The last decade has seen the emergence of the sharing economy as well as the rise of a diverse array of research on this topic both inside and outside the marketing discipline. However, the sharing economy’s implications for marketing thought and practice remain unclear. This article defines the sharing economy as a technologically enabled socioeconomic system with five key characteristics (i.e., temporary access, transfer of economic value, platform mediation, expanded consumer role, and crowdsourced supply). It also examines the sharing economy’s impact on marketing’s traditional beliefs and practices in terms of how it challenges three key foundations of marketing: institutions (e.g., consumers, firms and channels, regulators), processes (e.g., innovation, branding, customer experience, value appropriation), and value creation (e.g., value for consumers, value for firms, value for society) and offers future research directions designed to push the boundaries of marketing thought. The article concludes with a set of forward-looking guideposts that highlight the implications of the sharing economy’s paradoxes, maturation, and technological development for marketing research. Collectively, this article aims to help marketing scholars not only keep pace with the sharing economy but also shape its future direction.

The dynamic components of relational constructs should play an important role in driving performance. To take an initial step toward a theory of relationship dynamics, the authors introduce the construct of commitment velocity—or the rate and direction of change in commitment—and articulate its important role in understanding relationships. In two studies, the authors demonstrate that commitment velocity has a strong impact on performance, beyond the impact of the level of commitment. In Study 1, modeling six years of longitudinal data in a latent growth curve analysis, the authors empirically demonstrate the significance of commitment velocity as a predictor of performance. In Study 2, the authors use matched multiple-source data to investigate the drivers of commitment velocity. Both customer trust and dynamic capabilities for creating value through exchange relationships (i.e., communication capabilities for exploring and investment capabilities for exploiting opportunities) affect commitment velocity. However, trust and communication capabilities become less impactful as a relationship ages, while investment capabilities grow more important. The authors offer three post hoc tenets that represent initial components of a theory of relationship dynamics that integrates two streams of relationship marketing research into a unified perspective.

Many research disciplines feature high-impact journals that are dedicated outlets for review papers (or review-conceptual combinations) (e.g., Academy of Management Review, Psychology Bulletin, Medicinal Research Reviews). The rationale for such outlets is the premise that research integration and synthesis provides an important, and possibly even a required, step in the scientific process. Review papers tend to include both quantitative (i.e., meta-analytic, systematic reviews) and narrative or more qualitative components; together, they provide platforms for new conceptual frameworks, reveal inconsistencies in the extant body of research, synthesize diverse results, and generally give other scholars a Bstate-of-the-art^snapshot of a domain, often written by topic experts (Bem 1995). Many premier marketing journals publish meta-analytic review papers too, though authors often must overcome reviewers' concerns that their contributions are limited due to the absence of Bnew data.F urthermore, relatively few non-meta-analysis review papers appear in marketing journals, probably due to researchers' perceptions that such papers have limited publication opportunities or their beliefs that the field lacks a research tradition or Brespect^for such papers. In many cases, an editor must provide strong support to help such review papers navigate the review process. Yet, once published, such papers tend to be widely cited, suggesting that members of the field find them useful (see Bettencourt and Houston 2001).In this editorial, we seek to address three topics relevant to review papers. First, we outline a case for their importance to the scientific process, by describing the purpose of review papers. Second, we detail the review paper editorial initiative conducted over the past two years by the Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science (JAMS), focused on increasing the prevalence of review papers. Third, we describe a process and structure for systematic (i.e., non-meta-analytic) review papers, referring to Grewal et al. (2018) insights into parallel meta-analytic (effects estimation) review papers. (For some strong recent examples of marketing-related meta-analyses, see Knoll and Matthes 2017;Verma et al. 2016). Purpose of review papersIn their most general form, review papers Bare critical evaluations of material that has already been published,^some that include quantitative effects estimation (i.e., meta-analyses) and some that do not (i.e., systematic reviews) (Bem 1995, p. 172). They carefully identify and synthesize relevant literature to evaluate a specific research question, substantive domain, theoretical approach, or methodology and thereby provide readers with a state-of-the-art understanding of the research topic. Many of these benefits are highlighted in Hanssens' (2018) paper titled "The Value of Empirical Generalizations in Marketing," published in this same issue of JAMS.The purpose of and contributions associated with review papers can vary depending on their specific type and research question, but i...

No abstract