PurposeThe study aims to promote the use of qualitative methods in service research by investigating how these methods are reported in service journals, how the level of reporting has evolved and whether methodological reporting influences the downloads or citations received by qualitative articles.Design/methodology/approachMethodological reporting practices were identified through content analysis of 318 qualitative articles published in three major service research journals and comparison with prior methodological literature. Regression analysis was used to test how the level of methodological reporting influences article downloads and citations.FindingsThe study identifies 29 reporting practices related to 9 key methodological reporting areas. The overall level of methodological reporting in published qualitative articles has increased over time. While differences in the level of reporting between service journals persist, they are narrowing. The level of methodological reporting did not influence downloads or citations of qualitative articles.Research limitations/implicationsService scholars using qualitative methods should pay attention to methodological reporting as it can improve the chances of being published. Factors such as theoretical contributions are likely to have a greater influence on article impact than methodological reporting.Originality/valueNo prior study has explored methodological reporting practices across different qualitative methodologies or how reporting influences article impact. For authors, reviewers and editors, the study provides an inventory of reporting practices relevant for evaluating qualitative articles, which should lower barriers for qualitative methods in service research by providing practical guidelines on what to focus on when reporting and assessing qualitative research.

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to test how national culture may help to explain cross-country differences in new service development (NSD) by comparing the impact of NSD success factors between Mexico and Sweden. Design/methodology/approach: Eight hypotheses based on prior literature on NSD and national culture were tested using covariance-based structural equation modeling and survey data from 210 Mexican and 173 Swedish firms. Findings: Launch proficiency and customer interaction had a positive impact on NSD performance with no difference between the two cultures. NSD process formalization did not have clear positive impact on NSD performance but had a statistically significantly stronger impact in the structured culture (Mexico). Team empowerment affected NSD performance positively, but the difference between cultures was non-significant. Research limitations/implications: The impact of national culture depends on the type of NSD success factor. Some factors are unaffected by the cultural context, while factors congruent with the national culture enhance performance. Factors incongruent with national culture may even hurt NSD performance. Practical implications: When choosing priorities in NSD improvement, managers need to consider the national culture environment. Originality/value: Paper directly tests how national culture moderates NSD performance using primary data. Findings suggest that the effects of NSD success factors are contingent on congruence with national culture.