Ranking Journals Using Social Science Research Network Downloads

I use a new approach to rank journals, namely the number and percent frequency of articles a journal publishes that are heavily downloaded from the Social Science Research Network (SSRN). I rank 18 accounting and finance journals, and I identify five journals not considered by the two most recent major published ranking studies of publications by accounting faculty, namely (in rank order): Journal of Financial Economics, Review of Accounting Studies, Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Journal of Corporate Finance, and Journal of International Financial Management and Accounting. I show that financial accounting faculties are more likely to post their working papers to SSRN, and papers posted by financial faculties generate more downloads. I mitigate this bias in favor of the financial area by providing separate rankings based on authors in the financial versus non-financial areas.     

Financial Times Business School Rankings: A Nontraditional Assurance Case in Three Parts*

The Financial Times of London (FT) is a business newspaper, with daily editions published in the United Kingdom, continental Europe, the United States, and Asia, and an estimated daily readership of 10 million people. In 1999 the FT began to publish a ranking of what it considered to be the top business schools in the world. Since their inception, these rankings have become increasingly relied upon by potential students and business school administrators worldwide. The FT's ranking is unique compared with other rankings because of its special international focus. Given the prominence of these rankings and the FT's position as a well‐respected business newspaper, the question of providing assurance over the business school rankings that the FT provides is particularly challenging.     

Corporate communication,sustainability, and social media: It's not easy (really) being green

This empirical research explores how 16 global corporations from four different industry sectors—retail, technology equipment, food/beverage/tobacco, and consumer goods—use social media platforms and corporate social responsibility (CSR) reports to communicate about sustainability. Facebook, Twitter, CEO letters from annual reports and CSR/sustainability reports, and other company documentation are examined to compare the content and scope of these firms’ corporate communication. The sample is divided into two subsamples (Green and Not Green firms) using Newsweek's Greenest Company 2012 rankings, and compared for differential use of social media and corporate reports. Results show that communication varies across firm and industry regarding types of sustainability initiatives reported, metrics employed, and communication media utilized, and that Green firms are more active than Not Green firms both in addressing sustainability and in general social media activity. Implications are discussed herein and recommendations are presented for companies seeking to better understand the effective use of social media and sustainability communication.     

Publishing in the Majors: A Comparison of Accounting,Finance, Management,and Marketing*

Business schools evaluate publication records, especially for the promotion and tenure decision, by comparing the quality and quantity of a candidate's research with those of peers within the same discipline (intradisciplinary) and with those of academics from other business disciplines (interdisciplinary). A recently developed analytical model of the research review process provides theory about the norms used by editors and referees in deciding whether to publish research papers. The model predicts that interdisciplinary differences exist in quality norms, which could result in disparity among business disciplines in the number of top‐tier articles published. I examine the period from 1980 to 1999 and, consistent with the theory, find that significant differences exist in the number of articles and proportion of doctoral faculty who published in the “major” journals in accounting, finance, management, and marketing. Most notably, the proportion of doctoral faculty publishing a major article is 1.4 to 2.4 times greater in the other business disciplines than in accounting (depending on the set of journals). The theory also predicts an upward drift over time in the quality norms used by referees. Consistent with a drift, the number of articles published has declined substantially in marketing and, to a lesser extent, in the other business disciplines.     

Publication Performance of Economists and Economics Departments in Turkey (1999–2003)

This is the first study evaluating the publication performances of economists and economics departments in Turkey. The international (article) publication performance of Turkish economic departments in general is found to be rather poor. There is a wide gap in particular between the top five universities and the economists affiliated to them and those outside the top five. The paper also provides evidence in favour of private higher education. The publication patterns of economists in Turkey are shown to be similar to those of their counterparts in the rest of the world.     

TrAffic LIght system for systemic Stress: TALIS3

For the purposes of financial stability, identifying financial institutions that, when in distress, could have a significant adverse impact on financial markets is important. A TrAffic LIght System for Systemic Stress (TALIS-cube) is proposed that provides a comprehensive color-based classification for grouping companies according to both the stress reaction level of the system when the company is in distress and the company’s stress level. TALIS³ can integrate multiple signals from the interaction between different risk metrics. Starting from specific risk indicators, companies are classified by combining two loss functions—one for the system and one for each company—evaluated over time and as a cross section. An aggregated index is also obtained from the color-based classification of companies. TALIS³ can be used to enhance the performance and robustness of existing systemic risk measures. An empirical analysis of the U.S. market is also provided.     

Publishing characteristics,geographic dispersion and research traditions of recent international accounting education research

This paper describes, analyses and critiques accounting education research over the period 2005–2009. In doing so, it compares and contrasts the distinctive North American research tradition with that of Europe and the rest of the world. Six journals and 446 publications by 963 authors were included in the sample frame, along with a further 70 publications in other journals. The findings identify distinguishing characteristics among these publications that range from the composition of their editorial teams to the nature and type of output they publish. Evidence was found of geographic dominance and divergent research traditions which has mitigated against the development of a genuinely international accounting education research community. Possibilities for further research are identified and guidance for researchers publishing in this field is presented.     

Ranking economics departments in the US South: an update

This study provides an update to Mixon and Upadhyaya’s (2001) ranking of Southern economics departments using research output indexed in EconLit. Ranking results from a ‘core’ (i.e. the top five faculty researchers) of each institution’s economics department reveal that Vanderbilt University, George Mason University, Johns Hopkins University, the University of Maryland and Georgia State University currently maintain the top five economics departments, respectively, in the US South. Relatedly, the five institutions rising the most from Mixon and Upadhyaya (2001) are Tulane University, Georgia State University, University of Texas–Dallas, Rice University and Florida International University, respectively.     

Ranking accounting authors and departments in accounting education: different methodologies – significantly different results

This research tests whether Holderness Jr., D. K., Myers, N., Summers, S. L., & Wood, D. A. [(2014). Accounting education research: Ranking institutions and individual scholars. Issues in Accounting Education, 29(1), 87–115] accounting-education rankings are sensitive to a change in the set of journals used. It provides updated rankings for accounting-education authors from Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the Republic of Ireland, the United Kingdom, and the United States using a sample that included the publications in 13 accounting-education journals. Our analysis indicated that Holderness et al.’s rankings of authors and departments were significantly different from our rankings. This research provides rankings of the top 50 authors and departments for three periods: from 2010 to 2015, from 2004 to 2015, and from 1992 to 2015. We provide data indicating the distribution of authors for these periods to assist authors not listed in the most prolific lists in determining their relative ranking. Finally, we provide data on the distribution of journal choices for accounting-education publications for the authors from each country.