EVALUATING THE FINANCE JOURNALS: THE DEPARTMENT CHAIRPERSON'S PERSPECTIVE

Finance department chairpersons report that the role of published research is more important than ever in influencing appointment and promotion decisions of finance professors. This study and one conducted 15 years ago focus on the pivotal role of finance chairpersons in the evaluation of their faculties' journal publications. These studies show that the major factor influencing the finance chairpersons' evaluations of publications is the journal in which an article is published. Journals of high merit are perceived to have low acceptance rates and vice versa. These estimates of perceived acceptance rates are not correlated with actual acceptance rates. Because perceived acceptance rates play a key role in evaluating faculty publications, there is a need for finance chairpersons to know the relative difficulties of publishing in leading finance and related journals.     

Membership On Editorial Boards And Finance Department Rankings

We examine membership on editorial boards of sixteen leading finance journals in 1985, 1990, 1995, and 2000. Membership on a board of a high‐quality journal is highly selective. Editors and members of editorial boards of quality journals are trusted by their peers who submit their research for publication consideration. Thus, the number of faculty represented on editorial boards of quality journals should provide a quality indication of the finance department. We use membership representation to provide a ranking of finance departments adjusted for department size and journal quality.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

THE RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF JOURNALS USED IN FINANCE RESEARCH

The relative importance of various finance and related journals to research published in major finance journals is determined by noting the frequency that all other journals are cited in the Journal of Finance, Journal of Financial Economics, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, and Journal of Money, Credit and Banking during the period 1980 to mid?1985. Journals are ranked on the basis of their actual number of citations, citations per article, and citations per 10,000 words published annually. Results give an objective criterion for evaluating the relative impact on the major finance literature of writing in alternative journals. The list of journals developed with the citations methodology differs markedly, on the whole, from the list ranked by Coe and Weinstock (1983) who simply surveyed department chairpersons. Journals that are common to both lists, however, are ranked very much alike, indicating that chairpersons may rank journals they think to include in a subjective list in a way that is consistent with the citations criterion.     

Experiences in publishing peer-reviewed research with undergraduate accounting and finance students

This paper describes an educational program involving joint research projects undertaken between faculty and undergraduate accounting and finance students. The goal of the program was to provide undergraduate accounting and finance students a valuable educational experience resulting in a joint peer-reviewed journal publication. The paper discusses issues, concerns, and strategies that were successfully and unsuccessfully employed in conducting and publishing research with undergraduate students. The program was conducted over a six-year period, resulting in ten publications in peer-reviewed journals as well as several conference presentations, proceedings, and awards. Administrators should consider the program described here as one tool in their arsenal to help faculty maintain academic qualifications while simultaneously benefiting students.     

Finance journal rankings and tiers: An Active Scholar Assessment methodology

This study uses respondent data from a web-based survey of active finance scholars (45% response rate from 37 countries) to endogenously rank 83 finance journals by quality and importance. Journals are further tiered into four groups (A, B, C and D) and stratified into “upper”, “middle” and “lower” tier categories (e.g. A+, A and A−) by estimating a nested regression with random journal-within-tier effects. The comprehensive and endogenous ranking of finance journals based on the Active Scholar Assessment (ASA) methodology can help authors evaluate the strategic aspects of placing their research, facilitate assessment of research achievement by tenure and promotion committees; and assist university libraries in better managing their journal resources. Study findings from active researchers in the field also provide useful guidance to editorial boards for enhancing their journal standing.     

A pragmatic model to estimate journal quality in accounting

This article presents a model to estimate the relative quality of publication outlets based on objective journal characteristics. Our model improves upon the one proposed by Bean and Bernardi [Bean, D. F., & Bernardi, R. A. (2005). Estimating the ratings of journals omitted in prior quality ratings. Advances in Accounting Education, 7, 109–127.] in three important ways. First, we develop a dependent variable that is a composite score based on five prior journal perception studies. Second, our model considers different independent variables; audience, journal availability, inclusion in the Social Sciences Citation Index (an independent measure of quality), and the journal’s submission fee. This combination of variables increases the model’s explanatory power by 21% compared to Bean and Bernardi’s average R². Finally, the results of our model are more consistent with those of prior perception studies. We also apply the model to recent accounting faculty publications, which provides a comparative rating of more than 200 journals. We expect our model for estimating journal quality to help faculty, promotion and tenure committees, and university administrators evaluate the quality of journals where accounting faculty publish, an important aspect of assessing research productivity.     

Publish or Perish: What the Competition is Really Doing

This study provides comprehensive publications performance data over a 25-year period for finance doctorates. These data indicate that publishing one article per year in any finance journal (or finance, accounting, economics, or business journal) over any prolonged period of time is a truly remarkable feat, met by only 5% of the graduates. Tenure screens combining various quantity and quality requirements are examined to assess their ability to predict future publication productivity. Faculty and administrators seeking defensible benchmarks for evaluating faculty research productivity in finance will find that these data and results are particularly useful.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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 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 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.     

Benchmarks for evaluating the research productivity of accounting faculty

This study reports comprehensive data on both the quantity and quality of research productivity of 3878 accounting faculty who earned their accounting doctoral degrees from 1971 to 1993. Publications in 40 journals were used to measure faculty publication quantity. Journal ratings derived from a compilation of the rankings of five prior studies and co-authorship were used to measure publication quality. Choosing benchmarks for an individual faculty requires users of our data to determine four parameters: (1) what credit to give a faculty member for co-authored articles; (2) what level of journal quality is appropriate, e.g. presenting benchmarks for publications in the Best 4, Best 12, Best 22 and Best 40 journals; (3) choosing appropriate levels of performance, e.g. considering the publication record in the top 10%, top 20%, top 25%, top 33%, or top 50% of all faculty; and (4) deciding the emphasis to place on the number of years since the doctoral degree was earned. We believe that this is the first set of benchmarks that allows administrators to state, with some justification, a required number of articles for tenure or promotion. In addition, we discovered that the average number of authors per article is significantly correlated with time and growing at a pace of 0.017 authors per article per year.     

A framework for journal assessment: The case of the Journal of Banking & Finance

We propose a citation-based framework for the assessment of journal influence and demonstrate its application with the Journal of Banking and Finance. The framework assesses the current position of the journal, its trends and the reasons behind the trends. The Journal of Banking and Finance is found to be one of the leading journals in the field of finance and its influence is increasing. In fact, it appears to be part of a group of leading journals that is separating itself from the other journals that are generally regarded as peers. Finally, the Journal of Banking and Finance is found to be the only leading finance journal with a high concentration of banking articles, making it a primary outlet for influential articles in this area.