Exploring Diversity in Accounting through Faculty Journal Perceptions*

Abstract

The accounting research community has frequently been described as being both diverse and focused on local issues. At the same time, increasing pressure is being placed on researchers to publish in internationally highly regarded journals. Since faculty evaluations depend on journal rankings, such rankings need to take into account the diversity of the research community. Therefore, this study examines how contextual factors such as a researcher's location and research orientation may influence journal quality perceptions and readership patterns based on an international sample of 1,230 accounting academics. The perceived quality of journals is measured across a number of dimensions, including journal familiarity, average rank position, percent of respondents who classify a journal as top tier, and readership. The results support that a significant variation in journal quality perceptions exists based on a researcher's geographic origin, research orientation, and affiliation with a journal.

Accounting Research by Canadian Higher Education Institutions: A Retrospective Assessment

“…The full list of the journals is shown in Table 1. These journals were consistently ranked by prior studies, e.g., Hasselback, Reinstain, and Schwan (2003), Ballas and Theoharakis (2003), Herren and Hall (2005), Lowe and Locke (2005), Beattie and Goodacre (2006), Bonner, Hesford, and Young (2006), and Cook, Raviv, and Richardson (2010), as high quality accounting journals. In addition to the literature, we consider lists of credible journals from authoritative organizations such as the Australian Business Deans Council (ABDC).…”

Global Ranking of Management- and Clinical-Centered eHealth Journals

“…Academics read and submit their works to journals that cater to their chosen area of concentration, and, as a result, they become familiar with corresponding journals. Evidence suggests that, during journal ranking surveys, respondents tend to assign higher scores to the journals they are familiar with and under-rate the ones that do not fall in their area of expertise (Ballas & Theoharakis, 2003;. Therefore, we constructed two separate ranking lists and classified each journal as either management-or clinical-focused depending on our analyzing:…”

Quality in the process of scientific production in accounting in Brazil

“…Finally, a set of studies explores citation analysis (Brown & Gardner, 1985;Dunbar & Weber, 2014); and perceptions of accounting journals quality, also called peer reviews (Ballas & Theoharakis, 2003;Brinn et al, 2001;Brown & Huefner, 1994;Lowe & Locke, 2005;Lowensohn & Samelson, 2006;Taylor, 2011). Such studies, though not specifically focused on the quality attributes of good research, explore quality criteria and their relationship with productivity and quality evaluation of what is published in scientific journals in the area.…”

“…Another method is to judge the quality of evidence using surveys as the technique for the studies' data collection (Van der Stede, Young, & Chen, 2005). Additionally, some contextual factors affect perceptions about quality, such as the researcher's geographic origin, research orientation, and the respondent's affiliation with a journal (Ballas & Theoharakis, 2003). Geographic origin is a factor that can explain respondents' preferences for a journal (or a set of journals) based on the region in which they live.…”

“…This resource reveals important evidence about the average performance of business scholars, such as the number of contributions, citations, and the h-index is much higher when performances are assessed using Web of Science (Amara & Landry, 2012), so, it can be considered useful to identify the best sources. The focus of the selected set of studies covers citation analysis (Aragão et al, 2014;Brown & Gardner, 1985;Dunbar & Weber, 2014); perceptions of the quality of accounting journals, also called peer reviews (Ballas & Theoharakis, 2003;Brinn et al, 2001;Brown & Huefner, 1994;Lowe & Locke, 2005;Lowensohn & Samelson, 2006;Taylor, 2011); productivity and quality in university business departments Doyle & Arthurs, 1995;M.J. Jones et al, 1996;Martins & Lucena, 2014); quality criteria, such as validity (Libby et al, 2002); rigor (Evans et al, 2015;Williams, 2014); relevance (Reiter & Williams, 2002); impact (Carmona, 2006); and integrity (Andrade, 2011;Antunes et al, 2011); and research practices and features (Martins & Lucena, 2014;Mendonça Neto et al, 2009;Miranda et al, 2011;Taylor, 2011;Theóphilo & Iudícibus, 2005).…”