Developing benchmarks for evaluating publication records at doctoral programs in accounting

A longitudinal study of the research productivity of graduates of accounting doctoral programs

“…Based on prior research (Hasselback, Reinstein, & Schwan, 2000, 2003Everett, Klamm, & Stoltzfus, 2004;Glover, Prawitt, & Wood, 2006;Barniv & Fetyko, 2007;Chan, Chan, Seow, & Tam, 2008;Englebrecht, Hanke, & Kuang, 2008 To identify each faculty member's published journal articles, we created a database of journals, authors, and publication dates from each selected journal's tables of contents. Including all articles in the 38 journals through 2009, we resolved problems such as author name changes, author misspellings, use of initials rather than first names, and cases where authors shared the same name by checking the actual articles or author vitas.…”

The incidence of documented standards for research in departments of accounting at US institutions

“…More recently, changes in accounting scholarship have been suggested by Boyer (1992) and others to be accepting of a broader definition of acceptable research, and regional and discipline-based accreditation bodies have recognized more diverse scholarship expectations. However, despite these advances and suggestions for more liberal definitions of scholarship, evidence strongly suggests that an even greater emphasis is being placed on publications in elite accounting journals (e.g., Chow et al, 2007;Everett, Klamm, & Stoltzfus, 2004;Glover, Prawitt, & Wood, 2006). This fact, combined with the lack of accounting-specific T&P guidelines (Reinstein & Calderon, 2006) suggest that junior faculty still face vague T&P guidelines in an increasingly pressure-laced research environment.…”

“…Similarly, during the past decade the AACSB has also encouraged journal lists as a means of communicating departmental scholarship benchmarks and expectations to faculty (Reinstein & Calderon, 2006). Concurrent with increasing stakeholder pressures for departments of accounting to establish and communicate clear scholarship standards to faculty, there has been a recent added emphasis on academic publishing in top journals at many AACSB-accredited colleges of business (e.g., Chow et al, 2007;Everett et al, 2004;Glover et al, 2006). Accordingly, accounting scholars have responded with a number of literature reviews, journal rankings, and scholarship yardsticks that have considerable consensus overlap in order to identify top journals (Bonner, Hesford, Van der Stede, & Young, 2006;Chan, Chan, Seow, & Tam, 2009;Glover et al, 2006;Herron & Hall, 2005;Lowensohn & Samelson, 2006;Matherly & Shortridge, 2009;Reinstein & Calderon, 2006).…”

A pragmatic model to estimate journal quality in accounting

“…While counting is objective, it has two major weaknesses; most counts include only a limited number of journals and counting fails to consider the quality of the journal where the article is published. To address the quality of publications, several studies (Everett, Klamm, & Stoltzfus, 2004;Hasselback & Reinstein, 1995;Hasselback et al, 2002) attempted to weight each article by the quality of the publishing journal. This process requires an overall quality assessment for numerous journals.…”