Accounting Program Research Rankings by Topical Area and Methodology

Abstract

This paper makes two novel contributions to ranking accounting research programs constructed from publication counts in top journals (AOS, Auditing, BRIA, CAR, JAE, JAR, JATA, JIS, JMAR, RAST, and TAR). In contrast to previous studies, we recognize the mobility of intellectual assets tied to the human capital of accounting researchers, and therefore base our rankings on the researchers’ current affiliations rather than their affiliations at the time of publication. Also, we categorize each article written by topical area (auditing, financial, managerial, accounting information systems, tax, and other) and by methodology (analytical, archival, experimental, and other) and provide separate accounting program rankings by topical area and by methodology. These two innovations provide a rich, centralized information resource for decision-makers—both institutional and individual—in choosing how to allocate time, resources, and expertise.

Accounting Research by Canadian Higher Education Institutions: A Retrospective Assessment

“…Stephens et al (2010) produce a ranking similar to Coyne et al (2010), but use the research productivity of doctoral graduates from the accounting programs. Coyne et al (2010) and Stephen et al (2010), however, subjectively classify articles into the accounting sub-areas and research methods. In addition, both Coyne et al (2010) and Stephen et al (2010) do not provide ranking statistics, making it difficult to determine the progress of a specific accounting program over the years in terms of the level of research output.…”

“…For instance, Chan, Chen, and Cheng (2007) examine publication records of 24 accounting journals during 1991-2005 and provide a global ranking of higher education institutions in accounting. Coyne et al (2010) conduct an analysis of 11 highly regarded accounting journals and provide a ranking of accounting programs with respect to different sub-areas of accounting and research methods. Stephens et al (2010) produce a ranking similar to Coyne et al (2010), but use the research productivity of doctoral graduates from the accounting programs.…”

“…Coyne et al (2010) conduct an analysis of 11 highly regarded accounting journals and provide a ranking of accounting programs with respect to different sub-areas of accounting and research methods. Stephens et al (2010) produce a ranking similar to Coyne et al (2010), but use the research productivity of doctoral graduates from the accounting programs. Coyne et al (2010) and Stephen et al (2010), however, subjectively classify articles into the accounting sub-areas and research methods.…”

Dua Puluh Tahun Riset Perpajakan dalam Akuntansi: Suatu Studi Bibliografi

“…Beberapa penelitian (seperti Dyckman & Zeff 1984, Brown & Gardner 1985, Bonner et al 2006, Chan et al 2009, Oler et al 2010, Coyne et al 2010, Dunbar & Weber 2014 telah memotret perkembangan riset akuntansi melalui hasil-hasil penelitian yang dipublikasi di jurnal akuntansi internasional terbaik untuk melihat topik, metodologi, besarnya kontribusi penelitian akuntansi melalui sitasi, jurnal yang paling berpengaruh dalam akuntansi. Begitu juga telah ada beberapa penelitian yang memotret perkembangan riset perpajakan sebagai subarea akuntansi melalui hasil-hasil penelitian yang dipublikasi di jurnal-jurnal internasional baik jurnal akuntansi internasional terbaik (Al Irsyad dan Martani 2013) dan jurnal perpajakan internasional terbaik (seperti Adhikari et al (2002) di Journal of International Accounting Auditing & Taxation antara tahun 1992 and 2001; Dykxhoorn and Sinning (2010) Hutchison and White (2003) di Journal of the American Taxation Association 1979Association -2000.…”

Methodology in Accounting Research: A Critique of Taxonomy

“…Through a survey, we can know which methodology is in vogue and we can then proceed to analyze its contributions to our knowledge relative to others. Coyne et al (2010), Stephens et al (2011) and Pickerd et al (2011) have also recently ranked accounting faculty and research programs by topic and methodology using methodology surveys. As laudable as these efforts are, one is surprised about the lack of debate among accounting academics as to whether the existing taxonomy correctly represents the logic of what they do in their research endeavours.…”