Journal of Services Marketing

Editorial: recognizing the academic publishing service ecosystem

Steve Baron,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Steve Baron, (2018) "Editorial: recognizing the academic publishing service ecosystem", Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 32
Issue: 3, pp.249-255, https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-10-2017-0341
Permanent link to this document:
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF MANAGEMENT AND TECHNOLOGY LAHORE At 03:49 22 November 2018 (PT)

https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-10-2017-0341
Downloaded on: 22 November 2018, At: 03:49 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 18 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 261 times since 2018*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2018),"Incremental and radical open service innovation", Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 32 Iss 2 pp. 101-112 <a
href="https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-04-2016-0161">https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-04-2016-0161</a>
(2018),"Customer brand engagement behavior in online brand communities", Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 32 Iss 3 pp.
286-299 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-08-2016-0293">https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-08-2016-0293</a>

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:537899 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics
(COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 Editorial: recognizing the academic publishing
service ecosystem
Steve Baron
University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK

Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to provide a personal view of the institutions underpinning the academic publishing service ecosystem as a basis for a
discussion of change and innovation.
Design/methodology/approach – A 25-year comparison of the norms, rules, practices, meanings and symbols in the service ecosystem is made.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF MANAGEMENT AND TECHNOLOGY LAHORE At 03:49 22 November 2018 (PT)

Findings – Eleven institutional states have been identified, which represent the good, and not so good, changes that have occurred over the period.
Originality/value – This editorial represents an approach, using service ecosystem concepts, to gain an understanding of service innovation
possibilities in the academic publishing domain.
Keywords Conferences, Service ecosystem, Institutions, Journal rankings, Journal article, Review process
Paper type Viewpoint

Introduction [CABS]), libraries/databases, external business/organizational

This feels quite strange to me. Since becoming co-editor of this
journal, Rebekah Russell-Bennett and I have co-written ten
editorials (Vol. 29, Issues 1, 3, 5, 6 and 7; Vol. 30, Issues 1, 3, 5
and 7; and Vol. 31, Issues 3, 6). However, now, given that I am
stepping down from my co-editor role, Rebekah has offered the
whole stage for me to provide some reflections. I have pondered
how to make best use of this opportunity. I went to my first
service(s) conference (Frontiers in Service) in 1992, so I guess
that I have 25 years of experience of the service(s) research
community. I think that what has changed most over those
years is the pressure on researchers, especially early career
researchers, to publish their work – and in the “top” journals.
Thinking more about this, I have tried to examine the changes
in the academic publishing service ecosystem over the years:
which changes appear to be for the better, which appear to be
for the worse and what might be done for the benefit of the
academic service research community?
Service ecosystem research is topical, so why not see if it
throws any light on our own working lives? According to Vargo
and Lusch (2016, pp. 11-12), a service ecosystem is defined as
“[. . .]a relatively self-contained, self-adjusting system of
resource-integrating actors connected by shared institutional
arrangements and mutual value creation through service
exchange”. For academic authors in our field, the system of
resource-integrating actors will consist of, at least: co-authors,
supervisors/colleagues, business or management school,
university, journals, journal editors/reviewers, publishers,
international service(s) research community, associations (e.g.
AMA Servsig, chartered association of business schools
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on
Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/0887-6045.htm
contacts, social media, academic conferences and friends/
family. Indeed, it is a complex system, and all the actors above
may have a direct or indirect effect on a potential academic
publication. For the purpose of this editorial, I will concentrate
on the “shared institutional arrangements”, several of which
can only become apparent after many years’ operation within
such a service ecosystem.
By institutions, I mean the norms, rules, practices, meanings
and symbols which are the mechanisms that tie the actors
together, and by institutional arrangements, I will regard them
as “interdependent assemblages of institutions” (Vargo and
Lusch, 2016, p. 6). I am convinced that the identification and
examination of the (sometimes overlapping) institutions
provides a fruitful starting point for a service ecosystem study
and have evidence to support this view (Baron et al., 2018). I
also know that a rigorous approach to institutions involves
many months of qualitative data collection involving all the key
actors and thorough analysis. So what follows now is
admittedly a shortcut: a personal account of institutional
comparisons over the 25-year period, based solely on my own
experience with the resource-integrating actors, and it is largely
a UK perspective. Nevertheless, I hope that it might ring bells
with many of you and provide a basis for discussion and,
possibly, change. On the other hand, some of the observations
may be seen as controversial and disputed. Still, what better
time for controversy!.
The academic publishing service ecosystem
I will limit “academic publishing” to publishing in peer-
reviewed outlets: academic journals, conference papers and
scholarly books. My understanding of the institutions now
follows.

Journal of Services Marketing

32/3 (2018) 249–255
© Emerald Publishing Limited [ISSN 0887-6045] Received 10 October 2017
[DOI 10.1108/JSM-10-2017-0341] Accepted 10 October 2017

249
 Academic publishing service ecosystem Journal of Services Marketing
Steve Baron Volume 32 · Number 3 · 2018 · 249–255

Norms Review process

What behaviors and attitudes do the ecosystem actors share? To ensure journal article quality, a double-blind, peer-review
system is adopted by marketing academic journals as a norm.
Article purpose, structure, style and content
Elements, however, have changed. Online submission and
As we know, a journal article is expected to conform to an agreed
communication is now the norm, which can contribute to a
style. It is intended, by and large, to be read by fellow academic
faster turnaround time for articles and speedier access through
scholars. Its purpose is the furtherance of knowledge and
facilities such as “online first” or “early cite”. The volume of
understanding. It is judged according to its originality,
submissions is rising each year from my experience. The
significance and rigor. For most journals, the language is
number of reviewers for each article is normally three rather
English, and any article has to satisfy grammatical requirements.
than two. Many journals use associate or regional editors to
Articles have to demonstrate the authors’ knowledge of previous
help manage the quantity of journal submissions and maintain
academic contributions to the chosen research field. Convincing
the quality. Reviewers are the mainstay of article quality
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF MANAGEMENT AND TECHNOLOGY LAHORE At 03:49 22 November 2018 (PT)

evidence is required to support any opinions or conclusions put

management, and they mostly carry out their important role as
forward in the manuscript. In these respects, I believe that little
an extra to their normal workload. In my conversations with the
has changed between the early 1990s and now. Nor do I believe
many able reviewers I work with, or meet at conferences, there
that there should be changes.
is a common observation that they get little recognition or
In the 1990s, there was a shared belief that articles which
allowance from their university for their efforts. For all their
presented the outcomes of quantitative research were the ones
time and effort, it can often only result in an extra line or so in
that were more likely to get published. There were huge
the CV, which is scant reward. The start-up of Publons (an
numbers of statistically based analyses of sample data to be seen
online system for recording journal reviews through the
in both service(s) and marketing journals. As a graduate of
collation of those “thank-you emails” from journals) goes some
mathematics and statistics, I took an interest in that
way to providing an online metric system that is independent
phenomenon and thought it would have a limited effect.
evidence of the review service by individual academics and
However, I still see, even now, many submissions to this journal
institutions (www.publons.com).
which follow the same lines. The only difference is that, now,
There is little doubt that the whole academic publishing
most quantitative analyses take the form of structural equation
ecosystem depends crucially on the willingness of scholars to
modeling (SEM). SEM, it seems, has become central to many
act as reviewers. They are the gums that ensure a healthy set of
research methods programs, and is seen as the mantra for
teeth. I have met some scholars who undertake 12 or more
publication success. I was taken aback, and really depressed, to
reviews for various journals in a year – a hugely significant
hear from a candidate for a position at my university, that their
voluntary workload. Also, the Associate Editors for this journal
research strategy for the future was to only take on SEM
all point out how difficult it often is to get three scholars in a
studies. This led me to write a commentary on the use of
topic area to agree to carry out a review. Goodwill and
statistics in marketing research (Baron, 2010). My main point
collegiality play major parts. On the flip side, there are keen
is that statistical methods should be seen as enablers of
early career researchers who have described the benefits of the
service(s) research not the drivers. Technical expertise is a
experience of reviewing.
necessary, not sufficient requirement for an academic article. I
I have begun to wonder whether the review process is under
am afraid that some submissions remind me of a soccer game,
pressure and is taken for granted. Indeed, Lehmann and Winer
where all players demonstrate excellent ball control but only
(2017), in their comprehensive overview of the review system,
ever pass the ball sideways or backwards. Something important
argue that it is under duress. At the very least, there is a case for
is missing – significance? originality? relevance to the research
a more formal recognition of reviewer duties by business and
problem?
management schools. The current norm is unfair and
I have detected, especially in the past five years, a change in
potentially unsustainable.
the purpose behind service(s) research studies. There used to
be an implicit understanding that the research should provide
Rules
the means to improve organizational effectiveness and
Rules, similar to norms, are embedded in service ecosystem
profitability. I remember vividly reviewer comments on
protocols. They are, however, backed by sanctions in the event
research I was engaged in, at the time, on customer-to-
of violation (Edvardsson et al., 2014).
customer interactions, which indicated that the ideas were
interesting, but did not have any relevance to management. Article requirements
(This was prior to social media!). Recently, there has been, On journal websites, there are “guidelines for authors”. They
through the move toward transformative service research, a lay out the rules, which authors must follow, for the article to be
focus on improving citizen well-being, which has enthusiastic even considered. Failure to follow the guidelines can result in
support from leading scholars (e.g. Fisk et al., 2016). This, in articles being “unsubmitted” (with authors given another
turn, has resulted in research projects that have sought to chance to comply) or desk-rejected. An issue here is that
address large-scale problems rather than those mainly journals, even in a similar field of study, have different
concerned with customer satisfaction (Webster and Lusch, guidelines on, for example, word limits, referencing styles,
2013). For me, this change in the purpose norm is to be presentation and abstract content. It would be nice if the
applauded. It opens up new fields of study for service(s) guidelines were the same for all journals, but this is unlikely to
researchers and provides challenges for new methodological happen, and so authors need to follow specific guidelines
approaches. religiously. I am not the only editor who can easily spot when an

250
 Academic publishing service ecosystem
Steve Baron
article has been submitted to another journal prior to my own.
This is not a sin. We have all had articles rejected, and looked
for another outlet. However, the lack of attention to the specific
rules of the journal can raise some doubts.
Thankfully, there are some rules which are common to all
journals in our field. Anonymity must be maintained on the
main manuscript which is sent to reviewers. The article must be
written according to academic language and style. There must
be evidence that the authors are familiar with the appropriate
literature, and the topic must have relevance for the journal
readership. On this latter point, there can be confusion. The
service sector is very wide, including, for example, health,
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF MANAGEMENT AND TECHNOLOGY LAHORE At 03:49 22 November 2018 (PT)
education, banking, hospitality, retailing, IT, insurance, sport
and leisure. There is a mistaken view that any research
undertaken in the context of any of the services above will be
appropriate to readers of this journal. This is not the case. We
have taken the view that readers of the journal would wish to see
a contribution to services marketing theory and/or practice in
the published articles, rather than an account of a familiar
concept tested in a slightly different context. I know I am not
alone in making this point. It has been a recurring theme in
conference “meet the editors” sessions in which I have taken
part over the years. The thousandth Servqual paper, in
whatever service context, is likely to receive the ultimate
sanction, desk rejection.
Business and management school pressures
In the Introduction, I mentioned the pressures on academic
scholars to publish in the “top” journals (Gruber, 2014). This
insistence, often articulated by deans and departmental heads,
is taking on a rule-like status for many business schools. I will
briefly explain why this is the case in the UK. Every five to seven
years, UK universities must contribute to the Research
Excellence Framework (REF), formerly known as the Research
Assessment Exercise. As a result of REF, league tables are
produced purporting to demonstrate the relative strengths of
universities regarding business and management research
(within which all service(s)-related research resides). A
significant proportion (currently 65 per cent) of the evidence of
research on which the REF panel makes judgments is “research
output”, i.e. publications. In the business and management
area, it is predominantly publications in peer-reviewed
journals. Journal articles are ranked, by the REF panel, on a
scale of 0 to 4 (4 being the highest). It is no coincidence that,
some years ago, the CABS began to publish a list of journal
rankings, and that they rated journals on a scale of 1* to 4*. The
CABS list became a reference point for journal quality, and
journals rated 4* or 3* took on the status of top journals.
Scholars were encouraged strongly to only aim for 4*- or
3*-rated journals. Those without the equivalent of three or four
publications at that level were excluded from REF submissions,
and this has a negative effect on career aspirations. While I see
merit in researchers aiming high, in terms of outlet for
publication, there are some negative consequences associated
with these rigid “rules of the game”.
Apart from the obvious point that there are only a finite
number of slots for articles in the 4*/3* journals, there is an
understandable reluctance for scholars to submit articles to
journals ranked 2* or less. We have evidence, from this journal,
of such an effect. When it moved from 2* to 3*, there was a
251
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 32 · Number 3 · 2018 · 249–255
large increase in submissions from UK academics. When it
went down from 3* to 2*, there was a corresponding fall.
During this whole period, there was no reason to believe that
the quality of individual articles published in the journal was
any different. Indeed, the impact factor had actually been
increasing. With the impact factor near 2.0 of this journal, an
outcome that makes the journal comparative with 3* journals,
it is hoped that the ranking will return to 3* and the UK
submissions will once again return. In the 1990s, I remember
the enjoyment of undertaking research and the excitement of
getting it published in a peer-reviewed journal that served the
appropriate research community. I think that, now, my
enthusiasm would soon be quashed by the stern shake of the
head of a superior for not abiding the rule that it is 4* or 3* or
nothing. This is a great shame. The joy of research for many is
being dulled by the grind of having to demonstrate quality
through publication in a relatively small number of journals
that are deemed “top” by non-elected academic
representatives.
Throughout my time as a service(s) marketing researcher, I
have been struck by the strength and friendliness of the
community. So many of the pioneers of service(s) research
willingly contribute to the community through, for example,
running conferences, attending doctoral colloquia, editing
journal special issues and dispensing advice informally over
coffee or wine. They demonstrate that the academic role goes
beyond top journal publications. They are selfless. One of the
ramifications of the rewards for publications in “top” journals is
the emergence of a minority of selfish scholars who focus
entirely on attaining these publications to the exclusion of all
other facets of academic contributions. Armed with 4*
publications, they seek high salaries wherever they can get
them, irrespective of the compatibility of their research, the
need for capacity building of junior staff, or the teaching or
other requirements of their employment. They are often
successful in their quests. It will not be long before they use
agents on their behalf and potentially leave a trail of wreckage
behind of them as they move from business school to business
school carrying their CV as the weapon of choice.
I contend that the aforementioned issues arise through the
worship of journal ranking lists. The CABS list has its
counterparts elsewhere (e.g. the Australian Business Deans
Council [ABDC] list and the German VHB-Jourqual). They
are useful as reference points, but can be harmful if they result
in rules that drive business school strategies, create stress and
anxiety amongst scholars and students and a factory
production-line approach to intellectual contribution. The lists
soon become dated – the latest CABS list at the time of writing
was compiled in 2014 – and may not be any more helpful than
citation metrics, such as impact factors or citecounts[1].
Although REF panels and universities maintain that each
article is judged on its merit, there is little doubt that the journal
rank, according to published lists, is “the elephant in the
room”.
Practices
Service ecosystem actors engage in practices, activities and
routines that represent work efficiencies. Practices can change
or mutate over time.
 Academic publishing service ecosystem
Steve Baron
Academic conference practices
Attendance at academic conferences is rightly seen as a proper
activity for researchers at all levels. For service(s) researchers,
there are specifically focused conferences – Frontiers in Service,
QUIS, AMA Servsig and La-Londe International Service
Conference – and more general marketing conferences (e.g.
AMA Winter/Summer Educators, EMAC, Academy of
Marketing, ANZMAC, and Academy of Marketing Science).
There are also focused workshops, such as Let’s Talk about
Service (LTAS).
The formats of the conferences are similar. There are plenary
sessions with keynote speakers or panels of experts. There are
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF MANAGEMENT AND TECHNOLOGY LAHORE At 03:49 22 November 2018 (PT)
multiple parallel sessions, where speakers are normally allowed
15-20 min to give their PowerPoint presentations, with 5-10
min set aside for Q&A. There are some topic-related “special
sessions” and “meet the editors” sessions. There are coffee/tea/
lunch breaks built in to the program, and conference dinners
with awards and other social events, in the evenings. I have seen
conferences through the eyes of a host university conference
chairperson and through the eyes of a regular conference
attendee, and fully appreciate the reasons for the current
practices. Stepping back, however, I see conference practices as
being rather like the practice of having sports news, always on
the back pages of newspapers: something that is rarely
challenged. Should current conference practices be challenged?
Let us explore.
For host universities organizing conferences, two major
considerations determine the way a program is designed. First,
there is a limited amount of time to fit everything in. Normally,
conferences are expected to last for two to three days. Second,
there must be enough conference delegates to break-even
financially. The employment of parallel sessions is the accepted
practice which ensures that these considerations are met.
Parallel sessions provide opportunities for large numbers of
delegates to present their research to peers. However, all is not
totally well. I have recently chaired a parallel session where the
only attendees were myself, the presenter and the student room
technician. Admittedly, that was an extreme situation, but
there are many occasions where parallel sessions have single
figure attendances, much to the disappointment of researchers
who have spent days preparing the presentation, hours on
airline travel and pounds/euro/dollars to get there. Also, from
my experience, there are many of these presentations where the
Q&A is only a token gesture, offering little feedback to a
presenter.
At an AMA Servsig conference in Singapore, the late Bob
Johnston advised me to always set myself three tasks at
conferences. Devoting all efforts to the presentation often
results in disappointment. He firmly believed that tasks
completed under the banner of networking were often more
rewarding. Plans to meet and talk to fellow delegates would
result in the greater benefits, especially with research projects in
mind. In many respects, the time outside the lecture theatres
and seminar rooms is the most valuable conference time.
Overall, current conference practices work pretty well and
have remained more or less the same over the past 25 years.
However, are there ways of increasing delegate benefits through
changes to established formats, bearing in mind the time and
money considerations which must be met by the organizers? It
could be time to take some initiatives.
252
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 32 · Number 3 · 2018 · 249–255
Journal article practices
As mentioned earlier, most journal articles are submitted
electronically. In parallel, electronic access to published papers
has increased significantly in recent years. One practice, which
appears to have developed as a result, is that the number of
references per article has shot up dramatically.
At the time of writing, Issue 3 of Volume 31 has just been
published. The number of references in the seven full articles
varies between 55 and 169, with a mean of 94.5 references per
article. In 1992, in Issue 3 of Volume 6, the number of
references in full articles varied between 6 and 20, with a mean
of 13.4. A look at other issues in Volume 31 confirms that the
inclusion of more than 100 references in an article is not
uncommon. A further look at numbers of references in Issues 3
shows the following – Volume 11, mean 31.3; Volume 16,
mean 37.8; Volume 21, mean 61.2; and Volume 26, mean
57.4. (None of the articles was dedicated review papers.) A
steady rise, with one exception, is seen up until 2012, after
which there is a steep rise. We are now seeing articles with
around six pages of references (up to one-third of the paper). Is
this necessary or even desirable? One might even question the
originality of an article that cites over 100 previous studies.
It seems highly unlikely that a seven-fold increase in the
mean number of references per article has resulted in a
corresponding seven-fold increase in article quality between
1992 and 2017. My view is that the practice of including more
and more references per article will continue to increase. Article
downloads are available to most academics. Google Scholar
enables wide-ranging focused literature searches. Authors are
increasingly engaging with social networking sites such as
ResearchGate and Academia.edu to share academic papers.
Journal editors encourage authors to send electronic copies of
recently published articles to other scholars with interests in the
research topic. Social media sites, especially Facebook and
Twitter, are regularly used to share good news about
publications. Unwittingly, researchers are being drowned in
publications that may have some relevance to their work. Better
cite them, just in case!
Another practice related to numbers is the emergence of
papers with multiple authors. Through the initiatives of various
service-related research centers, scholars from different parts of
the world have been brought together specifically to share their
expertise on a current service(s) research hot topics and to
jointly write articles that represent latest thinking on the topics.
Therefore, we are seeing several published conceptual papers
with six to ten authors. We have evidence of this practice in this
journal (Vol. 69, Issues 6/7; Vol. 31, Issue 2), and similar
papers can be seen in Journal of Service Research, Journal of
Business Research and Journal of Service Management. To me,
this represents a healthy recent practice, as it encourages shared
knowledge between schools of thought and produces
challenging and helpful conceptualizations. I would like to see
this practice extended to encourage multi-disciplinary
collaboration to address large-scale problems; something that is
high on the agenda for future service research (Anderson and
Ostrom, 2015).
Meanings and symbols
Meanings are taken to represent how actors in a service
ecosystem collectively make sense of words, concepts or
 Academic publishing service ecosystem
Steve Baron
actions. Symbols are seen as regulators of behaviors in
ecosystems (Akaka et al., 2014).
Service and life
My own academic interests moved from mathematics/statistics
to services marketing via retail marketing. While I was able to
find satisfaction in the study and teaching of statistics, I realized
that I was coasting along, happy to have found my level and not
inclined to stretch myself. The switch over to services
marketing energized me. Why was that?
I was surprised and delighted that scholars were addressing
issues that were relevant to my everyday life. Furthermore, I
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF MANAGEMENT AND TECHNOLOGY LAHORE At 03:49 22 November 2018 (PT)
detected a general desire among the community to make things
better. In the early days, the focus was on service encounters
and service quality, with an implication that if organizations
could make improvements in these areas, we would all benefit
as customers. As I began to teach services marketing, I realized
how popular the subject was with undergraduate and MBA
students. The recognition that service(s) could and should be
made better was shared among tutors and students. I contend
that those of us actively involved in service(s) research have a
shared sense that the research really matters, and that it is that
which motivates us to move the discipline forward.
It used to intrigue me that keynote speakers at service-related
conferences would often start a presentation with an anecdote
of one of their own service experiences – what happened on the
way to the conference venue, or in the hotel in which they were
staying. It demonstrated the connection between academia and
everyday life[2]. For a long time, however, such connections
were restricted to life in developed economies, where resources
were available and choices between service offers could be
made. In more recent times, the genuine desire by service(s)
academics to improve life has resulted in moving beyond
service encounters and service quality to a focus on
understanding of citizen well-being (under the transformative
service research label) and a recognition of citizens at the base
of the pyramid.
Recognition of service(s) research
My experience of business and management schools is that
there is a symbolic hierarchy of disciplines within business and
management. The first time I encountered this was when a
group of colleagues was putting forward a proposal for an
undergraduate degree in Retail Marketing at my previous
university. Economists, accountants and organizational
theorists alike poured scorn on the proposal: Is it a degree in
supermarket shelf stacking? What the hell is visual
merchandizing? It also became apparent when I was interested
in the topic of service in unsettled times (Baron et al., 2014). At
that time the UK had experienced what was dramatically
termed the “big freeze”. Many services were unavailable
because of adverse weather conditions and the economy was
suffering. The UK government’s response was to consult
“expert” economists and transport engineers to try to avoid
future disruptions on the same scale. No service researchers
were contacted. Why not? More recently, I have been involved
with the communication of the impact of research outside
academia. In the aforementioned REF, business and
management schools had to demonstrate such impact through
case studies which stressed the reach and significance of the
253
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 32 · Number 3 · 2018 · 249–255
research. Only a minority of chosen case studies involved
retailing, marketing or service.
It can be argued that the symbolic importance of an
academic discipline is demonstrated through its suffix. We have
the “-ics”, such as economics and mathematics, the “-ology”,
as in psychology and ecology and the “ing”, as in marketing and
engineering. The move toward “service science” is a
recognition that, like computer science, service(s) research
needs a title that resonates with outsiders. However, it is not
universally recognized, and service(s) researchers face
difficulties in explaining their research domain to people
outside their academic community, even though there is a long-
standing belief by many that service is a research area in its own
right (Edvardsson et al., 2005).
I do not think, for one moment, that introducing the terms
“services” or “servicology” will be an answer, but I feel that
the community needs to look outward to communicate the
excellent ideas emanating from service(s) research to both the
more general academic community, and the world outside. In
this respect, excellent work is being done by the few major
centers for service research across the world, where their
existence and funding is dependent on their outward-looking
approaches. With the possible exception of service-dominant
logic (SDL), it is difficult to see the fundamentals of service(s)
research infiltrating the more generic management journals. It
would be an important shared meaning for our community if
service research is seen as relevant and important for the
development of organization and management research more
generally.
In other disciplines, a sign of their maturity is that they
acknowledge a critical stream. We have critical marketing,
critical economics and critical psychology. For a time, SDL
may have taken on this role, but, arguably, it is now
mainstream.
Journal article status
It is very instructive to talk to scholars in different disciplines. A
friend of mine is emeritus professor of politics. In his discipline,
a sole-authored book or monograph is the principal symbol of
academic esteem[3]. In contrast, it is difficult to find business
and management colleagues who have the aim to present their
research findings in the form of a book or monograph. For us, a
journal article, published in a “top journal”, is the road toward
peer recognition.
There is no reason to downplay the importance of a journal
article publication. However, there could, and possibly
should, be other forms of research publications which are
meaningful to the community, and which are recognized as
being of high quality. There is a history of service(s)
researchers producing edited books. For example, my early
enthusiasm for services marketing was reinforced through
reading a compilation on the service encounter (Czepiel et al.,
1985). More recently, Gummerus and von Koskull (2015)
have used a similar format to portray the latest findings of the
Nordic School, and there are examples of books on topical
issues, such as SDL (Lusch and Vargo, 2014) and B2B
services (Kowalkowski and Ulaga, 2017). There are also fine
examples of journal special issues.
In other disciplines, book or monograph series, edited by
prominent scholars, provide the means for publishing high-
 Academic publishing service ecosystem Journal of Services Marketing
Steve Baron Volume 32 · Number 3 · 2018 · 249–255

quality research. Can we, as service(s) researchers, move
beyond journal special issues and single edited books, to
create book or monograph series to offer additional
opportunities for scholars to publish original research
findings? Of course, other actors in the service ecosystem, for
example, publishers, would need to co-create such initiatives.
Some steps in that direction have been taken by publishers
“Business Expert Press”. Under the guidance of senior service
figures, they have produced short books on topics such as
“profiting from services and solutions”, “service and service
systems”, “service innovation” and “sustainable service”.
There is some doubt, however, as to whether they carry the
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF MANAGEMENT AND TECHNOLOGY LAHORE At 03:49 22 November 2018 (PT)
Institutions and innovation
Why spend so much of this editorial on institutions, i.e. norms,
rules, practices, meanings and symbols? The principal reason is
that there is an emerging view that institutional patterns of
resource integration can feed either momentum or resistance to
service innovation (Lusch et al., 2016; Vargo and Lusch, 2017).
It seems right and proper for the service(s) research community
to consider innovations in the academic publishing service
ecosystem. So, with this in mind, I present, in Table I, a version
of the institutional state of the service ecosystem, stemming
from the preceding discussion.

same academic status as blind-reviewed journal articles on Is this what the community wants? Should change be
the same topics. desirable? Is there scope for positive innovation? Clearly, my

Table I A personal view of the institutional states of the academic publishing service ecosystem
Institutional state
A focus on citizen well-being
Survey-based questionnaire studies are the
most popular means for collecting data which
are then analyzed through statistical methods
Journal article quality depends on the
availability and goodwill of reviewers
Guidelines for authors vary between journals
A widespread tendency to worship published
journal rankings
Conference formats vary very little
The number of references per journal article is
increasing
The number of authors per article is increasing
Service is about life
Service does not have the presence associated
with many other disciplines
The journal article is the predominant method
for disseminating service(s) research
Comment
There are several signs that service(s) marketing research has moved beyond customer satisfaction
studies that are undertaken to improve firm profitability and efficiency
This has opened up the opportunity for a greater scope: original research on large-scale problems
Despite the availability of “big data” sources, many journal article submissions involve survey-based
data, normally analyzed through some form of SEM. SEM, and other forms of statistical analyses,
make up a major part of PhD programs, and are seen as a popular way to ensure publications
Good reviews are essential for maintaining journal quality. The reviewing process is extremely time-
consuming. The current reliance on good will is likely to be unsustainable. More timetabling
recognition for reviewing is required. As Lehmann and Winer (2017, p. 6) put it, “As authors we
expect to receive fair, helpful reviews from readers who pay careful attention to our work. As
reviewers, we are obliged to provide nothing less than that”. It is a huge current challenge to
maintain these ideals
This is not a major problem as long as authors carefully read the guidelines and submit accordingly.
There is scope for service(s) journals to minimize differences between guidelines and offer advice to
authors which applies across the board
While journal rankings provide information for potential authors, their use in performance
management can have negative effects and place undue pressure on researchers. Where recognition
is only given to publications in a limited number of “top journals”, there is a danger that scholarly
activity is measured in a very limited way, which can encourage selfish rather than selfless motives
Academic conferences are a very important mechanism for sharing research insights and networking
with like-minded scholars. The current conference programs, which are dominated by parallel
sessions, have some negative, as well as many positive aspects. A challenge is to incorporate the
opportunities for informal learning and discussions
As access and awareness to published work is made easier, and as the number of academic journals
is steadily increasing, authors have responded by citing very large numbers of papers in their
submissions. In some cases, the references can take up one-third of an empirical or conceptual paper
In my early years as a service(s) marketing researcher, the published papers normally had one to
three authors. More recently, there is a trend for papers featuring five or more authors. One reason
for this is the initiatives that bring together international researchers to workshops with the express
aim of obtaining multiple insights on current topics. This could be extended to respond calls for more
multi-disciplinary research
A feature of service(s) research, which I find is shared by many scholars, is that both the motivation
for the research and the potential outcomes from it, relate to everyday life. This has an influence on
enhancing the community identity of service(s) scholars and ensures the relevance of the work to
students at undergraduate and postgraduate levels
Compared to many disciplines, service(s) research is in its infancy. With some notable exceptions, it
does not tend to resonate fully with scholars in other university departments/schools or with the
outside world. The intent is there, as demonstrated by the “dream with a deadline” expressed in Fisk
et al. (2016, p. 44)
Most service(s) researchers seek to publish journal articles, especially in the most highly regarded
journals. Less attention is given to other modes of dissemination such as research book or
monograph series

254
 Academic publishing service ecosystem
Steve Baron
personal experiences may be biased, and some conclusions
might be plain wrong, but I hope Table I presents food for
thought.
And finally
As I move slowly into final retirement, I must thank the many
people who have made my academic life so meaningful and
enjoyable. They include all my work colleagues at Manchester
Metropolitan University and University of Liverpool, my co-
authors of articles, conference papers, books, and book
chapters (some 54 people from 13 countries!), the Associate
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF MANAGEMENT AND TECHNOLOGY LAHORE At 03:49 22 November 2018 (PT)
Editors and Reviewers for this journal, the editors of other
service journals, the organizers of conferences and workshops I
have attended and the contacts at Emerald publishing. Special
thanks go to Rebekah Russell-Bennett whose inspiration and
friendship have made journal co-editorship so rewarding.
Notes
1 Of course, impact factors do not tell the whole story as
they are sensitive to particular articles which attract above
average citations in the period covered.
2 This is still the case. For example, www.servsig.org/
wordpress/2016/08/service-failure-handling-at-united/
3 The book or monograph must display original research.
Textbooks are different, although they do seem to induce
respect from students!
References
Akaka, M.A., Corsaro, D., Kelleher, C., Maglio, P.P., Seo,
Y., Lusch, R.F. and Vargo, S.L. (2014), “The role of
symbols in value cocreation”, Marketing Theory, Vol. 14
No. 3, pp. 311-326.
Anderson, L. and Ostrom, A. (2015), “Transformative
service research: advancing our knowledge about service
and well-being”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 18 No. 3,
pp. 243-249.
Baron, S. (2010), “Commentary: statistics in marketing and
consumer research”, Journal of Customer Behaviour, Vol. 9
No. 3, pp. 229-242.
Baron, S., Hunter-Jones, P. and Warnaby, G. (2014), Service
and Service Systems; Provider Challenges and Directions in
Unsettled Times, Business Expert Press, New York, NY.
Baron, S., Patterson, A., Maull, R. and Warnaby, G. (2018),
“Feed people first: a service ecosystem perspective on
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
255
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 32 · Number 3 · 2018 · 249–255
innovative food waste reduction”, Journal of Service Research
(in press).
Czepiel, J., Solomon, M.R. and Surprenant, C.F. (1985), The
Service Encounter, Lexington Books, New York, NY.
Edvardsson, B., Gustafsson, A. and Roos, I. (2005), “Service
portraits in service research: a critical review”, International
Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 16 No. 1,
pp. 107-121.
Edvardsson, B., Kleinaltenkamp, M., Tronvoll, B., McHugh,
P. and Windahl, C. (2014), “Institutional logics matter when
coordinating resource integration”, Marketing Theory,
Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 1-19.
Fisk, R.P., Anderson, L., Bowen, D.E., Gruber, T., Ostrom,
A.L., Patricio, L., Reynoso, J. and Sebastiani, R. (2016),
“Billions of impoverished people deserve to be better served:
a call for action for the service research community”, Journal
of Service Management, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 43-55.
Gruber, T. (2014), “Academic sell-out: how an obsession with
metrics and rankings is damaging academia”, Journal of
Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 165-177.
Gummerus, J. and Von Koskull, C. (Eds) (2015), The Nordic
School: Service Marketing and Management for the Future,
CERS, Hanken, Helsinki.
Kowalkowski, C. and Ulaga, W. (2017), “Service strategy in
action: a practical guide for growing your B2B service and
solutions business”, ISBN 069281910X.
Lehmann, D.R. and Winer, R.S. (2017), “The role and impact
of reviewers on the marketing system”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 45 No. 5, pp. 587-592.
Lusch, R.F. and Vargo, S.L. (2014), Service-Dominant Logic:
Premises, Perspectives, Possibilities, Blackwells, Cambridge.
Lusch, R.F., Vargo, S.L. and Gustafsson, A. (2016),
“Fostering a trans-disciplinary perspective of service
ecosystems”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 8,
pp. 2957-2963.
Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2016), “Institutions and axioms:
an extension and update of service-dominant logic”, Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 5-23.
Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2017), “Service-dominant logic
2025”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 34
No. 1, pp. 46-67.
Webster, F.E., Jr and Lusch, R.F. (2013), “Elevating
marketing: marketing is dead! long live marketing!”,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 41 No. 4,
pp. 389-399.
Corresponding author
Steve Baron can be contacted at: steve.baron20@gmail.com