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.     

International Publishing Patterns: An Investigation of Leading UK and US Accounting and Finance Journals

Abstract:   Research quality is often measured by the quality of the journals in which articles are published. This article looks at 1,867 articles published in six highly‐rated UK and six highly‐rated US academic journals from 1996 to 2000. The authors publishing in the UK journals come mainly from UK and US institutions, but just over a third come from other countries. However, almost ninety per cent of authors publishing in top US journals come from US institutions. Contributions from authors from institutions in non‐English speaking countries in these top journals are rare. The implications of this research are that although accounting is growing increasingly international, academic research, especially in the top US journals remains stubbornly nationally‐orientated.     

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.     

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).     

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.     

PUBLISHING IN PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNTING JOURNALS: ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONAL PERFORMANCE 1987–96

There is considerable interest both in the publishing activities of academics and in the relevance of research to accounting practitioners. This study introduces a fresh perspective to the debate by examining the publishing performance of British academic institutions in professional journals over the period 1987 to 1996 and the possible influence of the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) on this performance. To carry out the research, an analysis was conducted of all articles attributed to academics and appearing in the journals of the five main professional bodies in Great Britain. Two measures of publication performance were used: volume, based on the total number of articles appearing in the period; and regularity, being the number of years in which members of staff of academic institutions appeared in print. The results indicate that a substantial proportion of the 750 articles published in the 10 year period can be attributed to a relatively small number of academic institutions. An examination of the 10 year period reveals that there was reduced publishing activity in professional journals in the year prior to the three RAEs and that activity did not subsequently return to its previous level. When the first five year period is compared to the second there is a decline in productivity and significant changes in the institutions appearing in the analysis. Although the data is fragile, there is no evidence that publishing in professional journals is associated with particularly high or low research ratings. It is noticeable, however, that the names of few of our leading institutions rarely appear in the professional journals.     

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.     

Accounting information systems research over the past decade: Past and future trends

This article reviews the extant accounting information systems (AIS) literature by conducting an analysis of AIS articles published in 18 leading accounting, management information systems, and computer science journals from 1999 to 2009 with a view to identifying whether or not the focus of AIS research has changed, and if so how it has changed, since the Poston and Grabski’s (2000) review of AIS research from 1982 to 1998. We also report our insights into where AIS research is likely to be heading in the future. We analyse each of the 395 articles identified as reporting AIS research to identify their underlying theory, research method and research topic. Our results confirm the continuing decline in analytical and model‐building research in AIS‐related research and this decline is associated with a similar decline in the use of computer science theory to motivate this research. We also find that two theoretical platforms, in particular, now account for almost half (48 per cent) of all AIS research: cognitive psychology and economics. Experimental research methods and archival studies continue to grow as the preferred methods for testing the AIS‐related theories derived from these theory domains.     

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.     

Accounting information systems research: Is it another QWERTY?

This article examines the research within accounting information systems (AIS) as found in articles published in leading accounting, management information systems, and computer science journals from 1982 to 1998. Trend analysis is performed on AIS articles found in the following journals: The Journal of Information Systems; Advances in Accounting Information Systems; Journal of Accounting Research; The Accounting Review; Journal of Accounting and Economics, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory; Behavioral Research in Accounting; Journal of Management Accounting Research; Management Science; MIS Quarterly; Decision Sciences; Information Systems Research; and Communications of the ACM, among others. The trend analysis is structured across underlying theory, research method, and information systems lifecycle topics of AIS articles in these journals. This article identifies the extant research streams in AIS, where AIS research has been published from 1982 to 1998, and seeks to provide insight into the question: should AIS exist as its own separate research domain? Is AIS research like the QWERTY keyboard (David, 1985), widely adopted due to popular demand, but ineffective and inefficient, with a better AIS research and teaching model available?     

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.     

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.     

WHY DO UK ACCOUNTING AND FINANCE ACADEMICS NOT PUBLISH IN TOP US JOURNALS?

In peer reviews of the quality of academic accounting and finance journals, US journals are consistently perceived to be the most prestigious. UK accounting and finance academics share these perceptions, and yet very few of them ever publish in top US journals. A survey of UK accounting and finance academics was undertaken in an attempt to ascertain why this is so. The respondents perceive that the preference of top US journals for a US focus to published articles, reinforced by a strong element of gatekeeping and the need to be able to network with the US academic community, provide major barriers to entry. As a result, there is a strong belief that efforts to publish in top US journals will be unsuccessful and, therefore, publishing in the UK is seen to be easier.     

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.     

The expert systems life cycle in AIS research: What does it mean for future AIS research?

Accounting information system (AIS) is the intersection of the accounting domains and the computer science and information systems domains. Periodically, new technology emerges that generates a new AIS research to explore the application of that technology to the accounting domains. AIS researchers compete with researchers in information systems, computer science, electrical engineering, plus other technology-related disciplines. AIS researchers are also frequently competing with the organizations (e.g., accounting firms) that have resources that far exceed academic resources. This paper explores the life cycle of expert systems research by accounting researchers to provide general insights into the roles of accounting researchers in technology domains. From 1980 through 2011, 315 accounting-related expert systems papers were published. Those publications generally transitioned through the industry life cycle stages. The peak years were the early 1990s. Although most of the expert system publications appeared in AIS-oriented publications, by the 2005–2011 timeframe, a little more than 50% appeared in non-system journals. There were 387 unique authors involved in writing the 315 articles. Interestingly, 20 (5.2%) authors wrote 58% of the papers and 311 (80.4%) authors wrote just one paper. In the practice community, Brown (1991) listed 43 expert systems in use or under development at the Big 6. Any use of expert systems in the firms ended in the late 1990s.     

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.     

A further inquiry into the scholarly productivity of academic accountants: Twenty years of evidence from classes of 1980-82

Scholarly productivity is a key component of faculty evaluation at many universities. In fact, under current accreditation standards promulgated by the AACSB, faculty members must remain academically qualified in research. Here we provide evidence regarding faculty research productivity. The determinants of faculty productivity are estimated with data spanning a 20 year period for 487 accounting doctoral graduates during the years of 1980-82. Sample statistics reveal that a relatively small portion of researchers produce over half of the sample's articles. Also, our regression results suggest that top-tier institutions of first hire, larger department size of initial hire, and the experience within academic ranks are all positive determinants of scholarly productivity. Conversely, research output is reduced with increased time spent teaching and accepting an initial hire at a public rather than a private institution.     

A Digital Picture of the Actuarial Research Community

The evolution of publication patterns in actuarial research is described through a survey of the contents of four peer-reviewed journals identified in several studies as the most influential in the field, including the North American Actuarial Journal. The research output of countries and institutions is compared over the 30-year period 1982–2011 on the basis of the number of articles and pages published, adjusted for journal page size. While simple counts such as these are only a cursory measure of productivity, and certainly not a measure of quality, they lead to rankings that broadly reflect the level of activity in actuarial research worldwide. Countries and institutions that are most active in the field are easily identified from these rankings. Such information is valuable to governmental funding agencies and administrators in academia or industry responsible for the quantitative assessment of research performance. Young researchers and prospective graduate students may also find it useful to acquaint themselves with the breadth of the actuarial research community.     

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.