Marketing Philosophy

critically review the article “Tosun, C., Okumus, F. and Fyall, A. (2008) Marketing Management Philosophies in a Developing Country Context, Annals of Tourism Research, 35(1):127-147. Please noted that journals are ranked by ABS list with 1 to 4.  In general, tourism journals such as such Annals of Tourism Research (4), Tourism Management (4), Journal of Tourism Research (4) and Journal of Sustainable Tourism (3) are listed in the ABS (Academic Journal Guide (2018) by Chartered ABS). This article is published in Annals of Tourism Research with the highest rank.  Page limit: three pages double-spaced. The followings are the guidelines for critical review of an article:  Identifying the research gap filled by the article: Which research gaps did the article fill? Is it still a gap in the literature? Examining the conceptual framework of the article including the literature review, theories on which the article was based, etc. Research methods used by the article. Would you have any recommendations for the author(s) to use additional research methods? Data analysis techniques used by the article.  Which additional data analyses would be more useful? Findings of the article. What are the findings of the article? Main conclusions of the article. Summarize the conclusions of the article. What additional conclusion could have been drawn? What are the practical implications of the article? What additional practical implications could there be? What are the theoretical implications of the article? What additional theoretical implications could there be? What are the limitations of the article? What are recommendations by the article for future researchers? Do you have additional recommendations for future researchers? What is your innovative assessment beyond the dimensions noted under the traits-scale column of the rubric?    Rubric  Traits/Scale Unacceptable Acceptable Exemplary Score Research gap 15 % Does not identify the research gap filled by the article or not clear enough to mention the research gap Recognizes the research gap filled by the article Recognizes the research gap very clearly. Raises additional arguments relevant to the research gap.   Conceptual framework  20 % Does not recognize the dimension or scope of the conceptual –theoretical framework used in the article. Considers the dimension or scope of the conceptual –theoretical framework used in the article. Clearly describes the dimension or scope of the conceptual –theoretical framework used in the article.   Research methods  15% Does not detect the research methods employed in the article. Reflects the research methods employed in the article. Discusses the research methods employed in the article with some insights or examples.   Data analysis techniques 10% Does not recognize the data analysis techniques utilized by the article. Considers the data analysis techniques utilized by the article. Explains the data analysis techniques utilized by the article with some insights.   Findings of the article 10% Does not summarize findings of the article   Encapsulates findings of the article. Discuss findings of the article with some insights or examples.   Main conclusions 10% Does not review main conclusions of the article. Lists main conclusions of the article.   Elaborate main conclusions of the article with some insights or examples.   Theoretical implications 5% Does not identify theoretical implications of the article. Recognizes theoretical implications of the article. Elucidates theoretical implications of the article with some insights or examples.   Practical implications 5% Does not determine practical implications of the article. Detects practical implications of the article. Recognizes the practical implications of the article with some insights.   Recommendations by the article for future researchers 5% Does not detect recommendations by the article for future researchers. Reveals the recommendations by the article for future researchers. Examines the recommendations by the article for future researchers with some insights or examples.   Your innovative critical review beyond the above criteria 5% Overall innovative assessment is done in limited manner Overall innovative assessment is done at a acceptable level Overall innovative assessment is done with special references to each dimensions noted under the traits-scale column.