Understanding the defining characteristics of a high-quality conceptual article
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This study aims to deepen the understanding regarding developing conceptual articles in marketing by addressing three important research questions (RQs): What is a high-quality conceptual article, and what are its dimensions and corresponding attributes? How should the quality of conceptual articles be assessed? What is the quality of conceptual articles published in marketing? Design/methodology/approach To address RQ1, we examined the literature, sought input from experts and reviewed marketplace data. We used a triangulation approach to conceptualize conceptual article quality, its dimensions and their corresponding attributes. To address RQ2, we carefully developed a comprehensive rubric for measuring conceptual article quality. A well-developed rubric can have a higher diagnostic value than a multi-item scale, which makes this study more valuable. In response to RQ3, we content-analyzed 207 conceptual articles, sourced from five leading marketing journals for the period 2000–2017, and revealed that while the quality has been largely moderate, there is a promising upward trajectory, reflecting learning over time. Findings The key finding of this article is a cc-rc-c framework of conceptual article quality. It is characterized by three dimensions, namely cc-quality (conceptual creativity), rc-quality (conceptual rigor) and c-quality (comprehensibility). A comprehensive rubric is also provided for evaluating the quality of conceptual articles. Research limitations/implications This study did not examine analytical articles. Future researchers can identify and operationalize the attributes of analytical rigor toward understanding article quality. Likewise, to understand article quality in the case of empirical articles, scholars need to identify and operationalize empirical rigor (Kumar, 2016). It would also be interesting to know to what extent conceptual article quality explains article quality in the case of analytical and empirical articles. Future researchers can undertake studies using multiple methods to examine this issue thoroughly. Practical implications The proposed framework and rubric will aid authors, journal editors/reviewers, educators and professional associations in collectively enhancing the quality of conceptual articles in marketing. Originality/value This paper offers a framework and rubric for “conceptual article quality.”
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".