In the evolving trends of research and innovation (R&I) performance measurement and impact assessment, the traditional scientometric system – largely relying on quantitative metrics such as h-index and journal impact factors – is increasingly under scrutiny due to its limited capacity to capture a wider spectrum of scientific impact. The emergence of open science challenges traditional paradigms by advocating for more transparent and accessible research processes. Theoretically, this study expands the discourse on scientific impact evaluation by advocating for a broader set of criteria encompassing societal and economic dimensions. Integrating open science principles into research evaluation can provide a more comprehensive view of scientific contributions and enable academic inclusivity, transparency, and societal relevance, in line with the ethos of open science. Conceptually, the study analyzes the coexistence and dynamics between scientometric and open science evaluation systems, exploring their competitive and collaborative relationships. It examines the strengths and weaknesses of each system, revealing that a complete replacement of the scientometric approach by open science is unlikely, nor is there stagnation in their development. The main findings suggest a future where scientometric and open science systems coexist and partially converge, especially in the area of research and innovation outcome evaluation. This convergence heralds a more democratic and inclusive approach to evaluating scientific research. For policymakers and organizers of innovative systems, this study offers insights into possible policies that promote open science practices, developing evaluation metrics that acknowledge diverse scientific contributions, and fostering a research culture that values both scientific rigor and societal engagement. Using an exploratory method based on theoretical concepts and practical insights, this study contributes to more nuanced understanding of changing paradigms in research evaluation.

Current literature on the privacy paradox in personalised advertising lacks insight into how consumers’ knowledge of the data types used shapes their responses to these ads. Building on privacy calculus theory, theory of reasoned action, and signalling theory, this research explores how consumers’ knowledge of data types in personalised advertising influences their reactions. Multigroup path analysis examines differences in established relationships based on consumers’ data knowledge. The moderating effect of this knowledge in the relationship between perceived invasiveness and purchase intentions is also tested. Findings from a sample of millennials indicate that privacy concerns increase perceived invasiveness. However, multigroup and moderation analyses reveal that perceived invasiveness’ impact on purchase intentions varies with consumers’ data knowledge. Specifically, in the search history group, perceived intrusiveness negatively affects purchase intentions. These results underscore the situation-specific nature of the privacy calculus and assist advertisers in understanding consumer behaviour in response to personalised ads.

Existing literature compares neuromarketing and traditional methods, making the questionable assumption that these are monolithic measurement alternatives all serving the same, predictive purpose. This study examines and empirically challenges this notion by relying on a neuroscientific perspective and a robust empirical study to examine the correspondence of expanded sets of diverse electroencephalogram (EEG) and survey advertising indicators. The key findings are that EEG and survey indicators measure different kinds of emotions (and attention) and that the newly developed, momentary EEG indicators are superior to the conventional, aggregated ones. The findings suggest that moment-to-moment EEG advertising indicators, such as peak emotions during branding moments, distinctively enhance advertising effectiveness evaluation and enhancement.

Abstract The purpose of this paper is to advance the theory and contribute to the practice of luxury perfumes’ shelf management by decoding the relationship between attention on the shelf, purchase decision-making, and brand recall. It employs an eye-tracking experiment to analyze attention spans and fixations, which is combined with a questionnaire to uncover recall and purchase intent. The research identifies attention patterns and the influence of attention on recall and purchase intention. It further reveals the main factors that influence attention on the shelf in the luxury perfume industry. This is a milestone for further elaboration on the benefits of the fashion mainstream for luxury perfumes and the debate regarding whether luxury perfumes should be treated similar to mainstream fashion or similar to any other product in basic shelf management rules. This study enables shelf managers and marketers to place the perfumes both on the shelf and in consumer minds to maintain a top-of-the-mind brand position. Managerial implications are significant and address perfume industry packaging as well as shelf positioning.

The main objective of this paper is to define the repositioning strategy of the Port of Adria, which is the leading container maritime port of Montenegro. The strategy is an integral reflection of the analysis of internal (competitive advantage and financial strength) and external (the potential of container maritime port industry and environmental stability) repositioning criteria. The case study in this paper is mainly accomplished through the definition of specific propositions that clarify the connections between these criteria and the repositioning strategy. Knowledge and attitudes of stakeholders are used with the purpose of modeling a marketing strategy, which is based on an inductive study. The paper proposes a model based on a specific maritime port case which can be applied to any other case of maritime port repositioning as well.