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.     

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.     

Heterogeneous student perceptions of accounting course importance and their implications for SET reporting and use

This research tests for an association between student perceptions of accounting course importance (PCI) and student evaluation of teaching (SET) ratings of satisfaction with instructor performance, course quality, and grading procedures. The study also investigates whether instructor rankings constructed from SET ratings vary across student groupings based on PCI. Using responses from students enrolled in introductory accounting classes at three AACSB-accredited accounting programs we find that SET ratings vary significantly with PCI. We also find that instructor rankings constructed from SET ratings vary with PCI. These findings suggest that, when heterogeneous perceptions are present, satisfying all students enrolled in a course may not be possible and that reliance on aggregated SET data may obscure important differences in student opinion. In this circumstance, disaggregating SET data by PCI and emphasizing the feedback of students holding higher (stronger) perceptions of course importance may enhance SET diagnostic value.     

Food for Thought on the ABS Academic Journal Quality Guide

This paper discusses issues relating to the use of the Association of Business Schools' (ABS) Academic Journal Quality Guide within UK business schools. It also looks at several specific issues raised by the Chair of the British Accounting Association/British Accounting and Finance Association regarding the ratings for top international journals, and for accounting education and accounting history journals. The increasing use of this guide by business school deans/heads as a tool for staffing and research resource allocation has significant implications both for individuals and specialist areas of research.     

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.     

Why do countries matter so much in corporate social performance?

Why do levels of corporate social performance (CSP) differ so much across countries? We answer this question in an examination of CSP ratings of more than 2600 companies from 36 countries. We find that firm characteristics explain very little of the variations in CSP ratings. In contrast, variations in country factors such as stages of economic development, culture, and institutions account for a significant proportion of variations in CSP ratings across countries. In particular, we find that CSP ratings are high in countries with high income-per-capita, strong civil liberties and political rights, and cultures oriented toward harmony and autonomy. Furthermore, we find that home country factors explain a smaller portion of the overall variations in CSP for multinationals and cross-listed firms than for non-multinationals and pure domestic firms, respectively.     

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.     

Implicit government guarantees and credit ratings

Exploiting the first default of a state-owned enterprise (SOE) in China, we analyze the role of implicit government guarantees in credit ratings. We consider two causes of implicit government guarantees. First, we suggest a “too big to fail” effect by revealing positive associations between credit ratings and issuer size, number of employees and taxes paid. Second, we propose a “government link” effect by showing positive associations between credit ratings and an issuer's state ownership, indicators for SOEs and central SOEs. Importantly, after the first SOE default, both dimensions of implicit government guarantees are weakened when explaining credit rating variations. Extending to analyses of yield spreads, we find that debt pricing relies more on credit ratings after the default event, consistent with bond investors weighing credit ratings more with weakened beliefs in implicit government guarantees. Collectively, our study proposes two dimensions of implicit government guarantees in credit ratings and shows how the initial SOE default significantly changes the role of such guarantees in credit ratings.     

Are covered bonds different from securitization bonds? A comparative analysis of credit spreads

This study compares credit spreads and pricing determinants of securitization vis-à-vis covered bonds. Our analysis reveals that although ratings are the most important pricing determinant for asset-backed securities (ABS) and mortgage-backed securities (MBS) investors place relatively more importance on contractual, macroeconomic and banks' characteristics rather than ratings in pricing covered bonds. We find evidence of a mispricing effect in structured finance markets: ABS and MBS have higher credit spreads than similarly rated public-covered bonds and mortgage-covered bonds and security prices reflect information beyond credit ratings. We find no evidence of borrowing costs affecting banks' choice between securitization and covered bonds.     

Food for Thought? A Rejoinder on Peer-review and RAE2008 Evidence

This Rejoinder responds to criticisms made by Simon Hussain (2011) Hussain, S. 2011. Food for thought on the ABS Academic Journal Quality Guide. Accounting Education: an international journal, 20(6), : 545–559. [Taylor & Francis Online] , [Google Scholar] about the construction and operation of the Association of Business Schools' (ABS) Academic Journal Quality Guide. In this paper the broad purposes of journal lists and guides are outlined before an account is given of the long history and multiple forms of these lists, particularly in the field of Accounting. Having described the main features of different types of journal list, the advantages and benefits of the approach adopted in the compilation of the ABS Journal Quality Guide is outlined. The paper then ends by noting that one of the copy-editing mistakes identified by Dr Hussain has been rectified, but the remaining concerns about the rating of accounting education and accounting history journals reflect the absence of these titles from journal citation reports and international journal lists. Furthermore, the lower rating of Accounting & Finance research in the RAE2008 in comparison with Business & Management Studies research in the same year and Accounting & Finance research in 2001, has more to do with the way in which the Accounting & Finance Panel calibrated and normalized its judgements than with the ratings contained within the ABS Guide.     

The interdisciplinarity of evolutionary approaches to human behavior: A key to survival in the Ivory Archipelago

This paper explores the degree of interdisciplinarity of evolutionary approaches to the study of human behavior, and the implications that any such interdisciplinarity may have for the future of evolutionary psychology (EP) as a field of scholarship. To gauge the extent of interdisciplinarity of EP, the departmental affiliation of first-authors from 1000 journal articles evenly distributed across ten leading peer-reviewed psychology journals was assessed. Findings show that journals that are evolutionary-based have more first-authors from outside of psychology, and also include a wider variety of represented disciplines. These findings are discussed in terms of their influence on the future of EP, as a model for interdisciplinary research. EP's future will be successful if it continues to promote interdisciplinarity as well as recognize the epistemological worth of multiple evolutionary paradigms and frameworks. Evolutionary principles have been successfully applied to a broad range of topics, suggesting there is great utility in evolution serving as a common language for interdisciplinary pursuits within the behavioral and social sciences. As such, academic programs such as Evolutionary Studies (EvoS) programs, whose presence continues to increase across academic institutions worldwide, epitomize the future of successful interdisciplinary scholarly training.     

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.     

PERCEPTIONS OF EXTERNAL AUDITORS’ INDEPENDENCE: SOME CROSS-CULTURAL EVIDENCE

The objective of our paper is to contribute to the accounting education literature by demonstrating that there are significant differences among final year undergraduate accounting students in the United Kingdom, Australia, India, and Malaysia with respect to an important concept in auditing, namely, perceptions of external auditors’ independence. To attain this objective, we make an original contribution to accounting cross-cultural studies by operationalizing culture in terms ofindependent and interdependent construals of selfhood. These fundamental core cultural differences are important because they play a major role in regulating psychological processes including perceptions. Additionally, to gain insight into the evolving complexities associated with understanding culture in a global economy, the concept of acculturation is invoked in hypothesis formulation. We find support for the hypothesis that students from countries with greater political, economic and socio–cultural interactions (UK and Australia) are likely to have greater similarities (i.e., lesser variations) in their perceptions of external auditors’ independence, compared to students from countries that have less acculturation (other pairs of countries). The results have implications for improving learning and teaching of auditing in the four countries. Specifically, accounting educators may like to ensure that the meaning intended in the various national and international auditing pronouncements with respect to external auditors’ independence is effectively communicated to students within specific national cultural contexts. Our findings may also be useful to various international bodies whose objectives are to harmonize auditor education. The results also suggest that there is a need to critically question the assumptions made by professional accounting firms operating cross-nationally that it is possible to attain a single global set of audit procedures and codes of professional conduct.     

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.     

The effect of CEO ownership on the information content of reported earnings

This paper examines the relation between capital market perceptions of earnings quality and CEO equity ownership. Using the earnings response coefficients (ERCs) from annual returns–earnings regressions as a proxy for investor perceptions of earnings quality, we find that ERCs first increase and then decline across higher levels of CEO ownership with an inflection point around 25% ownership. Using analyst behavior as another proxy for the perceptions of financial analysts, we find that earnings forecasts are more accurate as ownership increases, but once ownership levels reach about 25%, accuracy declines with further increases in ownership. Forecast dispersion, forecast revision volatility, and analyst following decline and then increase across increasing levels of CEO ownership. Our results suggest that, for low levels of CEO ownership, earnings are perceived as being more informative about future firm performance as ownership increases. However, once ownership levels are high, earnings are perceived as being less informative with further increases in ownership.     

Evaluating Permanent Disability Ratings Using Empirical Data on Earnings Losses

Workers' compensation systems are typically designed to assign higher permanent disability benefits to workers with more severe disabilities. However, little or no scientific work exists to guide the design of ratings systems to properly account for the amount of earnings power lost due to disability. In this article, we examine the effectiveness of disability ratings using matched administrative data on ratings and earnings for a large, representative sample of permanent disability claimants in California. We find that while workers with higher ratings do experience larger earnings losses on average, there are large and persistent differences in average earnings losses for similarly rated impairments in different parts of the body. We then explore how adjusting permanent disability ratings to reflect cross-impairment differences in earnings losses can affect the equity of permanent disability benefits. Adjusting disability ratings to account for typical earnings losses reduces cross-impairment differences substantially. The adjusted ratings result in a more equitable distribution of disability benefits across workers with different impairments.     

Do actions speak louder than words? An empirical investigation of corporate environmental reputation

In this study, we investigate the extent to which firms’ environmental performance is reflected in perceptions of their environmental reputation and whether environmental disclosure serves to mediate the negative aspects of poorer environmental performance associated with those assessments. We also examine whether differences in environmental performance and environmental disclosure appear to be associated with membership selection to the Dow Jones Sustainability Index (DJSI), a factor we also believe may be associated with perceptions of environmental reputation. Based on a cross-sectional sample of 92 US firms from environmentally sensitive industries, we find that environmental performance measured using Trucost environmental performance scores is negatively related to both reputation scores and membership in the DJSI. We argue this is due to the more extensive disclosure levels of firms that are worse performers and the finding of a significant positive relation between environmental disclosure and both the environmental reputation measures and DJSI membership. Finally, we show that the DJSI designation positively influences perceptions of corporate reputation. Overall, our results suggest that voluntary environmental disclosure appears to mediate the effect of poor environmental performance on environmental reputation. Perhaps more troubling, our results also suggest that membership in the DJSI appears to be driven more by what firms say than what they do. Thus, like voluntary disclosure, the DJSI may actually be hindering improved future corporate environmental performance.     

Drivers of juror's malpractice assessments in auditor litigation involving offshoring and overtime: Generation and a management Mindset

The Center for Audit Quality (CAQ) estimated audit firms' lawsuit costs roughly equaled 15% of their 2008 annual revenues, and auditors still remain frequent targets of shareholder litigation today. However, settlements have declined following two critical Supreme Court rulings. Higher standards of liability in Janus v. First Derivatives have changed the landscape; audit firms are much more willing to litigate, sensing a greater likelihood to prevail. In this environment, the importance of juror perceptions of audit quality is critical. Simultaneously, juror perceptions of audit firm motives are equally important, as standards related to scienter remain ambiguous (Tellabs v. Makor). Our research manipulates variables directly germane to both perceptions of audit quality and scienter. Our research is also important because the accounting profession still provides no clear standards of audit quality. Without standardized measures, we expect jurors to seek easily understood information when tasked to assess audit quality and inferring scienter. We examine how jurors use their prior experiences to assess overtime and offshoring practices in rendering verdicts in instances of alleged “audit failures”. Specifically, we hypothesize (and find) more youthful jurors (who face more pressure to work more hours than did prior generations) interpret excessive overtime practices more negatively; and jurors with more managerial experience (who reflect a more high-level construal mindset focused on goals) interpret offshoring practices more favorably.     

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.     

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.