Relevant for Whom? An Essay to Celebrate JBBM ’s 21 Anniversary, in Favor of Paying Greater Attention to the Needs of Students and Practitioners and Less to the Interests of Peers.

Purpose:To argue that useful research into business-to-business marketing must have practical relevance and that this may call for alternative methodologies to the positivistic “scientific” model favored by leading marketing journals; to suggest that citation by academic peers as measured by impact factors is only one of several criteria relevant to the assessment of academic papers; and to propose a less formulaic presentation of research to make it more accessible to students and practitioners. Methodology/approach:Informed comment as a participant observer based on extensive experience as an academic administrator (Head of Department, Dean and Deputy Principal), Past Chairman of the Scottish Business Education Council, Past President of the Academy of Marketing, Past Chairman and Trustee Chartered Institute of Marketing, Founding Editor of 3 academic marketing journals and author of more than 50 books and 150 articles and papers. Findings:Academic research in marketing has become distorted as a result of an excessive emphasis upon journal impact factors reported in the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), which relate to only a limited selection of published research into the subject of marketing. Not only that, but the research reported largely conforms to a positivistic model that is less appropriate for social and behavioral sciences than for the pure sciences that it seeks to imitate. Nonetheless, publication in journals included in the SSCI counts for more in decisions for academic appointment and preferment than do other publications that may be demonstrated to have equal or greater impact on the audiences for which they are intended. It is argued that this imbalance should be redressed with greater attention given to instrumental knowledge and its impact on practice. Research implications:The author’s purpose is not to disparage or call into question the quality of academic research published in the top journals, rather it is to draw attention to the distinction proposed by Shankar that recognizes the existence of an external audience and the distinction between instrumental and reflexive knowledge. Practical implications:It is recommended that academic peer review be continued for academic papers, which would be identified as such, but that other kinds of contribution such as thought pieces, case studies, commentaries, reports, and so on be published subject to appropriate editorial review. Originality/value/contribution:A point of view with growing support. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]