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.     

论高校学报编辑应具备的意识

编辑是文化行业,编辑所从事的是精神劳动,高校学报属于高层次的学术刊物,对编辑应该具备的意识提出了更高的要求,只有具有较高科研能力、较高学术水平的编辑,才能在较高学术层次上与作者打交道,才会与作者有许多共同语言,才能抓住学科优势,才能与专家学者共同研究和探讨,才能适应网络信息时代的变化。因此,编辑必须树立和强化学术意识,逻辑意识,网络信息意识,以适应高校学报对编辑人员的要求,从而办出高质量的高校学报。     

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.     

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.     

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.     

The face of achievement: Editors' facial structure and journal performance

Achievement drive hypothesis indicates that individuals with higher facial width-to-height ratio (fWHR) are biologically associated with stronger achievement-drive incentives and are hence likely to exhibit better performance. In this study, we examine the relationship between editors' fWHR, an established proxy for achievement drive, and journal performance. Using finance journals as the research setting, we find a positive association between editors' fWHR and journal impact factor. The observed positive association is more pronounced for editors with shorter editorship tenure and professional career, implying that editors of relatively lower social status are more motivated to pursue better performance. These results are robust to alternative specification of independent variable, alternative journal performance measures, and different sample selection criteria. This study makes the first attempt to provide evidence on the relationship between editors' behavioral traits and journal performance from a neurological perspective.     

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.     

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).     

新时期高校文科学报工作者的文化使命

在国家文化体制改革背景下,高校文科学报也将是改革建设的重点,学报编辑队伍的使命是继续坚持创造和发掘、记录和传播优秀的科学文化研究成果,将其转化并融入于科学文化传播的河流中,参与科学文化交流与创新。学报编辑人员承担着着文化科学研究与创新、学术与科研文化传播、为社会文化科学研究工作者服务的文化使命,提升自身的专业化和学术化水平,创办有价值的高校文科学报。     

Exploring corporate governance research in accounting journals through latent semantic and topic analyses

The literature on corporate governance (CG) has been expanding at an unprecedented rate since major corporate scandals surfaced, such as Enron, WorldCom, and HealthSouth. Corresponding with accounting's important role in CG, accounting scholars increasingly have investigated CG in recent years, so the body of literature is growing. Although previous attempts have been made to summarize extant literature on CG via reviews, none of these attempts has utilized recent developments in text analyses and natural language processing. This study uses latent semantic and topic analyses to address this research gap by analysing abstracts from 1,399 articles in all accounting journals that the Australian Business Deans Council (ABDC) has rated A and A*. The ABDC journal list is widely recognized as a journal‐quality indicator across many universities worldwide. The analyses revealed 10 distinct research topics on CG in the ABDC's top accounting journals. The results presented include the five most representative articles for each topic, as distinguished by topic scores. This study carries important practice and policy implications, as it reveals major research streams and exhibits how researchers respond to various CG problems.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Money for Science? The Impact of Research Grants on Academic Output*

This paper evaluates the impact of subsidies on the academic performance of researchers in Argentina. Academic performance is measured in terms of number of publications and in terms of impact factors in peer‐reviewed journals. The performance of researchers with financially supported projects is compared with that of a control group of researchers who submitted projects accepted in terms of quality but not supported because of shortage of funds. We use non‐experimental data and a difference‐in‐differences approach along with propensity score matching techniques, where we control for pre‐programme observable attributes as well as for researchers’ time‐invariant unobservable characteristics. Our findings suggest a positive and statistically significant effect of subsidy on academic performance, especially for young researchers.     

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.     

The demise of the ARC journal ranking scheme: an ex post analysis of the accounting and finance journals

The recent abolition of the ARC journal ranking scheme is indicative of some problematical features of journal ranking in general and the ARC scheme in particular. An alternative citation‐based ranking scheme is applied to the accounting and finance journals to highlight some loopholes in the abandoned ARC scheme and provide some suggestions for how to proceed with ERA 2012. By re‐ranking journals according to their citation indices, it is demonstrated that the ARC ranking placed a large number of journals where they do not belong. As a result, the ARC scheme induced some adverse behavioural changes with respect to preferred publication outlets.     

Big Data Opportunities for Accounting and Finance Practice and Research

We examine the research opportunities for the use of ‘big data’ in accounting and finance. The purpose of the study is to present a snapshot of big data academic research in information systems, accounting and finance, and to highlight areas for further research in accounting and finance. The research question addressed in this work is: What are the major themes in existing research in big data and where are the resulting gaps in the accounting and finance literature? An analysis is presented of 47 accounting, finance and information systems journals from 2007–2016. We identify and sample the relevant literature to derive a taxonomy of themes. These themes are presented as a conceptual matrix in which the themes from the taxonomy are used as concepts, and the matrix identifies where they appear, and where there are potential areas for further research. Prior research in big data in accounting, finance and information systems falls into six themes. The six under‐researched areas of big data in accounting and finance are risk and security, data visualisation and predictive analytics, data management and data quality. Increased research in these areas will lead to improvements in industry practices, and opportunities for cross‐disciplinary research.     

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.