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.     

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.     

The incidence of documented standards for research in departments of accounting at US institutions

Evidence suggests that standards for research in accounting are vague to junior faculty at the same time business schools are placing more emphasis on scholarship when evaluating faculty for tenure and promotion (T&P). In response, we investigate the incidence of accounting-specific documented standards for research in T&P decisions based on an email survey of accounting department administrators at US institutions. In addition, we report respondent data about the use of documented and informal journal lists. Our findings suggest that few accounting departments, regardless of accreditation status, utilize department-specific written scholarship standards or journal lists, supporting faculty perceptions that scholarship requirements for T&P are vague. As part of our analysis we review implications of the Final Report of the AACSB International Impact of Research Task Force (AACSB International, 2008) on the use of journal lists for tenure and promotion decisions. We summarize by advocating for specific accounting department-level policies for T&P, including consideration of explicit journal lists.     

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.     

Accounting journals and the ABS quality ratings

This study aims to look behind the quality ratings for accounting journals, listed in the ABS Academic Journal Quality Guide (Kelly, Morris, Rowlinson and Harvey, 2009). Significant variations exist in the perceptions of journal quality across the six UK business schools that contribute ratings to the ABS guide, with the most optimistic perceptions tending to come from those schools whose ratings are more highly correlated with quality scores for critical and interpretive research, as reported in Lowe and Locke's (2005) article in Accounting, Organizations and Society (30:1, 81–98). Pessimistic perceptions are more likely to exist in those schools whose ratings are more highly correlated with Lowe & Locke's scores for functional and capital markets research paradigms. There are also notable variations in journal ratings across time. Given that perceptions vary so much across schools, paradigms and time, how much credence can be given to any single rating system for journal quality? This study concludes that if the ABS guide is to be used by university decision-makers or heads of school then the ABS ratings for any given year need to be treated with extreme caution and with an appropriate recognition of their intrinsic limitations.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Productivity in “Top‐Ten” Academic Accounting Journals by Researchers at Canadian Universities*

We examine the research productivity of academic accountants at Canadian universities for the 11‐year period 1990‐2000. Our analysis is based on the “top‐ten” ranked refereed journals in accounting, auditing, and taxation, as documented by Brown and Huefner (1994). We first provide an overview of the importance of publishing in highly ranked accounting journals for individual academics, departments, and business faculties. We then provide details of the proportion of articles published in each of these journals by academics from Canadian universities; the type of research published in each journal (auditing, financial accounting, managerial accounting, and taxation); and details of editorial board service. Our results indicate that even at the most productive Canadian university (in terms of “top‐ten” publications), faculty members publish (on average) approximately one article every seven years. Six Canadian universities have faculty members with, on average, more than one article in “top‐ten” journals every 10 years. We also provide results of analyses that rank each Canadian university, after controlling for the relative quality of each journal, using impact factors published by the Social Science Citation Index. In addition, statistics are provided with regard to the 15 most productive researchers, in terms of “top‐ten” publications, in the 11‐year period. Finally, in conjunction with the 25th anniversary of the Canadian Academic Accounting Association, we examine the productivity of academic accountants at Canadian universities over the past 25 years by combining our results with those reported by Richardson and Williams (1990).     

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.     

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.     

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 most influential journals in academic accounting

In this article we summarize the findings of articles that have ranked academic accounting journals, as well as articles that provide other bases for considering journal quality. Results indicate that five journals—Accounting, Organizations and Society, Contemporary Accounting Research, Journal of Accounting and Economics, Journal of Accounting Research, and The Accounting Review—rank consistently as the top journals in the field. However, these five journals differ substantially as to the numbers of articles they publish overall as well as the proportions of articles that are related to the various specialty areas of accounting. Further, the relative proportions of articles by area do not correspond to the numbers of individuals working in the specialty areas. Financial accounting articles appear in disproportionately high numbers for all journals except Accounting, Organizations and Society, whereas management accounting articles appear in disproportionately low numbers for all journals except Accounting, Organizations and Society. In all journals, systems and tax articles also appear to be disproportionately low vis-à-vis the numbers of individuals working in these areas. Auditing receives fairly even exposure across journals and vis-à-vis individuals in the area, except in the Journal of Accounting and Economics.     

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.     

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.     

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 perceived availability of resources which contribute to accounting faculty productivity

This study collected evidence from administrators and faculty of accounting programs concerning their perceptions of the availability of selected resources that potentially influence faculty productivity. The objective of the analysis was to determine if there were differences in the perceptions of respondents due to their professorial rank, their employing institution (stratified into three institutional groups by highest degree offered) and/or their employment role, that is, administrator versus faculty. The results suggest that faculty perceptions are influenced more by institutional differences than by rank. When faculty were compared to administrators, the evidence indicated that administrators' perceptions of resource availability consistently exceeded that of the faculty groups.     

Finance Research Productivity and Influence

This study examines differences in finance research productivity and influence across 661 academic institutions over the five-year period from 1989 through 1993. We find that 40 institutions account for over 50 percent of all articles published by 16 leading journals over the five-year period; 66 institutions account for two-thirds of the articles. Influence is more skewed, with as few as 20 institutions accounting for 50 percent of all citations to articles in these journals. The number of publications and publication influence increase with faculty size and academic accreditation. Prestigious business schools are associated with high publication productivity and influence.     

Constructing an ‘efficient frontier’ of accounting journal quality

This paper reports the construction of an ‘efficient frontier’ of the perceived quality attributes of academic accounting journals. The analysis is based on perception data from two web-based surveys of Australasian and British academics.The research reported here contributes to the existing literature by augmenting the commonly supported single dimension of quality with an additional measure indicating the variation of perceptions of journal quality. The result of combining these factors is depicted diagrammatically in a manner that reflects the risk and return trade-off as conceptualised in the capital market model of an efficient frontier of investment opportunities. This conceptualisation of a ‘market’ for accounting research provides a context in which to highlight the complex issues facing academics in their roles as editors, researchers and authors.The analysis indicates that the perceptions of the so-called ‘elite’ US accounting journals have become unsettled particularly in Australasia, showing high levels of variability in perceived quality, while other traditionally highly ranked journals (ABR, AOS, CAR) have a more ‘efficient’ combination of high-quality ranking and lower dispersion of perceptions. The implications of these results for accounting academics in the context of what is often seen as a market for accounting research are discussed.