An assessment of accounting journal quality based on departmental lists

Beets, S. Douglas; Kelton, Andrea Seaton; Lewis, Bruce R.

doi:10.1007/s11192-014-1353-0

Cited by 15 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 40 publications

(83 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…He claims that this is due to the lack of a globally acknowledged top niche journal in management accounting. Beets et al (2015) assess accounting journal quality based on departmental lists from 67 AACSB business schools and find that specialist journals are preferred, and journals predominantly oriented towards practitioners are not allocated too much prestige. This may be a paradox: specialist journals are preferred, but these journals are claimed to depart from a narrow range of methodologies and theoretical approaches.…”

Section: Diversity In Management Accounting Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is maybe not surprising to find Harvard Business Review (HBR) being cited so frequently in both the WoS and Scopus data; for instance, Kaplan and Norton articles on the balanced scorecard are frequently cited. However, HBR is regarded in some circumstances as a practitioners' journal (Wilkinson 2016), andBeets et al (2015) claim that practitioners' journals are not highly regarded in departmental ranking lists.…”

Section: Most Cited Journals According To Wos and Scopusmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Balstad

Berg

2019

J Manag Control

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper explores which journals publish management accounting research and which sources are most cited in these journals. We apply bibliometric methods based on citation data from Web of Science and Scopus. Quantitatively, we examined the boundaries of management accounting by analysing 506,753 and 1,075,838 cited references from each respective database in the timespans 1945-2018 and 1960-2018 and found that the five most cited journals represent 6.5% and 4.7% of the total citations. The most cited journal in both Web of Science and Scopus is AOS, followed by MAR. The findings are discussed in light of diversity, and the article will claim that the boundaries of management accounting research are not subject to severe constraints. Google Scholar was initially chosen alongside Web of Science and Scopus, but, among other challenges, Google Scholar does not provide comparable citation data. Therefore, issues concerning using citation data and databases are also thoroughly discussed.

show abstract

Section: Diversity In Management Accounting Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Most Cited Journals According To Wos and Scopusmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Balstad

Berg

2019

J Manag Control

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…With the rapidly increasing and burdensome number of scholarly outlets for academic assessment, administrators and research managers are constantly looking to improve the speed and efficiency of their assessment processes. Many construct their own school or departmental list as a guide for evaluating faculty research (Beets, Kelton, & Lewis, 2015). Business schools particularly prefer internal journal lists to inform their promotion and tenure decisions (Bales, Hubbard et al, 2019).…”

Section: School or Departmental Journal Listsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comprehensive analysis of the journal evaluation system in China

Huang

Zhang

et al. 2021

Quantitative Science Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Journal evaluation systems reflect how new insights are critically reviewed and published, and the prestige and impact of a discipline’s journals is a key metric in many research assessment, performance evaluation, and funding systems. With the expansion of China’s research and innovation systems and its rise as a major contributor to global innovation, journal evaluation has become an especially important issue. In this paper, we first describe the history and background of journal evaluation in China and then systematically introduce and compare the most currently influential journal lists and indexing services. These are: the Chinese Science Citation Database (CSCD), the Journal Partition Table (JPT), the AMI Comprehensive Evaluation Report (AMI), the Chinese S&T Journal Citation Report (CJCR), “A Guide to the Core Journals of China” (GCJC), the Chinese Social Sciences Citation Index (CSSCI), and the World Academic Journal Clout Index (WAJCI). Some other influential lists produced by government agencies, professional associations, and universities are also briefly introduced. Through the lens of these systems, we provide comprehensive coverage of the tradition and landscape of the journal evaluation system in China and the methods and practices of journal evaluation in China with some comparisons to how other countries assess and rank journals.

show abstract

“…As an example of the above, consider that without this pressure to meet metrics expectations, many researchers select journals based on how their specific area of research matches that of the journal's scope and readership, regardless of whether the journal is considered prestigious or 'high impact.' This phenomenon mostly affects researchers conducting interdisciplinary (IDR) research and researchers in smaller sub-disciplines whose research is less read but still arguably significant to the larger body of knowledge (Beets et al, 2015;Cooper et al, 2017a;Cooper et al, 2017b;Cooper et al, 2017c;Rutner & Schonfeld, 2012;Schonfeld & Long, 2014). Overall, IDR research leads to more academic breakthroughs and more long-term citation impact (Leahey et al, 2017), but academics are disincentivized from pursuing it (Bromham et al, 2016;Wang et al, 2017) and encouraged to reach more easily defined, short-term metrics, such as producing more publications more frequently and publishing in high-impact journals.…”

Section: Researcher Perceptions Of Research Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Faculty Perceptions of Research Assessment at Virginia Tech

Miles

Pannabecker

Kuypers

2020

joa

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the spring of 2019, survey research was conducted at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech), a large, public, Carnegie-classified R1 institution in southwest Virginia, to determine faculty perceptions of research assessment as well as how and why they use researcher profiles and research impact indicators. The Faculty Senate Research Assessment Committee (FSRAC) reported the quantitative and qualitative results to the Virginia Tech Board of Visitors to demonstrate the need for systemic, political, and cultural change regarding how faculty are evaluated and rewarded at the university for their research and creative projects. The survey research and subsequent report started a gradual process to move the university to a more responsible, holistic, and inclusive research assessment environment. Key results from the survey, completed by close to 500 faculty from across the university, include: a.) the most frequently used researcher profile systems and the primary ways they are used (e.g., profiles are used most frequently for showcasing work, with results indicating that faculty prefer to use a combination of systems for this purpose); b.) the primary reasons faculty use certain research impact indicators (e.g., number of publications is frequently used but much more likely to be used for institutional reasons than personal or professional reasons); c.) faculty feel that research assessment is most fair at the department level and least fair at the university level; and d.) faculty do not feel positively towards their research being assessed for the allocation of university funding.

show abstract

An assessment of accounting journal quality based on departmental lists

Abstract: Inevitably, the career success of academicians is partially dependent on the journals in which their manuscripts are published. Accordingly, knowledge of which journals are considered prestigious or of dubious quality is critical to an academician.

Cited by 15 publications

References 40 publications

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

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

A comprehensive analysis of the journal evaluation system in China

Faculty Perceptions of Research Assessment at Virginia Tech

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About