Purpose – This paper aims to examine and compare a set of key characteristics of ethnocentricity that influence the policy of academic marketing journals, and hence the provenance, authorship and nature of articles in academic marketing journals.

Design/methodology/approach – The “fundamental” characteristics of three major marketing journals, published in the USA, the UK and New Zealand, were examined for the six‐year period from the start of 2000 to the end of 2006. Data were collected from editorials and web homepages. Analysis was conducted of 811 articles, 1,676 authors, three editorial teams and three sets of reviewers.

Findings – There is a challenging academic ethnocentricity in the management and implied policy of the three journals. The extent varies, but the inescapable conclusion is that the world‐wide research community in marketing is not properly represented by leading journals.

Research limitations/implications – The sample was intentionally small, and unrepresentative of any category except “leading quality”. The findings are intended to add momentum to a debate and point ways forward, not to provide generalisable answers.

Practical implications – The findings suggest that: the editorial boards and reviewing teams should be made more representative geographically; editorships should be organized around the concept of a team of geographically differentiated editors; editorial and review teams should be ethnographically representative of individuals who do research and wish to publish it, particularly beyond the English‐speaking world. In general, the world‐wide research community in marketing would benefit from less ethnocentricity in academic journals, and these leading examples should strive to reduce it.

Originality/value – The impact of ethnocentricity is underestimated in this context. The issue needs to be discussed, because of paradigmatic influences that it can have on a journal and the profile of its authors, and hence on journal ranking and perceptions of journal quality.