EMAC Members’ Honor Code of Conducting Research


This honor code describes good scientific practice to which EMAC members subscribe. The code does not encompass a detailed description for every aspect, as the evaluation of very specific issues may well change over time. The code also does not include regulations for cases of violation. EMAC assumes that this depends on the regulations of the respective home institution.

1. Intellectual Property
We honor the intellectual property of fellow researchers by appropriately mentioning and citing the work of others. This includes work of others even if he or she had been a co-author or editor of these other works or had been an adviser or student of the author of such work. We credit the source of ideas irrespective of whether being published or unpublished and whether representing written work, an oral presentation, or material on a website. Not following these rules can result in plagiarism.

2. Integrity of Data
We offer transparency about our collected data to allow for replication of our results. In order to preserve accurate documentation of observed facts with which later reports or conclusions can be compared, we are obliged to maintain a clear and complete record of data acquired, and the instruments used to collect that data, for at least 10 years. These records include sufficient detail to permit examination for the purpose of replicating the research, responding to questions that may result from unintentional error or misinterpretation, establishing authenticity of the records, and confirming the validity of the conclusions. We store the records in a way that no data or results can be deleted or overwritten by later versions.

3. Ownership of and Access to Data
Since it is in the interest of science in general to rely on the contributions and findings of others, we feel obliged to the general scientific community to cooperate in sharing of data if someone is interested in replicating one’s work. If the collected data represent a contribution by itself it is sufficient to only offer data with the request to use the data only for identical replications but not for other purposes. In case the data was obtained from others with the obligation of not distributing the data to anybody else then we try to obtain consent from the data providing institution to make the data available after a period of ten years.

4. Documentation of Results

In order to facilitate replications we will document our research results as thoroughly as possible. This includes the storage of a code that documents how the raw data were transformed and related to the data which served for the analysis and the subsequently obtained results. In case of survey data we provide the full questionnaire and report descriptives of all variables. We report the results in a way that they can be used later on for applying meta-analyses for the sake of generalizability. For experiments we describe in detail the experimental manipulations, the design of the experiment, and the measures. We also report the dates when any kind of data were collected for each observation.

5. Criteria for Authorship

If more than one person are conducting research and publishing the results then we list the set of co-authors reflecting their relative contributions. We do not list a person's name as author without his or her knowledge, permission, and review of the final version of the manuscript. We avoid the listing of so-called honorary authors, who do not meet the criteria for authorship. It is important that all co-authors understand the basis for assigning an order of names and agree in advance to these principles.

6. Duplicate Publication
We do not publish the same article in two different places without very good reason to do so, unless appropriate citation is made in the later publication to the earlier one, and unless the editor is explicitly informed. We do not divide a research paper into a number of smaller papers merely for the sake of expanding the number of items in the author's bibliography.

7. Responsibilities of a Research Investigator
If we are leading a research group we not only provide guidance and advice to individual members of the research group in the responsible conduct of the research but also take over the ultimate responsibility for the scientific integrity of the whole research project.

8. Privileged Information
We honor privileged information taken from a grant application or manuscript received from a funding agency or journal editor for peer review by not making use of it for our own work. This includes treating such information confidential.

9. Conflict of Interest
We feel obliged to disclose conflicts of interest for any kind of publication so that editors can choose unbiased reviewers and others can judge by their own whether the results of research might be biased by own interests of researchers.

10. Correction of Errors
In case of the finding of a relevant error, either intentional or inadvertent, or of an earlier work not appropriately referenced subsequent to publication, we feel obliged to submit a correction or retraction in a form specified by the editor or publisher.

News / What’s coming up?


Nine (9) Finalists for the 2018 IJRM Best Article Award

This is award is given to the best paper published in IJRM in 2018. The winning paper is chosen by members of the IJRM Editorial board in two rounds of voting.

  • Optimizing service failure and damage control. Daniel Halbheer, Dennis L. Gärtner, Eitan Gerstner, Oded Koenigsberg. Pages 100-115
  • Endogeneity in survey research. Jon Bingen Sande, Mrinal Ghosh. Pages 185-204
  • Save or (over-)spend? The impact of hard-discounter shopping on consumers' grocery outlay. Els Gijsbrechts, Katia Campo, Mark Vroegrijk. Pages 270-288
  • Temporal myopia in sustainable behavior under uncertainty. Arianne J. van der Wal, Femke van Horen, Amir Grinstein. Pages 378-393
  • New product success in the consumer packaged goods industry: A shopper marketing approach. Lien Lamey, Barbara Deleersnyder, Jan-Benedict E.M. Steenkamp, Marnik G. Dekimpe. Pages 432-452 
  • Extracting brand information from social networks: Integrating image, text, and social tagging data. Jan Klostermann, Anja Plumeyer, Daniel Böger, Reinhold Decker. Pages 538-556 
  • Brand crises in the digital age: The short- and long-term effects of social media firestorms on consumers and brands. Nele Hansen, Ann-Kristin Kupfer, Thorsten Hennig-Thurau. Pages 557-574
  • On the monetary impact of fashion design piracy. Gil Appel, Barak Libai, Eitan Muller. Pages 591-610
  •  Providing health checks as incentives to retain blood donors — Evidence from two field experiments. Sigrun Leipnitz, Martha de Vries, Michel Clement, Nina Mazar. Pages 628-640

Ten (10) finalists for the 2019 Jan Benedict Steenkamp Award for Long-Term Impact

(This award is given annually to papers published in IJRM that are judged to have made a long-term impact on the field of marketing. Eligible papers were published 10-15 years prior to the year the award is being given. For this year, these are papers from 2004-2009 inclusive. Winner will be chosen by a committee with the use of the following criteria: (1) the votes the paper received from the IJRM Editorial Board (resulting from two rounds of voting), (2) the paper’s ISI and Google Scholar citations, and (3) the paper’s quality, as assessed by the award committee’s in-depth reading.)


  • Organizational culture, market orientation, innovativeness, and firm performance: an international research odyssey. Rohit Deshpandé, John U Farley. Vol 21, Issue 1, Pages 3–22
  • Corporate social responsibility and consumers' attributions and brand evaluations in a product–harm crisis. Jill Klein, Niraj Dawar. Vol 21, Issue 3, Pages 203–217
  • Tradeoffs in marketing exploitation and exploration strategies: The overlooked role of market orientation. Kyriakos Kyriakopoulos, Christine Moorman.  Vol 21, Issue 3, Pages 219–240
  • Antecedents and purchase consequences of customer participation in small group brand communities. Richard P. Bagozzi, Utpal M. Dholakia. Vol 23, Issue 1, Pages 45-61
  • Multichannel customer management: Understanding the research-shopper phenomenon. Peter C. Verhoef, Scott A. Neslin, Björn Vroomen. Vol 24, Issue 2, Pages 129–148
  • The NPV of bad news. Jacob Goldenberg, Barak Libai, Sarit Moldovan, Eitan Muller. Vol 24, Issue 3, Pages 186–200.
  • Reaping relational rewards from corporate social responsibility: The role of competitive positioning. Shuili Du, C.B. Bhattacharya, Sankar Sen. Vol 24, Issue 3, Pages 224-241
  • Measuring the impact of positive and negative word of mouth on brand purchase probability. Robert East, Kathy Hammond, Wendy Lomax. Vol 25, Issue 3, Pages 215–224
  • Linking marketing capabilities with profit growth. Neil A. Morgan, Rebecca J. Slotegraaf, Douglas W. Vorhies. Vol 26, Issue 4, Pages 284-293.
  • An empirical comparison of the efficacy of covariance-based and variance-based SEM. Werner Reinartz, Michael Haenlein, Jörg Henseler. Vol 26, Issue 4, Pages 332-344




Job Market



Marketing PhD Jobs: http://marketingphdjobs.org

Job announcements available on the EMAC Jobmarket Website