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.     

Producing Spaces for Academic Discourse: The Impact of Research Assessment Exercises and Journal Quality Rankings

This study examines the impact of national research assessment exercises (NRAEs) and associated journal quality rankings on the development, scope and sustainability of the academic journals in which accounting research is disseminated. The reported exploratory study focused on the United Kingdom (UK), Australia and New Zealand as three countries in which NRAEs are well developed or imminent. Data were collected via a survey of authors, interviews with journal editors, and feedback from publishers responsible for producing academic accounting journals.
The findings suggest that, despite cynicism around the reliability of published journal quality rankings, the entrenchment of NRAE 'rules' and journal quality perceptions has changed authors' submission choices and left lower ranked journals struggling with a diminished quantity and quality of submissions. A clear perception is that NRAEs have done little to improve the overall quality of the accounting literature, but are impeding the diversity, originality and practical relevance of accounting research.
Although strategies are suggested for meeting these challenges, they require strategic partnerships with publishers to enhance the profile and distribution of emerging journals, and depend on the willingness of accounting researchers to form supportive communities around journals that facilitate their research interests. The alternative may be a withering of the spaces for academic discourse, a stifling of innovation and a further entrenchment of current perceptions of what counts as 'quality' research.     

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.     

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 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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

基于主成分因子分析法的石油央企财务绩效评价研究

中国三大石油央企均入围2012年度的世界500强,它们的排名分别是第5、6和101,然而世界500强的排名是以营业收入为依据.尽管这三家公司都有其各自的财务报表,但我们仍然无法直观的比较其财务绩效的好坏.因此,我们构建了一套财务绩效评价指标体系,并使用主成分因子分析法来评价与比较它们的财务绩效.     

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.     

The effect of rankings on honesty in budget reporting

We conduct an experiment to investigate the effect of rankings, which are pervasive in practice, on the honesty of managers’ budget reports, which is important for sound decision making in organizations. Participants in our experiment are ranked in one of four ways: (1) firm profit, (2) own compensation, (3) both firm profit and own compensation, and (4) randomly, which serves as our baseline condition. None of the rankings affect participants’ remuneration. Compared to our baseline (random rankings) setting, where participants indeed exhibit honesty concerns, we find that rankings based on firm profit significantly increase honesty and that rankings based on own compensation significantly decrease honesty. Participants who received both rankings were significantly more honest than participants in the own compensation rankings condition. We did not, however, find significant differences in honesty between the both rankings and firm profit rankings conditions. As such, participants in the both rankings condition seemed to focus more on the firm profit metric than on the financially congruent own compensation metric. We also find that our results are stable across periods, suggesting that the effects of rankings neither increased nor dissipated over time. We discuss the contributions of our study and concomitant findings to accounting research and practice.     

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’).     

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.     

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.     

The British investor's gains from international portfolio investment

This paper analyses the effects of exchange controls on the ranking of British and overseas investments. A method is developed by which the costs of such controls can be incorporated into return calculations. It is shown that the adjustment of returns for exchange controls significantly alters the rankings of investments. An additional aspect of the paper is to rank domestic and foreign investments by stochastic dominance and compare the derived rankings with mean-variance. Again a significant differences in rankings is identifiable. It is concluded that the exchange rate regime, institutional exchange controls and the entire distribution of returns should be considered in ranking domestic and foreign investments.     

Exploring the Role of Symbolic Legitimation in Voluntary Journal List Adoption

Abstract

Journal lists are common in the global accounting academy, yet the underlying ‘research quality’ construct is ill defined and the specific processes used in voluntary list adoptions have not been systematically tied to theory. This paper raises the questions: (1) What is driving voluntary journal list adoptions? and (2) Are journal list projects more closely aligned with addressing well-specified public problems or with effecting symbolic legitimation? A set of theory-based questions help structure an assessment of the process used by two American accounting/business programs with traditional teaching missions as they work toward developing an institution-specific journal list. Subject to the usual cautions about the generalizability of a case study described by an active player, the narrative suggests that symbolic legitimation issues may play a key role in journal listing and ranking processes.     

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.