Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
FrancoAngeli Journals

Notes

Vol. 24 No. 2 (2022)

Fostering the debate among scholars to support the advancement of knowledge in the food-related consumer research: A commentary

DOI
https://doi.org/10.3280/ecag2022oa13657
Submitted
aprile 11, 2022
Published
2022-09-29

Abstract

In this commentary, I aim to highlight some issues currently challenging the advancement of knowledge in the food-related consumer research academic community. Retracing the sections of a research paper, several strategic writing practices authors use to please reviewers are outlined together with customary referee comments considerably popular nowadays (as paper originality; sample size and external validity; and risk of bias). These odds in the current publishing and reviewing practices, which are also under transition and in an ongoing shift, need thorough discussion among the academic community. The overall goal of the commentary is to foster debate and reflection among editors and scholars to better define the possible boundaries of good contributions to knowledge and the precise guidelines to prevent (potentially) detrimental practices on both sides.

References

  1. Ahl, V., & Allen, T.F. (1996). Hierarchy theory: a vision, vocabulary, and epistemology. New York (USA): Columbia University Press.
  2. Alpert, J.S. (2007). Peer review: The best of the blemished? The American Journal of Medicine, 120(4), 287-288. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2007.02.013.
  3. Babin, B.J., Griffin, M., & Hair, J.F. (2016). Heresies and sacred cows in scholarly marketing publications. Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 3133-3138. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.12.001.
  4. Bagchi, R., Block, L., Hamilton, R.W., & Ozanne, J.L. (2017). A Field Guide for the Review Process: Writing and Responding to Peer Reviews. Journal of Consumer Research, 43(5), 860-872. doi: 10.1093/jcr/ucw066.
  5. Banks, G.C., Rogelberg, S.G., Woznyj, H.M., Landis, R.S., & Rupp, D.E. (2016). Editorial: Evidence on Questionable Research Practices: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. Journal of Business and Psychology, 31(3), 323-338. doi: 10.1007/s10869-016-9456-7.
  6. Bellemare, M.F. (2014, July). How to publish academic papers. In Annual Meeting of the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association. -- http://marcfbellemare.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/BellemareHowtoPublish.pdf.
  7. Bellemare, M.F. (2020). Chapter in progress from a forthcoming MIT Press book. -- Retrieved online: http://marcfbellemare.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/BellemareHowToPaperSeptember2020.pdf.
  8. Berkowitz, L., & Donnerstein, E. (1982). External validity is more than skin deep: Some answers to criticisms of laboratory experiments. American psychologist, 37(3), 245-257. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.37.3.245.
  9. Biondi, B., Barrett, C.B., Mazzocchi, M., Ando, A., Harvey, D., & Mallory, M. (2021). Journal submissions, review and editorial decision patterns during initial COVID-19 restrictions. Food Policy, 105, 102167. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2021.102167.
  10. Brodeur, A., Lé, M., Sangnier, M., & Zylberberg, Y. (2016). Star wars: The empirics strike back. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 8(1), 1-32. doi: 10.1257/app.20150044.
  11. Brown, J.R., & Dant, R.P. (2008). On what makes a significant contribution to the retailing literature. Journal of Retailing, 84(2), 131-135. doi: 10.1016/j.jretai.2008.05.002.
  12. Canavari, M., Drichoutis, A.C., Lusk, J.L., & Nayga Jr, R.M. (2019). How to run an experimental auction: A review of recent advances. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 46(5), 862-922. doi: 10.1093/erae/jbz038.
  13. Cavicchi, A., Santini, C. & Bailetti, L. (2014). Mind the “academician-practitioner” gap: an experience-based model in the food and beverage sector. Qualitative Market Research, 17(4), 319-335. doi: 10.1108/QMR-07-2013-0047.
  14. Finger, R., Droste, N., Bartkowski, B., & Ang, F. (2021). A note on performance indicators for agricultural economic journals. Journal of Agricultural Economics. doi: 10.1111/1477-9552.12473.
  15. García, J.A., Rodriguez-Sánchez, R., & Fdez-Valdivia, J. (2020). The author-reviewer game. Scientometrics, 124(3), 2409-2431. doi: 10.1007/s11192-020-03559-6.
  16. Giacalone, D., & Jaeger, S.R. (2019). Consumer ratings of situational (‘item-by-use’) appropriateness predict food choice responses obtained in central location tests. Food Quality and Preference, 78, 103745. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2019.103745.
  17. Greenland, S., Senn, S.J., Rothman, K.J., Carlin, J.B., Poole, C., Goodman, S.N., & Altman, D.G. (2016). Statistical tests, P values, confidence intervals, and power: a guide to misinterpretations. European Journal of Epidemiology, 31(4), 337-350. doi: 10.1007/s10654-016-0149-3.
  18. Grewal, D., & Levy, M. (2007). Retailing research: Past, present, and future. Journal of retailing, 83(4), 447-464. doi: 10.1016/j.jretai.2007.09.003.
  19. Heckelei, T., Huettel, S., Odening, M., & Rommel, J. (2021). The replicability crisis and the p-value debate – what are the consequences for the agricultural and food economics community? (No. 1548-2021-3222). Working paper identifier: -- https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/316369.
  20. Janiszewski, C., Labroo, A.A., & Rucker, D.D. (2016). A tutorial in consumer research: knowledge creation and knowledge appreciation in deductive-conceptual consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 43(2), 200-209. doi: 10.1093/jcr/ucw023.
  21. Jaeger, S.R., Hort, J., Porcherot, C., Ares, G., Pecore, S., & MacFie, H.J.H. (2017). Future directions in sensory and consumer science: Four perspectives and audience voting. Food Quality and Preference, 56, 301-309. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.03.006.
  22. Josephson, A., & Michler, J.D. (2018). Beasts of the field? Ethics in agricultural and applied economics. Food Policy, 79: 1-11. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2018.08.001.
  23. Lesko, C.R., Buchanan, A.L., Westreich, D., Edwards, J.K., Hudgens, M.G., & Cole, S.R. (2017). Generalizing study results: a potential outcomes perspective. Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.), 28(4), 553. doi: 10.1097/EDE.0000000000000664.
  24. Levy, M., & Grewal, D. (2007). Publishing perspectives from the editors. Journal of Retailing, 83(3), 247. doi: 10.1016/j.jretai.2007.06.001.
  25. List, J.A. (2020). Non est disputandum de generalizability? A glimpse into the external validity trial (No. w27535). National Bureau of Economic Research.
  26. List, J.A., Sadoff, S., & Wagner, M. (2011). So you want to run an experiment, now what? Some simple rules of thumb for optimal experimental design. Experimental Economics, 14(4), 439-457. doi: 10.1007/s10683-011-9275-7.
  27. Lovejoy, T.I., Revenson, T.A., & France, C.R. (2011). Reviewing manuscripts for peer-review journals: a primer for novice and seasoned reviewers. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 42(1), 1-13. doi: 10.1007/s12160-011-9269-x.
  28. Lucas, J.W. (2003). Theory‐testing, generalization, and the problem of external validity. Sociological Theory, 21(3), 236-253. doi: 10.1111/1467-9558.00187.
  29. Lusk, J.L. (2011). External validity of the food values scale. Food Quality and Preference, 22(5), 452-462. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2011.02.009.
  30. Lybbert, T.J., & Buccola, S.T. (2021). The evolving ethics of analysis, publication, and transparency in applied economics. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 43(4), 1330-1351. doi: 10.1002/aepp.13131.
  31. March, J.G., & Simon, H.A. (1958). Organizations. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
  32. Nijman, M., James, S., Dehrmann, F., Smart, K., Ford, R., & Hort, J. (2019). The effect of consumption context on consumer hedonics, emotional response and beer choice. Food Quality and Preference, 74, 59-71. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2019.01.011.
  33. Plaza, A.G., Delarue, J., & Saulais, L. (2019). The pursuit of ecological validity through contextual methodologies. Food Quality and Preference, 73, 226-247. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2018.11.004.
  34. Publons (2018). Global State of Peer Review [Internet]. -- Available from: https://publons.com/static/Publons-Global-State-Of-Peer-Review-2018.pdf.
  35. Schnettler, B., Crisóstomo, G., Sepúlveda, J., Mora, M., Lobos, G., Miranda, H., & Grunert, K.G. (2013). Food neophobia, nanotechnology and satisfaction with life. Appetite, 69, 71-79. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2013.05.014.
  36. Spigt, M., & Arts, I.C. (2010). How to review a manuscript. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63(12), 1385-1390. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.09.001.
  37. Rommel, J., & Weltin, M. (2021). Is there a cult of statistical significance in agricultural economics? Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 43(3), 1176-1191. doi: 10.1002/aepp.13050.
  38. Roth, A.E. (1995). Introduction to experimental economics. In J.H. Kagel and A.E. Roth (Eds.), The Handbook of Experimental Economics (pp. 3-109).
  39. Steptoe, A., Pollard, T.M., & Wardle, J. (1995). Development of a measure of the motives underlying the selection of food: the food choice questionnaire. Appetite, 25(3), 267-284. doi: 10.1006/appe.1995.0061.
  40. Summers, J.O. (2001). Guidelines for Conducting Research and Publishing in Marketing: From Conceptualization through the Review Process. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 29, 405-415. doi: 10.1177/03079450094243.
  41. Torgler, B. (2002). Speaking to theorists and searching for facts: tax morale and tax compliance in experiments. Journal of Economic Surveys, 16(5), 657-683. doi: 10.1111/1467-6419.00185.
  42. Trafimow, D., Hyman, M.R., & Kostyk, A. (2020). The (im) precision of scholarly consumer behavior research. Journal of Business Research, 114, 93-101. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.04.008.
  43. van Trijp, H.C., & van Kleef, E. (2008). Newness, value and new product performance. Trends in food science & technology, 19(11), 562-573. doi: 10.1016/j.tifs.2008.03.004.
  44. Varadarajan, P.R. (1996). From the editor: Reflections on research and publishing. Journal of Marketing, 60(4), 3-6. doi: 10.1177/002224299606000402.
  45. Winer, R.S. (1999). Experimentation in the 21st century: The importance of external validity. Journal of the Academy of marketing Science, 27(3), 349-358. doi: 10.1177/0092070399273005.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Most read articles by the same author(s)