which goal-directed behavior and biological systems are realized in an integrative way. It is straining, however, to characterize the state of the field as constituting an identity crisis in my opinion, because the majority of marketing scholars, practitioners, and students do not appear to be concerned with or even aware of such a crisis in that the history of marketing thought does not interest them. Perhaps once the field moves from descriptive frameworks to testable theories, and experiences an integration of ideas potentially building towards more comprehensive theories in marketing, we will see hope for a general theory of marketing.

El-Ansary et al. (AMS Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-017-0102-y , 2017) provide a 100-year historical review of the concepts and paradigms that have led to an identity crisis in marketing. This commentary is a retrospective review, contributing to the understanding of the evolution of concepts and changes in the marketing discipline which have precipitated this identity crisis. In addition, progress in the development of marketing theory is examined to determine if there are major theories or frameworks that can assist in resolving the identity crisis. Concerns about the current narrow focus on consumer behavior, modeling, and methodological sophistication have resulted from the failure of the marketing discipline to determine appropriate research agenda and topics important in marketing education. A marketing systems paradigm is considered for resolving this identity crisis in academia and industry.

Addressing strategic marketing's identity problem, several highly complementary works have clarified the field's theoretical foundations, nature, and scope by (1) specifying its domain, (2) defining its central concept, "marketing strategy," (3) proposing the field's foundational premises, and (4) positing its fundamental explananda. Furthermore, the works have shown how resource-advantage (R-A) theory (5) grounds major theories of marketing strategy, (6) illuminates, informs, extends, and grounds the field's foundational premises, (7) identifies three fundamental strategies ("superior value," "lower cost," and "synchronal"), and (8) explains how the three fundamental strategies promote societal welfare. However, a major unresolved issue concerns the second fundamental explanandum of strategic marketing. Specifically, Varadarajan (AMS Review, 5, 78-90, 2015) expands his second fundamental explanandum from "marketplace and financial performance" to explaining triple bottom line (TBL) performance. That is, strategic marketing theory and research should answer: "What explains differences in [social, environmental, and financial] performance of competing brands/product lines/businesses?" This article provides a background discussion on how "sustainability" and the TBL relate to marketing in general and strategic marketing, in particular. Next, it (1) examines the nature of the TBL, (2) shows how the TBL concept and certain issues regarding its measurement parallel those in the "corporate social responsibility" literature, (3) re-examines the value of the TBL framework, (4) makes clear how R-A theory accommodates the TBL, and (5) shows how R-A theory provides seven potential explanations of differences in firms' TBL performance.

The inductive realist model of theory generation (Hunt, AMS Review, 3(2), 61–73, 2013) proposes a process model of theory generation that links discovery and justification. This article further explicates the inductive realist model of theory generation by addressing the major issues that marketing academics have raised. Specifically, this article provides answers to six of the most commonly asked questions. (1) Why is the model called “inductive realist”? (2) Is the real world of theory generation as linear as the model depicts? (3) Is the model positive or normative? (4) How does the model relate to the “theory-in-use” approach? (5) Is the model a testable, causal model? (6) Does all “problem recognition” start with “current disciplinary knowledge”?

This paper presents a causal explanation of formative variables that unpacks and clarifies the generally accepted idea that formative indicators are ‘causes’ of the focal formative variable. In doing this, we explore the recent paper by Diamantopoulos and Temme (AMS Review, 3(3), 160-171, 2013) and show that the latter misunderstand the stance of Lee, Cadogan, and Chamberlain (AMS Review, 3(1), 3-17, 2013; see also Cadogan, Lee, and Chamberlain, AMS Review, 3(1), 38-49, 2013). By drawing on the multiple ways that one can interpret the idea of causality within the MIMIC model, we then demonstrate how the continued defense of the MIMIC model as a tool to validate formative indicators and to identify formative variables in structural models is misguided. We also present unambiguous recommendations on how formative variables can be modelled in lieu of the formative MIMIC model.

This article is a response to the March, 2013, special issue of the AMS Review, which was purportedly about “scientific progress in marketing” but in fact was about measurement in marketing. Even narrower than that, the special issue was about “formative measurement” in marketing. The present article contends that the problems raised by the special issue’s authors were solved earlier by Rossiter’s C-OAR-SE measurement theory. Four key references on C-OAR-SE theory (Rossiter in Int J Res Mark 19(4):305–335, 2002; Bergkvist and Rossiter in J Mark Res 44(2):175–184, 2007; Rossiter’s 2011a book; Rossiter in Eur J Market 45(11/12):1589–1600, 2011b) are revisited to explain how continued ignorance of C-OAR-SE principles has stifled progress in measurement in all the social sciences.

This article contributes to theory development in marketing, in general, and to theory development in marketing ethics, in particular. The proposed “inductive realist model of theory generation” incorporates both (1) recent works in the philosophy of science on discovery processes in science and (2) Hunt’s (International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 25(2), 159–178, 2011, AMS Review, 2(1), 5–18, 2012) inductive realist model of theory status. To illustrate how the model can be used, the author shows how the model can contribute to understanding the development of a general theory of marketing ethics that is frequently referred to as the “Hunt-Vitell theory of ethics.”

Hunt (1983) notes the distinction between writing “on” the philosophy of science and writing about the “use” of the philosophy of science, and he remarks that a fundamental aspect of understanding the use and unity of the philosophy of science in marketing research “stems from the common acceptance by the sciences of a methodology for the justification (confirmation, validation, corroboration) of knowledge” (p. 20). Consistent with this comment, Mario Bunge (Hunt 1983) states “Science has not the monopoly of truth but only the monopoly of the means for checking truth and enhancing it” (p. 83). This issue of the AMS Review is about such scientific progress in marketing. Probably the best way to open this issue is with a quote from Paul Surgi Speck (Hunt, 1983, p. 348):