Faculty perceptions of journals: quality and publishing feasibility

Evaluating faculty publications in accounting Ph.D. programs: The Author Affiliation Index as an alternative

“…Herron and Hall (2005) asked faculty to evaluate 40 pre-selected journals in nine specialty areas of accounting. In contrast, Lowenshon and Samuelson (2006) used an open-ended response technique by asking faculty to identify and rate in terms of perceived quality the ''top'' academic journals in one of five specialized areas of accounting.…”

An assessment of accounting journal quality based on departmental lists

“…Perception studies, correspondingly, may suffer from a familiarity bias; i.e., respondents may ascribe more value to journals with which they are familiar, thereby equating value or quality with familiarity (Brown 2003;Cook et al 2010;Matherly and Shortridge 2009;Reinstein and Calderon 2006). Fifth, many perception studies ask respondents to compare each journal to a presumably familiar anchor journal, and anchor journal selection may introduce an additional bias in these perception studies, as the mission and purposes of accounting journals may be very different from the selected anchors (Hall and Ross 1991;Herron and Hall 2005;Hull and Wright 1990;Jolly et al 1995;Lowensohn and Samelson 2006;Reinstein and Calderon 2006;Smith 1994).…”

A pragmatic model to estimate journal quality in accounting

“…This process requires an overall quality assessment for numerous journals. Two primary methods have been used to measure journal quality; citation analysis (Brown & Gardner, 1985;Dyckman & Zeff, 1984;Smith & Krogstad, 1988) and faculty perceptions (Ballas & Theoharakis, 2003;Brown & Huefner, 1994;Herron & Hall, 2004;Johnson, Reckers, & Solomon, 2002;Jolly, Schroeder, & Spear, 1995;Lowensohn & Samelson, 2006;Smith, 1994).…”

“…However, the increasing number of publication outlets makes faculty assessments of quality challenging. To enhance the respondents' familiarity with the journals being evaluated, some studies limit the journal selection to sub-disciplines within accounting (e.g., Baldwin, Morris, & Scheiner, 2000;Ballas & Theoharakis, 2003;Herron & Hall, 2004;Lowensohn & Samelson, 2006). This restriction makes it difficult to compare ratings when sub-groups of faculty within accounting harbor divergent perceptions of a journal's quality.…”

“…This restriction makes it difficult to compare ratings when sub-groups of faculty within accounting harbor divergent perceptions of a journal's quality. For example, in the Herron and Hall (2004) study, respondents provided their perceptions of journal quality using The Accounting Review as an anchor with a quality score of 100. Tax faculty rated Critical Perspectives on Accounting with a score of 67.…”