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.     

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 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.     

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.     

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.     

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’).     

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.     

Author Affiliation Index, finance journal ranking, and the pattern of authorship

In this paper we use a new method to rank finance journals and study the pattern of authorship/co-authorship across journals. Defined as the ratio of articles authored by faculty at the world's top 80 finance programs to the total number of articles by all authors, the Author Affiliation Index is a cost-effective and intuitively easy-to-understand approach to journal rankings. Forty-one finance journals are ranked according to this index. If properly constructed, the Author Affiliation Index provides an easy and credible way to supplement the existing journal ranking methods. Our ranking system reveals the journal–researcher clientele, and we find that collaboration (co-authoring) between faculty within elite programs exists only in top-tier and near-top-tier journals. Publications in lower-tier journals by researchers of elite programs are driven by their co-authors. Collaboration between faculty in elite and non-elite programs, however, is more prevalent than that within elite programs across all tiers of journals. Co-authorship among top 80 programs, nevertheless, is more common in top-tier journals, while co-authorship between top 80 and other programs is more dominant in lower-ranked journals.     

Risk Management and Insurance-Related Journals: A Survey of Risk and Insurance Academics

This research provides an assessment of the utility and quality of risk management and insurance (RMI)-related journals using professorial expert opinion. Although Social Science Citation Index (SSCI)-produced citation counts and article impact factors are widely available and commonly used methods of journal comparison, they are limited to very few generally premier journals in any field, including RMI, leaving stakeholders with substantial gaps when benchmarking journal factors. We bridge this gap by comparing RMI faculty opinion of quality to SSCI assessments for 13 journals with results indicating general consistency across these measures. The expert opinion approach is extended to assess quality across a sample of 30 RMI-related publications, along with assigning journal categories delineated based on reported academic utility, contributing to RMI boundary definitions. Posthoc analysis indicates only modest influences for some individual, institutional, and journal-related factors on professorial perceptions, evidence that expert opinions are reliable measures of RMI journal utility and quality. Additionally, only modest differences are found in journal quality assessments by academics relative to the teaching versus research institutional mission of their employers, as well as across perceived individual teaching versus research role expectations. Thus, the expert opinion approach to evaluating utility and quality, coupled with regression and subsample analysis, aids RMI academics and other stakeholders in journal assessment and boundary definition issues. These contributions to the advancement of journal assessment methodologies in general may also prove useful across academic disciplines.     

Identifying Tiers of Influence in Expert Systems Research: II

In the first part of this study we described an objective, multifaceted, citation-based methodology for assessing journal influence. We applied it to the field of artificial intelligence (AI) to gauge the most influential journals for AI research. In this paper we apply the same methodology to a broadened citation base drawn from journals devoted to expert systems (ES), as well as those with a broader AI editorial scope. The result is a pair of journal tiers that reflect the special emphasis that expert system research has among AI researchers in business schools. Taken together, the AI/ES findings reported here coupled with the general AI tiers identified in Part I provide a fairly complete and insightful picture of the most influential journals impacting AI in general, and AI/ES in particular.     

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.     

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.     

Journal Rankings,Collaborative Research and Publication Strategies: Evidence from China

Abstract

The primary focus of our paper is on the potential for in-house journal ranking lists to create friction between international collaborating researchers due to differences in how particular journals are rated on different lists. Using a questionnaire distributed to Chinese accounting researchers, we identify a number of potential friction points between Chinese and UK researchers. We find that almost all of our Chinese respondents use their own school's in-house ranking list as the primary or exclusive reference point for assessing journal quality, and 73% of respondents acknowledge that this has caused problems when working with scholars from other universities because of differences in how their institutions rank journals.     

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.     

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.     

Intelligent Systems in Accounting,Finance and Management: ISI journal and proceeding citations,and research issues from most‐cited papers

This paper analyses the citations from Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance and Management that have occurred in ISI's Web of Knowledge in February 2010. I found roughly 1000 citations to the journal under 10 different journal name abbreviations, with roughly 25% of the citations occurring during 2008–2009, associated with 27 of the more frequently cited papers. Using that citation data, the H‐index and the 40 (42 with ties) most‐cited papers are presented. I found that ISI's new proceedings data appear to have a different citation pattern than ISI's journal citation data, resulting in citations to more sources, but fewer citations per source. I also examine the research methodologies and applications of the most‐cited papers in an attempt to determine what areas have been cited most and where there are potential gaps in the research. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

A machine learning analysis of citation impact among selected Pacific Basin journals

This study uses a machine learning approach to identify and predict factors which influence citation impacts across five Pacific Basin journals: Abacus, Accounting & Finance, Australian Journal of Management, Australian Accounting Review and the Pacific Accounting Review from 2008 to 2018. The machine learning results indicate that citation impact is mostly influenced by: length of a journal article; the field of research (particularly environmental accounting), sample size; whether the sample is local or international; choice of research method (e.g., archival vs survey/interview); academic rank of the first author; institutional status of the first author; and number of authors of the article. The results may be useful for predicting future trends in citation impact as well as providing strategies for authors and editors to improve citation impact.     

Networks and productivity: Causal evidence from editor rotations

Using detailed publication and citation data for over 50,000 articles from 30 major economics and finance journals, we investigate whether network proximity to an editor influences research productivity. During an editor's tenure, his current university colleagues publish about 100% more papers in the editor's journal, compared to years when he is not editor. In contrast to editorial nepotism, such “inside” articles have significantly higher ex post citation counts, even when same-journal and self-cites are excluded. Our results thus suggest that despite potential conflicts of interest faced by editors, personal associations are used to improve selection decisions.     

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.