Productivity in Top‐10 Academic Accounting Journals by Researchers at Canadian Universities at the Start of the 21st Century

We assess the research publication productivity of Canadian‐based accounting researchers in highly ranked accounting journals for the 2001–13 period. Our research provides important benchmarks for use by individual researchers and universities for matters such as promotion and tenure decisions. For example, each Canadian‐based faculty member had approximately 0.50 of a weighted article for the 13‐year period, and 45 percent of all accounting faculty members published at least once in a top‐10 accounting journal. We also provide an overview of the type of research being published by Canadian‐based researchers in each of the top‐10 journals (financial accounting, managerial, audit, tax or other) and we assess how productivity at top‐10 journals has changed over time. In supplemental analysis, we compare and contrast the productivity of the 15 male and 15 female academics that publish most in top‐10 accounting journals to assess the breadth of outlets being used beyond top‐10 outlets (including FT 45 journals, accounting journals ranked “A”, “B”, and “non‐A/B”; non‐accounting peer‐reviewed journals, non‐peer‐reviewed outlets). The supplemental analysis also helps to shed light on the finding from this paper, and prior research, that women are less likely to be represented on lists of those with most publications in highly ranked accounting journals, by comparing the two groups of researchers across a variety of institutional and other factors.     

Research productivity of Australian accounting academics

In recent decades, substantial changes have impacted the global academy, such as the increasing use of key performance metrics for academics. This study provides recent evidence of Australian accounting academics’ performance in publishing in A/A* journals during the period 2010–2018. We find that the top 25 percent of Australian academics produce approximately 60 percent of published journal articles through an analysis of the A/A* Australian Business Deans′ Council (ABDC) accounting journal listing. The majority of published Australian co‐authored research output in the sample is in A ranked journals (80 percent), with only 20 percent observed in A* ranked journals.     

The Contribution of Non-U.S. Institutions to Academic Accounting Journals

This study uses the weightings of accounting journal quality derived by Howard and Nikolai (HN, 1983) to produce a ranked list of the publishing contribution of the twenty-five top non-U.S. institutions for the ten-year period 1977–86. A data base was created of all the contributions by non-U.S. academics to the ten academic accounting and finance journals ranked highest in the HN study. The results of the analyses of this data base indicate: (a) the contribution of non-U.S. countries to the accounting and finance literature; (b) the proportion of publications accounted for by the top twenty-five non-U.S. institutions; and (c) a ranking of the contributions of the top twenty-five non-U.S. institutions.     

Still flickering at the margins of existence? Publishing patterns and themes in accounting and finance research over the last two decades

This paper reviews the last 24 years of academic accounting in the UK, using survey data collected every 2 years by the British Accounting Association (BAA). Over this period, the number of academic accountants more than doubled, the number of full professors rose from 42 to 247, the proportion of staff with a Ph.D. rose from 9% to 39%, the proportion with a professional qualification fell from 73% to 50%, the proportion of academics with no publications fell and the proportion publishing in refereed journals rose. The analysis of the BAA data produces several other findings. First, the overall level of publications reached a peak in 2000 and declined thereafter. Since 1982–1983 there has been a distinct downward trend in the number of journal articles published each period per head, although from year to year the changes are more uneven. Second, very few UK academics publish in the journals, which are identified (by published ranking surveys) as being top international journals, with the exception of Accounting, Organizations and Society. Third, very few UK academics publish in the set of journals which they themselves rate the most highly in terms of quality and which are published primarily in the US. Fourth, the contribution made by UK academics to the international literature also increased, in terms of volume, up to the year 2000 and declined thereafter. Fifth, there has been a move away from publishing in mainstream accounting journals and professional journals. The paper considers some of the implications of these trends for the future of research, for teaching, for the individual progress of UK accounting academics, for the development of the discipline and for the international competitiveness of UK accounting research.     

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.     

An “unofficial” history of race relations in the South African accounting industry, 1968–2000: Perspectives of South Africa's first black chartered accountants

“Official” histories are, typically, written by those with the most power and influence. In the case of the accounting industry, the content of professional journals and histories of major firms or professional leaders are taken as the most authoritative sources to uncover the past. In this paper, we contrast articles on racial inclusion published in South Africa's leading professional accounting journal with the experiences of black chartered accountants in the country. We interviewed 38 of the first 220 black CAs in South Africa. Their stories of discriminatory treatment by accounting firms contrast sharply with the official version of history gleaned from the professional journal. Sharing their stories herein helps correct the historical record.     

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.     

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.     

Knowledge and the academic accountant: An empirical study

This article concerns the way that academic accountants approach and perceive knowledge. Knowledge within disciplines is based upon knowledge strategies, which are the sets of beliefs and “rules” by means of which academics deal with knowledge. Knowledge strategies underlie the basic philosophy of the various departments which make up the university business school, and affect the way in which academics research and teach their disciplines. The origin of this article lies in our speculation about what it is that academic accountants consider worth knowing about accountancy issues, and further, what rules and strategies impact on their perception of what is valid or appropriate knowledge. In order to ascertain whether or not the concept of knowledge strategies has any validity and whether accounting faculty hold different knowledge strategies compared to nonaccounting business faculty, a study was undertaken involving the seven English university business schools which cover the full range of undergraduate, MBA, doctoral, and executive programmes. A questionnaire was sent to 407 academics at these schools. Following a factor analysis of the data collected, three strategies were identified as the Personal Knowledge Strategy (characterised by reliance on individual creativity, personal experience and judgement), the External Strategy (characterised by the view that knowledge can be found by means of objective criteria), and the Collegial Knowledge Strategy (characterised by debate and consultation with colleagues in order to compare, contrast, discuss and evaluate knowledge). A comparative analysis of the 68 accounting faculty who responded to the questionnaire and the 165 responding nonaccountant faculty revealed that academic accountants hold a significantly lower personal knowledge strategy and also a significantly higher external strategy, when compared with nonaccountant faculty. These empirical findings lend support to Zeff's concern that academic accountants' approach to education does not result in students being acquainted “with a field of professional endeavor consistent with the liberal tradition of universities” (Zeff, 1989b, p. 204).     

From Accounting to “Forecounting”*

Using Ross Skinner's 1995 CA Magazine article, “Judgment in Jeopardy", as a stepping stone, we revisit the meaning of professional judgment in accounting in light of developments in standard setting, financial markets, and business operations that have taken place over the past two decades. We argue that it is time to change the view that accountants' professional judgment is the application of accounting‐based knowledge and experience in the selection of an appropriate accounting method. Accountants now face a standard‐setting context that emphasizes the estimation of future cash flows as well as new business and financial realities. This context implies that, in exercising their professional judgment to choose between forecast alternatives, accountants must rely on knowledge and experience from other disciplines (even though this is not well integrated into accounting). Hence, accounting must evolve from its traditional stewardship role to the new role of “forecount‐ing” (the estimation of future cash flows). The implications as well as the challenges of that evolution are discussed.     

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.     

An analysis of the research productivity of AIS faculty

During the past 25 years, a number of articles have examined the accounting research productivity of individual faculty members and institutions. Many articles have focused on the quantity of publications, with a few incorporating a quality measurement component. Concurrently, other research efforts have examined the quality of the journals that are considered to be potential outlets for a broad, cross-section of accounting academics. These studies, taken as a whole, have provided valuable insights into the research productivity across the domain of accounting academics. The purpose of this paper is to examine research in the subdiscipline of AIS, from both a quantity and quality perspective and evaluate both institutional productivity and individual faculty productivity. Information from all AIS research published from 1982 through 1998 in 45 accounting and information systems journals was collected and analyzed. Using this data, we show which journals are considered the highest quality outlets for AIS publications, which faculty have published the most AIS research, which employing institutions are rated highest in AIS research productivity and which doctoral granting institutions are rated the highest for AIS research productivity. The findings of this study contribute to the understanding of the AIS research domain and to accounting by providing valuable insights into the quality of AIS research.     

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’).     

Global ranking of accounting programmes and the elite effect in accounting research

We provide a global ranking of accounting research and examine the elite degree and elite affiliation effect. Based on 24 accounting journals during the period 1991–2005, the top 5 most productive countries in accounting research are in the following order: the USA, the UK, Australia, Canada and Hong Kong. We find a significant elite degree effect, indicating that authors who graduated from elite accounting programmes have a disproportionate share of publications in top‐notch journals. The same conclusion is also supported by the elite affiliation effect in which leading accounting journals have higher concentration of authors who are affiliated with elite institutions.     

Job Market Signaling: What Drives the Productivity of Finance Ph.D.s?

We study the research productivity of new finance Ph.D.s as measured by the number of quality publications. A commonly accepted notion is that the highest ranked schools produce the candidates with the greatest potential for high‐quality publications. Our results, however, find publications or revisions in top‐tier journals during the doctoral program are a stronger measure of potential research productivity than the school attended. Our findings demonstrate how candidates outside of the top schools can signal their future research productivity. Even though we examine the specialized labor market, our results have broader implications for markets outside academics.     

Setting realistic expectations for publishing in leading accounting research journals

At most colleges and universities, an accounting academic's publication record is a primary consideration in promotion and tenure decisions. Many institutions encourage and expect faculty members to publish in leading accounting research journals. No longer limited to institutions with strong research orientations, these expectations often become an informal part of promotion and tenure guidelines at other colleges and universities. This article evaluates the use of such criteria in light of a five-year study (1978–1982) of several attributes of academics who have published in two leading research journals, The Accounting Review and The Journal of Accounting Research. The objective is to initiate dialogue and promote reasonable expectations among and between accounting faculty and administrators.     

The Impact of Research Assessment Exercises on UK Accounting and Finance Faculty

Published research outputs have for a long time been used to assess the performance of UK accounting and finance faculty. This process has been institutionalised and formalised through the introduction of Research Assessment Exercises (RAEs). RAEs have now become a central and recurring feature of university life. This research evaluates the perceptions of UK accounting faculty of the RAE. We surveyed 713 research active academics in November 1997 drawn from old and new universities, and from senior and non-senior faculty. The 182 academics who responded perceived that the quality of their individual and their department’s research had been increased. However, teaching and administration were believed to have been negatively affected. Overall, twice as many academics believed the RAE had a negative rather than a positive impact upon their jobs. The results across the university divide (old vs. new universities) were fairly homogeneous. However, the responses of senior and non-senior staff were significantly different. Non-senior respondents believed the RAE had a significantly greater negative impact on their teaching, administration, promotion prospects and job mobility than senior respondents. Overall, respondents perceived the RAE ratings to be fair. Publication in top UK research journals was perceived to be the greatest indicator of research quality. The findings have important implications, particularly for the recruitment and retention of non-senior accounting and finance faculty.     

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.     

UK Accountants' Perceptions of Research Journal Quality

The process of research quality assessment is now firmly established in UK universities. The quality of the journals in which academic papers are published is an important input to the assessment process. The relative quality of these journals is clearly difficult to establish in an objective manner. This paper contributes to the debate about relative quality by conducting a peer review. Eighty-eight UK accounting academics reported their degree of familiarity with, and perceptions of quality of, a total of 44 journals in the accounting and finance discipline. Accounting and Business Research and theBritish Accounting Review were the two most familiar academic journals. The most highly ranked journals were generally from the US.