Ranking accounting authors and departments in accounting education: different methodologies – significantly different results

This research tests whether Holderness Jr., D. K., Myers, N., Summers, S. L., & Wood, D. A. [(2014). Accounting education research: Ranking institutions and individual scholars. Issues in Accounting Education, 29(1), 87–115] accounting-education rankings are sensitive to a change in the set of journals used. It provides updated rankings for accounting-education authors from Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the Republic of Ireland, the United Kingdom, and the United States using a sample that included the publications in 13 accounting-education journals. Our analysis indicated that Holderness et al.’s rankings of authors and departments were significantly different from our rankings. This research provides rankings of the top 50 authors and departments for three periods: from 2010 to 2015, from 2004 to 2015, and from 1992 to 2015. We provide data indicating the distribution of authors for these periods to assist authors not listed in the most prolific lists in determining their relative ranking. Finally, we provide data on the distribution of journal choices for accounting-education publications for the authors from each country.     

Editor's introduction

Prestige distinctions are critical to any understanding of the US academic community. Past rankings of academic departments of accounting, based on a variety of factors including faculty publications, citations and external perceptions, fail to provide a means of assessing relative prestige. This paper proposes that an accounting department's ability to place its doctoral recipients should serve as the pivotal prestige measurement. As such, prestige becomes an ex anteattribute of the stratification system rather than an ex postproductivity metric. An empirical analysis of accounting faculty placements from graduate schools in the US was conducted as a means of ranking US departments of accounting that offer the doctoral degree. The resultant rankings, also evaluated over time and against programme size, provide a unique opportunity to observe a hierarchy of social judgment.     

Measuring the impact of accounting journals using Google Scholar and the g-index

The UK's proposed Research Excellence Framework promotes a move towards citation analysis for assessing research performance. However, for business disciplines, journal rankings are likely to remain an important aid in evaluating research quality. The accounting literature includes many journal rankings and citation studies, however there has been little coverage of recent advances in these areas. This study explores approaches to assessing the impact of accounting journals with a focus on quantitative measures as a complement to peer-review-based evaluation. New data sources and techniques for citation studies are reviewed, and the g-index is selected for further analysis. The g-index was developed by Professor Leo Egghe in 2006 as an improvement on the h-index. Like the h-index, the g-index represents a relationship between papers published and the level of citations they receive, but the g-index is more sensitive to highly cited paper. To apply the g-index to accounting journals, the study first combines eight published journals rankings to produce a list of 34 highly-regarded titles. Citation data are then gathered from Google Scholar and used to calculate g-index scores as the basis of a new ranking. Google Scholar is found to have broader coverage of accounting citations than Scopus or the Web of Science databases, but requires cleaning to remove duplicate entries. The use of the g-index for ranking journals is found to be a useful innovation in citation analysis, allowing a more robust assessment of the impact of journals.     

The Impact of Journal Rankings on Australasian Accounting Education Scholarship – A Personal View

Abstract

The higher education environment in which academics currently find themselves is one characterised by corporatisation and commodification. The pursuit of scholarly academic research is increasingly plagued by quantification, ranking pursuits, and what might be referred to as a ‘publication’ maximisation culture. This paper provides reflective insight into the impact felt of journal rankings on Australasian accounting education research. The paper challenges the short-termism and narrow focus currently adopted by many business faculty executives, who continue to use journal rankings as the sole measure of academic performance. The paper argues that this results in incentive schemes not too dissimilar to that recently found within the financial industry. The paper concludes that such a narrow approach to measurement should be abandoned in order to encourage creativity and innovation in business research that assists in solving business problems today and well into the future.     

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’).     

Business School Rankings and Business School Deans: A Study of Nonprofit Governance

We examine the relation between business school dean turnover and MBA program rankings from 1990–2002. We find little evidence that dean departures are related to changes in a school's overall rank in the US News & World Report rankings. However, dean turnover increases following drops in the Business Week rankings and deterioration in the student placement score as measured by US News & World Report. These results are significant in both a statistical and economic sense. Our findings suggest that schools react either directly to the rankings or to information that is reflected in the rankings.     

Ranking North American accounting scholars publishing accounting education papers: 1966–2011

This paper ranks accounting’s education authors who teach at institutions located in the United States and Canada. During the 46-year period from 1966 through 2011 that we examined, 13 journals published accounting education papers; the publication period for each journal varies. The data indicate that only 31.4% of accounting’s 4855 doctoral faculty who teach at schools in North America have one or more publications in these 13 journals. For those doctorates still teaching, the research provides rankings of authors by doctoral year and for four periods: 2002–2011 (most recent 10 years), 1992–2001 (next 10-year period), 1966–1991 (last 26 years), and for the entire 46-year period. To acknowledge the contributions of retired and deceased authors, the research lists those authors who would have been included on the overall list had they still been actively teaching. While Urbancic (2009) and Brigham Young University (BYU) provide rankings of authors in accounting education, these rankings are limited in the scope of the journals included – Urbancic includes only six accounting education journals, while BYU includes only Issues in Accounting Education. We found that Urbancic’s (BYU’s) 10-year (20-year) data had a Spearman’s rho of −0.84 (0.39) with our rankings. We believe that data presented herein provides a more comprehensive ranking of accounting’s authors in the area of education.     

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.     

The Impact of Corporate Governance Press News on Stock Market Returns

Stock market prices reflect information regarding firms’ business environments, operations and, in general, their fundamentals. Recently, various studies have analysed the link between news coverage and stock prices but no evidence exists on how channels and ways of communication of information affect investors’ behaviour. We analyses these aspects focussing on a large sample of corporate governance news published between 2003 and 2007 in ‘Il Sole 24 Ore’, Italy's major financial newspaper. We show that before news is made public investors are only able to assess the type of corporate governance event underlying it. After publication, investors are influenced by the content (positive or negative) and the tone of communication (strong or weak) of the news.     

Human development and cross-border acquisitions

We examine the role of human development in US companies' decisions to engage in cross-border acquisitions. Utilizing the human development index (HDI) published by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), we find that US firms make acquisitions in countries with strong HDI levels. Alternative factors such as institutional quality, life expectancy, telephone usage and school enrolments also have a positive influence on the cross-border acquisition decision. Further, we find a positive relationship between cross-border mergers and acquisitions (M&As) and HDI rankings relative to the United States. Our findings contribute to the literature that seeks to explain why so little capital flows from developed to developing economies.     

Discounted Cash Flow Valuation for Small Cap M&A Integration*

Frank Batten rose to the upper ranks of the Forbes 400 by using his Norfolk newspaper as a base to consolidate publications and then later to create a media enterprise, including cable‐TV (which was eventually sold for $1.2 billion) and The Weather Channel (sold for over $3 billion). Batten's success offers a compelling case study of the often pursued but much maligned “roll up” strategy of mergers, providing evidence that the strategy can produce superior returns for those consolidators devoted to integrating small, value‐priced acquisitions within an industry niche. The author identifies three keys to Batten's success in making the strategy work: (1) aggressive, but astute, adoption of “best practices” and enhanced processes; (2) refinement of the business model to “roll out” the launch of like entities to underserved markets; and, most important, (3) identification and pursuit of innovative business development opportunities made possible by the consolidation. Too often, intricate discounted cash flow (DCF) analyses are used to justify disastrous valuations, such as the one that helped support Daimler's $37 billion acquisition of Chrysler. Landmark's employment of rigorous DCF analyses was valued primarily not as a guide to value, but rather as a way of assessing the economic drivers of the business, the opportunities to control costs, the rationality of forecasted growth rates, and the probability of competition and market forces affecting short‐ and longterm results. These analyses formed the basis for management's long‐term development goals. When seeking approval for a deal, however, the valuation depended on a simpler criterion: the multiple of the prior year's cash flow relative to prospective long‐term profit growth. In this regard, Batten's use of DCF was much more akin to Warren Buffett's “spontaneous” valuations, delivered “customarily within five minutes.”     

InsurTech in the United States and Germany—What are the drivers behind the different business models?

Comparing the InsurTech ecosystems of the United States and Germany (Europe), there are significant regional differences in the choice of business models. While many InsurTechs in the United States have opted for the business model of a fully licensed insurer, this business model is much less common in Europe. In Europe, many InsurTechs seem to shy away from applying for a license as an insurer and limit themselves to the business model of a broker or a managing general agent. This paper analyzes the factors that influence an InsurTech's choice of business model when deciding whether or not to apply for an insurance license. It examines the impact of different local market environments on these decisions, as well as the role that access to venture capital plays in business model decisions and how regulators and their actions influence the decision-making process.     

Career concerns and peer effects in institutional tournaments: Evidence from ECB reserve currency portfolios

Using data on European Central Bank's (ECB's) reserve currency portfolios, we find that money managers react to relative rankings (i.e., own vs. peers’ performance) by adjusting portfolio active risk levels measured ex ante by actual deviations from their benchmark. This occurs in the absence of explicit incentives as no monetary reward is promised for winning this “tournament” among portfolio managers. We collect information on managers’ characteristics, including age, education, tenure, salary, and career path, and investigate the role played by implicit incentives. We provide evidence that both individual career concerns and institutional peer pressure contribute to the documented relationship between ranking and risk taking.     

Give me a two-by-two matrix and I will create the market: Rankings,graphic visualisations and sociomateriality

Scholars have described how rankings can be consequential for the shaping of the economy. The prevailing argument is that they wield influence through encouraging ‘mechanisms of reactivity’ amongst market actors. We ask the question as to whether there are additional agential aspects found within rankings that extend ‘social’ accounts. We suggest that ‘sociomateriality’ is also a significant aspect of a ranking’s influence. Through developing the notion of a ‘ranking device’, we examine how the “format and furniture” of a ranking can mediate and constitute a domain. Drawing on a detailed study of a prominent graphical performance measure from within the information technology (IT) arena, we provide evidence to show that IT markets can be as much a product of the affordances and constraints of ranking devices as any other (non-material) aspects of the ranking. The article integrates literature from Accounting research and Science and Technology Studies to contribute to our understanding of how material things and the economy mutually constitute one another. It also offers one of the first empirical accounts of the sociomaterial construction of a graphical ranking.     

A comprehensive comparison of corporate environmental reporting and responsiveness

This research is motivated by an interest in determining if there is an association between companies that have been identified as environmentally responsive according to an independent ranking and the quality and extent of their disclosures about their environmental impacts. We use the proactive approach to achieving legitimacy to develop the expectation that legitimacy theory can be used to predict a positive association between environmental responsiveness and disclosure. Using all forms of environmental reporting (both hard copy and website), we comprehensively assess the quality and extent of what is being reported and then match this assessment with an independent assessment of each company's environmental responsiveness. We find significant positive correlations between the independent ranking and our rankings based on the quality and extent of disclosure. This suggests that companies’ environmental disclosures reflect their environmental responsiveness and supports the expectations we developed in terms of legitimacy theory.     

Exploring Comparative Ratings and Constituent Facets of Public Trust in Risk Regulatory Bodies and Related Stakeholder Groups

This paper reports on two comparative ranking tasks performed by a sample of the British citizens (N = 304). The first was designed to compare levels of relative trust vested in a sample of UK risk regulatory bodies and associated stakeholder groups. The second sought to elicit a ranking of a range of previously identified facets of social trust referenced to their desirability as attributes of a government funded risk regulatory body. The ranking tasks were embedded within a broader programme of research focused on “Evaluating public understandings of and trust in the Health and Safety Executive” (Pidgeon et al., 2003). It is argued that deriving rankings of multi‐faceted phenomena using the method of paired comparisons offers a more robust approach to rating social trust entities than the direct ranking techniques used in previous studies in this area. Results are discussed with reference to qualitative findings from the broader programme of work on public trust in HSE (Pidgeon et al., 2003) and the wider literature on public trust in risk regulation.     

The First‐ and Second‐Hand Effect of Analysts' Stock Recommendations: Evidence from the Swiss Stock Market

This paper empirically investigates the impact of both the first release of analysts' stock recommendations to a limited clientele and the subsequent dissemination of the same information in a major newspaper to a broader audience. For a sample of 1460 stock recommendations published in FuW, Switzerland's major financial newspaper, significant positive abnormal returns on the day of the original release of buy recommendations and on the day of publication in FuW are documented. Tests of the price pressure and information hypotheses reveal that analysts' recommendations contain new information, which is quickly incorporated in the stock prices on the first release of this information. In contrast, the statistically significant announcement effects associated with the subsequent publication can be primarily ascribed to price pressure in the underlying securities.     

Aggregating Incomplete Lists of Journal Rankings: An Application to Academic Accounting Journals*

We introduce a branch‐and‐cut algorithm to aggregate published journal rankings based on subsets of the accounting literature in order to create a consensus ranking. The aggregate ranking allows specialist and regional journals, which may only be ranked in a limited number of studies, to be placed with respect to each other and with respect to the generalist journals that are usually included in ranking studies. The approach we develop is a significant advance over ad hoc approaches to aggregating journal rankings that have appeared in the literature and may provide a theoretically sound and replicable basis for further exploration of the concept of journal quality and the stability of journal rankings over time and ranking methods.     

Ranking accounting journals using dissertation citation analysis: A research note

Prior literature on accounting journal rankings has provided different journal lists depending on the type of examination (citations- vs. survey-based) and the choice of journals covered. A recent study by Bonner, Hesford, Van der Stede, and Young (2006) [Bonner, S., Hesford, A., Van der Stede, W. A., & Young, M. S. (2006). The most influential journals in academic accounting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 31(7), 663–685] documents disproportionately more citations in the financial accounting area, suggesting a financial accounting bias in the accounting literature. We use citations from accounting dissertations completed during 1999–2003 to provide a ranking of accounting journals. The database allows us to assess the research interests of new accounting scholars and the literature sources they draw from. Another innovation is our ranking of accounting journals based on specialty areas (auditing, financial, managerial, tax, systems, and other) and research methods (archival, experimental, modeling, survey, and other). To mitigate the financial accounting bias documented by Bonner et al. (2006), we derive a ranking metric by scaling (normalizing) the journal citations by the number of dissertations within each specialty area and research method. Overall, the top journals are, JAR, AOS, TAR, and JAE. We also provide evidence that top journal rankings do vary by specialty area as well as by research methods.     

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.