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

Englebrecht, Ted D.; Bisping, Timothy O.; Anderson, Mary E.; Hasselback, James R.

doi:10.1016/j.adiac.2008.05.005

Cited by 3 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, co‐authorship leads to higher research productivity because it is less time consuming to co‐author an article than to sole author a comparable article (Englebrecht et al. ; Fleischman and Schuele ; Cantor et al. ; Rutledge and Karim ; Tucker et al.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Greater research impact enhances the reputation of an academic scholar, and therefore provides opportunities for larger research budgets from sponsors ). Furthermore, coauthorship leads to higher research productivity because it is less time consuming to co-author an article than to sole author a comparable article (Englebrecht et al 2008a;Fleischman and Schuele 2009;Cantor et al 2010;Rutledge and Karim 2009;Tucker et al 2016;Lohmann and Eulerich 2017). In addition, improved communication technologies provide researchers the opportunity to find more compatible co-authors from different cities, countries or regions regardless of geographical barriers (Englebrecht et al 2008b).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Past authorship and co-authorship studies vary in scope; some focus on single journals (Williams 1985;Heck and Bremser 1986;Anderson 2002;Gaunt 2014;Lohmann and Eulerich 2017), some on top journals (Swanson 2004;Chan et al 2006;Englebrecht et al 2008a;Fleischman and Schuele 2009;Oler et al 2010Oler et al , 2016Fogarty and Jonas 2013;Endenich Trapp 2016;Andrikopoulos and Kostaris 2017;Merigó and Yang 2017) and others on a broader scope of journals Rueschhoff 1999, 2004;Fülbier and Weller 2011;Chan et al 2012). We have not confined this study to only top accounting journals or premier journals.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Scholarly journals, among other channels, play a fundamental role in the dissemination of academic work (Merigó and Yang 2017). Therefore, we systematically analysed past accounting literature from several perspectives such as topicality (Prather-Kinsey and Rueschhoff 2004;Oler et al 2010Oler et al , 2016, research productivity of institutions and authors (Henry and Burch 1974;Heck and Bremser 1986;Chung et al 1992;Carmona et al 1999;Hasselback et al 2003;Chan et al 2005Chan et al , 2006Chan et al , 2007Englebrecht et al 2008a;Gaunt 2014), accounting journal rankings (Ballas and Theoharakis 2003;Beattie and Goodacre 2006;Bonner et al 2006;Chan et al 2012) and so on. One focus of the prior literature is identification of authorship patterns and the extent of collaboration.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…, , ; Englebrecht et al. ; Gaunt ), accounting journal rankings (Ballas and Theoharakis ; Beattie and Goodacre ; Bonner et al. ; Chan et al.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Co‐authorship Network Analysis in the Accounting Discipline

Kılıç

Uyar

Köseoğlu

2018

Australian Accounting Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study is to explore co‐authorship structures in the accounting discipline through social network analysis. For this purpose, we hand‐collected the authorship data of 10 863 papers published in 22 accounting journals listed on the Web of Science for the period 2000–2016. The findings indicate that the proportion of multi‐author papers has increased over time while the trend away from sole authorship has continued. The network indicators and visualisations reflect that accounting research manifests a small‐world property. Despite the large network size, a high number of ties among nodes, the size of giant components and a high clustering coefficient all support this inference. We hope that emphasis on collaboration metrics motivates and encourages researchers to engage with other scholars both locally and abroad. Furthermore, the development of research networks in the analysis period indicates that the trend is moving towards more collaboration; thus, being part of a team or team‐making is key to integration with other scholars.

show abstract

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…, , ; Englebrecht et al. ; Gaunt ), accounting journal rankings (Ballas and Theoharakis ; Beattie and Goodacre ; Bonner et al. ; Chan et al.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Co‐authorship Network Analysis in the Accounting Discipline

Kılıç

Uyar

Köseoğlu

2018

Australian Accounting Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Network analysis in accounting research: an institutional and geographical perspective

Uyar

Kılıç

Köseoğlu

2020

JAAR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThe objective of this study is to explore the accounting research network among institutions and countries globally and to contribute to the knowledge development in accounting discipline across regions with a novel and original approach.Design/methodology/approachThis study has been conducted by manually collecting data from 10,863 papers published in 22 accounting journals indexed in the Web of Science (WoS) for the period 2000–2016. Analyses and visualizations of collaborative networks across institutions and regions were performed by using network analysis software packages, including Pajek, UCINET 6, NetDraw and VOSviewer.FindingsThe study finds that the most productive five universities are the University of New South Wales, University of Sydney, University of Texas, University of California and University of Manchester worldwide. In accordance with the institution ranking, the five most productive countries in all periods are the USA, the UK, Australia, Spain and Canada. However, in addition to these countries, it is important to note that some European and Asian countries and New Zealand from Oceania are among the most productive countries which host prolific institutions. Furthermore, network indicators show that the UK is the most influential actor in centrality and brokerage within the research network. We should note that Australia is also among the most influential nations with its influential institutions. In all research metrics, the dominance of Anglophone countries (e.g. the USA, the UK and Australia) is observable on which language advantage might play a role since most internationally accredited journals publish scientific articles in English.Research limitations/implicationsThe study is bounded with several main limitations. First, due to collecting the data manually, there might be some inherent limitations. Second, the study is constrained by the time frame between 2000 and 2016. The study does not answer why and how questions in investigating research productivity and effectiveness in the network. Our study might inspire new studies to complement ours by considering these constraints.Practical implicationsOur findings indicated the prominent institution-wide and country-wide actors; thus, the results provide a global perspective on the collaboration network. Second, our findings guide job seekers, who are particularly research-oriented, to potential recruiters around the world both at the institution level and country level. Third, the results might play an important role in forming institution-based and country-based research policies. The USA, among others, is a particularly important actor in productivity, whereas the UK, among others, is a remarkable country in centrality and brokerage in the research network. By examining the policies of these two countries, other nations might shape their research strategies, promotion policies and support and reward schemes. Fourth, cross-institution and in particular cross-country collaborations are imperative in the diversity of accounting research as they blend culturally diverse researchers. Fifth, prominent institutions highlighted in this study might be adopted as role models by other institutions in the same country and benefit their expertise in productivity and cooperation by scrutinizing their approaches. Sixth, our findings and metrics might be adopted as benchmarks for institutions and nations for performance evaluation. Considering our 5-year period indicators, institutions can set targets for their improvement and for measuring the progress. We provide other important implications in the conclusion section of the study.Originality/valueTo the best knowledge of the authors, no study yet investigated the collaboration across academic institutions, regions, and countries in accounting discipline to this extent. Therefore, our research provides a significant contribution to the literature by seeking a comprehensive network analysis of authorship patterns from an institutional and geographical perspective. Doing so, we contribute to knowledge development in accounting discipline with institutional and geographical network analyses.

show abstract

Research Scholarly Productivity of Universities: From the Perspective of Knowledge Transfer

Wei-e¹

2016

Proceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Management Science and Management Innovation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

-Knowledge transfer acts as essential mediator to build research scholarly productivity of university faculty. However, the effects that knowledge transfer takes on research scholarly productivity of universities are still quite ambiguous, which results in ignorance of procedural concern about how knowledge transfer promotes research scholarly productivity through interaction and synergy between university faculty and specific knowledge users (receivers). Therefore, we proposed a conceptual model and 13 hypotheses, which illustrate the elements influencing knowledge transfer while university faculty engage in research work and make contribution to research scholarly productivity. Later, correlation and regression analysis were done to verify the model and hypotheses, and the statistical results indicate: the processes of "conduct research work" (knowledge transmit) and "absorb research outcome" (knowledge accept) pose the first and second greatest total effects on research scholarly productivity, which implies university faculty should pay high attention to the procedural management while making research; "communication environment" takes the third place to influence research scholarly productivity, which suggests building proper communication environment for knowledge transmission by university faculty and absorption by specific knowledge receivers is indirectly important to the level of research scholarly productivity; the last but not the least, an unexpected finding that "knowledge characteristics" (complexity) does exert direct effect on research scholarly productivity, which probably reveals university faculty is eager to grasp open opportunities and difficult challenges-the more complex the knowledge, the stronger willing to undertake research and transfer knowledge.

show abstract

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

Cited by 3 publications

References 9 publications

Co‐authorship Network Analysis in the Accounting Discipline

Co‐authorship Network Analysis in the Accounting Discipline

Network analysis in accounting research: an institutional and geographical perspective

Research Scholarly Productivity of Universities: From the Perspective of Knowledge Transfer

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About