World Ranking of Real Estate Research: Recent Changes in School Competitiveness and Research Institutions

Real estate programs are ranked based upon page counts of articles published in three major real estate journals. The page counts are employed to capture many variations in the length of articles. For each author, his/her most recent affiliation is used to evaluate the school competitiveness of current faculty members rather than a perceived school reputation of the past. In this study, we find that top-tier schools in real estate research are not necessarily the most famous schools in economics and finance; progressive universities specializing in real estate research hold the top ranks. Furthermore, school competitiveness has changed substantially in the United States. The changes are mainly because of a mobility of faculty members. The results also show that U.S. institutions dominate research in real estate.     

BIAS IN JOURNAL RATINGS

The present study investigated the association between faculty publication records and their point-based evaluations of finance journals. No relationship was detected between the merit points assigned to finance journals and the journal-specific success of the faculty rendering the journal ratings. However, a negative relationship was found between general publication success of faculty and the merit points they assigned to lower-level journal publications. The association was particularly strong for faculty who had published in the top three finance journals.     

A cross-discipline comparison of top-tier academic journal publication rates: 1997–1999

We examine “top-tier” academic journal publications in four major business disciplines (accounting, finance, management, and marketing) during the 1997 through 1999 time period. We document cross-discipline differences with respect to the number of articles published per discipline and the types of institutions that capture these publications. Specifically, the accounting discipline has considerably fewer top-tier articles published relative to other business disciplines. In addition, a significantly higher percentage of accounting top-tier publications are written by authors with top 20 academic affiliation relative to the top-tier publications in other business disciplines. Other cross-discipline differences are also documented.     

A quality-based global assessment of financial research

We conduct rankings on finance programs based on a rich database of citations for all articles from a set of 23 quality finance journals during 1990–2010. Our work represents a new perspective on the evaluation of faculty research as compared to the traditional counting of total number of publications in the literature. Our findings show that the top-five institutions are the University of Chicago, Harvard University, New York University, the University of Pennsylvania, and Duke University. In general, the top programs are able to produce a large number of high impact articles and a majority of their citations are drawn from premier finance journals. In addition, European and Asia–Pacific institutions are doing very well during the recent years. Our author assessment suggests that for an author with at least five normalized citations per year from articles that appeared in the 23 finance journals, she will be in the top 1.7 % of all authors.     

Ranking Journals Using Social Science Research Network Downloads

I use a new approach to rank journals, namely the number and percent frequency of articles a journal publishes that are heavily downloaded from the Social Science Research Network (SSRN). I rank 18 accounting and finance journals, and I identify five journals not considered by the two most recent major published ranking studies of publications by accounting faculty, namely (in rank order): Journal of Financial Economics, Review of Accounting Studies, Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Journal of Corporate Finance, and Journal of International Financial Management and Accounting. I show that financial accounting faculties are more likely to post their working papers to SSRN, and papers posted by financial faculties generate more downloads. I mitigate this bias in favor of the financial area by providing separate rankings based on authors in the financial versus non-financial areas.     

Who Is Publishing? An Analysis of Finance Research Productivity in the European Region

This study ranks the research productivity in finance across European universities and researchers using a set of 15 finance journals during the decade of the 1990s. A total of 219 universities are ranked. During the sample period from 1990 to 1999, UK universities dominate the top-20 ranking. However, the UK 's dominance is significantly reduced when the Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, a UKbased journal, is excluded from the analysis. Other non-UK European universities gain further ground when only the top-4 journals are used to measure ranking. Our analysis also shows that a majority of the top 20 European universities have made significant progress in research productivity over the period 1990–99. Additionally, we compare the top European universities to those in North America. The top European university, London Business School, compares to the 24th and 25th ranked North American universities for the period from 1990 to 1999; it compares to the 15th and 16th ranked North American universities for the more recent sub-period from 1995 to 1999. The top researcher is Henri Servaes from London Business School.     

Accounting Journal Rankings,Authorship Patterns and the Author Affiliation Index

We conduct an evaluation of 43 accounting journals using the author affiliation index (AAI). Our results suggest that the Australian Business Dean's Council (ABDC) ratings are consistent with the AAI‐based rankings. Nonetheless, there are a few highly (lowly) regarded accounting journals in terms of AAI receiving a relatively lower (higher) rating in the ABDC journal ranking list. The co‐authorship patterns suggest that top AAI and near‐top AAI journals actually see more co‐authorship from scholars in top programs and scholars in other programs (both ranked 21–100 and ‘others’).     

Faculty perceptions of journals: quality and publishing feasibility

Tenure-track faculty at AACSB-accredited colleges were surveyed regarding their perceptions of 152 journals. Response measures included perceptions of journal quality and the feasibility of publishing in each journal. Analyses of responses from 616 faculty document statistically significant differences in both quality and publishing feasibility across journals, scholarship areas, and degree-granting categories (doctoral versus nondoctoral). Significant interactions were also found to exist across these factors. Effect size estimates for variations in quality and feasibility across journals, scholarship areas, and the interaction of journals and scholarship areas suggest that the magnitudes of observed differences are nontrivial. Listings of the 20 highest quality journals for most individual scholarship areas were found to have little in common with an overall top-20 listing. Overall, these results suggest that area-specific journal ratings provide better information than a single overall ranking list.     

You Cannot Judge a Book by Its Cover: The Problems with Journal Rankings

Abstract

Journal rankings lists have impacted and are impacting accounting educators and accounting education researchers around the world. Nowhere is the impact positive. It ranges from slight constraints on academic freedom to admonition, censure, reduced research allowances, non-promotion, non-short-listing for jobs, increased teaching loads, and re-designation as a non-researcher, all because the chosen research specialism of someone who was vocationally motivated to become a teacher of accounting is, ironically, accounting education. University managers believe that these journal ranking lists show that accounting faculty publish top-quality research on accounting regulation, financial markets, business finance, auditing, international accounting, management accounting, taxation, accounting in society, and more, but not on what they do in their ‘day job’ – teaching accounting. These same managers also believe that the journal ranking lists indicate that accounting faculty do not publish top-quality research in accounting history and accounting systems. And they also believe that journal ranking lists show that accounting faculty write top-quality research in education, history, and systems, but only if they publish it in specialist journals that do not have the word ‘accounting’ in their title, or in mainstream journals that do. Tarring everyone with the same brush because of the journal in which they publish is inequitable. We would not allow it in other walks of life. It is time the discrimination ended.     

Journal Influence on the Design of Finance Doctoral Education

This article surveys the influence of research journals on finance doctoral education. Influence is measured by citations from syllabi of finance seminars. A sample of 101 distinct syllabi submitted by 33 finance doctoral programs yields a list of 1,031 articles cited by at least two schools. These 1,031 articles generate 3,273 citations referencing 17 finance, economics, and accounting journals, where multiple citations from a single school are counted as a single citation. The most notable findings are the wide variety of seminar content across finance doctoral programs and the dominance of five finance journals in providing this diverse content.     

An Analysis of Risk, Insurance, and Actuarial Research: Citations From 1996 to 2000

This article evaluates the relative significance of research published in 16 risk, insurance, and actuarial journals by examining the frequency of citations in these risk, insurance, and actuarial journals and 16 of the leading finance journals during the years 1996 through 2000. First, the article provides the frequency with which each sample risk, insurance, and actuarial journal cites itself and the other sample journals so as to communicate the degree to which each journal's published research has had an influence on the other sample journals. Then the article divides the 16 journals into two groups: (1) the risk and insurance journal group, and (2) the actuarial journal group, and ranks them within their group based on their total number of citations, including and excluding self‐citations. A ranking within each group is based on the journals’ influence on a per article published basis. Finally, this study observes and reports on the most frequently cited articles from the sample risk, insurance, and actuarial journals.     

Productivity in “Top‐Ten” Academic Accounting Journals by Researchers at Canadian Universities*

We examine the research productivity of academic accountants at Canadian universities for the 11‐year period 1990‐2000. Our analysis is based on the “top‐ten” ranked refereed journals in accounting, auditing, and taxation, as documented by Brown and Huefner (1994). We first provide an overview of the importance of publishing in highly ranked accounting journals for individual academics, departments, and business faculties. We then provide details of the proportion of articles published in each of these journals by academics from Canadian universities; the type of research published in each journal (auditing, financial accounting, managerial accounting, and taxation); and details of editorial board service. Our results indicate that even at the most productive Canadian university (in terms of “top‐ten” publications), faculty members publish (on average) approximately one article every seven years. Six Canadian universities have faculty members with, on average, more than one article in “top‐ten” journals every 10 years. We also provide results of analyses that rank each Canadian university, after controlling for the relative quality of each journal, using impact factors published by the Social Science Citation Index. In addition, statistics are provided with regard to the 15 most productive researchers, in terms of “top‐ten” publications, in the 11‐year period. Finally, in conjunction with the 25th anniversary of the Canadian Academic Accounting Association, we examine the productivity of academic accountants at Canadian universities over the past 25 years by combining our results with those reported by Richardson and Williams (1990).     

Ranking of finance journals: Some Google Scholar citation perspectives

We conduct rankings on finance journals based on a rich database of citations for all articles from a set of 23 finance journals during 1990–2010. Our study is a major improvement in the literature by directly measuring the impact of each article within a set of finance journals. Our findings in journal citations generally echo the concern in Smith (2004) that some articles in premier journals have no/low impact while some articles in non-premier journals have high impact. In addition, we document that premier (non-premier) journals exhibit a linear (convex) curve of cumulative normalized citations across zero citation to less than or equal to eight citation buckets. We also show that author concentration index and editorial board members' citations represent alternative methods to evaluate finance journals.     

The impact of citations in International Finance

The globalization of business and economic activities is expected to increase readership and citation performance for articles with an international focus. This study measures the impact of such articles on rankings and citation scores of thirty-one academic journals in accounting, economics and finance. Sample statistics show that these journals increased their proportion of global articles from a median of 15% in 2001 to a median of 25% in 2008. Two regression models (logistic and OLS) support the increasing role of international articles on journal performance. Both approaches show that improvements in ranking and citation scores were positively affected by global coverage, especially in economics. The results also highlight that two research topics dominate the field of global finance: International Corporate Governance and International Banking.     

A Note on Perceptions of Finance Journal Quality

Finance journal quality is a critical issue for faculty annual elevations, for the tenure and promotion process, and for the administration of faculty workload plans. Unlike other studies that use objective measures (such as citation frequencies) to rate journals, this study focuses on the opinions of chairpersons about the relative quality of 55 finance, insurance, and real estate journals. A sample of 218 finance department chairpersons at AACSB accredited business schools were surveyed, and 125 responses were received (57.34% response rate). Besides overall aggregate scores, responses are segregated and tested for differences across several dimensions. The results offer interesting and current insight on general perceptions of journal quality.     

Publication outlets for healthcare financial research: A study of journal quality perceptions

Publications in high quality journals often serve to indicate research productivity. However, many top‐rated journals infrequently publish cross‐disciplinary topics such as healthcare financial management (HFM). So, academic administrators and HFM researchers find it challenging to evaluate the quality of the work. Journals open to publishing HFM articles are distributed across multiple disciplines. Each field has its own journal rankings typically focused on their primary subject area. Starting with prior literature, we form a cross‐disciplinary journal list and solicit preliminary input from editors, associated editors, reviewers, and authors. We then solicit confirmatory ranking input from independent researchers in a holdout sample.     

An Analysis of Finance Journal Impact Factors

This paper provides an analysis of the citation counts of articles published in the leading finance journals. It identifies the determinants of the most prevalent measure of influence for finance journals, the Social Sciences Citation Index impact factors. It finds that impact factors are affected by citations outside the finance field, are not affected by the distribution of published articles across subfields, and are good predictors of the long-term citation counts of articles. The citation impact factors are reduced for both the Journal of Financial Economics and The Journal of Finance by their publication of other than regular articles.     

Using Google Scholar citations to rank accounting programs: a global perspective

We conduct an assessment on accounting program research performance based on Google Scholar citations for all articles from a set of 23 quality accounting journals during 1991–2010. Our work is a new approach in accounting by directly measuring the impact of the faculty research in accounting programs. We find that the top-5 accounting programs are the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Chicago, Stanford University, the University of Michigan, and Harvard University. These top programs produce a large number of high impact articles. In addition, using the mean citations from all articles in a journal, we find that the Review of Accounting Studies (RAST) is a top-5 journal, replacing Contemporary Accounting Research (CAR).     

The Publishing of Real Estate Articles Within a Finance Department

A unique data set of 311 professors is employed to examine the relative research productivity between real estate and finance faculty. The results suggest that, on average, real estate faculty within a finance department publish more real estate and finance publications than do their finance colleagues. The results also indicate that publications in top real estate journals increase annual salary by approximately $800. Collected over a twenty-year period, this increment in salary would increase the professor's wealth by more than $10,600. Finally, there is some evidence that real estate faculty are paid less than finance faculty, ceteris paribus, although the results are not statistically significant.