Examples
What an evaluation looks like, idea by idea
Four fictional marketing research ideas walked through the full report format, one for each verdict, and one idea followed through a revision.
Illustration only. These ideas and reports were written by hand to show the format. They are not real user projects or model outputs, no literature search was run for them, and the closest works and venues are described by type rather than named. Real reports list the retrieved papers and journals by name.
The four verdicts
Every report ends in one of four verdicts. It answers a practical question: is this publishable at a realistic venue, and which one?
Go: a known law in a new category
Submitted idea
Does double jeopardy hold for B2B software brands?
We will use two years of anonymised purchase records from a software marketplace to test whether smaller subscription brands have both fewer customers and lower renewal rates, as double jeopardy predicts, and where the pattern breaks.
- Stage
- Have data
- Target
- A journal that publishes empirical generalizations
Goaimed at a replication-friendly outlet
A well-established law tested in a category where it has rarely been measured, with a measure that matches the original. The value lies in where the pattern holds and where it breaks.
- Contribution viabilityAdequate
An empirical generalization extended to a new category. It is not a new theory, and the report says so, but replications with boundary conditions are publishable.
- Claim–design alignmentAligned
Descriptive purchase data supports a descriptive claim about market structure. No causal claim is needed.
- Journal fitStrong
Earlier tests of the same law in other categories appeared in outlets that publish replications and generalizations.
- Desk-reject riskMedium
Low at the right outlet, higher at a general marketing journal that expects a new mechanism.
Closest existing work
- Earlier tests of the same law in consumer goods, services and business markets, each with how this study differs.
Next steps
- Benchmark renewal rates against the law's expected values, not only against each other.
- Report the categories or brands where the pattern breaks, and why.
- State plainly that this is an extension of a known regularity.
Refine: a good question with a design that cannot carry it
Submitted idea
Do recommendation feeds make customers more loyal?
We will survey users of a shopping app about how personalised they find its recommendations and how often they buy again. We expect personalisation to increase loyalty, because recommendations make the app more useful.
- Stage
- Just an idea
- Target
- A general marketing journal
Refinetwo gates flagged
A relevant question, but a one-time survey cannot support the causal claim about personalisation, and loyalty needs a precise outcome. Narrow the claim or find variation in exposure.
- Contribution viabilityAdequate
The topic is active. Whether it adds anything depends on the mechanism, which the proposal does not yet state.
- Claim–design alignmentMajor mismatch
A cross-sectional survey measures perceptions and reported behaviour together; frequent buyers may simply get better recommendations.
- Journal fitAcceptable
The topic fits, but the target journal expects causal identification for claims like this one.
- Desk-reject riskHigh
The first paragraph promises an effect that the design cannot show.
Closest existing work
- Field experiments on recommender systems and consumption, and survey studies of perceived personalisation.
Next steps
- Define loyalty as one measurable outcome, such as repeat purchase within a fixed window.
- Find variation in exposure to the feed, or frame the study as an association.
- State why personalisation should change behaviour, not only perceptions.
Pivot: a crowded question that needs a new angle
Submitted idea
Do green claims raise Gen Z's willingness to pay?
We will survey 400 students about eco-labelled products and test whether sustainability claims increase willingness to pay, because young consumers care more about the environment.
- Stage
- Just an idea
- Target
- A top marketing journal
Pivotreframe before investing
A crowded question where a new survey adds a sample, not an insight. Reframe around when green claims backfire, or test a boundary condition the literature has not settled.
- Contribution viabilityWeak
The closest studies already test the same main effect. A new population alone rarely changes what the field believes.
- Claim–design alignmentMinor creep
Stated willingness to pay is not purchase behaviour; the claim should stay at intentions.
- Journal fitPoor
The target journal does not publish main-effect replications on student samples.
- Desk-reject riskVery high
An editor would recognise the question and ask what is new within the first page.
Closest existing work
- Experiments and surveys on eco-labels and willingness to pay, including studies where green claims reduced perceived quality.
Next steps
- Move from whether green claims work to when they backfire, with a testable mechanism.
- Replace stated willingness to pay with a choice or purchase measure.
- Retarget to a journal that publishes this kind of consumer study.
Retire: when no framing finds a venue
Submitted idea
Does customer satisfaction lead to loyalty at our café?
We will ask 80 customers of one café to rate their satisfaction and their intention to return, and show that satisfied customers are more loyal.
- Stage
- Have data
- Target
- Any marketing journal
Retirerare, and never a judgement of the author
The relationship is among the most studied in marketing, and a single-site survey of intentions cannot add to it. Reuse the data as a teaching case or a pilot for a sharper question.
- Contribution viabilityFailing
The outcome is known before the study starts; no condition or mechanism is being tested.
- Claim–design alignmentMinor creep
Intentions from one survey stand in for loyalty behaviour.
- Journal fitPoor
No journal type publishes a confirmation of this relationship from one site without a new angle.
- Desk-reject riskVery high
Any editor would ask what the paper changes; the proposal has no answer yet.
Closest existing work
- Decades of research on satisfaction and loyalty, including work on why satisfied customers still switch.
Next steps
- Keep the data as a pilot and look for a question it could open, such as why satisfied customers leave.
- If you want to publish, start from a new idea and evaluate it again.
How a revision changes the verdict
The recommendation-feed idea above, revised after its first report. Each version is saved with its own inputs and result in your account.
Version 1
Survey of perceived personalisation
We will survey users about how personalised they find the feed and how often they buy again.
RefineMajor mismatch
Version 2
Randomised feed experiment
With an app partner, we randomly assign eligible users to the existing or a personalised feed and measure repeat purchase within eight weeks, with the analysis defined in advance.
GoAligned
The claim now matches the design
Random assignment can support an effect estimate for this feed change in this app and population.
The outcome is defined
Repeat purchase within eight weeks replaces an undefined idea of loyalty.
What still needs work
One app is not brand loyalty in general, and the study still needs a reason it adds to existing experiments.
How to read the gate ratings
Each gate has a fixed scale, applied to your idea and the literature retrieved for it.
Suitability scores for journals are never probabilities of acceptance. See how the evaluation works and the guide to avoiding desk rejection.
Evaluate your own idea
One free evaluation per account, with the closest existing work retrieved for your idea.
Evaluate an idea
Develop more than one version
Pro includes five active projects and ten evaluations per billing period, with every version saved. €15 / month before applicable taxes.
Sign in to explore Pro
