Productivity in Top‐10 Academic Accounting Journals by Researchers at Canadian Universities at the Start of the 21st Century

Abstract

We assess the research publication productivity of Canadian‐based accounting researchers in highly ranked accounting journals for the 2001–13 period. Our research provides important benchmarks for use by individual researchers and universities for matters such as promotion and tenure decisions. For example, each Canadian‐based faculty member had approximately 0.50 of a weighted article for the 13‐year period, and 45 percent of all accounting faculty members published at least once in a top‐10 accounting journal. We also provide an overview of the type of research being published by Canadian‐based researchers in each of the top‐10 journals (financial accounting, managerial, audit, tax or other) and we assess how productivity at top‐10 journals has changed over time. In supplemental analysis, we compare and contrast the productivity of the 15 male and 15 female academics that publish most in top‐10 accounting journals to assess the breadth of outlets being used beyond top‐10 outlets (including FT 45 journals, accounting journals ranked “A”, “B”, and “non‐A/B”; non‐accounting peer‐reviewed journals, non‐peer‐reviewed outlets). The supplemental analysis also helps to shed light on the finding from this paper, and prior research, that women are less likely to be represented on lists of those with most publications in highly ranked accounting journals, by comparing the two groups of researchers across a variety of institutional and other factors.

A Content Based Assessment of the Relative Quality of Leading Accounting Journals

“…TAR consistently holds down the third spot while CAR generally comes out ahead of RAST. The ranking picture portrayed here differs from post-2000 journal quality rankings, as summarized inBujaki and Mcconomy (2017), only in that survey based assessments commonly place TAR in the number 1 position and almost always place JAE below JAR.…”

“…In the late 1980s JAE, first published in 1979, also emerges as a front-runner in these studies. In a recent compilation of mostly survey-based rankings published since 2000, Bujaki and Mcconomy (2017) present an integrated "top 10" ranking of : (1) JAR;…”

“…11 RAST does not appear in that many rankings due to its relatively recent inception (1996). However, in their compilation of journal rankings, Bujaki and Mcconomy (2017) place RAST as number 6 in their list of "discipline journals", just behind AOS.…”

“…After completion of the initial text analysis, we further classified the identified null outcomes based on how article abstracts interpret them. We followed the five null outcome B Bonner, Hesford, Van der Stede, and Young (2006) provide a comprehensive summary and analysis of journal ranking studies through 2004 while Bujaki and Mcconomy (2017) summarize the post-2000 literature. 12 We do, however, rely on the Cready et al analysis with respect to articles published in TAR in 2017 and 2017.…”

A Canadian Perspective on Indigenous Peoples and Accounting Research: Using a Systematic Literature Review to Promote Inquiry and Inclusion*

“…Table 5 presents the 15 articles published with at least one Canadian author organized by the average number of citations. Citations are not ideal for assessing the impact of research (Bujaki and McConomy, 2017), especially for a nonmainstream research field such as Indigenous peoples and accounting. However, the number of citations gives some sense of the interest in topics related to Indigenous peoples and accounting and the general impact of each article in the sample.…”