Reassessing accounting faculty scholarly expectations: Journal classification by author affiliation

ABSTRACT An extensive literature exists that determines accounting journal rankings and top research producers both individually and by program. While this research stream provides valuable insights to the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business International (AACSB) accredited programs and to programs working to achieve such accreditation, it frequently is based on quality perceptions or considers top-rated programs only. This study extends previous research by reviewing authorship by faculty at a wider range of institutions. The results of this study suggest that lists based on the "top" journals may be unrealistic for many institutions. The information provided in this manuscript should assist programs, program leaders, and faculty members address AACSB accreditation issues, promotion and tenure decisions, and annual faculty evaluations. INTRODUCTION Accounting faculty members continue to be interested in the most recent rankings of accounting journals and the productivity of faculty members at various levels and types of schools. Accounting faculty members use research in this area to provide guidance regarding the most appropriate journal to target for manuscript submission and/or to support their research performance for annual evaluations and tenure/promotion packages. Administrators of accounting programs are also interested in the most recent journal rankings to assist them in evaluating research in annual performance reviews and tenure/promotion recommendations. Also, college promotion and tenure committees rely on rankings when evaluating accounting faculty. Given the current Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business International (AACSB) mission-driven approach to accreditation and the need for schools to designate peer and aspirational schools, this type of research is even more in demand. Our research builds on the current literature by exploring publication outlets for faculty at a wider range of schools, as well as providing information about the types of schools whose faculty provide authorship for articles in various journals. Much of the current literature has focused on ranking the top journals and/or analyzing the productivity of faculty at highly ranked schools. Most accounting faculty members have received questionnaires from researchers who seek to rank accounting-related journals. The questionnaires typically list many of these journals and then ask the respondent to rank, or score, them in terms of quality of scholarship evidenced by each journal. The summarized results of responses are then used to rank the journals. Some examples of these studies include Herron and Hall (2004), Brown and Huefner (1994), Hull and Wright (1990), Howard and Nikolai (1983), and Benjamin and Brenner (1974). One of the most recent (Lowensohn and Samelson, 2006) provides information about perceived quality in five specialized areas - behavioral, tax, managerial, government and nonprofit, and information systems. Numerous other disciplines have their own tradition of journal ranking literature. See for example: DuBois and Reeb (2000) international business journals; Oltheten, Theoharakis and Travlos (2005) finance journals; Theoharakis, et al (2007) Production and Operations Management; Mingers and Harzing (2007) business and management journals; Rogers et al (2007) business and management communications; Azar (2007) behavioral economics and socio-economics journals; Mylonopoulos and Theoharakis (2001) information systems journals; and Theoharakis and Hirst (2002) marketing journals. One of this paper's authors has participated as an AACSB peer review team member for several accounting programs. That author has observed that some programs use the published rankings to create a list of preferred publications for their own faculties. As a possible consequence of the focus on highly ranked journals and programs, some schools have created target lists emphasizing the highly ranked journals even when the available resources are inadequate to support that level of scholarly activity. …