In this issue, Swan, Powers, and Bos offer very useful insight into the vagaries of understanding scholarly output in marketing. The authors followed a cohort of individuals receiving a Ph.D. in Marketing and tracked their productivity. The results support the notion that there is a predictable percentage of scholars at each level of scholarly output as defined by journal publications. The mystery is revealed and this gives rise to a number of useful applications for marketing educators. Mentors can be explicit about suggested publication rates.
Doctoral students can plan ahead for achieving levels of distinction in academe.
Committees can judge an applicant for a chaired position relative to a pre-specified standard of excellence. There are undoubtedly other applications that should make scholarly productivity in marketing a more accessible and meaningful concept. Further research in this area is encouraged to refine understanding of what strategies may lead to success, how success can be maintained, and how a slowdown or stoppage in active publishing can be resolved. The marketing discipline and the educators that are dedicated to advancement in marketing science can benefit directly by continued research designed to understand and facilitate productive academic careers. Rozensher and Fergenson tackle the elusive questions of what ethical issues are deemed important for marketing educators and what ethical issues are actually taught by marketing educators.