An assessment of patterns of co-authorship for academic accountants within premier journals: Evidence from 1979–2004

Englebrecht, Ted D.; Hanke, Steven A; Kuang, Yingxu

doi:10.1016/j.adiac.2008.08.009

Cited by 24 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, improved communication technologies provide researchers the opportunity to find more compatible co‐authors from different cities, countries or regions regardless of geographical barriers (Englebrecht et al. ). Another reason that may motivate academics to establish co‐authorships are academic institutions that measure individual academic performance by publication in peer‐reviewed journals with little distinction between whether those articles are published by a sole author or with a co‐author (Gaunt ).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Co‐authorship Network Analysis in the Accounting Discipline

Kılıç

Uyar

Köseoğlu

2018

Australian Accounting Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study is to explore co‐authorship structures in the accounting discipline through social network analysis. For this purpose, we hand‐collected the authorship data of 10 863 papers published in 22 accounting journals listed on the Web of Science for the period 2000–2016. The findings indicate that the proportion of multi‐author papers has increased over time while the trend away from sole authorship has continued. The network indicators and visualisations reflect that accounting research manifests a small‐world property. Despite the large network size, a high number of ties among nodes, the size of giant components and a high clustering coefficient all support this inference. We hope that emphasis on collaboration metrics motivates and encourages researchers to engage with other scholars both locally and abroad. Furthermore, the development of research networks in the analysis period indicates that the trend is moving towards more collaboration; thus, being part of a team or team‐making is key to integration with other scholars.

show abstract

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Accordingly, the topic of co‐authorship within accounting and non‐accounting business journals has generated considerable interest amongst academics (Englebrecht et al. ). Although there is an increasing trend towards co‐authorship in accounting research, there is still a scarcity of co‐authorship analyses in this field (Fleischman and Schuele ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Co‐authorship Network Analysis in the Accounting Discipline

Kılıç

Uyar

Köseoğlu

2018

Australian Accounting Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Indeed, both Harzing (2010) and Englebrecht et al (2008) refer to the 'publish or perish' phenomenon and comment on the resulting behavioural adjustments academics are forced to make. Increasingly, funding for accounting disciplines and staff members is predicated on the number and perceived quality of academic journal publications.…”

Section: Background: the Pressure To Publish In High Ranking Journalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Construction of research articles in the leading interdisciplinary accounting journals

Villiers

Dumay

2013

Acc Auditing Accountability J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To examine the construction of articles published in three highly ranked interdisciplinary accounting journals. Design/methodology/approach: We base our analysis on articles published during 2010 in Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal (AAAJ), Accounting, Organizations and Society (AOS) and Critical Perspectives on Accounting (CPA). In doing so, we develop a framework and examine characteristics of the published articles, including the prose. Findings: Based on the construction of accounting academic articles in the highly ranked interdisciplinary journals, we introduce a simplified concept of the five distinct major parts of an article. We also make some taken-for-granted aspects of article construction explicit and we conclude that alternatives, if used effectively, can add to the quality of an article. Finally, we conclude with a discussion of, and a reflection on, how the taken-for-granted rules of academic publishing can be challenged. Research limitations/implications:This article is limited by the authors' own analysis and interpretations of AAAJ, AOS and CPA articles published during 2010. Originality/value: As far as can be ascertained, we are the first to examine the construction of research articles published in high ranking interdisciplinary accounting journals. The paper can assist emerging scholars in the process of planning and writing their own articles. For seasoned researchers, our insights may serve to reaffirm or help further develop their approach. The paper also contributes to the ongoing debate around the pressure to publish, the measurement of publications, and the difficulties of getting published.Key words: Academic publishing; writing; research; article attributes Acknowledgements:We would like to thank the many people who have given us feedback during the development of this paper. Foremost we would like to thank James Guthrie for his support and insightful critique on several versions of this paper. Also, thanks to Lee Parker for his support and encouragement during the review process along with the insights from our two anonymous reviewers who have contributed to improving the quality of the paper in among other ways by suggesting additional avenues of investigation. Thanks also to Helen Sword (University of Auckland) and Imad Moosa (RMIT University) for their comments on early drafts of the paper. Also thanks to the comments, observations and encouragement from the participants of numerous workshops and seminars where we have been invited to present our work, even though it was unpublished and still in development. The list includes,

show abstract

“…In a recent study on this issue, Tewksbury and Mustaine (2011) discovered that the proportion of papers written by more than one individual jumped from one-quarter of all criminology/ criminal justice publications to nearly three-quarters of all criminology/criminal justice publications in \50 years (Tewksbury and Mustaine 2011). Similar trends have been observed in other academic fields, from accounting (Englebrecht et al 2008) to zoology (Vimala and Reddy 1996). Different methods and corrections have been proposed in an effort to control for the effect of multiple authors on publication and citation counts.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 50%

Measuring the quantity and quality of scholarly productivity in criminology and criminal justice: a test of three integrated models

Walters

2014

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most studies investigating individual achievement in criminology and criminal justice equate total publications with scholarly productivity. The current study sought to broaden the definition of scholarly productivity by incorporating empirical indices of the quantity and quality of scholarly productivity and applying these indices to both total and first author publications. Analyses performed using publication and citation data from the top 100 criminology and criminal justice scholars over the past 5 years revealed that the total number of publications was no substitute for an integrated (quantity and quality) assessment. Results further indicated that averaging across the total publication and first author integrated models seemed to provide the fairest and most balanced assessment of scholarly productivity. It was also noted that compared to non-theoreticians, theoreticians were more likely to publish first author articles and fared significantly better when evaluated against the first author integrated model than when evaluated against the total publications integrated model. Use of these models to assess scholarly productivity in criminology, criminal justice, and other fields may be warranted.

show abstract

An assessment of patterns of co-authorship for academic accountants within premier journals: Evidence from 1979–2004

Cited by 24 publications

References 24 publications

Co‐authorship Network Analysis in the Accounting Discipline

Co‐authorship Network Analysis in the Accounting Discipline

Construction of research articles in the leading interdisciplinary accounting journals

Measuring the quantity and quality of scholarly productivity in criminology and criminal justice: a test of three integrated models

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About