What counts for quality in interdisciplinary accounting research in the next decade

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to reflect upon the focus and changing nature of measuring academic accounting research quality. The paper addresses contemporary changes in academic publishing, metrics for determining research quality and the possible impacts on accounting scholars. These are considered in relation to the core values of interdisciplinary accounting research ‒ that is, the pursuit of novel, rigorous, significant and authentic research motivated by a passion for scholarship, curiosity and solving wicked problems. The impact of changing journal rankings and research citation metrics on the traditional and highly valued role of the accounting academic is further considered. In this setting, the paper also provides a summary of the journal’s activities for 2018, and in the future. Design/methodology/approach Drawing on contemporary data sets, the paper illustrates the increasingly diverse and confusing array of “evidence” brought to bear on the question of the relative quality of accounting research. Commercial products used to rate and rank journals, and judge the academic impact of individual scholars and their papers not only offer insight and visibility, but also have the potential to misinform scholars and their assessors. Findings In the move from simple journal ranking lists to big data and citations, and increasingly to concerns with impact and engagement, the authors identify several challenges facing academics and administrators alike. The individual academic and his or her contribution to scholarship are increasingly marginalised in the name of discipline, faculty and institutional performance. A growing university performance management culture within, for example, the UK and Australasia, has reached a stage in the past decade where publication and citation metrics are driving allocations of travel grants, research grants, promotions and appointments. With an expanded range of available metrics and products to judge their worth, or have it judged for them, scholars need to be increasingly informed of the nuanced or not-so-nuanced uses to which these measurement systems will be put. Narrow, restricted and opaque peer-based sources such as journal ranking lists are now being challenged by more transparent citation-based sources. Practical implications The issues addressed in this commentary offer a critical understanding of contemporary metrics and measurement in determining the quality of interdisciplinary accounting research. Scholars are urged to reflect upon the challenges they face in a rapidly moving context. Individuals are increasingly under pressure to seek out preferred publication outlets, developing and curating a personal citation profile. Yet such extrinsic outcomes may come at the cost of the core values that motivate the interdisciplinary scholar and research. Originality/value This paper provides a forward-looking focus on the critical role of academics in interdisciplinary accounting research.

A long-term bibliometric analysis of journals influencing management accounting and control research

“…In an even more globalized world, we can both expect convergence when it comes to use of constructs, as well as expansion of researched topics. Even more, the approach using English, even though being research's lingua franca, for all practical matters excludes substantial research published in other languages (Guthrie et al 2019). This is confirmed by our study, particularly after 1980.…”

“…Journal rankings are not consistent among countries (Guthrie et al 2019), something that may prevent collaboration across countries as researchers have different incentives regarding where to publish. This is interesting as far as many universities promote internationalization, while at the same time they measure their employees according to rankings that may inhibit internationalization.…”

“…Journals included in these studies are often labelled as 'internationally recognized journals' (Roberts 2018, p. 76), the 'big six' (Salterio 2015, p. 153), 'highly valued' (ter Bogt and van Helden 2012, p. 266), 'top-tier' and 'the majors' (Swanson 2004, p. 223), 'prominently' (Hesford et al 2007, p. 5), 'six leading journals' (Luft and Shields 2007, p. 27), 'ten leading journals' (Malmi 2016, p. 31), 'top accounting journals' (Oler et al 2016, p. 63) or 'elite journals' (Beets et al 2015, p. 316). Notwithstanding, journals (Lukka 2010;Malmi 2010;McCarthy 2012;Merchant 2010) and journal rankings (Sangster 2015;Guthrie et al 2019) are pointed to as obstacles to more prospering accounting research. Indeed, the labels characterizing the journals are often taken for granted or merely given a superficial explanation.…”

The neoliberal reality of higher education in Australia: how accountingisation is corporatising knowledge

“…Sixth our evidence also strongly suggests that the exclusive focus on journal publications has marginalised other forms of scholarship that can have a significant impact on professional and industry practices (Gray et al, 2002;Samkin and Schneider, 2014;Guthrie et al, 2019).…”

Qualitative accounting research: special issue introduction

“…Accordingly, many universities use the Australian Business Dean's Council (ABDC) journal ranking list as a litmus test for research quality (de Villiers and Guthrie et al, 2019). As a result, the ABDC list is seen to be one of the most biased lists for recognising qualitative research or quantitative research (Vogel et al, 2017).…”